Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Monday, July 25, 2011

+972 magazine pushes the "9/11 Dancing Israelis" lie

In yet another example of how 972 magazine has no journalistic integrity, an article by Yossi Gurvitz claims that Israelis were "gleeful" after the horrendous terror attack in Norway on Friday.In fact, Gurvitz says that Israelis actually support terrorism because they are usually so happy at any terror attacks, both against Israelis and against foreigners.

His proof of Israelis' "glee"? He notes a couple of talkbacks in a YNet Hebrew article. Yes, he generalizes all Israelis based on a few comments! (Of course, some comments compare the terrorists to settlers too - but Gurvitz is very selective in his outrage about anonymous comments in YNet.)

But he doesn't stop there in his zeal to tarnish all Israelis as loving terror attacks. He writes:

During the shock following the 9/11 attacks, a strong undercurrent of glee showed up. Four Israelis were actually arrested in New York for dancing in front of the burning towers. They spent quite some time in detention before being kicked out of the US.

Apparently, Gurvitz likes to spend time on 9-11 truther websites, because those who actually remember the story know that there were no dancing Israelis on 9/11. The woman who reported them to the police described them this way:

MARIA: Like a few minutes must have gone on, and all of a sudden down there I see this van park. And I see three guys on top of the van, and I'm trying, you know, to look at the building but what caught my attention, they seemed to be taking a movie.

MILLER: (VO) Maria says the three young men were kneeling on the roof of a white van. It was parked right here. They were taking pictures of each other with the World Trade Center burning in the background.

MARIA: And I could see that they were, like, happy, you know? They--they--they weren't--they didn't look shocked to me, you know? They didn't look shocked. I thought it was very strange.

If I would have had a camera with me that day, I would have been taking photos as well - and hundreds of people did. But there was no dancing and no celebration (although there does seem to have been excitement at witnessing such an event, and somewhat bad taste at taking tourist-type photos in front of the smoke.)

The Israelis denied dancing to the US authorities and went on Israeli television and denied it again. But "truther" websites started the rumor that there were "dancing israelis" - and 972 mag now pushes that lie as well. And, of course, they weren't arrested for "dancing," as pseudo-journalist Gurvitz asserts.

So what else does Gurvitz have to slander an entire country as being gleeful when scores are murdered? Nothing. He states it as fact, and then psychoanalyzes it as if he proved it. Few of 972's readers would doubt his accuracy for a second, because they already buy into the idea that Israelis are collectively morally corrupt (outside of the brave, moral writers for 972mag, of course.)

To be fair, I have no doubt that Israelis have mixed feelings at terror attacks abroad. They hope against hope that the victim country will now have an inkling of the fear that Israelis had to go through for years, before going on the offensive to stop daily terror attacks (using methods that no doubt offend the oh-so-moral sensitivities of 972mag columnists.) In other words, they naturally hope that Europeans will start to empathize with what Israelis have had to live with and notice that they have common enemies. This is human, but it is a not close to the happiness that Gurvitz is describing in this sickeningly vile piece of garbage.

The day after Palestinian Arab statehood

For all the talk about Palestinian Arab statehood, I find it interesting that none of the articles about the supposed benefits of statehood actually enumerate any benefits for real live Palestinian Arabs.

A recent example is this article in Al Jazeera by Noura Erakat (apparently Saeb's niece) where the benefits of statehood can be summed up as: it will hurt Israel politically.

But will even a successful statehood bid benefit real Palestinian Arabs? What would happen the day after it achieves its unilateral aims?

If the bid goes forward, the economic and security cooperation with Israel would disappear. The vast majority of Palestinian Arab exports are to Israel and if Palestine is a sovereign nation Israel will feel no obligation to continue that relationship. It would take years for a similar trade program to grow with the Arab world, and there is no evidence that there is a pent-up demand for Palestinian Arab goods in Jordan and Syria and the Gulf states.

Tens of thousands of Palestinian Arabs who are now employed in Israel and in Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria would lose their jobs, putting more economic pressure on the PA. And, of course, the PA already is heavily dependent on foreign aid, aid that may be put in jeopardy after the supposed goal of independence is achieved. NGOs will likewise start looking elsewhere for recipients of their cash, and Israeli NGOs that have been working hard for cooperation with Palestinian Arabs would no longer be able to continue. Israeli Arabs will have a much harder time visiting their relatives across the border.

A third intifada seems likely, with the inevitable Israeli response. Even if it is a low-level war with "only" firebombs and stones and handguns against Jewish residents of Judea and Samaria, Israel would no longer feel obligated to respect the autonomy of Area A. Checkpoints that have been removed because of security cooperation would return, with the concomitant loss of mobility among the newly liberated people.

Hamas would take advantage of the nascent chaos and recruit the newly unemployed for their terrorist brigades with ready Iranian cash. They would also use that cash to build a separate social infrastructure, using that as a means to recruit new members and fans. In Gaza, of course, they will continue to consolidate their iron grip on the people there while paying lip service to "unity." Targeted killings of terror leaders will resume, and the current sense of relative safety that West Bank Arabs have will disappear. Freedom of the press and assembly would likely be even more severely curtailed than it is now.

Israel's coordination in sending thousands of tons of goods to Gaza would dry up, as the line between Israel and Gaza becomes an international border. The problem will go into Egypt's lap - and Egypt is not rushing to expand the Rafah crossing to handle hundreds of trucks daily.

Millions of "diaspora" Palestinian Arabs may demand to move into "Palestine," causing huge problems. It is not inconceivable that Syria or Libya would "encourage" their Palestinian "guests" to move out. that Imagine 200,000 Lebanese Palestinians saying that it is time for them to move to their new homeland. Would the PA build new camps for their people, trading one form of misery with another? They haven't even taken down the camps in their own autonomous areas!

Right now, as Abbas famously said a couple of years ago, "in the West Bank we have a good reality . . . the people are living a normal life." Statehood would change that "good reality" in an instant, and Mahmoud Abbas (who is now 76 years old) will not be able to fix it. Does he have any successor with any charisma or a following? How popular will Fatah be after the economy goes down the drain?

So why isn't the media looking at these issues? The only supposed benefits of statehood involve political issues like how "Palestine" would be able to go to the International Court of Justice to press bids against Israel or become a full member of various international bodies. Nobody is spelling out a scenario where Palestinian Arabs, in the territories or in Arab countries, will personally benefit.

Which indicates that, just as they have been throughout their short history, Palestinian Arabs are again being used as pawns by their leaders. As always, no one cares a bit about them.

Hamas tries to tie Norway terrorist to Zionism

Hamas came out with a press release on Saturday condemning the terror spree in Norway:

The Hamas movement is saddened by the terrible attacks that occurred in Norway, which have left dozens of innocent civilians as victims, which... caused widespread destruction.

We in the Hamas movement denounce these heinous crimes and express our full solidarity with the people of Norway and the families of the victims at this difficult time, wishing a speedy recovery to the wounded.

These attacks show the dangers of extremist tendencies which promote and incite hatred against Islam, this time aimed at youth camps that were expressing their solidarity with the Palestinian people under occupation and the lifting of the siege.

This confirms that the crime of the incitement campaigns of the unjust ongoing Zionist and American siege against the Palestinian people...The free world must stop providing cover for Zionist extremism.

Isn't that sweet, that one of the leading terror organizations in the world is condemning attacks against civilians - when they have been responsible for purposefully targeting and killing thousands of civilians themselves!

The Ma'an News Agency published the Hamas condemnation but for some strange reason, no doubt related to its newsworthiness, it didn't mention the part where Hamas blamed Zionism for the Norway attacks and praised the victims as supporters of Palestinian Arabs. In other words, it treated what was purely a political statement as if it was a real expression of sympathy for the victims.

Compassion and cynicism are not the same, and by reporting it as the first and not the second, Ma'an has once again obfuscated rather than illuminated.

(h/t Challah Hu Akbar)

UPDATE: Ma'an updated the article somewhat, after I tweeted their editor.

Bethlehem bakers go on strike because PA lowered price of bread

Palestine Today says that bakers in Bethlehem are calling s strike today, in protest of the PA lowering the price of a kilo of bread.

The price has been lowered from four shekels to three and a half shekels.

The bakers are complaining that they cannot make any profit at such a price level.

I had no idea that the PA set prices on basic food items. Economists have never been thrilled with such heavy-handed methods.

Economist and Nobel prize winner Milton Friedman once said, "We economists don't know much, but we do know how to create a shortage. If you want to create a shortage of tomatoes, for example, just pass a law that retailers can't sell tomatoes for more than two cents per pound. Instantly you'll have a tomato shortage."

UPDATE: I am told that Israel does the same on various staples. (h/t Akiva)

Israel nabs weapons smugglers from Jordan

From YNet:

Police and IDF forces foiled a weapons smuggling attempt from Jordan in the Dead Sea area on Monday.

Forces stopped a small motor boat laden with weapons and ammunition in the Dead Sea at dawn. The act was the result of a special operation spanning months.

The smugglers were canvassing the area in preparation for the smuggling. Police arrested two Palestinians in their 40s residing in the Jordan Valley. They were found in possession of 10 Kalashnikov machine guns and 10 magazines.

The Flotillistas might get some new ideas.

How the PLO's September stunt abrogates Oslo

Ha'aretz reports that Israel is considering revoking the Oslo Accords as one of several possible responses to the PLO's stated intent to have the UN declare all of Judea and Samaria to be part of a Palestinian state.

The PLO's chief negotiator and serial liar Saeb Erekat responded angrily, saying Israel is the party not implementing the Oslo Accords. He said "Israel's practices on the ground have practically canceled the Oslo agreement years ago." he added.

Of course, he did not name any of these supposed violations of Oslo. He implies that the "settlements " are Israel's violation of Oslo by referring to "practices on the ground."

PA president Mahmoud Abbas went a little further, saying that Israel had forced Palestinians to take their statehood campaign to the UN by refusing to end its occupation and settlement building.

The Oslo process, and the documents signed between Israel and the PLO, did not exclude Israeli building of or expansion of Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria. That was always left to be part of final status negotiations. From Oslo II:

Permanent status negotiations will commence as soon as possible, but not later than May 4, 1996, between the Parties. It is understood that these negotiations shall cover remaining issues, including: Jerusalem, refugees, settlements, security arrangements, borders, relations and cooperation with other neighbors, and other issues of common interest.

And while Israel after that date continued to transfer areas to PA control up until the even of the intifada, the PLO never implemented a number of its agreements including stopping incitement in the media and changing the Palestinian National Charter to eliminate references to destroying Israel. (No amended Charter was ever published.)

The September UN stunt is an explicit abrogation of the Oslo agreements, however. They specifically violate what I believe is the last agreement signed between Israel and the PLO, the Sharm el Sheikh agreements of September 4, 1999, restating what had been signed in previous agreements:

[N]either side shall initiate or take any step that will change the status of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip in accordance with the Interim Agreement.

The UN stunt is an attempt to do exactly that - change the status of areas that were supposed to be determined by negotiations. By demanding that the UN recognize the areas between the 1949 armistice lines and Jordan/Egypt as being part of a brand new state, the PLO is directly violating the agreements that they signed with Israel.

Since the Oslo process is what allowed the PA to exist to begin with, and under its provisions Israel transferred land to be administered by this same entity, if the PLO abrogates it then Israel could simply re-extend military and administrative control over Areas A and B, thus destroying the autonomy the Palestinian Arabs now enjoy.

At the very least, Israel would be free to annex any areas of the Jordan Valley or major settlement blocs if the PLO abrogates Oslo by going to the UN.

Now is the time for Israel to make that consequence crystal-clear.

What would a Palestinian Arab state mean? (video)

A video I made using the results of the TIP/Greenberg poll of Palestinian Arabs.

Kosher wine featured in a - hip-hop video??? (updated)

A music video by DJ Khaled called I'm On One has the usual explicit lyrics, lots of sexual innuendo - and kosher wine (Bartenura):

Looks like the Moscato.

(h/t Stella)

UPDATE: DJ Khaled is of Palestinian Arab descent! (h/t Anonymous)

And the rapper, Drake, is Jewish! (h/t Stella again)

A bit of hypocrisy by Glenn Greenwald

I don't normally read pundits who mostly deal with US politics, but I just stumbled across a gem by Glenn Greenwald.

He writes, in Salon:

For much of the day yesterday, the featured headline on The New York Times online front page strongly suggested that Muslims were responsible for the attacks on Oslo; that led to definitive statements on the BBC and elsewhere that Muslims were the culprits. The Washington Post's Jennifer Rubin wrote a whole column based on the assertion that Muslims were responsible, one that, as James Fallows notes, remains at the Post with no corrections or updates.
...This article expertly traces and sets forth exactly how the "Muslims-did-it" myth was manufactured and then disseminated yesterday to the worldwide media, which predictably repeated it with little skepticism. What makes the article so valuable is that it names names: it points to the incestuous, self-regarding network of self-proclaimed U.S. Terrorism and foreign policy "experts" -- what the article accurately describes as "almost always white men and very often with military or government backgrounds," in this instance driven by "a case of an elite fanboy wanting to be the first to pass on leaked gadget specs" -- who so often shape these media stories and are uncritically presented as experts, even though they're drowning in bias, nationalism, ignorance, and shallow credentialism.

How dare people make assumptions that Islamic fundamentalists were responsible for a massive car bomb and shooting attack, killing scores? You'd never catch someone like Glenn Greenwald doing something like that!

Except, in his previous post before the identity of the terrorist was revealed, he does exactly that:

The perpetrators of these attacks are unknown, as is their motives, though one self-described "jihadi" group claimed responsibility.
It is, however, worth commenting on both the prevailing descriptions of Norway as well as the reaction to these attacks, as they reveal some important points. Most media accounts express bafflement that Norway would be the target of such an attack given how peaceful it is; The New York Times, for instance, said "the attacks appeared to be part of a coordinated assault on the ordinarily peaceful Scandinavian nation." This is simply inaccurate. Norway is a nation at war -- in more than just one country.
The NATO force of which Norway is a part has explicitly declared Libyan leader Moammar Gadaffi to be a "legitimate target" and has repeatedly attempted to kill him; one attempt on Gadaffi's life -- a bombing attack on his son's residence -- resulted in the death of the dictator's son and three grandchildren. In response, Gadaffi "vowed to attack 'homes, offices and families' in Europe in revenge for NATO airstrikes," adding that "your homes, your offices and your families, which will become military targets just as you have transformed our offices, headquarters, houses and children into what you regards as legitimate military targets."

[He then shows a screenshot of an article about Norwegian involvement in Afghanistan - EoZ.]

Regardless of the justifications of these wars -- and Norway is in both countries as part of a U.N. action -- it is simply a fact that Norway has sent its military to two foreign countries where it is attacking people, dropping bombs, and killing civilians. Historically, one reason not to invade and attack other countries is because doing so often prompts one's own country to be attacked. Western nations typically only attack countries that are incapable of responding in kind, but those nations and their sympathizers are capable of perpetrating asymmetrical attacks of the sort that Oslo just suffered.

Greenwald's natural assumption - strongly implicit, but obvious - was that these attacks were a response to Norway's involvement in wars against two predominantly Muslim countries, and he even goes as far as saying that Norway's position on targeting Libya's leader is just as "terrorist" as an attack on the Norwegian Prime Minister's office in an office building that houses many non-governmental offices as well. He quotes the bogus Jihadist responsibility claim just as seriously as anyone else did. Certainly no one would read his earlier column and think that Greenwald believed that a right-wing Christian was behind the bombings.

So his self-righteousness about how other media made the assumption that Muslims were behind the attacks is more than a bit hypocritical.

Media still downplaying Christian influence on Norwegian terrorist

As I wrote earlier today, it is too simplistic to look at Anders Breivik's writings and conclude that his brand of Christianity was the source for his hate. However, that component is seemingly being ignored or downplayed by the media, and it is an important part of the story. (See this CiF column for an example.)

So here is a bit more of what he wrote in his manifesto on justifying terrorism in the name of his Christian beliefs.

Indulgences

An indulgence is the full or partial remission of temporal punishment due for sins which have already been forgiven. The indulgence is usually granted by the church after the sinner has confessed and received absolution. The exception is actions committed by those men and women who, by virtue of their suffering, assists in the intercession for all Christians (participates in Crusades, activities which involve protection of Christians, Christian interests or Christendom itself). Indulgences draw on the storehouse of merit acquired by Jesus' sacrifice and the virtues and penances of the saints and martyrs. They are granted for specific good works and prayers.

Indulgences replace the shortening of those penances that was allowed at the intercession of those imprisoned and those awaiting martyrdom for the faith.

Crusading is not just a right, but a duty according to Canon Law

Canon Law, the ecclesiastical law of the Catholic Church, is a fully developed legal system, with all the necessary elements: courts, lawyers, judges, a fully articulated legal code and principles of legal interpretation.

Can. 992 An indulgence is the remission before God of temporal punishment for sins whose guilt is already forgiven, which a properly disposed member of the Christian faithful gains under certain and defined conditions by the assistance of the Church which as minister of redemption dispenses and applies authoritatively the treasury of the satisfactions of Christ and the saints.

Can. 993 An indulgence is partial or plenary insofar as it partially or totally frees from the temporal punishment due to sins.

Can. 994 Any member of the faithful can gain partial or plenary indulgences for oneself or apply them to the dead by way of suffrage.

Can. 995 §1. In addition to the supreme authority of the Church, only those to whom this power is acknowledged in the law or granted by the Roman Pontiff can bestow indulgences.

...Pope Urban II and Pope Innocent III granted indulgence to all future Crusaders (martyrs of the Church)

In 1095 during the Council of Clermont, Pope Urban II declared that he remitted all penance incurred by anyone (crusaders) who participated in the first crusade.

The Pope dispenses indulgences from a reservoir of grace tied to martyrs of the church, those men and women who, by virtue of their suffering, assists in the intercession for all Christians. In the 12th Century, Pope Innocent III, expanded the Crusade indulgence to include anyone assisting with such endeavours.

When we, the cultural conservatives of Europe seize power in approximately 5-7 decades, we will take the necessary steps to eradicate the corruption which is continuing to plague the Church (both the Catholic and Protestant church). We must ensure that we have Christian leaders who believe in; self defence, protection of Eastern Christendom and the protection of Christians worldwide.

All in all, he takes up ten pages justifying violence according to his understanding of Christian theology, not only liberally quoting the Hebrew Bible but the New Testament as well.

If he didn't care about Christianity, he wouldn't have bothered writing so many pages of religious justifications for his actions.

His use of religion to justify violence is strikingly similar to that of his avowed enemies, Islamists. This does not by any means prove that Christianity or Christian institutions are at fault for his actions - and as far as I know there is no huge support structure of Christian schools, media and churches that can be drawn upon to strengthen his twisted beliefs. They seem to have come out of his own head. I don't know if he would have done the same thing if he had been an atheist, as defense of Christianity in Europe seems to be one of his main motivating factors, but his psychosis cannot be blamed solely on his religion either.

Yet even though religion is not necessarily to blame for what he did, but it is a factor that needs to be discussed openly, just as it should be when Muslims (or Jews or Hindus) use religion to justify terror. And at least some Christians need to recognize that this problem could emerge in their churches, just as leaders of other religions need to take some level of responsibility whenever terror is done in their name. Pushing it off by redefining the terrorist as not being a member of that religious group is not useful or helpful - there needs to be some level of self-analysis to see what could have been done to head something like this off before it turned so tragic.

Most analysts and commenters are now heavily trying to spin Breivik's actions in ways that benefit their own pre-existing agendas, and we are seeing a lot of nonsense being published in the guise of analysis. (Yes, he quoted some Zionists in his writings, this does not make him a Mossad agent!) This spinning of a sickening terror attack is a shame, and it reflects badly on many prominent people on the right and the left. This is in many ways a unique case; it trivializes the victims to facilely simplify the story just so pundits can feel better about themselves by placing the blame squarely on their enemies.

JPost notices people finding news with Google Translate

From JPost:

Enter Google Translate: Interested in local Syrian coverage of anti-government riots? How the Japanese are celebrating their recent World Cup victory? Just click and translate.

Of course, the system is not perfect, but the machine translation site, which was first introduced for Arabic, has opened up the media and broken down global barriers in a way which was previously not possible. While the statistical method that the site uses to translate text, which means that grammatical rules are not applied, can at times render text almost unintelligible, by and large it means we can read news in languages that we don’t know a word of, which changes the game in a significant way.

I wish more people would be doing this; I've been doing it for years but I haven't seen the groundswell of others doing it as much as the article implies.

Not only from Arabic, either. For a while on Friday I was looking at Norwegian papers and tweeting details about the attacks on the youth camp way before the mainstream media had picked up on it.

It takes a bit of practice to get good at understanding the translated text, and even more practice to figure out how to do things like searches in the target language, but it is worth it. I recommend using Chrome as a browser because the Google Translate extension usually makes language translation seamless, and it works even for search results within websites (something that AFAIK cannot be done with any other browser.)

Hamas arresting Salafist rocket terrorists

Firas Press reports that Hamas has been waging a campaign of widespread arrests today against Salafi jihadist elements in Gaza. The campaign is is focused on Rafah and Deir al-Balah.

There was a similar arrest spree a few days ago in Rafah, where Hamas arrested a number of supporters of the Salafist organizations who fired rocket-propelled grenades and mortar shells towards Israel.

UNRWA plays the media; the media happily plays its role: Blame Israel!

Last week, I reported that UNRWA threatened to shut down its operations in Gaza in the face of protests.

This story was fairly widespread in the Arabic media, but it was covered in only two English-language media outlets that I could find.

China Radio International and RIA Novosti (Russia.)

Why did the Western media ignore a story that was mentioned by Russian and Chinese English-language media?

The reason is that the Western media is emotionally invested in the meme of Palestiniian Arab victimhood. Showing the PalArabs protesting against another darling of the media - the UN - cannot easily be reconciled with that narrative. That, plus the fact that it is obvious that a protest to stop services because they had been slightly curtailed is so incredibly shortsighted.

The Chinese and Russian media, however, while they are no fans of Israel, do not have the same love of Palestinian Arabs and are not as emotionally invested in them as the mainstream Western media. So, ironically, the media of the Communists and former Communists are more fair in this case than that of the enlightened West!

The rallies are organized and supported by Hamas. Hamas has even said that it will create an agency to oversee UNRWA operations in Gaza - because Hamas has never been happy with UNRWA's supposedly liberal, "Zionist" curriculum and it is using these protests as a means to pressure the agency. Again, this fact is practically unreported in the Western media, as it does not fit nicely into the meme of Israelis oppressing Palestinian Arabs.

UNRWA is not above using these facts to its own political advantage. They refuse to issue press releases about these protests, just as they always have except in extreme cases where it could not be ignored. And when Ma'an called their spokesperson about the demonstrations, they do not say a word about Hamas and place the blame squarely on - Israel. UNRWA's Chris Gunness says:

Make no mistake, the lack of donor funds to UNRWA is now directly affecting the stability of the Middle East with anti-UN protests threatening to shut down UNRWA on the doorstep of Israel at a time of already heightened instability in the region....The real problem is that we are asking our donors to fund emergency programs which aim to mitigate the effects of Israel’s illegal collective punishment of 1.5 million people. The International Committee of the Red Cross has called the blockade a "clear breach of international law" in the face of which there has to be transparency and accountability. From UNRWA's point of view, it would be better for those states and organizations with the power to bring the necessary pressures to bear to end the collective punishment rather than pay UNRWA to deal with its disastrous impact.

So it is not because of Hamas creating an artificial crisis by orchestrating protests, it is not the (mostly Arab) donors who refuse to pay their pledges to UNRWA. No, the problem is, of course, Israel!

And now that UNRWA has made a statement on the issue that fits with the western media narrative - now that Gunness has identified the bad guy - we can expect them to finally shine a spotlight on the issue. Of course, it is a spotlight expertly misdirected by the UNRWA spokesperson, who plays the Western media like puppets.

Israeli apartheid: Talent show winner an Ethiopian (video)

Here is the winning performance from Israel's "Kochav Nolad" (A Star is Born) singing competition, Hagit Yasou:

She is a religious Ethiopian Jew who lives in Sderot.

I just skimmed through a bit of the manifesto of the Norway terrorist Anders Breivik.

While the man is clearly a psychopath, the worst part is that it is not all crazy sounding - it is scary how sane much of the document seems to be.

He sets out a case against multiculturalism, Marxism and Islam that would not be out of place in many popular websites and blogs. In fact, he quotes a few of them.

He is not an anti-semite, but he despises left-wing Jews and multiculturalists.

But as the document goes on, he tries to come to the logical conclusion that he must kill a lot of people to accomplish his political goals. He then goes to describe a number of scenarios on planning terrorist operations.

He has a FAQ-type section:

Q: Can significant indirect damage against civilians be justified?

A: Yes and no. It can be justified in the sense that it is the only pragmatical way to move forward. When someone blows up a government building it is obviously not with the intention to kill the cleaning lady or the janitor. The target has been selected after careful consideration because it will yield the wanted results.

There are extreme and moderate forces. We are all cultural conservatives even though we use different means. We have taken it upon ourselves to use brute, cynical force so other people don’t have to. The other political fronts should welcome it as a necessary evil in order to rid ourselves of a much greater evil.

Innocent people will die, in the thousands. But it is still better than the alternative; millions of dead Europeans, which is the worst case phase 3 scenario.

He even describes his planned attack as a "martyrdom operation," and says that the slogan for his (possibly fictional) group "The Knights Templar" is "Martyrdom before dhimmitude."

Being a Justiciar Knight is not for everyone. You are normally required to plan absolutely everything alone; fight alone to see your mission through and you are likely to die alone with half of your city’s system protectors hunting you. However, I have never in my life felt that I have done anything more meaningful than what I am doing now regardless of the lack of moral support from my founding brothers or other armed resistance fighters. Support from our extremely distributed and anonymous “non-hierarchy” out there would be nice but I have managed to cope through mental discipline to become what I am today; a self driven and highly effective manifestation of an independent resistance cell. I have managed to stay focused and highly motivated for a duration of more than 9 years now. I feel really happy about my current course. In fact, I have never been happier than I am today and I do not find it problematical hide my true ideological agenda from everyone else. To all I know I am a moderate right-winger and not a resistance fighter. It isn’t easy to reach this level of mental comfort and focus while at the same time working on something so important and serious. You have to overcome difficult initial psychological challenges and perform a slight subsequent mental check every single day until the operation is complete.

...Learning the ability/rituals to motivate yourself and being able to follow this ritual on a daily basis is perhaps the most essential aspect of our armed resistance effort in phase 1. One of the reasons why Muslims are so effective at guerrilla warfare is that they keep themselves motivated by praying five times a day and reciting motivational Suras from the Quran.

Chillingly, Breivik describes in a lot of detail all of the plans he made before this attack, and even streamlined it so that a single person could mount such an attack with only 30 days of preparation.

Ultimately, it is a sickening document, but it would be a lot easier to swallow if Breivik had penned a rambling mess. The problem is that is is not a psycho in the normal sense: he is a very intelligent person and some of his political analysis is actually on target. His writing shows nuance, not something one would expect from an extremist. He cuts down neo-Nazis nearly as much as he attacks those on the Left.

If there is any point in the work where he crosses the line from a political analyst to a budding terrorist, it might be where he sets out the Christian justification for a new Crusade. He writes that "Pope Urban II and Pope Innocent III granted indulgence to all future Crusaders (martyrs of the Church)" and that "Crusading is not just a right, but a duty according to Canon Law." Ironically, he uses Christianity in exactly the same way Muslims use Islam to justify terror, even using legal language - almost like a Christian version of a fatwa. Beyond that, he justifies his sins (such as visiting prostitutes) in order to keep his mood up for the upcoming attack, reasoning that the ends justify the means.

The open question is: did he cross the line into becoming a terrorist because of his religious beliefs, or would it have happened anyway? As the first quote above shows, he uses a utilitarian argument to justify killing many to save far more; but he later uses his Christian beliefs to more starkly justify his reasoning. The parallels of his Christian terror to Islamic terror are hard to miss - but on the other hand there is a tradition of secular Arab terrorism as well.

As far as I can tell, the media has been harping on his political beliefs more than on his religious beliefs. That may be a mistake. However, while it may be attractive to dismiss him as a religious nut, that may be oversimplifying the situation. The ultimate justification for the attack seems to be based on his perception of Christian theology, but he may have done it no matter what, and found justification for his evil anyway.

That's the part that is so frightening - the ability of someone who is not obviously insane to plan an act of such unimaginable evil.

Evil can spring from anywhere. It is not a right or left issue, it is not exclusive to any religion or belief. And it means that we must all be responsible for watching out when people do cross that line, and to stop them in time.

231 injured in Cairo protest; Imam tells secularists to leave Egypt

How's that Arab Spring coming along?

From Al Masry al Youm:

At least 143 peoplewere injured in Cairo’s Abbasseya district on Saturday when thousands of demonstrators fought opponents with stones after marching to the Defense Ministry to urge their military rulers to speed up reforms, the Health Ministry said.

Central Security and military forces cordoned protesters in Abbasseya, while residents threw stones and molotov cocktails at them.

About 5000 people marched from Tahrir Square to the Ministry of Defense headquarters in Abbasseya to demand the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF), which has been ruling the country since February, set up a clear timetable for handing power to an elected civilian government.

A protester told Al-Masry Al-Youm that at least two activists, Amr Gharbeia and Alya el-Husseiny, were kidnapped by a group of thugs.

“We heard that the thugs are going to hand in the two activists to a police station near Abbasseya,” he said. Al-Masry Al-Youm could not independently verify the claims.

Military forces fired shots in the air to disperse protesters as they reached the area. People in the area threw stones at protesters, which injured scores of them.

The number of injured rose to 231 later in the evening.

Meanwhile, an imam called all Egyptian secularists to leave the country:

Arguments broke out between Jama'a al-Islamiya members, Salafis and others at the Fateh Mosque on Friday over the shape of the future Egyptian state.

Jama'a al-Islamiya members drove those defending a secular state out of the mosque at the end of the argument.

Abdallah Darwish, the mosque's imam, criticized proponents of the secular state, saying they should leave the country if they do not want it to be an Islamic one that adopts Islamic law. “Grow that secular seed outside Egypt. Since we were young, we have learned that this is an Islamic state.”

Saturday night open thread

Haven't had one for a while, so...here it is.

Palestinian Arabs using archaeology "to rewrite history"

AP has an article on an archaeological dig in Shechem (Nablus):

Archaeologists unearthing a biblical ruin inside a Palestinian city in the West Bank are writing the latest chapter in a 100-year-old excavation that has been interrupted by two world wars and numerous rounds of Mideast upheaval.

Working on an urban lot that long served residents of Nablus as an unofficial dump for garbage and old car parts, Dutch and Palestinian archaeologists are learning more about the ancient city of Shekhem, and are preparing to open the site to the public as an archaeological park next year.

The project, carried out under the auspices of the Palestinian Department of Antiquities, also aims to introduce the Palestinians of Nablus, who have been beset for much of the past decade by bloodshed and isolation, to the wealth of antiquities in the middle of their city.

Then comes the good part:

In Israel, archaeology, and especially biblical archaeology, has long been a hallowed national pursuit traditionally focused on uncovering the depth of Jewish roots in the land. For the Palestinians, whose Department of Antiquities was founded only 15 years ago, the dig demonstrates a growing interest in uncovering the ancient past.

The department now has 130 workers and carries out several dozen rescue excavations every year on the sites of planned building projects in areas administered by the Palestinian Authority, said Hamdan Taha, the department's director. Ten ongoing research excavations are being conducted with foreign cooperation.

All of the periods in local history, including that of the biblical Israelites, are part of Palestinian history, Taha said.

"Palestinian history" predates "Palestinians?" How can it be considered "Palestinian history" if the residents of the lands were not related to today's Palestinian Arabs? Do Jews claim that uncovering pre-Biblical treasures is part of the history of Israel? It's important, to be sure, but Israeli archaeology - despite the claims of its detractors - is populated by people who are dedicated to uncovering the truth, whether it seems to support or go against the biblical narrative. To call any ancient findings "Palestinian history" is to grotesquely mangle the meaning of the word.

This is an obvious attempt to minimize real history, and especially Jewish history, in the land and instead push a narrative of an ancient "Palestinian people" who never existed.

But don't take my word for it:

Digs like the one in Nablus, he said, "give Palestinians the opportunity to participate in writing or rewriting the history of Palestine from its primary sources."

Ah, archaeology gives today's Palestinian Arabs the opportunity to rewrite history. Got it.

(h/t Dan)

Israel taking on Silicon Valley (The Telegraph)

Nice:

Despite only being 64 years old, and constantly in a state of political turmoil, Israel is fast becoming known in technology circles, as the world’s second Silicon Valley and as a ‘start up nation’ – now also the title of a successful book by Dan Senor and Saul Singer, charting the country’s successful and often unknown tech story.

This prowess in technology has resulted in leaders and high profile figures from around the world to make regular visits to the small embattled state to see the start up nation in action. Earlier this month for instance, the Lord Mayor of the City of London, Alderman Michael Bear,flew into Israel in order to promote the UK’s capital as the best place for Israeli’s to list their companies and to find out about opportunities for UK based fund managers to invest in Israeli technology businesses.
Seeing the start up nation in action, so soon after returning from Palo Alto – the home of the original Silicon Valley, I was impressed by the same high levels of innovation, concentrated into one small area and a similar set of cash rich and investment-hungry venture capital firms waiting on the sidelines for the next golden egg.
Company after company presented to us, a small band of international journalists, many showing a different solution to a problem people often don’t yet know they need solving.
Stand out technology companies included: Waze – a mobile navigation app updated in real-time, Playcast – an on demand gaming service delivered via TVs without a games console, and JustAd TV, an advertising service which allows adverts to be dropped into time-shifted viewing.
However, where the Israeli ‘Silicon Valley’ differs to the original Californian version, is in the amount of consumer technology products being created.
I saw a lot of middleware and chip companies while on my tech tour, which definitely all fell into the business to business category.
According to Yonatan Sela, vice president of marketing of Tvinci, a pay TV on-demand platform, because of Israel’s small size, (7.7 million) and it’s rather unique inability to do business with its direct neighbours for political reasons, it’s difficult to grow a consumer technology business in Israel.
“Building a consumer brand is much harder to do outside of a big market like the US. It’s definitely very difficult to do in Israel as the population is so small that growing and scaling a consumer brand is tough. Plus we can’t rely upon the brand then to catch on with our immediate neighbours. This is why business to business solutions we can provide via technology and then sell aboard, is more commonplace."
However, Gilad Japhet, the founder and chief executive of MyHeritage, a popular social networking site for families and is a rare example of an Israeli consumer web company, thinks the focus on technology solutions for businesses is indicative of the country’s culture and expertise.
“Israelis are incredibly good at problem solving. They are trained to never accept barriers and always try and solve an issue – no matter how difficult it is. This makes Israel very strong in technology. However, Israelis are typically not good when it comes to finesse and creating slick user interfaces for the normal consumer. This leaves a shortage of business to consumer start ups in Israel as people here usually like to solve digital issues for businesses but not the consumer…I think Israelis are drawn more to algorithms and the back end stuff.”
There is also a trend happening across the country's technology start ups which is helping to create a more stable and dependable business sector. Entrepreneurs are slowly moving away from the ‘fast exit’ which Israeli founders of technology companies had become known for. Increasingly these technology businesses are being built for the long term, hoping to ape and eventually rival the giants of Silicon Valley.

Syrian protests keep getting bigger as media coverage shrinks

Syria just isn't in the news as much as it was a couple of months ago - but the protests against the Assad regime keep getting bigger.

Today, in Hama, hundreds of thousands making a huge human Syrian flag:

Thousands in Latakia:

Thousands in Edleb:

Deir az-Zour:

Homs:

There are protests in dozens of Syrian cities today. And people are getting killed.

This is not the time for the media and politicians to lay off - it is time to step up.

Ilan Grapel to remain in Egyptian jail for another 45 days

A South Cairo court has ruled to keep Ilan Grapel in jail for an additional 45 days as the Egyptian government continues to look for evidence that the openly Israeli tourist was really a secret Mossad agent.

Grapel has already been in custody for some five weeks. Efforts by the US to free him have not been successful.

Meanwhile, Hamas leader Mahmoud Zahar announced that Egypt has nothing to fear from Hamas - but rather from Israeli spies like Grapel. He says that the reports that Hamas helped spring prisoners during the uprising were false and said that "we do not interfere in the affairs of Arab countries at all."

Golden bell that may have been worn by Second Temple Kohen Gadol discovered

Amazing:

Archaeologists have unearthed what they believe to be a golden bell belonging to the High Priest from the period of the Second Temple.

While conducting an archaeological dig in Jerusalem's City of David, members of the Israel Antiquities Authority were astonished to find a rare golden bell with a small loop at its end.

Archaeologists Eli Shukron and Professor Ronny Reich of Haifa University, who are leading the excavation, said: “The bell looks as if it was sewn on the garment worn by a man of high authority in Jerusalem at the end of the Second Temple period [1st Century B.C.E.]."

That man of high authority is assumed to be none other than the High Priest. Archaeologists have surmised that the bell may have fallen while he walked through Jerusalem's main street, near Robinson's Arch [an ancient entrance to the Temple Mount]. They believe the bell may have fallen into the drainage canal below.

The bell was discovered in the city’s main drainage canal from that period, unearthed between layers of dirt that had piled up on the floor of the channel. The drainage canal was built and hewn west to the Western Wall of the Temple Mount, carrying rainfall from different parts of the city, through the City of David and the Shiloah Pool to the Kidron Valley.

Jewish sources say that the high priests who served in Jerusalem's Holy Temple did indeed hang golden bells on the edges of their coats. The book of Exodus, for example, describes the coat of Aaron, the high priest, as containing “bells of gold.”

Exodus 28:31-34:

And thou shalt make the robe of the ephod all of blue. And it shall have a hole for the head in the midst thereof; it shall have a binding of woven work round about the hole of it, as it were the hole of a coat of mail that it be not rent. And upon the skirts of it thou shalt make pomegranates of blue, and of purple, and of scarlet, round about the skirts thereof; and bells of gold between them round about: a golden bell and a pomegranate, a golden bell and a pomegranate, upon the skirts of the robe round about.

UNRWA threatens to shut down in Gaza over protests

From CRI:

A United Nations agency taking care of Palestinian refugees threatened Thursday to suspend all its activities in the Gaza Strip if people did not end a series of protests against the organization.

"We are thinking to stop our operations completely in a week" if the protests against the UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) continued, said Chris Gunness, spokesman for the UNRWA.

Dozens of people have blocked gates of the UNRWA headquarters in Gaza City for the second day because the agency suspended some of its relief programs.

Gunness stressed that it is unacceptable for the protests to develop in this way.

The UNRWA says their basic services, mainly health and education, are still being offered normally, and the suspension targeted other programs such as temporary employment.

The UNRWA attributes the crisis to a lack of funding, noting that the donor countries did not meet their obligations.

The protests are sponsored by Hamas, the Islamic movement that controls Gaza. Hamas refused the UNRWA's threats to stop the operations and called on the protestors to continue their sit-in around the agency's headquarters.

Comments at Palestine Press Agency are defiant, saying that the UN could "go to hell" because it is a Zionist agency anyway.

Hey, if UNRWA doesn't want to be there, and Gazans don't want it to be there....

Lies, damn lies and J-Street surveys

Yesterday, J-Street came out with a poll saying that Jews are still more pro-Obama than leaning towards Republican candidates, even though that support has eroded.

The general outline of that result is probably mostly true, but another of the survey questions - regarding J-Street itself - shows how the wording of a question can influence the answer.

Here is how the press release described the poll result that J-Street clearly wanted to uncover:

Efforts to prevent Jewish critics of Israeli government policy from participating in Jewish community events directly contradict the beliefs and values of most American Jews. When asked if groups like the JCC or Jewish Federations should allow Jewish organizations that publicly criticize certain Israeli government policies to participate in events sponsored by the Jewish community, 79 percent responded that they should allow these groups to participate.

This belief holds steady (77 percent) when presented with J Street’s perspective about opposing policies like settlement expansion in the West Bank and with J Street’s critics’ perspective that J Street’s criticism undermines Israeli security and that “just calling itself pro Israel does not make J Street pro-Israel.” Notably, these results are very similar among Jews who belong to a synagogue (74 percent think J Street should be allowed to participate) and Jews who do not belong to a synagogue (79 percent think J Street should be allowed to participate).

Do 77% of Jews believe that J-Street belongs inside the "big tent" of Jewish organizations?

Here's how the general question was phrased:

Do you think Jewish community organizations such as local Jewish Federations and JCCs should allow or not allow Jewish organizations that publicly criticize some Israeli government policies to participate in events sponsored by Jewish community organizations?

Should allow 79%
Should not allow 21%

It is a generic question, designed to appeal to Jewish sense of fairness. Of course everyone supports multiple viewpoints and of course it is possible to be critical of specific Israeli policies while remaining inside the mainstream of the American Jewish community. But at some point, "criticism" goes beyond the pale - and the survey question does not attempt to identify where that line is.

On J-Street specifically, the question bias is stark:

As you may know, there is a Jewish organization called J Street which calls itself the political home for pro-Israel, pro-peace Americans.

J Street supports Israel and its right to defend itself, and believes that it is acceptable to criticize some Israeli government policies, such as expansion of Jewish settlement in the West Bank.

Opponents of J Street say that an organization which criticizes Israeli policy undermines Israeli security, and that just calling itself pro-Israel does not make J Street pro-Israel.

Do you think Jewish community organizations such as local Jewish Federations and JCCs should allow or not allow J Street to participate in events sponsored by Jewish community organizations?

Should allow 77%
Should not allow 23%

Keep in mind that most American Jews are not so involved in politics to have ever heard of J-Street, or to care too much about it. So the first sentence subconsciously defines J-Street for them by saying it is "pro-Israel, pro-peace" - concepts that everyone agrees with. That sentence frames the next two sentences.

The next sentence states, as a fact, that J-Street supports Israel and its right to defend itself - without defining what that means. They mention one specific Israeli policy they disagree with, but don't say (for example) that they support the US cutting aid to Israel based on that position.

The third sentence does not state anything as a fact - but as a claim. Opponents say something, but it is not established as fact the way the previous sentence described J-Street. So while J-Street is defined by the question itself as being pro-Israel, it says that its opponents only say that it is not.

Not only that, the characterization of what J-Street's opponents believe is framed as a generic attack against any organization that is even mildly critical of Israel, subtly putting J-Street in a broad category of a group of organizations that criticize some specific aspects of Israeli policy while inherently being broadly supportive of Israeli policy.

Now that the question has thoroughly defined the parameters, the person being surveyed is primed to answer the way J-Street desires.

To make it clearer, here is another way the question could have been phrased:

As you may know, there is a Jewish political organization called J-Street.

J-Street claims to support Israel and its right to defend itself and says that it only criticizes some Israeli government policies. It would like the US to reduce aid to Israel unless Israel adheres to this American political organization's concept of what Israel should do.

Opponents of J-Street note that J-Street has lobbied for the US not to veto anti-Israel UN resolutions, and that both the Israeli public and government are overwhelmingly against J-Street's political positions as being dangerous to Israeli security.

Do you think Jewish community organizations such as local Jewish Federations and JCCs should allow or not allow J-Street to participate in events sponsored by Jewish community organizations?

How do you think that American Jews would answer that question?

J-Street's biased question could even be used to describe "Jewish" groups that support boycotting Israel. Which shows even more starkly how badly that question was written, and how you cannot believe survey results based on press releases by the organizations that issued the survey to begin with.

Nicely edited video of Bibi's Congress speech

I ran across this from JerusalemOnlineU; it is well done:

Links!

Sultan Knish offers Outraged Protest Tours of Israel!

CiFWatch observes their favorite reporter trying her damnedest to spin Israeli actions in Gaza to her tastes.

Raed Salah is putting more fake gravestones in Jerusalem, in their ongoing attempt to grab land.

Al Qaeda is working on a cartoon to recruit kids to terror.

Is Assad now trying to inflame sectarian tensions to keep in power?

Israelis aren't happy that a McDonald's opened at Masada. (I made a point to eat at a kosher Israeli McDonalds once, and it was perhaps the worst burger I ever ate.)

A former pro-Palestinian Arab activist starts to see the light.

Malaysia's Utustan newspaper gets called out for its anti-semitism.

Walter Russell Mead gives a good definition of anti-semitism.

Victor Shikhman has two excellent pieces about BDS and Israel.

The ridiculous "Mossad spy" story from New Zealand.

60,000 tourists expected in Israel this year who are Arabs from the territories!

Muslim taxi driver in England shouts "All Jewish children must die." Outside a Jewish school.

Marty Peretz on the fashionable hostility towards Israel.

Challah Hu Akbar notes that Israel is the worst genocidal state ever!

Heavy metal and belly dancers - as improbable a pair as Israelis and Arabs.

Here's an IDF video (in French!) that seems designed to make heads of Israel haters explode into tiny little fragments, much like the suicide bombers they support: Worth sending to everyone who was pro-flotilla.

(h.t DWM, deegee, Israel Muse, Yoel, Firouz, Serious Black, jzaik, JW, Silke, DG)

The latest Pew poll on global attitudes mirrors what we have seen in the past.

Ratings of Jews are dismal in the seven predominantly Muslim nations surveyed. About one-in-ten (9%) Muslims in Indonesia, and even fewer in Turkey (4%), the Palestinian territories (4%), Lebanon (3%), Jordan (2%), Egypt (2%) and Pakistan (2%) express favorable opinions of Jews.

Arab nations also overwhelmingly believe that Judaism is a violent religion:

In the Arab countries surveyed, large majorities of Muslims who say some religions are more prone to violence consider Judaism to be the most violent religion; 97% in Jordan, 93% in Egypt, 88% in the Palestinian territories and 77% in Lebanon share this view.

Outside of the Arab world, more than half of Muslims in Indonesia and Pakistan who say some religions are more violent also cite Judaism as the most violent (56% and 54%, respectively). In Turkey, however, slightly more say Christianity is the most violent religion than name Judaism (45% vs. 41%); in 2005, when the question was last asked, more than twice as many Turkish Muslims named Christianity as the most violent religion as named Judaism (46% vs. 20%).

And, as time passes, fewer and fewer Muslims believe that 9/11 was done by Arabs!

When asked about the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, few among the Muslim publics surveyed believe these acts were carried out by groups of Arabs. The highest percentage who believe that Arabs were culpable for the 9/11 attacks is found in Lebanon, where 28% of Muslims believe this to be true, with roughly comparable numbers of Sunni (31%) and Shia (26%) agreeing on this point. A similar proportion of Israeli Muslims (27%) also say groups of Arabs conducted the attacks.

In the other predominantly Muslim countries surveyed, fewer than one-in-four Muslims accept that Arabs conducted the attacks on New York and Washington 10 years ago. Pakistanis and Turks are the most skeptical, with just 12% and 9%, respectively, saying that groups of Arabs carried out the 9/11 terrorist acts.

In several of the Muslim nations for which there are trends, skepticism has grown since 2006. Among Jordanians, the percentage of Muslims who believe Arabs were responsible for the terrorist acts has fallen 17 percentage points, compared with five years ago. Over the same period, the percentage of Muslims in Egypt who accept that groups of Arabs carried out the attacks has declined 11 points, while in Turkey it has shrunk by 7 percentage points. In the case of Indonesia and Pakistan, opinions on the matter have changed little since 2006.

(h/t CHA, Zach N)

Stuff you can buy in impoverished Gaza

Yesterday we looked at the opening of the new Andalusia Mall in Gaza City. But we didn't get a good idea of the kinds of goods one could buy there.

So, thanks to Palestine Times and Demotix, here are some of the goods that you can pick up the next time you are in Gaza:

I am always astonished at how Gaza businessmen can invest so much in products that everyone knows nobody can afford. And somehow they not only stay in business - they keep opening up more stores!

Jokes during the 1973 Middle East crisis

The State Department just released a 1278-page document of meetings and memos relating to the Middle East from 1969-1976, many of which center on events leading up to, during and following the Yom Kippur War.

It is a really fascinating historical record.

To whet your appetite, here are some of the jokes mentioned in the archive.

May 7, 1973 - meeting between Brezhnev, Gromyko and Kissinger in Zavidovo, Russia.

Brezhnev: Let us turn to an easy question now, the Middle East. Let us send Dr. Kissinger to the Middle East for two weeks.

Gromyko: President Nixon and I will write out a brief lucid instruction, and it is done with.

Kissinger: You know the story of the scorpion whowanted to cross the Suez Canal. He asked a camel if he could ride on his back. The camel said, “If I do and you sting me, I will be dead.” The scorpion said, “I will drown also, so you have every guarantee.” So the camel took the scorpion on his back and they started across. In the middle of the Canal the scorpion stung the camel and as they drowned the camel asked, “what did you do this for?” The scorpion said, “you forgot this is the Middle East.” [Laughter]

Gromyko: Very good.

Brezhnev: I have heard a different version, a scorpion—on the back of a frog. And the frog said, “That is just my nature!”

Kissinger: There is a story about an Arab lying in his tent trying to take an afternoon sleep. There were a lot of children making a lot of noise. So he told the children, “In the village they are giving away free grapes and you should go there.” So the children went away to the village. It got very quiet. Just as he was falling asleep he said to himself, “You idiot, what are you doing here if they are giving away free grapes?” So he went to the village. [Laughter]
So I think it would take three weeks.

Brezhnev: Three! Since this is the evening of jokes, I will tell you one.

Kissinger: I was hoping to trigger you—you are much better at it.

Brezhnev: Sometimes in our negotiations something happens that applies to Jackson. Two Jews meet. One asks, “Abraham, why are you not going to Israel? You applied for a permit and everything seemed to be settled.” The other replied, “Some goddamn fool wrote an anonymous letter on me alleging I am not a Jew.” [Laughter]

So with the communique´ we still have time, and Mr. Nixon can still take a look at it. The experience of the Moscow Summit shows it can be done.

Sonnenfeldt: Kornienko and I spent all night on it.

Brezhnev: Is not that a pleasant way? Let me tell you another story: Two Jews meet: One asks, “Abraham, did you hear that Isaac’s dacha burned down?” Abraham says, “So what, it is none of my business.” “It is really none of my business either,” the first one says, “but it is pleasant nonetheless.”

San Clemente, June 23, 1973 (minutes of meeting)

Dr. Kissinger noted that paragraphs 5 and 6 were agreed. At this point, he called attention to the fact that a paragraph from the May 1972 principles had been dropped. It was the one which read, “The agreements should lead to an end of a state of belligerency and to the establishment
of peace.” He explained that we had dropped it because there was reference to “final peace” in the new paragraph 1. We felt that it was not needed.

Foreign Minister Gromyko said he would like to keep that paragraph. It was more favorable to Israel. It might facilitate negotiation. The Foreign Minister asked whether he was being “too pro-Israel.”

Dr. Kissinger joked that this was because of the large Jewish population in the Soviet Union. The Foreign Minister acknowledged the quip.

Damascus, December 15, 1973 - Kissinger and Assad

Assad: If we are to suppose there are such secure borders, history shows we are in the need of secure borders if anyone. Why should secure borders be at the expense of Syria. Let secure borders be at Galilee if anywhere. Under what logic should secure borders be at the expense of the population of Golan. Why should the line of danger be closer to Damascus than Tel Aviv? The distance from the ’67 border to Damascus is 80 kilometers; the distance from the ’67 border to Tel Aviv is 135 kilometers.

So why should they want secure borders. If the idea behind it is to keep danger away from both capitals, why not?

Kissinger: You will be in trouble if they move their capital to Haifa.

Assad: In that case we will move our capital to Koneitra. As to Egypt, we have to take into account its rate of population and that it will soon be 50 million.

Kissinger: I am not condemning it. I made a joke.

Jerusalem, December 16, 1973: Kissinger, Golda Meir, Moshe Dayan and others:

Dr. Kissinger: Asad I thought would be difficult.2 We were reviewing the text of the draft letter to Waldheim on the convening of the Conference. I told him we wanted the date changed; he said, “Fine.” I said the Israelis had problems with the phrase about “the timing of the participation of others.” We discussed it a while, and then he agreed. I said, “Mr. President, I had been told you would be difficult to deal with. But you’re not.” Then he said there was one sentence in the letter he objected to—the sentence that said Syria agreed to come. [Laughter]
I said to him, “In other words, you don’t care about the date of the Conference because it doesn’t make any difference whether you don’t show up on the 18th or you don’t show up on the 21st?” He said, “That’s right.” [Laughter]

Prime Minister Meir: On that we agree with Asad.

Dr. Kissinger: No, he will come.

Mr. Sisco: They are briefing a delegation already to come.

Minister Eban: There are no Aluwites or Baath members in the delegation—so if he has to execute them, there will be no loss of party membership!

Jerusalem, December 17, 1973: Kissinger, Golda Meir, Moshe Dayan, Abbas Eban and more

Dayan: Have you got a concept about the U.N. forces? Because now it’s something provisional. When you go seriously into a permanent arrangement, the questions of guarantees and security zones come up. Who stands behind the Poles and the Finns? You can’t really rely on them. It is one thing if we have observers. Right now there is no difference between U.N. forces and U.N. observers. If one side violates it, they observe and send a note. It is very useful, but not quite enough.

Something very funny, the other day the Egyptians asked the U.N. forces to move a little out of the way so they could fire on us. The U.N. forces wouldn’t, so the Egyptians moved a little away. [Laughter]

They exercise functions like checking convoys, but otherwise they’re really only observing. If they are to be really a solid buffer, there has to be more agreement on permanence.

Geneva, December 22, 1973, Kissinger and Gromyko

Secretary Kissinger: The Arab world is very new to me, Mr. Foreign Minister. I’ve no experience with it.

Minister Gromyko: You never dealt with them before?

Secretary Kissinger: I have never been in an Arab country and never had much dealings with them. I frankly thought I could get through my term of office and let someone else do it. To be honest. Now that I have started, I will finish it and with enthusiasm.

Minister Gromyko: It is an extremely complicated world.

Secretary Kissinger: Extremely. And you can’t count on every word they say. [Laughter]