Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Thursday, May 19, 2011

Poll: Palestinian Arabs prefer Al Qaeda to Obama; they still support terror

A new Pew Global attitudes poll reveals once again how those "peace loving" Palestinian Arabs really think.

If you judge how worthy people are to deserve a state by how they feel about violence and Islamism, then the Palestinian Arabs are pretty much the least deserving people in the Middle East.

Let's start off with a quick comparison of two answers:

28% of Palestinian Arabs have a favorable opinion of Al Qaeda, and only 18% of President Obama.

And Hezbollah rates higher among Palestinian Arabs than any other Arabs.

A plurality of Palestinian Arabs sympathize with Islamic fundamentalists - and a quarter of Israeli Arab (Muslims) agree.

A new state of Palestine will, right off the bat, hate America. A whopping 80% of Palestinian Arabs have an unfavorable view towards the US.

Over a third of PalArabs want a nation that adheres strictly to Shari'a law, and 30% more want it to be influenced by Islamic law. (Jordan's and Egypt's numbers in this question are very troubling for those who want to see a true Arab Spring.)

No surveyed people support Islamic fundamentalists more than Palestinian Arabs, except for Pakistan.

Comparing the answers from Jordan and Egypt to the previous two questions makes it clear that in those countries, people do not define "fundamentalist" as equivalent to " strict adherence to Sharia law." This is something to remember when people claim that those nations do not embrace fundamentalism.

Hamas' popularity has gone down in the past few years, especially in Gaza, but the movement is still a major force.

No one loves Hezbollah more than PalArabs.

Fully two thirds of all Palestinian Arabs believe that suicide terrorism is often or sometimes justified, making them unique among all people in continuing to embrace that form of what they call "resistance." No other country showed a rate of approval of suicide bombing that was even close to that of the "moderate" Palestinian Arabs.

And while most Muslim countries have exhibited a steep decline in approval for suicide bombs over the years, the Palestinian Arab enthusiasm for that particularly gruesome method of killing civilians has stayed relatively steady.

So when we look at whether "Palestine" is ready for statehood, should we trust the World Bank's arcane justifications or should we look at whether the country would contribute or detract from world peace?

As it stands, it is clear that "Palestine" will not make the world a more peaceful place. Quite the contrary.

Here is what Obama should say in his speech today about the Middle East (crossposted from NewsRealBlog):

During these past few months, we have seen a real change in the Arab world. We have all watched the dramatic protests, first in Tunisia and then in Tahrir Square, protests that have effected a real change in the Arab world and that have brought hope to tens of millions of people who had lived under decades of crushing, autocratic rule.

We join in the celebrations of freedom for the Arab people. We wholeheartedly support freedom and democracy all around the world, and we are cautiously encouraged by what has happened. The United States stands by everyone who wants freedom and liberty. President Roosevelt listed the Four Freedoms and they are just as necessary today as they did in the dark early days of World War II. As he stated them, they are:

Freedom of speech and expression — everywhere in the world.
Freedom of every person to worship God in his own way — everywhere in the world.
Freedom from want — securing to every nation a healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants —everywhere in the world.
And freedom from fear — everywhere in the world.

These are not just slogans, and these goals are not unrealistic. These are the primary foreign policy goals of the United States.

The Arab Spring shows that all people want, and deserve, real freedom.

My commitment is to do everything possible to bring that freedom not only to the Arab world but to every country on the planet.

Unfortunately, freedom is not free. One cannot just wave a magic wand and expect nations to embrace real freedoms on their own. Elections alone do not make a democracy. It takes time to build up the institutions of democracy, to give people a real choice in who they want to govern them. People must be exposed to the entire marketplace of ideas before making their own decisions. The process can be bumpy, and rushing it can be as counterproductive as not doing it at all.

Three times in the last century has the world been threatened by vicious, evil, totalitarian movements. The first two were communism and Nazism. Even though both of them used the terminology of freedom and civil rights, both of these movements were responsible for the deaths of tens of millions of people.

They were fundamentally against freedom and they brought with them a swath of destruction and genocide.

There is a third, equally dangerous movement, and it is especially worrisome in the Arab world. That movement is Islamism.

Make no mistake–I am not talking about Islam. In a democratic, free world, everyone has the choice of which religion they want to follow, or not to follow one at all. That freedom is sacrosanct. Islam is a major world religion and it deserves as much respect as any other personal religion.

But Islamism is a political movement whose goals are no less destructive than Nazism and Communism were in the 20th century. Political Islamism seeks nothing less than domination of people, subjugation of women, cessation of freedom of speech, and little choice in how people worship.

Islamism’s principles are antithetical to each of the Four Freedoms of President Roosevelt. It is an inherently evil movement that creates an environment of fear among those who are unfortunate enough to live under its strictures.

Islam, as a personal religion, needs to be protected. Islamism, the political movement, needs to be destroyed.

Only when this occurs can there be truly an Arab Spring. Only when the hundreds of millions of Arabs feel free to express themselves without fear, to change religions without fear, to elect women as their leaders without fear–only then can we say that spring has come to the Arab world.

Any government that is based on Islamic law is, by definition, a government that rejects the basic tenets of human rights, of true equality before the law.

This must change. The sooner that Islamism is defeated, the sooner than Arabs can enjoy real freedom and security.

This is the main reason why the recent unity agreement in the Palestinian Arab territories is so problematic. Hamas is an Islamist, terrorist group. It is not interested a free, democratic Palestinian state–instead, it is dedicated to creating a pan-Islamist nation stretching across three continents. Gaza is a regime of fear, and people there have suffered greatly as a direct result of Hamas’ aggressive, violent, anti-freedom agenda. While unity may be a laudable goal, it can only work as long as all of the parties agree to the basic principles of freedom and democracy. Hamas is not an organization that is even capable of such thoughts.

While American policy has been to create a Palestinian state, statehood itself is not a right. It must be earned. The Palestinian Arab people must elect, and be led by, leaders who truly understand the necessity of these four freedoms, and the importance of real peace.

Unfortunately, this has not yet happened. The Palestinian Arab Fatah leadership has consistently chosen incitement over true peace and cooperation with Israel, the Jewish state. They have adamantly refused to continue peace negotiations. And now they have chosen to partner with a terror group instead of move toward a real, permanent solution to Arab-Israeli peace.

Let me be clear. Israel exhibits all of the freedoms we are discussing, even while under a constant state of war. It is a strong, reliable ally of the United States. America will never abandon Israel nor will we endanger it.

Israel’s freedoms should be the model that the Arab world follows as it moves toward a true spring. And when the Arab world is ready to make a real, true peace with the Jewish state, the payoff will be tremendous for everyone, as all of the artificial fear and hate that has been stoked over the decades will melt away.

I am not talking about a detente, or a paper truce with Israel. I am talking about real peace, where Jewish doctors can come to Arab countries to treat Muslim children, where poets from Syria can recite their works in a Tel Aviv concert hall, where Arab and Israeli researchers can work together to solve shared problems such as water, energy and the environment.

This is my vision for peace and my vision for the Middle East. We have spent too much time missing the forest for the trees. Real peace will not come from endless meetings haggling over borders, nor from using human rights terminology to push a hateful agenda. A true peace will only exist where Arab and Jew alike can feel free to travel, speak and laugh in the entire region, without fear from their cousins. I want to see a train line running from Jerusalem to Amman, a highway from Haifa to Beirut, commercial airliners flying from Riyadh to Tel Aviv.

This is what an Arab Spring must result in. It is not merely a dream, but it is a vision that everyone needs to work toward. As the president of the United States, I intend to lead the way toward this vision. I urge you you help me in this task.

Thank you, and God bless you.

Syrians tried to kidnap an IDF soldier on "Nakba Day"

Details from the Syrian side last Sunday were published in Tishreen.info.

One of the rioters, Sabri Yousef Al-Sawalma, said that he was shot in the legs while trying to grab and drag an IDF soldier to kidnap him.

It is obvious that the IDF soldiers were badly outnumbered. One rioter says he placed a Syrian flag on an IDF jeep.

The protesters were chanting "We go to Jerusalem, martyrs in the millions."

One of the first to break through the barbed wire said that he and his colleagues threw stones at the soldiers.

Another who was injured said that he wanted nothing more than to be martyred in Palestine.

Hospital officials said that most of the injuries were from gunshots to the legs.

It is also notable that the rioters were placing Syrian flags (as well as Palestinian Arab flags) everywhere they went, which - combined with the kidnap attempt - makes this more of an invasion from a foreign country than a peaceful protest.

(h/t Joel, MEMRI)

Belgian "justice" minister says its time to forget about the Holocaust

From The Telegraph:

Stefan De Clerck, a Flemish Christian Democrat, has polarised Belgium, fuelling the country's one year political crisis, by supporting a blanket amnesty for the 56,000 Belgians who were convicted of collaborating with the Nazis after the war.

"Perhaps we should be willing to forget, because it is the past. At some point one has to be adult and be willing to talk about. perhaps to forget, because this is the past," he said at the weekend.

The Simon Wiesenthal centre has sent a letter to Yves Leterme, the Belgian Prime Minister, accusing the minister of a "betrayal of history, his obfuscation of its lessons and his contempt for the very concept of justice."

Around 25,000 Belgian Jews were deported to Auschwitz from the Mechelen army barracks, north of Brussels, after being rounded up by authorities that often enthusiastically collaborated with the Nazis despite strong resistance from Belgium's people.

Only 1,207 survived and in 2007 the Belgian state he Belgian state apologised for "a collaboration unworthy of a democracy with a policy that was disastrous for the Jewish population".

The Flemish minister has insisted that his comments were misinterpreted but the row has further poisoned already tense relations between Dutch and French-speaking politicians.

The sensitive issue has reignited after the Belgian Senate accepted draft legislation from the far-right Flemish Vlaams Belang party that would grant amnesty to all those who collaborated with the Nazis during the war.

European Jewish Press adds:

The Belgian Jewish community said it was “scandalized” by De Clerck’s comments.

"We cannot forget that Belgian collaborators have contributed, often with zeal, to the stalking of men, women and children doomed to deportation by the Nazis. It is those non repentant Nazi and Fascist Belgians that the Justice Minister seeks to absolve through amnesty," said CCOJB, the umbrella group of Belgian Jewish organizations, in a joint statement with CCLJ, the Jewish Secular Center in Brussels.

On Monday, the minister issued a statement saying that he "didn’t intend to minimize" the acts of collaboration perpetrated during WWII.

GIYUS has a list of places to write to call for his removal from office.

It is also notable that the Vlaams Belang party is pushing that legislation.

Pink (brain)washing

From Time:

Next month is Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) Pride month, an international season of parades, cultural festivals and street parties celebrating gay rights. But amid all the good cheer, tensions are rising over a controversial issue that is splintering LGBT communities. Around the world, major pride events are being used as battlegrounds to combat what some pro-Palestinian, progay activists are calling pink washing: Israel's promotion of its progressive gay-rights record as a way to cover up ongoing human-rights abuses in the West Bank and Gaza.

The accusations stem from efforts over the past half-decade by the Israeli government to weave the country's gay-friendly policies - including national hate-crime laws, employment protection for LGBT workers and openly gay military service - into its larger national-rebranding strategy, in the hopes of redirecting its global image away from politics, terrorism and the occupied territories. "The Israeli government and its propaganda organs ... insist on advertising and exaggerating its recent record on LGBT rights ... to fend off international condemnation of its violations of the rights of the Palestinian people," says Joseph Massad, associate professor of modern Arab politics and intellectual history at Columbia University in New York City.

... In June 2010, gay-pride parade organizers in Madrid banned a contingent of Israeli marchers in response to the deadly Gaza flotilla raid weeks earlier. That same month, activists protested the Israeli government's co-sponsorship of San Francisco's Frameline LGBT Film Festival. In March this year, the pro-Palestinian group Palestina protested a conference in Stockholm featuring Israeli LGBT cultural figures. And at the Berlin gay-pride parade on June 25, the Israeli delegation will reportedly promote Tel Aviv - rather than the country as a whole - in an attempt to avoid provoking anti-Israel sentiment.

People who call themselves "progressive" and yet hate the most progressive country in the Middle East get tied up in knots when two of their pet causes contradict each other so starkly. They simply cannot assimilate that the nation they despise is so consonant with their stated beliefs in non-Middle East matters. Making them even crazier is the fact that the Arabs they say they love so much are not exactly gay-friendly.

How can these modern haters reconcile these mutually contradictory positions? Very simple: they claim that Israel is not really so progressive, but cynically uses its progressive positions to distract the world from the Real Problem.

They use the same insane arguments when Israel sends aid to disaster areas, as we have seen. In short, their hate for Israel is so total that they cannot even admit that Israel ever does things that are good. They hate, and they dedicate their lives towards spreading that hate.

This is the textbook definition of bigotry, by the way. Unfortunately, these modern bigots cannot appreciate the irony that they are the worst practitioners of something they claim to abhor.

(h/t Zach N)

The myth of Palestinian Arab non-violent "resistance" (updated)

In Foreign Policy, Yousef Munayyer writes about "Palestine's Hidden History of Nonviolence."

He implies that the first organized violence done by Palestinian Arabs was only in 1935:

It wasn't until nonviolent protests were met with severe repression that Palestinian guerrilla movements began. After the 81-year-old Husseini died a few months after being beaten, a young imam living in Haifa named Sheikh Izz ad-Din al-Qassam (the namesake of Hamas's military wing) organized the first militant operation against the British mandatory government. His death in battle with British soldiers sparked the Arab rebellion that began in 1936 and lasted until 1939.

Amazingly, Munayyer doesn't say a word about the 1920 Arab riots (5 Jews killed), the 1921 Arab riots (43 Jews killed) and the 1929 Arab pogroms (over 100 Jews slaughtered) - riots that were planned and coordinated by the infamous Mufti of Jerusalem.

Was this an oversight, or purposeful deception on Munayyer's part? Well, let's look at how he describes the Arab revolts of 1936-1939, which Arabs call the Great Rebellion:

The first phases of this revolt began with nonviolent resistance in the form of more strikes and protests, and the economy ground to a halt for six months when Palestinian leaders called for a work stoppage. This was put down harshly by the mandatory government, according to British historian Matthew Hughes, including the bombing of more than 200 buildings in Jaffa on June 16, 1936. The repression of both violent and nonviolent Palestinian dissent significantly destroyed the capacity of Palestinian society, paving the way for the depopulation of Palestine and the establishment of the state of Israel a decade later.

The idea that the first six months of the revolt were non-violent is a complete falsehood. As I have proven previously, Arabs were killing Jews from the very beginning of the revolt, in April 1936. On April 22, 7 were killed in Jaffa. Later that week some 6000 Jaffa Jews evacuated their homes from fear of the "nonviolent" demonstrations.

In May, three were killed at a bomb thrown at the Edison Cinema, and three more were shot dead in Jerusalem.

The "Great Revolt" was violent through and through, and ended up with the murders of not only many Jews and British, but also Arabs killing hundreds of other Arabs who they felt were not sufficiently supportive of the cause.

Munayyer then goes on to come up with a new definition of non-violent resistance:

In reality, even though the majority of the native inhabitants were depopulated during the Nakba, thousands of Palestinians practiced nonviolent resistance by refusing to leave their homes when threatened.

Here he turns history on its head. Many, if not most, Arab communities were not directly threatened by the Zionists - in fact, there were major communities like Jaffa where the Zionists called for the Arabs to stay, yet those who stayed were threatened by other Arabs for "collaborating" with the Zionists. Now, Munayyer is saying that the ones who stayed in fact were practicing resistance against the Zionists!

His lies don't end there.

The first and second intifadas were very different. In the first intifada of the late 1980s, Palestinians employed various nonviolent tactics, from mass demonstrations to strikes to protests. Even though the vast majority of the activism was nonviolent, it is the mostly symbolic stone-throwing that many remember.

In fact, there were some 164 Israelis killed during that "non-violent" intifada. Not only that, but about 1000 Palestinian Arabs were killed - by other Palestinian Arabs, who claimed that they were "collaborators'!

Yet, only 12 of the 70,000 Israeli soldiers regularly posted in occupied territories during the intifada died in the four-year uprising, clearly demonstrating the restraint with which Palestinian dissent was carried out.

Notice how he frames his statement, that "only" 12 soldiers in the territories were killed. In fact, in total, some 60 of Israel's fatalities were soldiers.

The only conclusion is that Munayyer is knowingly being deceptive towards his audience, banking on the fact that most people do not check "facts" that are stated so unequivocally.

Munayyer is trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the readers of his column. Will anyone call him on it?

(h/t Omri Ceren via tweet)

UPDATE: The very knowledgeable Yisrael Medad adds that Al-Qassam's organized terror group started around 1930, and that the first violent act of the 1936 Arab riots occurred a week earlier than I stated, on April 15th, with the murder of two Jews near Nur Shams.

Israel's cyber-war with Iran

Cool article from Strategy Page:

Recently, Israel revealed that someone (unnamed) had been trying to hack into key Israeli networks (government, military, infrastructure), and had, so far, failed. The mystery attacker is believed to have been Iran. Israel is going public with a lot of this Cyber War stuff in an attempt to put Iran on the defensive. But there's more.

Over the last year, Israel has revealed that its cryptography operation (Unit 8200) has added computer hacking to its skill set. Last year, the head of Israeli Military Intelligence said that he believed Israel had become the leading practitioner of Cyber War. This came in the wake of suspicions that Israel had created the Stuxnet worm, that got into Iran's nuclear fuel enrichment equipment, and destroyed a lot of it. Recently, Iran complained that another worm, called Star, was causing them trouble. Usually, intelligence organizations keep quiet about their capabilities, but in this case, the Israelis apparently felt it was more useful to scare the Iranians, with the threat of more stuff like Stuxnet.

This struggle between Israel and Iran is nothing new. Seven years ago, Israel announced that Unit 8200 had cracked an Iranian communications code, an operation that allowed Israel to read messages concerning Iranian efforts to keep its nuclear weapons program going (with Pakistani help), despite Iranian promises to UN weapons inspectors that the program was being shut down. It's long been known that Unit 8200 of the Israeli army specialized in cracking codes for the government. This was known because so many men who had served in Unit 8200 went on to start companies specializing in cryptography (coding information so that no unauthorized personnel can know what the data is.) But it is unusual for a code-cracking organization to admit to deciphering someone's code. Perhaps the Iranians stopped using the code in question, or perhaps the Israelis just wanted to scare the Iranians. Israel is very concerned about Iran getting nuclear weapons, mainly because the Islamic conservatives that control Iran have as one of their primary goals the destruction of Israel. In response to these Iranian threats, Israel has said that it will do whatever it takes to stop Iran from getting nukes. This apparently includes doing the unthinkable (or a code cracking outfit); admitting that you had successfully taken apart an opponent's secret code.

Israel is trying to convince Iran that a long-time superiority in code-breaking was now accompanied by similar hacking skills. Whether it's true or not, it's got to have rattled the Iranians. The failure of their counterattacks can only have added to their unease.

Cryptography is a fascinating field. People have been creating and breaking codes since Biblical times but things really heated up during World War II with the German Enigma machines, and again in the 1970s with public key cryptography.

Today, in theory it is possible to encrypt data so that it can never be cracked in (literally) a million years. However, when there are flaws in the cryptographic algorithms, or when the cryptographic keys are not protected, encrypted data is still susceptible to being broken. Flaws in well-known algorithms are increasingly rare because they are published and available for anyone to review.

I'm curious what algorithm Iran used until Israel broke it.

(h/t Mohammed the Teddy Bear)

1948: When Iraqi Jews found out that they were doomed

Perhaps the most comprehensive book on the topic of Iraqi Jews being forced to move to Israel is Moshe Gat's "The Jewish Exodus from Iraq, 1948-1951." Here is his description of a seminal event that showed that Iraq's Jews - who were an important part of Iraqi society and had explicitly distanced themselves from Zionism as early as the 1930s in order to prove their loyalty and to integrate as well as possible - were doomed anyway:

[In 1948] Jewish millionaire Shafiq Ades, chief agent of the Ford Company in Iraq, ...was charged before a military tribunal in Basra with purchasing surplus military equipment - tanks, tnrcks and other equipment — from British camps in Iraq and sending them, dismantled, through Italy to Israel. This equipment. the prosecution charged, was being used by the Zionists against the Arab forces. He was also accused on giving ﬁnancial support to the National-Democratic Party (a left-wing, non-Marxist party) and encouraging this party's demonstrations, with the aim of fostering unrest to the advantage of the Zionists." During and after the war, Ades had in fact accumulated capital by purchasing surplus British military equipment and selling it to Italian companies. It is, of course, difﬁcult to trace what was done with this surplus equipment. lt was never proved in court that it had been sent on from Italy to Israel. Ades himself was not the only entrepreneur engaged in buying and selling surplus equipment, and his share in the companies engaged in these deals was no more than ten per cent. Moslem businessmen, such as the wealthy merchant Nagi al-Hadeiri. and members of the Iraqi cabinet, were among his partners, but were never brought to trial." The presiding judge, Abdullah al-Naasni. a member of the Istiqlal, the anti-Jewish party which repeatedly demanded the expulsion of the Jews and confiscation of their property. was a pro-Nazi who had been detained during the war in a British detention camp.” "His trial lasted only three days - 11-13 September — and the defendant was given no opportunity to plead his case. The court refused to hear witnesses. probably in order to avoid embarrassing well-known persons who had been his business partners. Ades was sentenced to death by hanging and to a fine of ﬁve million dinars to be paid into the state exchequer. as compensation for the damage he had caused the state and army through his ‘treachery'.

lt was clear that the Ades trial was stage-managed, that he was a scapegoat for Iraq‘s defeat in the war with Israel; and that revenge was being taken against the Jewish community through this attack on one of its eminent members. ...

Ades was hanged in Basra on 23 September. and his body left exposed for several hours. There was public rejoicing among the Moslems of Basra. The execution stunned the Jewish community. Ades had not been a prominent ﬁgure in the community. He was assimilated and could be regarded as a symbol of Jewish integration in Iraqi society, having displayed no interest in Zionism and having been on close terms with senior ofﬁcials in Basra. He had even donated considerable sums to the Palestinian cause. All this aroused considerable apprehension in the Jewish community. lf this well-placed Jew - closely associated with ruling circles, and able to use his money for any purpose he saw ﬁt - had fallen victim, could they hope for a better fate?

The hopes that had been nurtured by the advocates of Jewish integration in Arab society. were dashed by the hanging of Ades. lt destroyed all faith in the future consummation of this ideal, and demonstrated, in the most brutal fashion, that there could be no security for Jews on Iraqi soil, and that they were at the mercy of a regime which had proved itself powerless and inept. The sight of the celebrants around Ades‘s corpse was evidence of the true sentiments of the Arabs. But the execution was not the end of the affair. The Iraqi Ministry of Defence continued to arrest rich Jews. On 22 September, a day before Ades's execution, three Jews were arrested — two businessmen and a banker - and on the 24th two wealthy merchants were detained. The arrests were not carried out solely for purpose of extortion; the military authorities were seeking evidence of contacts between the detainees and Israel.

This was the start of the Jewish Naqba in Iraq, that culminated in a large and wealthy community being forced to abandon all their extensive properties and assets to save their lives.

Members of Congress say the obvious about Hamas. Why is that unusual?

From Politico, by House majority leader Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.) and chief deputy whip Rep. Peter Roskam (R-Ill.).

As the news of Osama bin Laden’s death spread, the free world breathed a deep sigh of relief and praised the United States for its accomplishment.

But in the Palestinian territories, such sentiments were not shared.

In the eyes of Ismail Haniyeh and the infamous Hamas terrorist organization he leads, the operation “marks the continuation of the American policy based on oppression and the shedding of Muslim and Arab blood.” Really?

If killing the man responsible for the worst terrorist attack in U.S. history — not to mention the aggressor who did more to subjugate and kill fellow Muslims who disagree with his worldview than perhaps any other individual on earth — makes us oppressors, then how would Hamas describe bin Laden?

Haniyeh didn’t hold back. “We condemn the assassination of a Muslim and Arab warrior,” he proclaimed, “and we pray to God that his soul rests in peace.”

Fitting, coming from a terrorist organization whose founding charter instructs, “The time will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews; until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, come on and kill him.”

As President Barack Obama draws national attention to the Middle East with a major speech on Thursday, we ask our fellow lawmakers — and all Americans — the following questions: Does this seem like a group with whom Israel can make peace? Would you trust this organization to have free rein in your own backyard? Is this a group deserving of $550 million in annual foreign aid from cash-strapped U.S. taxpayers?

These are questions the U.S. must now address, since Hamas — which controls the Gaza Strip — this month officially joined the Palestinian Authority in a unity government. The PA plans to unilaterally declare a state at the United Nations meeting in September.

With this agreement, it has made an unequivocal decision that its route to a potential state cannot include peace with Israel. Nor will it include negotiations with Israel; a disavowal of and crackdown on terrorism or any official recognition of the Jewish state — a set of conditions demanded by the U.S. and its allies but fiercely opposed by Hamas. What a slap in the face to the Obama administration.

Don’t be fooled by Hamas apologists in the West, who refuse to accept Hamas at its word. Let us not blind ourselves to Hamas’s genocidal outlook. This reconciliation does not mean Hamas will moderate itself. It means the PA is dealing a death blow to a troubled peace process, in which it has seldom demonstrated the courage to engage.

Terror in the Palestinian territories has taken a decisive step forward. Peace is in retreat.

Under the new accord, for the first time, Hamas’s TV broadcasts are to be sent into the West Bank. Shows designed to poison the minds of young Palestinians by lauding the ways of jihad and perpetuating hateful lies about Israel, Jews and the U.S. will likely further radicalize the West Bank.

Remember, these are the same broadcasts that notoriously aired a Mickey Mouse-like cartoon character teaching children to “annihilate the Jews.”

The last time the PA partnered with Hamas, the latter forcibly removed the former from the Gaza Strip and created a virtual terrorist state on Israel’s borders. Six years and thousands of rockets and mortars later, many Israeli civilian communities are still paying the price. The U.S. must not allow this to be repeated in the West Bank.

Given the dire risks this agreement poses to Israel’s security, Washington must draw a hard line and suspend aid to the Palestinian government. U.S. tax dollars have no place going to governments composed of terrorists.

As Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu gets set to visit Washington this week, the PA has made its move against peace. It has embraced a regime of terror — one that mourns bin Laden’s death — even as it now hopes for the U.N. to unilaterally grant it a state in a vote this coming September. The Obama administration must stand united with the American people, and with Israel, to oppose this vote.

In a dangerous region, Israel is a democratic ally bound to us by a shared set of beliefs in freedom, peace and human progress. Serving on the front lines of the struggle against terrorism and Iranian-backed aggression, Israel is our vital strategic asset that provides stability to a volatile neighborhood.

The Hamas-Fatah reconciliation agreement empowers Hamas terrorists and endangers Israel. The U.S. must use every tool in our diplomatic arsenal to make clear that we will not tolerate a Palestinian government that includes Hamas.

It is our duty, as leader of the free world, to do no less.

As Jennifer Rubin writes:

As with Iran sanctions, it is Congress that seems to be leading, while the administration is dragged along. No doubt the administration is nervous that the British and the French won’t cut off the Palestinians. But shouldn’t Obama be reminding them, the rest of Europe and the membership of the U.N. that the Hamas reconciliation and the renunciation of past agreements make recognition anathema to all people of good will? Maybe the Brits think there is mileage to be gained by recognizing a Palestinian state in contravention of decades of international agreements, but does Britain really want to put the stamp of legitimacy on a terrorist state?

The president has a speech tomorrow, a meeting with Bibi Netanyahu the next day and an appearance at AIPAC on Sunday. He has a choice: a clear message of support for the Jewish state or mush. I hope it’s the former, but you can’t go wrong betting on Obama mush.

Jewish history in 3 minutes

Cute:

(h/t Joel)

Gaza students still locked out of Egyptian universities

Last month, Egypt's ambassador to "Palestine" assured Gazans that they would no longer have any impediments to being able to attend Egyptian universities and that Egyptian security will not stop them.

However, nothing has changed. Students who were already attending classes are finding that they are not allowed to attend final exams this term. According to one student, some Egyptians blamed Palestinians for being behind the Alexandria church bombing and as a result the security services resumed their restrictions on Palestinian Arabs.

Is it still spring?

UNRWA strike closes Gaza schools, clinics

A violation of Gazans' human rights?

Palestinians working for the UN refugee agency in Gaza announced a comprehensive strike for Wednesday, over the dismissal of three employees union officials say were wrongfully let go.

The strike will last all day Wednesday through Thursday, and see all of UNRWA's unessential services, like schools, clinics, and administration offices close. Nearly 11,500 workers will walk out of their jobs, effecting 238 schools and 25 clinics.

There are numerous similar UNRWA strikes every year in various areas.

It is heartwarming to see how dedicated UNRWA workers are to their jobs.

State Department snubs Jimmy and the Yentas

Off topic but delicious.

From Foreign Policy:

Former President Jimmy Carter and former Finnish President Martti Ahtisaari were hoping to visit the State Department this week to brief officials on their recent trip to North Korea, but nobody at the State Department was available to meet with them.

Carter and Ahtisaari, both Nobel Peace Prize laureates, had been eager to give their readout of their meetings in North Korea April 26 and 27 to U.S. officials and press their case for a resumption of food aid to the Hermit Kingdom. The two are members of the Elders, a group of senior figures who have been informally engaging with regimes that official governments won't deal with, in the hopes of finding pathways to peace. They traveled to North Korea last month with former Irish President Mary Robinson and former Norwegian Prime Minister Gro Harlem Bruntland. Other members of the Elders include Kofi Annan, Desmond Tutu, Nelson Mandela, and Aung San Suu Kyi.

But no one at the State Department would meet with them, so the trip to Washington was cancelled.

"The trip was arranged at short notice and due to busy schedules and given everything else going on we were not able to arrange meetings at the right level," a spokesman for the Elders told The Cable. The State Department offered no comment on the situation.

The Chinese, however, had time for the Elders. They spent two days in Beijing April 24 and 25 and had dinner with foreign minister Yang Jiechi. Neither the North Korea nor South Korea leaders met with them, but they did get meetings with high level officials in both countries. Ahtisaari and Brundtland also had meetings in Brussels last week with President of the EU Herman Van Rompuy and several other EU officials.

It's no secret at all that the Elders' trip to North Korea was viewed as extremely unhelpful by the governments both in Washington and Seoul. Chris Nelson reported on April 29 that Clinton reacted strongly when asked in a morning meeting if she wanted to meet with Carter. From the Nelson report:

The performance of President Carter and his delegation in N. Korea this week was either shameful or fatuous...or both...and exemplifies why Carter had no...zero...USG support going in, and even less coming out, per an alleged eye witness account of Sec. St. Clinton at the morning meeting the other day:

"Do you want to meet with Carter?" Clinton is looking at papers, and just says "No." Then she pauses, looks up and adds, "HELL no!!!"

Besides going to North Korea without any administration support, Carter alienated Washington's policy community when he declared at a Seoul press conference on April 28 that "to deliberately withhold food aid to the North Korean people because of political or military issues not related is really indeed a human rights violation."

Former NSC Senior Director for Asia Victor Cha just happened to be in Seoul that day, staying in the same hotel as the Elders, and said that people in South Korea were very upset at Carter's remark.

"People who work on the food issue with North Korea know the very real problems of diversion to the military, and Carter's statement implied that China -- because it gives food unconditionally to North Korea -- is more of a human rights upholder in North Korea than the others, which was not well-received," Cha told The Cable.

(h/t Mike)

NYT's Tom Friedman endorses Abbas' intransigence

Yet more idiocy from Thomas Friedman in the guise of being a concerned observer:

Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu of Israel is always wondering why his nation is losing support and what the world expects of a tiny country surrounded by implacable foes. I can't speak for the world, but I can speak for myself. I have no idea whether Israel has a Palestinian or Syrian partner for a secure peace that Israel can live with. But I know this: With a more democratic and populist Arab world in Israel's future, and with Israel facing the prospect of having a minority of Jews permanently ruling over a majority of Arabs - between Israel and the West Bank, which could lead to Israel being equated with apartheid South Africa all over the world - Israel needs to use every ounce of its creativity to explore ways to securely cede the West Bank to a Palestinian state.

I repeat: It may not be possible. But Netanyahu has not spent his time in office using Israel's creativity to find ways to do such a deal. He has spent his time trying to avoid such a deal - and everyone knows it. No one is fooled.

Israel is in a dangerous situation. For the first time in its history, it has bad relations with all three regional superpowers - Turkey, Iran and Egypt - plus rapidly eroding support in Europe. America is Israel's only friend today. These strains are not all Israel's fault by any means, especially with Iran, but Israel will never improve ties with Egypt, Turkey and Europe without a more serious effort to safely get out of the West Bank.

The only way for Netanyahu to be taken seriously again is if he risks some political capital and actually surprises people. Bibi keeps hinting that he is ready for painful territorial compromises involving settlements. Fine, put a map on the table. Let's see what you're talking about. Or how about removing the illegal West Bank settlements built by renegade settler groups against the will of Israel's government. Either move would force Israel's adversaries to take Bibi seriously and would pressure Palestinians to be equally serious.

Once again, Friedman tries to sound even-handed - he understands Israel's precarious position, he doesn't know if Israel has a peace partner, he knows that the situation is complex and fluid.

Yet he does not ever mention that all of the intransigence is from the Palestinian Authority. He doesn't point out that even the dovish Israeli governments got nowhere with Abbas, even with specific maps and plans.

To Friedman, there is but one goal: Israel caves to Palestinian Arab territorial demands. And if the PA refuses to make a deal, then Israel must give more, and more, and more until they do.

In Friedman's fantasy world, once Israel shows it is "serious," then somehow some magic pressure will appear that will force the PA to respond. Unfortunately this has never happened. In fact, Abbas' position hardened not during Netanyahu's time in office - but during Olmert's!

What is particularly galling is that Friedman, like J-Street, couches his calls for Israel and Israel alone to make concessions as if he is doing it out of love for Israel. This is garbage. If he loves Israel, he needs to wake up and use his bully pulpit to expose the Palestinian Arab intransigence and constant calls to destroy Israel via "return" - a demand that has not changed one bit since 1948. He needs to expose the incitement in Palestinian Arab society. He needs to expose the fact that the PA has not changed its position one bit since 1988 - and brags about it. He needs to point out that previous Israeli creativity to reach a peace agreement was met not with flexibility but with more demands. All of this is well-known, even to a know-it-all like Thomas Friedman.

That's what someone who cares for Israel would do.

UPDATE: The Islamic Jihad newspaper "Palestine Today" loved this column, quoting it extensively. Which is exactly what one would expect them to do with something written by such a concerned friend of Israel, right?

Iran is really paranoid about Jews taking over Azerbaijan

From Times.AM (Armenia):

The Zionist regime aims to strengthen its position in the region and what is why it develops multilateral relations with Azerbaijan, Iranian arannews.ir informs.

“Jews have fulfilled a wide project of the home-building in the center of Baku. And though the newly-built apartments are announced to be sold, they cost so much that nobody will buy them.

So, this process aims 7000 Jewish families to come and live in Baku,” the Iranian source notes.

I found the article in Aram.ir, which emphasizes that Israelis feel close to Azerbaijan. It notes that the Jews want to use this real-estate ploy to drive Muslims out of Baku.

No pretense here of anti-Zionism - they are saying that Jews supposedly buying buildings is a bad thing.

And their graphic shows the object of their fear and hate quite well:

The entire Aran.ir site is obsessed with the idea of Israel taking over Azerbaijan, with articles about a telecommunications deal between the country and Israel, and a quote from a Muslim cleric saying that Muslims will not stand to see Azerbaijan being friendly to Zionists.

Not only that, but here is an article saying that since Jews are really Khazars, they have a special affinity to many former Soviet regions like Georgia. They Iranians obsessively count how many Jews live in the region and try to figure out Israel's and Jewish leaders' plans.

Here's how they illustrate that article:

Israel really needs to take advantage of this hilarious Iranian paranoia about being surrounded by evil, scheming Jews.

Details of the Bin Laden raid (Navy Times)

Fascinating:

Aboard two Black Hawk helicopters were 23 SEALs, an interpreter and a tracking dog named Cairo. Nineteen SEALs would enter the compound, and three of them would find bin Laden, one official said, providing the exact numbers for the first time.

Aboard the Chinooks were two dozen more SEALs, as backup.

The Black Hawks were specially engineered to muffle the tail rotor and engine sound, two officials said. The added weight of the stealth technology meant cargo was calculated to the ounce, with weather factored in. The night of the mission, it was hotter than expected.

The Black Hawks were to drop the SEALs and depart in less than two minutes, in hopes locals would assume they were Pakistani aircraft visiting the nearby military academy.

One Black Hawk was to hover above the compound, with SEALs sliding down ropes into the open courtyard.

The second was to hover above the roof to drop SEALs there, then land more SEALs outside — plus an interpreter and the dog, who would track anyone who tried to escape and to alert SEALs to any approaching Pakistani security forces.

If troops appeared, the plan was to hunker down in the compound, avoiding armed confrontation with the Pakistanis while officials in Washington negotiated their passage out.

The two SEAL teams inside would work toward each other, in a simultaneous attack from above and below, their weapons silenced, guaranteeing surprise, one of the officials said. They would have stormed the building in a matter of minutes, as they’d done time and again in two training models of the compound.

The plan unraveled as the first helicopter tried to hover over the compound. The Black Hawk skittered around uncontrollably in the heat-thinned air, forcing the pilot to land. As he did, the tail and rotor got caught on one of the compound’s 12-foot walls. The pilot quickly buried the aircraft’s nose in the dirt to keep it from tipping over, and the SEALs clambered out into an outer courtyard.

The other aircraft did not even attempt hovering, landing its SEALs outside the compound.

Now, the raiders were outside, and they’d lost the element of surprise.

Read the whole thing.

(h/t Watcher)

Poll: 70% of PalArabs expect a new intifada if peace talks fail

In the latest Palestinian Center for Public Opinion poll, we learn:

A plurality of Palestinian Arabs support resumption of peace talks with Israel without preconditions - 40.2% versus 25.2% who oppose them. This is at odds with PA policy.

Also a slight plurality believe that Israelis are interested in peace - 45.5% against 44.7%.

One question revealed more the biases of the pollster than the feelings of the people:

When asked “ In case all efforts towards peace have collapsed, which of the following options are most probable to administer Palestinian affairs?” more than one-third 37.4% of Palestinians are for the dismantling the PA and holding the international community responsible for the legal vacuum that will arise, whereas 24.7% are in favor of declaring a Palestinian state and escalating resistance, 34.6% for keeping the “ status quo” with developing new strategies to run Palestinian affairs, and 3.3% say “do not know”.

To the pollster, unilateral declaration of a Palestinian Arab state is obviously going to be accompanied with increased "resistance," not with peace!

The most important result was that over 70% of the respondents expect a third intifada to break out if peace talks "stumble." Which probably means that the chances are very high for a new outbreak of violence if a Palestinian Arab state is declared unilaterally - since that shows that the peace talks have already failed.

Dopey soccer star supports a new intifada

A soccer (football) star from Real Madrid, Marcelo Vieira, put up this photo on his Facebook page on Sunday:

The caption is "My heart with Palestinian now as they fighting with Israel."

Nice to know that some haters of Israel haven't quite yet figured out that they are supposed to pretend to love peace while they advocate the destruction of the Jewish state.

So far, that comment has garnered some 3,300 "Likes."

Abbas' NYT editorial, rewritten to reflect the truth

What Mahmoud Abbas would have written had he told the truth:

SIXTY-THREE years ago, a 13-year-old Palestinian Arab boy left his home in the Galilean city of Safed and went with his family to Syria. His family left out of an vague fear of what a future in a Jewish state might be like, but not because they were in any danger. He never saw any Jewish troops. His family was not expelled. The child took up shelter in a canvas tent provided to all the arriving refugees. Though he and his family wished for decades to return to their home, they had chose the wrong side in the war. And although his family would happily have become Syrian citizens so they could live in honor and dignity, this right - that of citizenship - was denied. That child’s story, like that of so many other Palestinians, is mine.

This month, however, as we commemorate another year of our free choice to leave our homes — which we cynically call the nakba, or catastrophe — the Palestinian people have a new gimmick to enable us to start a new stage in the eventual destruction of Israel and return to our ancestral homes that no longer exist: this September, at the United Nations General Assembly, we will request international recognition of the State of Palestine on the land that Jordan had illegally annexed and that Egypt had taken over in 1949; land that those Arab countries never considered to be "Palestine" and which Israel won in a war where combined Arab armies tried to destroy her. We want this state, which we rejected in 1938, 1947, 2001 and 2008, to be admitted as a full member of the United Nations - without us having to compromise on our demands to ethnically clean all Jews from the land.

Many are questioning what value there is to such recognition while the land is itself in dispute. Others have accused us of imperiling the peace process. We believe, however, that this UN stunt will enable us to get everythign we have been demanding without actually having to compromise with Israel, and without accepting her right to live in peace and security. This will allow us to do what we have been tryign to do the entire time - get 100% of our demands met without having to give up a thing.

It is important to note that the last time the question of Palestinian statehood took center stage at the General Assembly, the question posed to the international community was whether our homeland should be partitioned into two states. In November 1947, the General Assembly made its recommendation and answered in the affirmative. Jews happily accepted this compromise, even though their land would have been indefensible and crazily shaped. The Jews accepted the plan even though it didn't include their own holiest cities. The Palestinian Arab leadership, however, rejected the compromise plan outright. Shortly thereafter, my people attacked their Jewish neighbors - people they had lived with for decades - in unspeakably brutal ways. Bus bombs, sniping, even knife attacks became the norm that Jews had to live with in their own homes. Only after months of incessant attacks by Arabs did the Zionist forces start an offensive that ultimately expanded the amount of land they controlled beyond the UN partition lines. Five Arab nations simultaneously attacked in May 1948, and Israel won again as my people fled in fear, often believing hugely exaggerated rumors of Zionist massacres.

Now we want to pretend that none of that happened and that we should not have to pay a price for consistently choosing terrorism over peace, war over compromise.

Minutes after the State of Israel was established on May 14, 1948, the United States granted it recognition. Palestinian Arab leadership, however, happily accepted a Transjordanian plan where the West Bank would become part of what was to become Jordan. We never asked for a state while the Jordanians and Egyptians ruled us - except within Israel's 1949 armistice lines, lines that were never accepted by the international community as a border.

Palestine’s admission to the United Nations would allow us to change the rules again, to rewrite history and pretend that we are not responsible at all for the problems of the past 63 years, most of which were inflicted by our own corrupt leadership and the very Arab leaders who continue to use us as pawns in their own political games against Israel. The Arabs and even Palestinian Arab leaders are the ones who kept us in camps, not Israel. Even today, under my rule and under Hamas rule, not a single "refugee" camps has been dismantled - because the misery the people are under comes in so politically useful to us.

We don't want our quest for recognition as a state to be seen as the stunt it is, even though we have lost many of our men and women in similar political theater - for example, when we rejected the Camp David proposals for peace. We go to the United Nations now because we don't want to compromise, because we always viewed the "peace process" as a means to gain everything we want without having to give up anything, because we want to distract the world from the simple fact that Israel has been the only party to compromise since (in my own words) 1988. We want to pretend that we have given up on wanting to destroy Israel, but in reality we continue to insist on a "right to return" thathas no basis in international law and whose entire purpose is to destroy Israel demographically. We have been negotiating with the State of Israel for 20 years without coming any closer to realizing a state of our own because we have not given up on one inch of land we consider ours - land that we explicitly said we have no claim on in 1964, when Jordan controlled it.

We have rejected negotiations for about two years now, even under identical conditions that we used to negotiate regularly with Israel. We are using "settlements" as an excuse, but also the world's bias against the Likud, to pressure Israel to give up even more - even after they have given up Area A to our control, as well as Gaza. Now we have made a conscious decision to embrace Hamas, a recognized terror group, and to reject the peace process with Israel.

We are demanding statehood even though we do not fulfill the criteria of statehood listed in the Montevideo Convention, the 1933 treaty that sets out the rights and duties of states. We have no defined territory, and in fact there never was an independent country named Palestine. Our land cannot be considered legally "occupied" because there was no accepted state there beforehand - because of our own rejection of the 1947 Partition Plan made by the same UN that we now embrace. The permanent population of our land is supposedly the Palestinian people, yet we do not want them to move from their camps into our nation, but into Israel instead. Our cynicism is extraordinary, yet we have world sympathy on our side.

Our economy is completely dependent on our enemy, Israel. The only reason things have been getting better for us is because Israel has wanted real peace while we have been using them to chip away at the territory controlled by the hated Zionists. Our security cooperation has been to please the United States, not out of any desire for real peace.

The State of Palestine will include Hamas in its government. As soon as we get our recognition, Hamas and Fatah can resume their Intrafada and their squabbles as we have in the past. The chances for real democracy and real freedom in the state of Palestine is extraordinarily small. But that's fine, because since 1948, our real goal has never been to establish a state but to destroy one. Once admitted to the United Nations, we believe that the world will back us on all of our demands. In fact, our declaration of a state will lead to perpetual war and misery for the people I pretend to love.

A key focus of negotiations will be reaching a just solution for Palestinian refugees based on our purposeful misinterpretation of Resolution 194, which the General Assembly passed in 1948. Of course, that resolution is not binding; it says that Jerusalem (as far as Bethlehem) would be an international city, and the very phrase that we pretend means we can overrun Israel with millions of Arabs can also be interpreted to mean that Jews can live in the West Bank where they lived before 1948. However, we have see the International Court of Justice ignore international law in our favor in the past, as well as the UN becoming a tool that the Arab League can control vis a vis Middle East issues, so we will rely on this continuing.

"Palestine" would be negotiating from the position of one United Nations member whose territory is militarily occupied by another, however, and not as a vanquished people ready to accept whatever terms are put in front of us. The fact that Palestinian Arabs have consistently backed tyrants and dictators like Nasser, Arafat, and Saddam Hussein should not impact our political strength. We just ask the world to forget our history of embracing terror and choosing war instead of peace.

We call on all friendly, peace-loving nations to believe our lies and our revisionist history. We want them to believe that somehow a unilateral move will lead to peace, even though it will do the opposite. We want the international community to forget that we tore up the idea of compromise so many times and instead tell them that they "promised" us a state six decades ago - a state we rejected while that Jews embraced it. Only if we get this combined scheme of an independent "Palestine" and a push to move millions of Arabs into Israel, destroying the Jewish state, will we have fulfilled the wishes that our first leader and my personal hero, the Mufti of Jerusalem, made so clear - to ethnically cleanse all Jews from the Middle East.

(original op-ed here, h/t idea by RB)

UPDATE: Israel Matzav did the same thing, upon the same person's idea.)

Local PA elections delayed - to October

The local elections that were to be held in July in the Palestinian Arab territories have been postponed, officially so that they can be set up in Gaza as well.

By sheer coincidence, the new date for these elections happens to be October 22 - after September.

I wonder why?

Muslim teens in Brussels are 4x more antisemitic than their peers

From Islam in Europe:

Half of the Muslim students in Brussels are antisemitic, according to a study 'Jong in Brussel' by the Youth Research Platform. The chapter on antisemitism was written by sociologist Mark Elchardus of the VUB. The study was conducted by the universities of Ghent, Leuven and the Dutch-speaking VUB. It polled 2,837 students in 32 Dutch-speaking high schools in Brussels.

About half of the Muslim respondents in the survey agreed with the following statements:

Jews want to dominate everything (total: 31.4%, Muslims: 56.8%, Non-Muslims: 10.5%)

Most Jews think they're better than others (total: 29.9%, Muslims: 47.1%, Non-Muslims: 12.9%)

If you do business with Jews, you should be extra careful (total: 28.6%, Muslims: 47.5%, Non-Muslims: 12.9%)

Jews incite to war and blame others (total: 28.4%, Muslims: 53.7%, Non-Muslims: 7.7%)

Mark Elchardus says that the non-Muslim/ethnic Belgians responses in this study are comparable to similar polls in Flanders. "What is alarming is that you can describe half of the Muslim students as antisemitic, which is very high. What's worse is that those anti-Jewish feelings have nothing to do with a low educational level or social disadvantage, which is the case by racist Belgians. The antisemitism is theologically inspired and there's a direct link between being Muslim and having antisemitic feelings."

Catholics and Protestants were also more anti-Jewish than secular students, but not as much as Muslims. Religious and practicing Christians scored on average 12 points more than the secular students. Religious Muslims scored 28 points higher. However, while very religious Christians were much more antisemitic than less religious Christians, there was no such difference among Muslims.

One of the Dutch articles on the study is here.

(h/t jzaik)

Anti-semitic cartoon on Iranian TV

The laugh-track is a nice touch.

Video: 92-year old Arab fondly remembers her father massacring Jews

From MEMRI via pi-news, broadcast on Hamas TV last week:

(h/t Ian)

Morning snippets and links

From Barry Rubin's "A Brief Guide to Why 1948 Was a Palestinian Arab and Arab Disaster:"

And so a Palestinian Arab army, whose three chief commanders had all fought for the Nazis during World War Two, went to war against the Jews using Nazi-supplied weapons (provided for the Palestinian Arab revolt in 1939 and for an Egyptian revolt that never happened in 1942). They lost.

Then the armies of the Arab states invaded Israel. They largely lost...

Everything that happened afterward was due to Arab decisions to reject both a two-state solution and Israel’s creation.

That’s the bottom line. So the disaster was due first and foremost to the Palestinian Arab leadership and secondly to the Arab states and publics.

Dealing with the “nakba” would then require that the Palestinian Arabs and the Arabic-speaking world generally would recognize that the disaster resulted from their refusal to accept Israel’s existence and to seek a genuine, compromise two-state solution.

But, instead, in the name of the 1948 disaster they are repeating the same policies that brought it about! Indeed, they are the same policies that led to the self-inflicted disasters of 1967, 2000, and others since then.

From Norway, Israel and the Jews:

An art project is teaching young delinquents how to express themselves by spray-painting “Free Palestine” on the walls of the subway station.

The picture above is from today’s Aftenposten, with the article heading saying “Spray fantasies on the subway” with the subtitle saying “Meet the wall in a creative way”. The title refers to how the youths in the project are being taught how to spray-paint the walls in the subway station with messages of their own choice. That’s right, they are receiving expert tuition, from a Berlin-based Norwegian artist, on how to best get their message across.

From Khaled Abu Toameh in Hudson-NY:

At the same time that Mashaal and Yousef are talking in English about accepting the two-state solution, most of Hamas's other leaders are vowing in Arabic that their movement would never recognize Israel's right to exist.

Following the signing of the Egyptian-sponsored reconciliation deal between Fatah and Hamas, the Islamist movement's representatives in Syria, Lebanon and the Gaza Strip reassured Palestinians and Arabs that their movement has not abandoned its goal of "liberating all of Palestine."

Also in Arabic, Hamas leaders have pledged that their charter would not be changed despite the rapprochement with Fatah.

If one really wants to know what Hamas thinks, one should listen to what Hamas leaders tell their supporters in mosques and public rallies in the Gaza Strip, not what they write in the New York Times or the Guardian.

From the Jerusalem Post:

The Iranian government is moving forward with the construction of rocket launch bases in Venezuela, the German daily Die Welt wrote in its Friday edition.

Iran is building intermediate- range missile launch pads on the Paraguaná Peninsula, and engineers from a construction firm – Khatam al-Anbia – owned by the Revolutionary Guards visited Paraguaná in February. Amir al-Hadschisadeh, the head of the Guard’s Air Force, participated in the visit, according to the report. Die Welt cited information from “Western security insiders.”

The rocket bases are to include measures to prevent air attacks on Venezuela as well as commando and control stations.

From RIA Novosti:

Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi has launched a large-scale conscription campaign to enroll women and children for service in his army, the pan-Arab Asharq Alawsat paper reported on Tuesday.

"We are expecting a NATO ground invasion in Libya and we are currently preparing for any possible situation. In line with these preparations we've started conscripting women and children," a senior Libyan official, who wanted to remain unnamed, told the paper.

Several Western news outlets have reported that Gaddafi's soldiers were using women and children as human shields to protect themselves from attacks in the besieged city of Misrata.

From Reuven Berko, Yisrael HaYom (Hebrew):

Three colors in modern history represent the three major violent forces who have tried to take power on the world: the black swastika represented the Nazi uniforms, red represented communism, and the green represents the Islamic radicalism which seeks to impose Islam on mankind.

Also:

Yemen shoots and kills demonstrators

Secret execution of Jewish-Armenian couple in Iran

Rift appears over UN flotilla report

(h/t Joel, Tundra Tabloids)

When Abbas lies about basic history, how can you trust him to make peace? (updated)

We know that Palestinian leaders routinely fabricate their history, but that doesn't mean that they should get a pass when they write op-eds for the New York Times.

Here's Mahmoud Abbas' revisionism:

It is important to note that the last time the question of Palestinian statehood took center stage at the General Assembly, the question posed to the international community was whether our homeland should be partitioned into two states. In November 1947, the General Assembly made its recommendation and answered in the affirmative. Shortly thereafter, Zionist forces expelled Palestinian Arabs to ensure a decisive Jewish majority in the future state of Israel, and Arab armies intervened.

A complete and utter lie. Within mere hours after the partition vote, Arabs started murdering Jews:

That entire week the rampages continued.

Arab leaders fled throughout the month of December 1947. Generally the richest ones, those who could afford to wait out the coming war in relative comfort in Beirut and Cairo, left. This was perhaps the biggest factor in influencing the Arab masses to flee - and most of them did flee without being exposed to any fighting.

The partition plan would have left a decisive Jewish majority in the Jewish State envisioned in the plan. If Arabs hadn't attacked, there could have been two states declared in May 1948. Only a couple of months after the vote and after suffering withering attacks on their women and children by the Arabs, way before the declaration of the state, did the Jews finally go on the offensive - to survive.

Abbas' account is so outrageously false that it should have been rejected from being in the New York Times editorial just on that basis. An op-ed does not give the writer carte blanche to make up history. The facts are documented quite well. Abbas is a liar.

The Arab armies that invaded in May 1948 didn't "intervene" to protect Arabs of Palestine. They went in to massacre all the Jews of Palestine.

So it is not surprising that an established liar can write:

Minutes after the State of Israel was established on May 14, 1948, the United States granted it recognition. Our Palestinian state, however, remains a promise unfulfilled.

That "promise" was roundly rejected by not only the entire Arab world but by every Palestinian Arab leader themselves. Abbas is arrogantly trying to pretend that he deserves a state when his forebears, and he himself, have rejected just such a state numerous times.

This dishonesty doesn't merely reflect Arab honor, lying in order to save face. It reflects Abbas' very personality. It proves, more than anything else, that it is impossible to make peace with him - the supposed "moderate."

After all, if you cannot believe a word he says in front of an audience of millions who read the New York Times, how can you trust him to adhere to any agreement?

(h/t Omri)

Update: See also Daled Amos' masterful fisking of this piece - using Abbas' own words!

Also Jeffrey Goldberg on the same theme.

How anti-Israel propagandists lie - AIPAC edition

I just saw a slick video meant to turn Americans against Israel by demonizing AIPAC (and, subtly, Jews.) So I quickly made a response by putting captions on top.

(Sorry, not as well-done as most of my videos, but I don't have my normal video editing tools available.)

NYT calls 2001 Clinton parameters "hawkish" - because Netanyahu said them

If anyone needs any more proof of the bias of the New York Times, it can be seen in this article by Ethan Bronner:

Days before Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is to meet with President Obama, he laid out his principles Monday for accepting a Palestinian state, showing greater flexibility on territory but still pursuing a far more hawkish approach than any Palestinian leader is likely to accept.

And what is Netanyahu's "hawkish" approach?

Mr. Netanyahu showed more willingness to yield territory than he had before, strongly implying that he would give up the vast majority of the West Bank for a demilitarized Palestinian state. He said Israel needed to hold onto all of Jerusalem and the large settlement blocs in the West Bank, thereby suggesting that he would yield the rest.

The other principles he enumerated included Palestinian recognition of Israel as the home of the Jewish people, an agreement to end the conflict, resolving the refugee problem only within the new state of Palestine and an Israeli military presence in the Jordan Valley.

Palestinian leaders have repeatedly rejected every one of those.

Netanyahu has proposed something very close to the Clinton parameters of 2001 (the major exceptions being the recognition of Israel as the "Jewish state," and possibly parts of Jerusalem.) But when a Likud leader proposes a compromise that gets utterly rejected by Palestinian Arabs without even a counter-offer, it is Israel that is regarded as being intransigent and "hawkish."

Recall, also, that it is Abbas who is refusing to hold talks, not Netanyahu.

By any yardstick, it is Abbas who is being "hawkish." But that doesn't fit into the NYT meme of Israel being the guilty party in negotiations.

Bronner, who used to be somewhat even-handed, has gone way downhill in recent weeks.

(h/t David G)