Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Friday, July 22, 2011

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]

Bibi on Al Arabiya (video)

The full interview is to be broadcast today, but here are some excerpts:

In an exclusive interview with Al Arabiya in Jerusalem on July 19, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that Israel would not intervene with the Syrian revolution.

The Israeli Prime Minister said that Israel would like “the peace and quiet on the Israeli/Syrian border to be maintained” and that “the people, the young people of Syria deserve a better future.”

Here are excerpts from the interview, which was produced by Al Arabiya’s Current Affairs team, headed by Antoine Aoun. The interview will be broadcast in its entirety on Al Arabiya TV on Thursday:

NETANYAHU: Obviously showing enormous courage in the face of strong brutality, we don’t intervene with what happens in Syria. But we obviously would like to have peaceful relationships with Syria and we could only hope for a good future for the people of Syria. They deserve a good future. One of peace and one of freedom.

AL ARABIYA: Do you support the so-called revolution now in Syria?

NETANYAHU: You know anything that I would say will be used not against me but against the process of genuine reform that people would like to see in Syria. So we don’t intervene in Syria. But it does not mean we are not concerned. A) We would like the peace and quiet on the Israeli/Syrian border to be maintained, and B) I’d like to have that ultimately turned into a formal peace between Israel and Syria. And C) I think the people; the young people of Syria deserve a better future.

AL ARABIYA: Prime Minister, you just mentioned the peace along the borders of Israel and Syria, now some people would say that present regime of Bashar Al Assad and before him his father Hafez Al Assad in fact kept peace for about 40 years along those borders, to the extent that some people would say that the regime is indispensible from the point of view from Israel is that right?

NETANYAHU: No, no it’s not right. I mean, I hear people saying that in point of fact, we are not there to choose the next regime, the next government of Syria. I think it’s for the people of Syria to choose but, we didn’t have peace, we had a state of peace, no peace no war. Even though, you know several people tried including myself, in secret negotiations to try to move towards a formal peace. I think what has also disturbed us is that Syria supports and has supported Hezbollah and Iran and Lebanon. The people of Lebanon under five years ago wanted to have their Cedar Revolution. Iran took it away from them with Hezbollah and with Syrian supporters.

AL ARABIYA: The borders remain quiet?

NETANYAHU: They remain quiet after the second Lebanon war and I hope they remain quiet in the future.

AL ARABIYA: As a result of what’s happening in Syria now, do you think the effects might be reflected into a situation probably in southern Lebanon or in the borders between Israel and Syria?

NETANYAHU: Well, I hope not. I hope that no one in Syria thinks of having a distraction if I use that term to try and warm up in a bad sense, heat up the border between us. And I hope Iran or Hezbollah are not tempted to do this in order to shift attention away from what is happening in Syria. I think that would be bad for the people of Lebanon, bad for the people of Syria and bad for peace. I hope it doesn’t happen.

The Israeli Prime Minister then said that he is “willing to negotiate peace with anyone that’s willing to accept the right of his people and his country.”

NETANYAHU: We will always look for people who want peace. We will want always want peace, we don’t nullify people on their belief. But we do expect them in their world view to have a place for the State of Israel. If people say “you know the State of Israel shouldn’t exist, wiped off the face of the earth.” Iran or Hezbollah then there is not much of a place to go. If people have different views, we will listen to those views but I think that from two points of view. One from the internal Arab point of view; if people say we want democracy. Then ask all those that compete in a democracy to respect democracy. I think this is you can’t ask people to say all right we open a democratic doors who want to destroy democracy. The second is from my point of view: I’m willing to negotiate peace with anyone that’s willing to accept the right of my people and my country.
With regard to a Palestinian state, Mr. Netanyahu said that “everything is on the table” in regards to negotiations with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, on July 19.

Mr. Netanyahu said he is “prepared to negotiate with President Abbas for peace” in his home in Jerusalem or in Ramallah.

NETANYAHU: Six Israeli Prime Ministers, myself included have been negotiating and we all agreed to a Palestinian State. So why didn’t we have peace? Some of them, two of them made very generous concessions and we all recognize that we have to make difficult compromises for peace. I recognize it as that.

AL ARABIYA: Do these compromises include Jerusalem and Palestinian refugees?

NETANYAHU: You know that these issues will be brought up.

AL ARABIYA: So they are on the table?

NETANYAHU: Everything is on the table. But we need to get to the table and this is my point. The main point that I’m saying is we haven’t concluded a peace. Either because the Palestinian leadership did not want to get to the end, maybe they had reasons they didn’t want to get to the end of the negotiations. In my case and my frustration in the past two years, we can’t restart the negotiations. And I repeat what I said to you a minute ago is that this is the most important thing. I’m prepared to negotiate with President Abbas for peace between our two people right now. We can do it here in my home in Jerusalem, we can do it in Ramallah, and we can do it anywhere.

Mr. Netanyahu said that Israel is “not preventing the importation of goods, food, and medicine to Gaza.” He said that Israel is “concerned with Hamas, a terrorist organization, that fires rockets into Israel.”

NETANYAHU: We are not preventing the importation of goods, food, and medicine to Gaza. Anything can go through. The Gaza economy has grown by 25 percent in the last three months. It’s almost a world record. We are concern about having a naval approach to Gaza.That is naval access to Gaza because on a ship you can bring in the entire rockets fired into Israel. In one ship in the second Lebanon war. We don’t want those sea lines open until there is a regime in Gaza. That makes peace with Israel and doesn’t fire rockets into Israel. That is our concern but anybody can come into Gaza. If people want to free Gaza, then they should free it from this Hamas regime that doesn’t give the real freedom to the people of Gaza. We have no argument or battle with the people with Gaza. We are concerned with Hamas a terrorist organization that fires rockets into Israel. That we are concerned with. That is the only reason for a naval action.

(h/t Yoel)

Details from poll of Palestinian Arabs are not encouraging

The full results from the TIP poll reported on last week have been released.

For a lot of the questions, Palestinian Arabs show little enthusiasm. For example, while most support a unilateral declaration of statehood at the UN, most only "somewhat" support it.

They generally tend to be against sharia law as the main source for legislation, but feel Turkey is too secular.

They are not thrilled with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or Bashar Assad, and Hamas support is tepid at best. But their nostalgia for terrorists of the past is very high, saying they have very warm feelings towards Yasir Arafat, Abu Jihad and Dalal Mughrabi. The lowest marks in that question went to Binyamin Netanyahu, Israel, Jews, Barack Obama, Hilary Clinton and Shimon Peres.

Only19% felt good about a two state solution with a Jewish state and Arab state living side by side, while 59% liked the idea of one Arab state instead.

They support unity between Hamas and Fatah, even with the opinion that it would make peace less likely.

They tend to believe that the "nakba day" incidents in the Golan were not staged by Assad, but legitimately showed Palestinian Arab desire to "return."

While they say that peace with Israel is possible, most do not believe that Israel will exist in 25 years with a Jewish majority.

As previously reported, 67% of those who expressed an opinion stated that "The real goal should be to start with two states but then move to it all being one Palestinian state."

Given the choice of these pairs of statements:

Israel has a permanent right to exist as a homeland for the Jewish people - 7%
Over time Palestinians must work to get back all the land for a Palestinian state - 84%

I can accept permanently a two-state solution with one a homeland for the Palestinian people living side-by-side with Israel, a homeland for the Jewish people. - 30%
The real goal should to start with a two state solution but then move to it all being one Palestinian state - 66%

Homosexuality should be punished by law - 82%
Homosexuality should not be punished by law - 14%

A plurality, but not a majority, thought the massacre in Itamar was wrong.

A majority agree with naming streets after suicide bombers.

A majority support teaching songs in school about hating the Jews.

79% of those who expressed an opinion say it is right to deny that Jews have a long history in Jerusalem going back thousands of years, while 90% thought it was wrong to deny that "Palestinians" have an equally long history in Jerusalem.

89% oppose a Palestinian Arab state being demilitarized.

A majority oppose releasing Gilad Shalit, and a majority support his kidnapping.

"President Obama said there should be two states: Palestine as the homeland for the
Palestinian people and Israel as the homeland of the Jewish people. Do you accept or reject
that concept?" 61% rejected it.

92% say Jerusalem should be capital of "Palestine" only;only3% say it should be capital for both states.

A plurality thought that a third intifada (which most oppose) would be violent.

73% believe this statement from the Hamas Covenant:: "The Day of Judgment will not come about until Muslims fight the Jews, when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Muslims, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews."

80% believe this statement from the Hamas Covenant: "For our struggle against the Jews is extremely wide-ranging and grave, so much so that it will need all the loyal efforts we can wield, to be followed by further steps and reinforced by successive battalions from the multifarious Arab and Islamic world, until the enemies are defeated and Allah's victory prevails. "

62% believe in this Hamas statement as well: "When our enemies usurp some Islamic lands, Jihad becomes a duty binding on all Muslims. In order to face the usurpation of Palestine by the Jews, we have no escape from raising the banner of Jihad. We must spread the spirit of Jihad among the (Islamic) Umma, clash with the enemies and join the ranks of the Jihad fighters."

Some of their other answers seem to indicate an aversion to armed attacks and a desire for peace, but this desire is only when they think that there is no choice. The answers indicate that in their ideal world, there would never be compromise and Jews should have no political rights in the Middle East.

The corollary is that as long as they believe that Israel is strong, they are more likely to seek peace (or, more accurately, detente); if they believe that Israel will not exist for long, they are more likely to keep waiting for it to weaken rather than make peace now.

While they do not come off as supporting terrorism as much as in other previous polls, they also are shown to have very little desire to accommodate living alongside Israel if they believe that there is any other option.

Which means that the best kind of peace possible is one where Israel is unquestioningly strong and understood that it will not collapse. The belief that terror, or politics, might weaken Israel is the very formula to ensure that peace will never happen. Every Israeli concession that is perceived as a defeat pushes peace that much further away.

This is an extraordinarily important poll, one that goes way beyond others in ferreting out the true feelings that Palestinian Arabs have. It should be required reading by every politician, pundit and journalist who want to know the truth about how Palestinian Arabs think, rather than believing the pre-digested lies that are presented by those with an agenda.