Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Tuesday, August 23, 2016

3 things you should never say (if you don't hate Israel) (Forest Rain)

Words matter.

Words are used to explain reality but they can also be used to shape reality, to create it. Sometimes exchanging a single word for another can change the picture entirely.

Personally I don't believe there is any neutrality on the issue of Israel. There are people who are uninvolved and not particularly aware of the facts (in addition to those involved despite having no knowledge of the facts). The point is, there are facts - historical, cultural and religious, well documented facts. These can be disputed (and they often are) but not in arguments based on actual facts.

The people who wish to destroy Israel are hyper-aware of the power words have in creating reality and are consciously using well-chosen terminology to delegitimize Israel. Words are carefully chosen and used over and over as a mantra, a marketing slogan, until the general public begins to accept the words as accurate labels with historical, factual value.

Americans my age were told over and over: "Milk. It does a body good." We heard it so many times, most people believe that milk is healthy, never considering that this message, designed by people wanting to sell milk, may not actually be true.

The words chosen in regard to Israel are specifically intended to disconnect Jews from our homeland, to diminish our history to the point where it can be completely disregarded.

And it is working.

Worse than that – people who love and support Israel are taking part in this, reinforcing and legitimizing it by participating in the narrative of the enemy.

Let's be very clear:

When you use the terminology of the enemy you empowering the enemy.

If you are using these terms you are strengthening and providing justification to those that hate Israel. You, who love Israel, agree with their concepts, accept their terminology and by extension, are helping to create a reality where their terms must be accepted.

1) West Bank

West Bank seems like an innocuous term however it is its seeming innocence that makes it so deadly. "West Bank" is a term that takes the Jordan River as a reference point i.e. the west bank of the Jordan River.

The territory that is subtly being appropriated is Judea and Samaria, the heartland of Israel. This is the territory in which most of the bible took place. Shilo, the first capital of Israel is in the center of this territory. The Tabernacle was in Shilo for 369 years, before it was brought to Jerusalem.

Shilo can be found easily by following the directions contained in the Book of Judges (21:19). North of Bet El, east of the road heading from Bet El to Shechem (which the Arabs call Nablus), and south of Levona. The connection between this land and the Nation of Israel is very well documented.

The territory became disputed when it was conquered and occupied by the invading Jordanian army in 1948. When Israel was attacked in the 1967 Six Day War and had the temerity to actually win, regaining her ancient heartland and freeing Jerusalem it became popular to attempt to delegitimize this through terminology.

In reality calling Judea and Samaria the West Bank, as if this land is part of Jordan, is no better than saying "the occupied territories." Can one really "occupy" their own home?

The war that the Arabs lost with soldiers and tanks is now being fought with words.

2) Wailing Wall

This commonly used, highly offensive term is an ancient form of delegitimizing Jewish history by diminishing Jewish anguish at the loss of the ancient Jewish Temple, destroyed by the Romans in 70 CE.

This is the term of non-Jews who occupied Israel, ridiculing the pain of the Jews who stood weeping at the Kotel, the Western Wall, which is the only wall left standing of the ancient Temple in the heart of Jerusalem.

During the period of Christian Roman rule over Jerusalem (ca. 324–638), Jews were completely barred from Jerusalem except to attend Tisha be-Av, the day of national mourning for the first and second Temples, and on this day the Jews would weep at the holy site. The term "Wailing Wall" was thus almost exclusively used by Christians, and was revived in the period of non-Jewish control between the establishment of British Rule in 1920 and the Six-Day War in 1967.

This derogatory term mocks the pain of the Jewish people, as in "there go those Jews, weeping again."

Damn straight. We have much to mourn and weeping is a reasonable reaction to deep, painful loss. Would you mock a child whose mother was murdered in front of him? Would you ridicule the child who always remembered and mourned the loss of his mother? The Temple was the heart of the Nation of Israel, the center of the Jewish religion and culture. The Jewish people have not forgotten this and standing next to the Kotel, the Western Wall of the Temple that once stood on the Temple Mount in the heart of Jerusalem is a poor substitute for what is supposed to be there, for what was once there.

Kotel is the word used in Hebrew which simply means "Wall". The choice of this term is indicative of the importance of the structure in the Jewish mind – this one remaining wall is so significant that it is not necessary to detail which wall is being mentioned, it is THE Wall. It is not the Wall itself that is holy, it was the Temple and what stood at its center that was holy. 2000 years, exile and many terrible experiences along the way, have not been enough to make the Jewish people forget the importance of the Temple. The Wall has grown in significance because it is all that remains of the Temple, because of that it is precious.

"Western Wall" is a factual description of the Wall. The Kotel is the western wall of the Temple and it is perfectly reasonable to describe it as such. The "Wailing Wall" is an offensive term, used to belittle and diminish the Jewish people and our connection to Israel and Jerusalem. If that is not your goal, don't use that term.

3) Palestine

The most effective media stunt in the history of the world, Palestine is a term used for one goal: to wipe Israel off the map.

Palestine is a name given to the Land of Israel for the sole purpose of disconnecting the Jewish people from Judea, from Israel, from Zion. This was done in the 2nd century CE, when the Romans crushed the revolt of Shimon Bar Kokhba (132 CE), and gained control of Jerusalem and Judea which was renamed Palaestina in an attempt to minimize Jewish identification with the land of Israel. After World War I, the name “Palestine” was applied to the territory that was placed under British Mandate; this area included not only present-day Israel but also present-day Jordan. Leading up to Israel’s independence in 1948, it was common for the international press to label Jews, not Arabs, living in the mandate as Palestinians.

Words give meaning and form to reality, thus names are of vast importance. It is obvious that Jews belong in Judea, but who belongs in Palestine?

Palestine is and always was, a politically motivated name. It is a name that is meant to denigrate and destroy the Jewish connection to her homeland. Arab “Palestinians” are a nationality invented to facilitate and justify cleansing Jews from Israel.

If you will – calling Israel, “Palestine” is the original hate speech.

Before the Final Solution was formulated, Hitler wanted to send the Jews "home to Palestine." At the time there was no question regarding where the Jews belong. Now Jews in Israel are being told to "go home" to Europe. We are being told that we are occupiers of a land called Palestine, that we have usurped a people called the Palestinians.

This insidious lie has taken root within the world culture to the point where many nations around the world have recognized the existence of a Palestinian people and even declared there to be a country called Palestine. The fact that this is a modern day invention meant to REPLACE Israel is completely ignored.

The historical facts are indisputable. There have been Arabs in the region for centuries. There are Israeli Arabs, Jordanian Arabs, Syrian, Lebanese and Egyptian Arabs. There are Arabs in Gaza and Arabs in Judea and Samaria. There are Muslim Arabs and Christian Arabs.

(There used to be Jews in all the same areas, before it became necessary for Jews to flee Arab ruled lands.)

There never was a Palestinian people. This modern day invention based on the geographical territory Palaestina was created for the sole purpose of undermining Israel.

And it is working.

The Palestinian myth has taken root in the political arena, leading many to assume that with the right leadership, a country called Palestine can live peacefully next to Israel. The Two State Solution places Palestine instead of Judea and Samaria, the heartland of Israel, the territory that is or historical and religious connection to this land. The assumption that this is a reasonable or even feasible solution ignores the Arabs in Jaffa, Akko and Haifa that consider themselves "Palestinians." It is Arabs throughout Israel who are dreaming of a new land instead of Israel.

When a place called Palestine replaces Judea, it will be possible for "Palestinians" to replace the Jews.

The Arabs that never accepted the existence of the Jewish State, who lost all the wars they waged against Israel and the Jewish people are winning the war of ideas. They are winning because people like you and me are adopting their terminology and accepting the concepts and reality being constructed by those words.

Words matter. Choose wisely.

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

08/23 Links Pt1: Glick: Soros’s campaign of global chaos; How the UN Enables Massacres

From Ian:

Caroline Glick: Soros’s campaign of global chaos

As far as Israel is concerned, Soros-backed groups work to delegitimize every aspect of Israeli society as racist and illegitimate. The Palestinians are focal point of his attacks. He uses them to claim that Israel is a racist state. Soros funds moderate leftist groups, radical leftist groups, Israeli Arab groups and Palestinian groups. In various, complementary ways, these groups tell their target audiences that Israel has no right to defend itself or enforce its laws toward its non-Jewish citizens.
In the US, Soros backed groups from BLM to J Street work to make it socially and politically acceptable to oppose Israel.
The thrust of Soros’s efforts from Ferguson to Berlin to Jerusalem is to induce mayhem and chaos as local authorities, paralyzed by his supported groups, are unable to secure their societies or even argue coherently that they deserve security.
In many ways, Donald Trump’s campaign is a direct response not to Clinton, but to Soros himself.
By calling for the erection of a border wall, supporting Britain’s exit from the EU, supporting Israel, supporting a temporary ban on Muslim immigration and supporting the police against BLM, Trump acts as a direct foil to Soros’s multi-billion dollar efforts.
The DCLeaks exposed the immensity of the Soros-funded Left’s campaign against the foundations of liberal democracies. The “direct democracy” movements that Soros support are nothing less than calls for mob rule.
The peoples of the West need to recognize the common foundations of all Soros’s actions. They need to realize as well that the only response to these premeditated campaigns of subversion is for the people of the West to stand up for their national rights and their individual right to security. They must stand with the national institutions that guarantee that security, in accordance with the rule of the law, and uphold and defend their national values and traditions.

How the UN Enables Massacres

The Syria Campaign, an advocacy group, has put together a meticulous report arguing that the United Nations has hopelessly compromised itself by agreeing to the Syrian regime’s terms and filtering money and aid through the Syrian government. The Executive Summary minces no words:
By choosing to prioritize cooperation with the Syrian government at all costs, the UN has enabled the distribution of billions of dollars of international aid to be directed by one side in the conflict. This has contributed to the deaths of thousands of civilians, either through starvation, malnutrition-related illness, or a lack of access to medical aid. It has also led to the accusation that this misshapen UN aid operation is affecting – perhaps prolonging – the course of the conflict itself.
Alas, this is absolutely true. The real tragedy is that the UN’s decisions and compromises were eminently foreseeable. After all, Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon is simply following the precedent established by his predecessors Kofi Annan and Boutros Boutros Ghali, and their dealings with Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, alas, with the same exact results.

Arab world freaks as photo of Tunisian singer with Israeli officer spreads

A Tunisian singer has been receiving withering insults after a photo of him with an IDF officer from the COGAT unit has spread through social media.

Saber al-Rebai, a famous Tunisian singer, posed for this photo after he crossed over the Allenby Bridge from Jordan to the West Bank to perform in a concert in Rawabi. The IDF's COGAT unit coordinates such crossings.

Rebai was forced to go on TV to explain what happened and to insist that he is against normalization with Israel, and in fact he supports the Palestinians wholeheartedly.

He said on his Facebook page that as he crossed over from Jordan, a person in a uniform he didn't recognize introduced himself in Arabic as "Hadi" and said he was responsible for keeping him away from Israelis.

Yes, Rebai is really claiming that.

He then released a flurry of photos and videos showing him with Mahmoud Abbas and wearing a keffiyeh during the concert to show how much he loved Palestinians.

He concluded his Facebook message by saying that "to visit the prisoner doesn't mean normalization with the jailer."

It is interesting to contrast the unrelenting hostility that the Arab world has to the very idea of appearing friendly with any Israeli to the COGAT logo itself:

In the zero-sum mentality of the Arabs, if Israel wants to be friendly than friendship itself becomes a source of intense shame.

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

Jews attacked by Arabs while visiting holy site without IDF protection

Throughout Judea and Samaria, Israel places signs warning Jews not to travel down certain roads because it is dangerous:

A few years ago, some Israeli leftists from a group called "We do not obey" decided that these signs were racist because they depict Palestinians as dangerous terrorists. So they covered some of these signs telling Israeli civilians that they are welcome to visit the friendly Palestinian population:

As +972 reported at the time:

“We got really good reactions from Palestinians wherever we went, and people told us they feel like the original signs portray them as would-be murderers to be careful of,” Rivka Sum, one of the activists in the group, told +972. “One person said that every day when he comes home from work and drives by that sign, he is immediately depressed by the thought that Israelis reading it might think of him as a blood-thirsty cannibal or something.”

In a Haaretz column (Hebrew) author, translator and one of the founders of the group, Ilana Hammerman, stated that putting up the signs was also for the benefit of Israeli drivers. “Fewer and fewer are those Israelis today who dare to acquaint themselves with this reality, with which their state’s fate is intertwined,” she writes. “We want people to know that these roads lead to the residences of human beings … to know that really it is the roads of military (enforced) segregation that lead to doom.” In their official statement the group added: “This is our way to express our protest against this method of threats and intimidation. The signposts that are supposedly for our ‘security’ violate the surrounding environment and their only purpose is to scare and to cause conflict between Jews and Arabs.”

Last night, a group of religious Hasidic Jews - not particularly known for their Zionism - attempted to test the theory espoused by "We do not obey." They violated Israeli law to visit Joseph's Tomb in Nablus.

Here's what happened:

An IDF force was rushed to Joseph's Tomb in Shechem yesterday, after an Israeli bus that entered the area of the Tomb without advance coordination was violently attacked by rioting Arabs.

The Arabs threw rocks at the bus, containing 60 Jews of the Breslov hassidic sect, as IDF forces quickly evacuated passengers from the scene.

A number of the passengers were injured from the rock-throwing and were treated at the scene. 32 of the Israelis were detained for investigation after they were successfully extricated from the scene. It is being checked whether the bus entered the premises with Palestinian license plates.

An Israeli medic on the scene noted that a 17-year-old Israeli youth was evacuated to Schneider Hospital with head injuries. His condition is defined as "light."

An IDF spokesman said, following the incident, "the IDF emphasizes that civilian entrance into 'Area A' [so-called 'Palestinian areas' of Judea and Samaria] is dangerous and constitutes a transgression of law."

Police also condemned the incident: "We see the incident tonight as very severe, uncoordinated entry [into the Tomb complex] without security is dangerous for both civilians and security forces coming to rescue them. Entry in to Area A without permission is a criminal offense."

This incident shows, yet again, that the Palestinians aren't protesting the presence of Israeli security forces, as they like to portray themselves. They attacked a bus-full of Jews for no other reason than because they are Jewish.

They weren't greeted with coffee and snacks, as anti-Israel Westerners love to pretend is the norm when they visit Palestinians.

They were greeted with rocks and rioting and threats to their lives.

The "We Do Not Obey" theory was tested. Everyone can see the results.

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

Abbas makes another threat, says Al Aqsa is a "red line"

During a Fatah Central Committee meeting on Monday, Mahmoud Abbas said "The Al-Aqsa Mosque is a red line."

What exactly he meant is unclear from the article, but a similar statement he made in June included some more detail:

Mahmoud Abbas said the Palestinian people are instrumental in the defense of Jerusalem and the holy sites, adding that the Al-Aqsa mosque is a red line - we will not allow daily attacks and violations by the occupation forces and settlers.

It appears as if he is saying that it is permitted to use any means to block any Jews from visiting the Temple Mount.

Funny - he said the same thing last year, two weeks before his people's murder spree started.

I guess it is only a matter of time before he invokes "filthy feet" again.

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

08/22 Links Pt2: World Vision: Eyeless in Gaza; France: "First the Saturday People, then the Sunday People"

From Ian:

Israel Thrives: Surprise, surprise. JStreet U officer supports Black Lives Matter platform on Israel

Tablet Magazine ran a few great takedowns of Black Lives Matter's platform as it concerns Israel. Unfortunately, they were followed by an article by Daniel May, a past Director of JStreet U, essentially saying that Israel's occupation policy is responsible for BLM's platform. While nearly every paragraph of May's deserves criticism, in particular his parroting of Haaretz's lies, I'd like to focus on his original sin. In the final paragraph, May writes:
Palestine will never advance so long as Jews deny the cost of Zionism. The Jewish nation’s independence was won only through the dispossession of another nation.
Everything in the case against "the Occupation" stems from the accusation the Jewish sovereignty was won by dispossessing another nation. From the dispossession narrative comes the "right to resist" which justifies Palestinian terror and, with such actions being justified, delegitimizes Israel's countermeasures. Hence we see the one-sided description from JStreet and their ilk.
To understand dispossession as it pertains to the "Palestinians," consider a counterfactual from American history. Suppose that when the Pilgrims came to Massachusetts (for simplicity, I will be using present-day names for places), the population of Indian tribes native to Massachusetts was small. However, just before then, a handful of tribes from Quebec had started migrating to Massachusetts and accelerated during the Pilgrims' lifetimes. Subsequently, the Pilgrims' descendants stopped the inflow from Quebec and imposed population controls on the Indian population in Massachusetts, affecting the Quebec tribes because they were the larger presence. Would such an action constitute dispossession for the Quebec tribes? Such is the case with the Palestinians.

Richard Millett: The Guardian provides a platform for Daniel Barenboim to slam Israel.

Last week Aditya Chakrabortty interviewed Israeli, or to be more accurate Israeli and Palestinian, conductor Daniel Barenboim for the Classical music section of the Guardian.
In his article headlined “Daniel Barenboim on ageing, mistakes and why Israel and Iran are twin brothers” Chakrabortty included political views which would have been more at home in an opinion piece than the Classical music section.
Barenboim conducts the West-Eastern Divan Orchestra, a mix of Israeli and Arab musicians, which played at the London Proms last week prompting a 5 star review by the Guardian’s Andrew Clements. The review was delightfully free of politics.
Barenboim’s interview with Chakrabortty goes into how and why the Orchestra came together in the first place, the perfectionist that Barenboim is, how hard he works his musicians and questions whether the Orchestra is actually achieving anything positive.
Then the interview enters its gratuitous political mode. After describing the insults Barenboim received after playing Wagner, the Nazis’ favourite composer, in Israel Chakrabortty writes
“For his part, the musician has called the Israeli occupation of Gaza and the West Bank “immoral” and backed a boycott of the Israeli government.”

Michael Danby MP: World Vision: Eyeless in Gaza

Australia - All. up Halabi says he diverted 60 per cent of World Vision’s Gaza budget to Hamas for six years. Costello is waiting to see the evidence, which is fair enough. But if it’s true, a latterday Philistine exploited World Vision’s tunnel vision and rendered it as blind as Samson, ‘eyeless in Gaza’.”
But worse for World Vision is yet to come. The U.S. Government gifts World Vision $200 million per annum. Can you imagine what American congressional committees will do when they require or subpoena World Vision to give public testimony on whether U.S. Taxpayers money has been misspent on subsidising Hamas to build extensive concrete tunnels into Israel?
Professor Steinberg concludes in his Wall Street Journal article “World Vision’s failures in Gaza highlight the problems of a multibillion dollar NGO industry that remains largely unregulated and unexamined. With so much money involved, including private and public funds, and given the stakes in environments of terrorism and guerrilla warfare, the need for transparency, accountability and detailed guidelines is clear. If the officials who run organizations such as World Vision aren’t willing to take the lead, then the governments that contract out their aid budgets must act.” The Wall Street Journal, 11 August 2016
I hope, against hope, but I doubt that these revelations will lift the mote from Tim Costello and World Vision’s eye about good and evil in the Middle East.
No-one wants to stop aid to those who need it, but the blindness to terrorists diverting aid for their evil purpose will give government and individual donors to those charities good reason to insist on a genuine accounting of every dollar and shekel they claim to have spent on the welfare of the people of Gaza and the West Bank. Until that happens, World Vision, and others who are eyeless in Gaza, will be rightly shunned by responsible Western governments and even happy idealistic optimists who support them in favour of more responsible and accountable charitable and foreign aid causes.

During my visit to Israel, I had the opportunity to ask Ambassador Alan Baker, an expert on international law, if he could summarize his position on the legality of Israel's presence in Judea and Samaria.

We've noted most of the arguments before but it is nice to have them confirmed.

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

In response to EoZ’s criticism of the pronounced anti-Israel bias reflected in Macmillan’s World Regional Geography textbook, the prestigious publisher has declared its willingness to take the “comments very seriously” and to inform the authors, Lydia Mihelic Pulsipher and Alex Pulsipher. This is certainly welcome news; however, I’m afraid that there are some very fundamental problems in the textbook’s treatment of Israel and Palestine as one of the “worrisome geopolitical situations” in the Middle East.

In fairness, it should be noted that it is of course very difficult to treat a long-running conflict that has been attracting so much attention and media coverage for decades in just a few pages. But it is noteworthy that the advertisement for the book emphasizes:

“Alone among books for the regional geography course, Pulsipher and Pulsipher’s World Regional Geography humanizes geographical issues, showing how larger geographical forces affect the lives of individuals and communities around the globe.”

In the case of the section on Israel and Palestine, the authors obviously decided to “humanize” the Palestinians, who are depicted right at the outset as the victims of Israel:

“Israel’s excellent technical and educational infrastructure, its diverse and prospering economy, and the large aid contributions (public and private) it receives from the United States and elsewhere, have made it one of the region’s wealthiest, most technologically advanced and militarily powerful countries.

The Palestinian people, by contrast, are severely impoverished and undereducated after years of conflict, inadequate government and meager living […] often in refugee camps. Through a series of events over the past 60 years, Palestinians have lost most of the lands on which they used to live.”

So we have Israel, which receives “large aid contributions … from the United States and elsewhere”, and the Palestinians, who – due to “a series of events over the past 60 years” – are reduced to eking out a “meager living … often in refugee camps.”

Given that Israel and Palestine are presented as one of the “worrisome geopolitical situations” in the Middle East, there is plainly no reason whatsoever not to mention that the Palestinians have the political support of the Arab League and the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC); notably, the latter boasts of being “the second largest inter-governmental organization after the United Nations.” You just have to read through the first paragraph of the OIC’s “History” on its own website to find out that it was established “as a result of criminal arson of Al-Aqsa Mosque in occupied Jerusalem.” And you just have to read an article from yesterday to find out that up to this very day, Palestinians “recycle” the lie that a “radical Jew” set fire to Al-Aqsa Mosque in 1969. And it isn’t hard to find out that this lie is being widely promoted all over the Muslim world.

Which brings us to claims like: “the conflict between Jews and Palestinian Arabs” has always been – and continues to be – “less about religion than control of land, settlements and access to water;” or like: the “second intifada … was primarily fueled by the expansion of Israeli settlements.” These claims are presented as facts, but one could literally fill a book (if not several volumes) with material documenting that in the Arab and Muslim world, the conflict with Israel has always been seen primarily as a religious conflict. It would actually be very important for a textbook that tries to explain “worrisome geopolitical situations” in the Middle East to acknowledge religion as a factor that has fueled the Arab/Muslim-Israeli conflict. That’s why, soon after taking power in Iran, Khomeini declared “Quds Day,” which is meant “to proclaim the international solidarity of Muslims in support of the legitimate rights of the Muslim people of Palestine.” And incidentally, that’s why the “second intifada,” which was supposedly “primarily fueled by the expansion of Israeli settlements,” is also known as the “Al-Aqsa Intifada.” And that’s also why Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas declared just last fall that Jews “have no right to desecrate the [Al-Aqsa] mosque with their dirty feet” – by which he meant to say that Jews should not be allowed to visit the Temple Mount.

Overlooking the political backing Palestinians have from the Arab League and the OIC also means overlooking the vast disadvantage Israel has in the UN, where, as Ben Cohen has explained so well, “a whole network of anti-Israel institutions and funding streams” created in the wake of the infamous resolution equating Zionism with racism has remained in place after the resolution was repealed in 1991; this institutional network continues to fuel anti-Israel initiatives and policies around the world. Why emphasize “large aid contributions” Israel “receives from the United States and elsewhere” while completely ignoring the considerable aid and leverage Palestinians enjoy due to the influence of the Arab League and the OIC?

And some related questions, particularly since the material refers to a video [154] with the title “60 Years After Israel’s Founding, Palestinians Are Still Refugees”: Why emphasize the Palestinian refugees created by the Arab and Muslim wars in response to Israel’s establishment while ignoring that the Arab states also proceeded to drive out the ancient Jewish communities all over the Middle East? Are there any explanations that there are Palestinian “refugee” camps in Palestinian-ruled Gaza and areas of the West Bank because Palestinian “refugees” are unique in the world since their “refugee” status is inheritable, and that they have a special UN organization that takes care of them and makes sure that they receive “the highest per capita [humanitarian] assistance in the world”?

And some more questions, given the repeated suggestions that Israel’s founding was a “nakba”, i.e. catastrophe for the Palestinians: what about the fact that (as I’ve explained previously) in late 1948, a group of Palestinian leaders officially asked for the incorporation of the West Bank into the Jordanian kingdom, and that Jordan annexed the area in April 1950? The annexation also meant that the people living in the West Bank — as the area was then named by Jordan — became Jordanian citizens. Anis F. Kassim, an international law expert and practicing lawyer in Jordan, explained in an interview published in February 2011 by the Electronic Intifada: “on 20 December 1949, the Jordanian council of ministries amended the 1928 citizenship law such that all Palestinians who took refuge in Jordan or who remained in the western areas controlled by Jordan at the time of the law’s entry into force, became full Jordanian citizens for all legal purposes. The law did not discriminate between Palestinian refugees displaced from the areas that Israel occupied in 1948 and those of the area that the Jordanian authorities renamed the West Bank in 1950.”

It was only in July 1988 that Jordan ceded its claims to the West Bank in favor of the PLO – using the opportunity to deprive West Bank residents of their Jordanian citizenship. As Kassim put it: “more than 1.5 million Palestinians went to bed on 31 July 1988 as Jordanian citizens, and woke up on 1 August 1988 as stateless persons.” (For the effects of Jordanian rule vs. Israeli rule of the area, see this excellent article from 2002 by Ephraim Karsh).

Given that from 1948 until 1967, West Bank Palestinians were apparently quite content to live in Jordan as Jordanian citizens, where exactly is “Palestine”? Specifically, what “Palestine” do Pulsipher & Pulsipher have in mind when they define “Zionists” as “those who have worked, and continue to work, to create a Jewish homeland in Palestine”? In the context of their overall presentation, this definition quite obviously suggests that there was a “Palestine” rightfully belonging to Palestinians that was – and continues to be – usurped by “Zionists.” It is also noteworthy in this context that Pulsipher & Pulsipher refer elsewhere to “the space in the eastern Mediterranean that Jews had shared in ancient times with Palestinians and other Arab groups.” I guess it depends on what you call “ancient times,” but for Jews, “ancient times” were most definitely long before there were any “Arab groups”, let alone any “Palestinians” in this particular “space in the eastern Mediterranean.” And incidentally, back then, this “space in the eastern Mediterranean” wasn’t called Palestine, even though Pulsipher & Pulsipher emphasize at one point that “the word Palestine” has “roots far back in history.” All in all, I cannot help but see this as a fairly transparent and completely unscholarly attempt to suggest some ancient Palestinian history while downplaying the real ancient Jewish history of the area.

Last but perhaps not least, a book on geography should arguably also provide a correct image of the actual extent of Israel’s settlements. However, Pulsipher & Pulsipher are content to parrot popular claims about the ever-growing settlements, even though facts are not hard to come by: as veteran Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat acknowledged grudgingly in an interview five years ago, “despite Israel’s continual policy of ‘occupation and settlement building,’ an aerial photograph provided by European sources shows that settlements have been built on approximately 1.1% of the West Bank.” Similarly, published estimates by settlement watchdog groups like Peace Now and B’tselem indicate that the settlements are taking up between 1.4-1.7 percent of the West Bank. Not all that much to show for more than four decades of relentless land grabbing and incessant settlement expansion.

Incidentally, in the same interview, Erekat also acknowledged “that former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert had offered a final peace settlement that would include territorial concession equivalent to the entire West Bank, the return of thousands of Palestinian refugees […], and the division of Jerusalem.” Yet, Palestinian President Abbas told the Washington Post’s Jackson Diehl in an interview about Olmert’s offer: “The gaps were wide.” Once again: so much for the idea that the conflict is primarily about “control of land, settlements and access to water” – particularly given that access to water is becoming less relevant in view of Israel’s advances in desalination programs.

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

08/22 Links Pt1: They hate Bibi but they know he’s right; Israel strikes 50 times in Gaza after rocket attack

From Ian:

JCPA: The PA, Based in Ramallah, Faces Opposition in Other Towns

As the Palestinian Authority prepares for municipal elections in October, the rift between Fatah and the official PA security forces is growing in Samaria towns. Nablus and Tulkarem have seen real battles in which both official PA security operatives and Fatah members have been killed.
In Nablus the tension has risen to even higher levels after the Al-Aghbar family of the Nablus casbah issued condemnations of the Palestinian security forces for, they claim, having “executed” their son, Khaled Abd al-Nasser, while he was a detainee in their hands after his release from an Israeli prison,.
According to the Nablus Facebook pages, the city’s main thoroughfares are strewn with fires.
Fatah Opposition to the PA
The question that arises, of course, is if the elections do take place, who in Nablus will vote for the pro-Ramallah candidates – if there are any? Who can stop the lists of candidates from Hamas and the pro-Iranian organizations, such as the Popular Front?
In Hebron, the clans are considering whether to draw up lists that are loyal to the city and the district, and not to Ramallah.
Fatah elements have expressed bewilderment as to why, given these gloomy prospects, PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas, who is also the supposed head of Fatah, is insisting on holding the elections.

Vic Rosenthal: They hate Bibi but they know he’s right

I’ve been reading Ha’aretz lately and listening to some of our left-of-center politicians, and it seems like they are living in an entirely different world than I am.
The usual piece starts off with an attack on Binyamin Netanyahu, each one trying to find a new angle. Ari Shavit tells us that he’s dishonest, he’s obsessed with his father, he hates Arabs, he will destroy the country, he is little by little crushing democracy, and on and on. Avraham Burg claims that Israel is becoming a dictatorship and refers to Iran and the Hamas terror tunnels as “some … Netanyahu phobia.” Phobia!
Former PM Ehud Barak claims that Netanyahu has made serious errors recently that have made Israel vulnerable to a “central security threat.” But he won’t say what, exactly, so we are waiting for it to leak. This from the guy that opened the door to the Second Intifada, and who allowed Druze IDF soldier Madhat Yusuf to bleed to death because he didn’t want to anger the Palestinians.
Most of these writers and politicians admit that Israel is doing well economically and that Bibi has made some serious diplomatic gains, with Turkey, the Sunni Arab states, several African nations, India, even China to some extent. They have to admit that there have been few wars during his years as PM, and they’ve been limited in extent. He has kept us from getting entangled in Syria, seems to have reached a modus vivendi with the Russians, and avoided the big one with Iran/Hezbollah.
They blame him for our bad relationship with the US. They might as well blame him for climate change too, but anyone with eyes can see that the Obama Administration – correctly viewing our PM as the main obstacle to realizing their goal of reversing the outcome of the 1967 war – has it in for him and for us as a result. That’s why they blame him for the PLO/PA’s refusal to even sit down to negotiate and why they tried to intervene in our last election.

The (Supposed) Right-Wing Israeli Fanatic Who’s Making Life Easier for the Palestinians

Avigdor Lieberman, Israel’s recently appointed defense minister, has a reputation as a hawkish right-wing nationalist. To those who know him solely by this reputation, it might be surprising to learn that his first major initiative regarding the West Bank has been to expand the access of Palestinians living in Areas A and B (under, respectively, complete and partial Palestinian Authority control) to economic opportunities in Area C, which remains under direct Israeli control. David Makovsky writes:
The eleven projects [the defense ministry announced last week], ranging from a medical facility to residences, will be carried out in locations adjacent to Areas A and B. While the projects may only occur in a limited geographic space in Area C, they certainly create an interesting precedent. . . .
This week’s move suggests that Lieberman, obviously with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s support, will back an emphasis by the Israel Defense Forces on taking stabilizing economic steps during a period of diplomatic stasis. In particular, the IDF has resisted pressure from the most right-wing forces within the Israeli government to reduce sharply [the number of] work permits granted to Palestinians in response to the wave of stabbings that began last October. IDF officials generally believe that any such overreaction will only worsen the situation, and they feel vindicated by the dissipation of the stabbings. . . .

The news media spins it this way: (from AP)

Slim majority of Israelis, Palestinians still favor peace deal

A new poll of Israelis and Palestinians released on Monday found that a slim majority on both sides still favor a peace settlement establishing a Palestinian state alongside Israel, despite years of conflict and deadlock in negotiations.

The results of the joint poll may provide some small signs of encouragement when peace prospects appear bleak. The last round of negotiations broke down two years ago, and a resumption of talks, much less progress between the sides, at this point seems unlikely.

The poll found that 51 percent of Palestinians and 59 percent of Israelis still support a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

But the reality is shown to be different once you look at the actual questions.

While the question about a two-state solution indeed shows that a slim majority of Palestinians support it, what is not being revealed is that they do not see that as the permanent solution.

Other polls have shown that they look at two-states as a stage on the way to destroying Israel. Unfortunately, this poll didn't ask that question. However, what it did show was consistent with that thinking.

It showed that Palestinians do not see a two-state solution as the end of the conflict.

The poll asked a series of specific questions about the parameters of any ultimate peace agreement. One question asked of Palestinians:

Mutual recognition of Palestine and Israel as the homelands of their respective peoples. The agreement will mark the end of conflict, Israel will fight terror against Palestinians, and no further claims will be made by either side. Support or oppose?

57.4% opposed ending the conflict based on the parameters of a basic two-state solution and only 40% supported it.

Interestingly, West Bank Palestinians were even more hawkish than those in Gaza. And 68% of Israelis supported an end to the conflict along those lines.

The headlines say that both Israelis and Palestinians want peace. But a basic analysis of the poll itself shows the truth: Israelis want peace, Palestinians want to keep the conflict going until their ultimate victory.

This is the fundamental fact missing from most analysis of the Israeli-Arab conflict. Palestinians do not want a real, permanent peace, only to grab what they can to stage the next phase of their goal to destroy Israel.

Most polls are written by people who do not even want to accept that as a possibility, so the question is not asked and the headlines can be written based on the very specific, yet ultimately inadequate, questions that were asked.

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

The Gaza target that Israel didn't hit

People are up in arms over Israel's largely symbolic airstrikes in northern Gaza yesterday - a reported 50 strikes that resulted in one minor injury.

Amnesty, for example, tweeted:

The IDF hit 50 separate locations in Gaza after 1 rocket was fired into #Israel. https://t.co/OaeP32pys5
— Amnesty Israel (@AmnestyIsrael) August 22, 2016

Most of the bombs, however, hit completely empty areas. Big bombs, targeting - desert.

It was symbolic. The entire point was to give a message that Israel holds Hamas responsible for rocket fire. It wasn't meant as an escalation - it was meant to preserve the status quo.

Hamas got the message loud and clear.

And the proof comes from one major target that would have been very easy for Israel to hit.

In southern Gaza Sunday evening, at the same time that Israel was bombing sand, Hamas held a major military parade celebrating the deaths of several major leaders killed two years ago during Protective Edge.

If Israel wanted to inflict damage, this would have been the place to do it:

Also, notice the UN vehicle passing by the Hamas parade.

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

A group of protesters have closed the main offices of the UN in Ramallah to protest the lack of support for a Palestinian hunger striker.

Bilal Kayed started his hunger strike when he was placed in administrative detention the day he was scheduled to be freed from prison after a 14 year sentence.

Other prisoners joined the hunger strike as well.

According to Arab media, Israel has said that the administrative detention was necessary based on evidence that Kayed intended to go back to terrorism upon release.

Kayed is a member of the PFLP terror group.

Palestinian protesters often target the very agencies who are the most on their side, thereby hurting their own people when they close the offices. They have closed UNRWA and ICRC offices recently.

In this case, the target was the United Nations Ramallah Common Premises, a large building where numerous UN agencies are concentrated. Since the UN has so many separate agencies working from its obsession with demonizing Israel, it decided to consolidate them to work in one building.

Ironically, only two days ago the UN has quite publicly criticized Israel for its use of administrative detention against Kayed specifically.

Once again, Palestinians are shooting themselves in the foot because they would rather blame any Westerners for their problems than to actually wonder whether it helps their cause to have so many terror groups freely operating under their noses.

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.