Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Sunday, May 21, 2017

The missed opportunity to move the embassy

It is now apparent that Donald Trump will not keep his oft-repeated campaign (and post-campaign) promise to move the US Embassy to Jerusalem.

The whiplash from Trump's statement on the even of his inauguration "You know that I am not a person who breaks promises" to his waffling only a week later to the apparent decision to not move the embassy at this time is in line with the chaos that the White House is engulfed in daily.

According to Haaretz, in a story that seems credible, the battle over the issue is mostly between Trump's close advisors and his cabinet.

There is an irony here.

The promise of a Trump administration was to throw out the old playbook and question the conventional wisdom. And on the Middle East, this strategy has not been too bad so far - Arab leaders, anxious to get on Trump's good side, have been far more forthcoming in showing flexibility than they were under Obama's regime. The Arab plan floated to improve relations with Israel in the absence of even a full settlement freeze is, in many ways, a vindication of Trump's eagerness to reset the playbook and to embrace a regional alliance between Israel and Sunni states.

Even Mahmoud Abbas has made cosmetic conciliatory moves that he would never have done under Obama, whom he saw as someone who would put all the pressure on Israel for him.

The narrative of Israel as an occupier and the inevitability of a Palestinian state has been shaken by Trump, who still has not as far as I can tell uttered the words "Palestinian state."

Which is why his caving on the Jerusalem embassy issue is so disappointing.

The idea that the Arab street would erupt if the US moves the embassy is just another vapor threat, and Trump's vacillating on the issue has emboldened those whose entire careers have been built on threatening the West with violence if they don't get their way. Like Palestinian liar-in-chief Saeb Erekat, who said yesterday “We believe that moving the US embassy to Jerusalem would mean the end of the peace process,”

The Green Line isn't the reason the US doesn't have the embassy in Jerusalem today. It is the longstanding and illogical US policy that Jerusalem itself is not part of Israel, a vestige of the 1947 partition plan where Jerusalem would be an international city under UN auspices, an idea which was dead already in 1948.

The Palestinian insistence on the issue is not based on international law or on anything real - just the old playbook of threatening violence when they don't get their way.

The willingness of Arab leaders to please Trump in the first months of his term was the exact time to make this move, to explode the myth of the Arab street once and for all.

Netanyahu is right that an embassy move would help peace. It would show that the US is not hostage to the threats of the Palestinians. An assertive stance from the beginning, instead of the early waffling, would have shut up the critics on this largely symbolic issue. Not moving the embassy shows the Palestinians that their old playbook of threats still works in Washington, which is the worst message that the Trump White House could ever give.

It was a missed opportunity by any measure.

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.

05/20 Links: Lumish: The Galling Hypocrisy of Jewish Trump Haters; UNESCO’s Jerusalem Lies

From Ian:

Michael Lumish: The Galling Hypocrisy of Jewish Trump Haters

There are a few reasons for this. One is the obvious hypocrisy of your position. You honestly do not care that Obama supported the Muslim Brotherhood despite the fact that the Brotherhood has been screaming for the genocide of the Jews since the time of Hassan al-Banna and Sayyid Qutb who wrote "Our Struggle Against the Jews."
Anyway, let's start a list and we can add to it each time that you spread around your toxic hatred.
1) Obama supported the Brotherhood.
2) Obama lobbied for UN 2334 which robs the Jewish people of our patrimony on the land of our ancestors.
And, for the moment, let's add:
3) Obama supported the empowerment of Iran and normalized their gaining of nuclear weaponry within the coming few years.
But the thing of it is since I know that Eron and the Haters are doing everything they possibly can to derail this presidency no matter what he does, it creates considerable sympathy in my heart for the guy.
So, I have to say, you're doing a terrific job.
I did not vote for either Trump or Hillary, but now I am beginning to wish that I had voted for Trump out of sympathy for the poor bastard due to the fact that poisonous wretches puke vomit on him on a daily basis.
From where I sit, by throwing such garbage at the guy continually you have essentially immunized him from criticism.
Congratulations.

The United Nations and the Palestinians

Book Excerpt: David Brog, 'Reclaiming Israel's History: Roots, Rights, and the Struggle for Peace'
There is one way in which the Palestinian refugees are unique. The United Nations has created a special organization for Palestinian refugees that both defines them differently and cares for them separately from every other refugee population on earth. In so doing, the international community has been a full partner in helping the Palestinian refugees preserve their status and nurture their grievances.
The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) is the body that cares for all of the world's refugees except for the Palestinians. The UNHCR defines a "refugee" as someone who is driven from "the country of his nationality" by a well-founded fear of persecution. This definition imposes two important limitations on the category it creates. First, refugees do not transfer this status with their genes: any children born to them in exile are not considered refugees. Second, refugees lose their refugee status as soon as they are granted citizenship in a new country.
After the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, the United Nations established a new organization dedicated exclusively to the Palestinian refugees: the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA). UNRWA defines a "Palestine refugee" as anyone who was displaced by the 1948 War plus the "descendants of Palestine refugee males, including legally adopted children." In other words, Palestinian refugees pass their refugee status to their children in perpetuity.
In addition, UNRWA continues to recognize a Palestinian refugee as such even if he or she has obtained citizenship in another country. For example, there are approximately two million Palestinian refugees currently living in Jordan. They are all counted as refugees even though over ninety percent of these individuals are full Jordanian citizens.

Who's Standing in the Way of Peace in the Middle East? Hint: It's Not Israel

The conventional wisdom about resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict goes something like this: "If Israel would just give the Palestinians land for their own state, there would be peace in the Middle East. Israel is the party standing in the way of lasting peace in the region."
United Nations ambassadors, world leaders, diplomats and even U.S. presidents have all touted a two-state solution as the way to bring lasting peace to the Middle East, and many repeat the familiar narrative that Israel is the main obstacle to that two-state, peaceful solution. But author David Brog says the problem with that narrative is that it's just not true.
Five times since 1937, Jews in the region have agreed to proposals to divide territory into two states – one Jewish, one Palestinian – living side-by-side in peace.
Every one of those offers has been rejected by Arab leaders.
The last land-for-peace offer was made by Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert in 2008, in which the Palestinians would have received 93 percent of the West Bank (Judea and Samaria) for a state, and eastern Jerusalem as its capital. That offer was flatly rejected by Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas.
Brog says it's time to set the record straight on this and other myths about Israel. He does that in a new book, Reclaiming Israel's History: Roots, Rights and the Struggle for Peace.

05/19 Links Pt2: Murray: The broadcaster brave enough to discuss Islamic violence; Amos Oz wants to talk

From Ian:

Douglas Murray: The British broadcaster brave enough to discuss Islamic violence

Last night Channel 4 broadcast a deep and seriously important programme. ‘Isis: The Origins of Violence’ was written and presented by the historian Tom Holland and can be viewed (by British viewers) here.
Five years ago, to coincide with his book ‘In The Shadow of the Sword’ about the early years of Islam, Holland presented a documentary for Channel 4 titled ‘Islam: The Untold Story’. That was something of a landmark in UK television. For while there had previously been some heated and angry studio discussions about Islam and plenty of fawningly hagiographic programmes about the religion’s founder presented by his apologists, here was a grown-up and scholarly treatment which looked at the issue as though there weren’t blasphemy police around every corner.
Sadly, part of the reception of that programme, and numerous events in the years since have kept such displays of scholarly truthfulness nearly as much of a rarity since as they were before. Which is one reason why Tom Holland deserves even more praise for returning to the subject of his earlier documentary.
And not just returning to it, but – in ‘Isis: The Origins of Violence’ – returning to the hardest part of that subject. In a nutshell he posed the question ‘Why do Isis, and groups like Isis, do what they do?’ And he answers this with the only honest answer anybody interested in truth could possibly come back with – which is that although they may be inspired by many things, their most important inspiration is a version of Islam whose roots can be traced to the origins of the religion, its foundational texts and the behaviour of Mohammed.

Response to Daniel Pipes: Why Palestinian Statehood Obviates Israeli Victory

With commendable daring, Pipes — an international scholar of repute — has opened up the mainstream discourse for the use of terms previously thought of as beyond-the-pale in “polite company.”
He unabashedly called for subjecting the Palestinians to “the bitter crucible of defeat, with all its deprivation, destruction, and despair” and does not shy away from prescribing that Israel “dismantle the PA’s security infrastructure…reduce and then shut off the water and electricity that Israel supplies…occupy and control the areas from which…gunfire, mortar shelling, and rockets…originate.”
This language is refreshing, beneficial and will contribute greatly to breaking up the semantic “logjam” that the tyranny of political correctness has imposed on the discussion of Israeli policy options. By dispelling semantic taboos that restrict open debate, the CIVC rhetoric can contribute greatly to a more robust and unfettered appraisal of such options.
Debating disagreement
Pipes concisely sums up the principal point of disagreement between us: “Sherman and I directly disagree on only one point — Israel accepting the possibility of a Palestinian state.” He goes on to speculate that “the allure of a state after the conflict ends offers benefits to both sides. Israelis will be free of ruling unwanted subjects. Palestinians have a reason to behave.”
He elaborates on the benefits he envisions emerging from the establishment of a Palestinian state, pursuant to an Israeli victory, writing that “when Palestinians do finally give up the fight against Israel, their centrality to the conflict will enfeeble anti-Zionism from Morocco to Indonesia.” He admits “[t]hat shift won’t happen instantly, to be sure,” but somewhat optimistically suggests that “sustaining a more-Catholic-than-the-pope position gets harder over time. A Palestinian defeat marks the beginning of the end of the wider Arab and Muslim war on Israel.”
I confess to a certain amount of surprise at encountering this view from someone as knowledgeable and well-informed as Pipes, for he appears to be embracing the unfounded thesis that Arab/Muslim enmity towards the Jewish state centers solely on the issue of self-determination for the Palestinian-Arabs.
Sadly, this is demonstrably untrue, or at least only very partially true.

Amos Oz wants to talk

It has been 50 years since Israel's glorious victory in the Six-Day War -- a victory that drastically changed Israel and flooded its discourse with the kind of spiritual, cultural and political energy that had not been seen here before. Author Amos Oz is an obvious spokesman for the camp that supports the division of Israel into two states, as he has been since the moment that war ended. Recently, Oz published his latest book, "Dear Zealot," which includes "three pleas" on the key issues that spark Israel's emotions.
I am well aware of the Right's hurt feelings over some of the very critical things that Oz has said and written over the years. Over the course of our conversation, however, I learned that he is also terribly hurt by the things that many in the Right have said about him. It is not the insults or the rage he elicits that hurt, but rather deeper sentiments. But before we delve into the heart of our conversation, I will say that in the current landscape of superficial news media discourse and amid the social media circus, it is comforting to know that there are other arenas for serious debate about our identity and our future.
My copy of Oz's latest book is interspersed with handwritten comments. I strongly urge my friends within the Israeli Right to read it and argue about it. Oz's curiosity about his rivals is an encouraging blast from the past. One of the socio-historical observations I have often written about is the current Left's loss of curiosity about its rivals on the Right, while the Right continues to actively study the Left and remains eager to argue. So Amos Oz invited me -- why would I refuse? (h/t Elder of Lobby)

From the World Economic Forum:

The World Economic Forum on the Middle East and North Africa will be held at the Dead Sea in Jordan on 19-21 May 2017, in partnership with the King Abdullah II Fund for Development (KAFD). The meeting will convene over 1,000 government, business and civil society leaders from more than 50 countries.

Reflecting the central role of Jordan in the region, and with the continued support and participation of Their Majesties King Abdullah II and Queen Rania Al Abdullah, as well as the Government of Jordan, the meeting will provide a collaborative platform for shaping the future of the Middle East and North Africa through public-private cooperation.

“If the hope is fulfilled that the region during the next months will have some kind of stability, it is essential to stimulate the economy through public-private cooperation to make any peace effort realistic and sustained,” said Professor Klaus Schwab, Founder and Executive Chairman of the World Economic Forum.

I can find no indication that Israel is part of this conference.

However much it might be accepted as just the way things are nowadays, it seems more than strange that an esteemed world body like the WEF could not make an effort to include an economic powerhouse like Israel that can contribute so much to the topics being discussed - especially since the Forum is being hosted by a country that Israel is at peace with.

The three conference focuses are:

1. To seize the innovation and entrepreneurship opportunities that are powered by the digital revolution. 2. To work with government and business leaders to create actionable solutions to accelerate economic reforms and build inclusive economies.3. Last (and just as crucial) is to support humanitarian efforts and diplomatic dialogue towards de-escalating conflicts and achieving a vision for shared stability.

How can WEF not invite Israel for this???

It is great to talk about normalization, but Israel needs to push to be included in these sorts of events. As the Arab world is already warming up to Israel and increasing under-the-table ties, the time is ripe for Israel to make efforts to be included. It makes Arab states realize that Israel is permanent, and there is nothing that can bring peace better than that realization.

And the WEF should be forced to answer why they would not invite Israel. The answer that "it angers the Arabs" never was an acceptable response, and even less so now as there is so much Israel can contribute to the topics being discussed - and the host is ostensibly at peace with Israel.

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.

05/19 Links Pt1: Glick: Trump and Israel: Enemies of the system; Jerusalem - The Eternal United Capital of Israel

From Ian:

Caroline Glick: Trump and Israel: Enemies of the system

The main thing that is not in dispute is that during his meeting with Lavrov, Trump discussed Islamic State’s plan to blow up passenger flights with bombs hidden in laptop computers.
It’s hard to find fault with Trump’s actions. First of all, the ISIS plot has been public knowledge for several weeks.
Second, the Russians are enemies of ISIS. Moreover, Russia has a specific interest in diminishing ISIS’s capacity to harm civilian air traffic. In October 2015, ISIS terrorists in Egypt downed a Moscow-bound jetliner, killing all 254 people on board with a bomb smuggled on board in a soda can.
And now on to the issues that are in dispute.
Hours after the Trump-Lavrov meeting, The Washington Post reported that in sharing information about ISIS’s plans, Trump exposed intelligence sources and methods to Russia and in so doing, he imperiled ongoing intelligence operations carried out by a foreign government.
The next day, The New York Times reported that the sources and methods involved were Israeli. In sharing information about the ISIS plot with Lavrov, the media reported, Trump endangered Israel.
There are two problems with this narrative.
First, Trump’s National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster insisted that there was no way that Trump could have exposed sources and methods, because he didn’t know where the information on the ISIS plot that he discussed with Lavrov originated.
Second, if McMaster’s version is true – and it’s hard to imagine that McMaster would effectively say that his boss is an ignoramus if it weren’t true – then the people who harmed Israel’s security were the leakers, not Trump.

Mordechai Kedar: The sun shone, the trees blossomed, and the butchers slaughtered

Bashar al-Assad is accused of burning bodies in a crematorium. The only new thing in this report is the disclosure that there is a crematorium operating in the Arab world. Up to now, we always thought that crematoria were peculiar to Europe, to be found in Auschwitz, Treblinka, Chelmno, Sobibor and the other death factories built by the efficient, refined and oh-so professional Nazis. Here in the Middle East, we thought, they murder in ordinary ways,shooting, slaughtering, beheading, hanging, strangling, drowning or throwing off roofs. But a crematorium? That's a new one.
In actual fact, a crematorium is not an instrument of murder. The unfortunates burned in a crematorium have already been murdered, probably by hanging,at least according to the reports leaked from Saydnaya Prison, known in today's Syria as "The Slaughterhouse." Burning the bodies is not meant to murder the victims, but to destroy the evidence of their murder. Turning bodies into ashes is an attempt to cover up the crime, wipe off the fingerprints, erase the marks of torture, and close the investigative file - because there are no bodies.
A crematorium is meant to eliminate the possibility of a grave for the dead person, to ensure that his name will not be engraved on a tombstone, to strangle the required questions about who killed him, where, how and most importantly - why he was killed. A crematorium is meant to allow its operator to be accepted internationally as a legitimate leader, a politician who survived and an equal among those who are "more equal than others," because there are no proofs extant of the Satanic evils for which he is responsible. They have gone up in smoke.
A crematorium can only be operated in a system that silences opinions, where only a select group makes the decisions and a small group of engineers executes them, while the day-to-day running of the system is in the hands of the victims themselves up until the day it is their turn to be eliminated and enter the evidence-destroying assembly line. This ensures that they will not leak information on what they have done and on what has been done to them by others who will themselves be eliminated the same way. (h/t Elder of Lobby)

JPost Editorial: Trump’s Kotel politics

The battles over the Western Wall reflect the traditional clash between the policy of the State Department and other parts of the US government which are more sympathetic to Israeli policy in Jerusalem. Since the UN Partition plan of 1947 called on Jerusalem to be part of a “special international regime administered by the United Nations,” the US has never recognized Israeli sovereignty in any part of the city. The first US ambassador to Israel, James McDonald, was instructed not to attend the opening session of the Knesset in Jerusalem in 1949. “If I were to go to Jerusalem to attend the function, that might be regarded as US tacit approval of the Israel claim to Jerusalem,” he recalled in his memoirs, My Mission in Israel 1948-1951. US policy has changed since then, but not in its overall rejection of Israeli rights to the Kotel. Since the Oslo period, the US has indicated it would be willing to move its embassy and recognize Israeli rights in Jerusalem if Israel signed a peace agreement with the Palestinians and the Palestinians agree to the changes in US policy. That gives Palestinians veto power over Israel’s rights to Judaism’s holiest accessible site in the world.
Trump’s visit should include a visit to the Western Wall even if he is not accompanied by President Reuven Rivlin or Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Trump is visiting Saudi Arabia and the Vatican, where he will make symbolic statements about Islam and Christianity, so it is fitting that he should also go to Judaism’s holy site.
When it comes to gaining official recognition for Israel’s rights to the Kotel from the US and the international community, Israel faces an uphill battle. The Palestinians and Jordan, which is a steward of the Islamic holy sites in Jerusalem, deeply oppose Israel’s claims and there is little prospect that any peace agreement will affirm them. Since the 1930s, Islamic activists have sought to reduce Jewish rights to the Western Wall, calling it an Islamic site. The hostile resolutions at UNESCO have also sought to reduce the Jewish connection to Jerusalem.
Against this onslaught Israel has very few allies in the international community that will affirm Jerusalem’s rights over the Old City or east Jerusalem, or even the Western Wall itself. That isn’t likely to change. But Israel can try to make inroads with allies such as Ambassador Haley and the administration to chip away at the iron wall the Palestinians have erected against Israel’s right to the Kotel.

Jerusalem - The Eternal United Capital of Israel

A Jordanian writer, Assad Aezzona, writes a bizarre rant in Alsaa.net about how Zionists are relentlessly attacking Jordan.

I seem to have missed the story, but he is referring to the Jews who are insulted that Jordan led the UNESCO resolution that denies any Jewish connection to Jerusalem.

What is funnier is that while he considers Zionists defending their capital to be a scurrilous attack on Jordan, he nonchalantly begins his article with an antisemitic stream of consciousness - but substituting "Jews" with "sons of Zion."

We say it again and again with evidence as solid as the mountains, it's not safe to coexist with the sons of Zion throughout history, and they proved it at all stages of their lives with their betrayals, [while we] gave them security and safety, they showed their hostility towards humanity through the lies of being God's chosen people, and that God the merciful created everyone just to serve them, and the fact that such heresies are found only in the Babylonian Talmud written by insane rabbis ...

Aezzona goes on to lots of unrelated topics, including claiming that it was Jordanian intelligence that was compromised by Trump in his meeting with Lavrov, not Israeli intelligence. Also that Jordan's king should have won the Nobel Peace Prize instead of Begin and Peres.

But he is very, very upset over "Zionists" attacking Jordan.

Previously, Aezzona has written that ISIS head Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi is a rabbi and that he looks forward to the final battle between Muslims and Jews.

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.

J-Street is very upset at UN Ambassador Nikki Haley for breaking with longstanding US policy and saying unequivocally that the Western Wall is part of Israel.

On their blog, they explain why - and this supposedly pro-Israel group supports the inexcusable position that all of Jerusalem is up for negotiation, not just the parts Israel liberated 50 years ago.

Despite repeated promises on the campaign trail, the Trump administration has, for the most part, taken a cautious approach towards the question of relocating the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. Yesterday, reports circulated that the Trump administration planned to hold off on the move for the time being. That’s wise and in-line with precedent. Presidential candidates often promise to relocate the embassy if elected, but to date, nobody has.

There’s a good reason for that.

The US has long maintained that Jerusalem is a final-status issue that must be resolved by the parties in the context of negotiations. It has refrained from any decision – like moving the embassy – that could signal that the United States has, in any way, prejudged the outcome.

US policy is clear. The United States – like nearly every other country – does not recognize the sovereignty of any party in any part of Jerusalem (East or West). It has never recognized the Western Wall as part of the state of Israel....Until a peace agreement is reached, Jerusalem’s status will remain in flux.

Polls of Americans a few years ago - not only American Jews, but Americans - show a strong preference for Jerusalem remaining the unified capital of Israel under Israeli control.

Should Jerusalem remain the undivided capital of Israel or should the United States force Israel to give parts of Jerusalem, including Christian and Jewish holy sites, to the Palestinian Authority? (Independent Media Review Analysis, September 2011)

	September 2011
Remain undivided	70.9%
Force/give parts	9.4%
Don't know/refused	19.7%

Do you believe that Jerusalem should stay entirely under Israel's control or that Jerusalem should be divided between Israel and the Palestinians? (The Israel Project)

		June 2011
Under Israel's control		50%
Divided		34%

Should Jerusalem remain as Israel's undivided capital in any peace agreement with the Palestinians? (McLaughlin & Associates, October 2010)

Yes	50.9%
No	20.4%

J-Street isn't only opposing what a majority of Jews want. They aren't only opposing what a majority of Israelis want. They aren't opposing what the majority of Congress wants.

They are opposing even what Americans want.

Because, by any measure, J-Street's positions are nearly indistinguishable from those of the Palestinian Authority and diametrically opposed to those of any conceivable Israeli government.

J-Street claims to be pro-Israel - but it wants Israel to negotiate Jerusalem, as if one's heart is negotiable.

The only thing remotely Jewish about J-Street is the sheer chutzpah they have to call themselves "pro-Israel."

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.

Nickolay Mladenov, UN Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process, tweeted yesterday:

I condemn the reported killing of a #WestBank #Palestinian by an #Israeli settler. Those responsible must be investigated and prosecuted
— Nickolay E. MLADENOV (@nmladenov) May 18, 2017

He condemns the act before he calls for an investigation into what happened.

Luckily, we have video.

The crowd allows the cars to move slowly through - until the Israeli's car enters the area (around 0:50.) . They surround him and he is forces to stop.

For about 20 terrifying seconds he is surrounded by screaming people kicking and hitting his car with sticks and stones.

Then, seemingly deliberately, an ambulance crosses over the median from the other side and blocks the Israeli car, leaving him a sitting duck. (His much smaller car would not easily be able to cross the concrete median himself, and of course there were more people there too.)

Desperate to get out of this situation, he moves his car forward through the crowd, hitting several, right up to the ambulance but cannot get around the new roadblock. The ambulance driver, instead of letting him pass to give them room to deal with the injured, leaves the vehicle only a second after the Israeli car is right next to it. The Arabs, even angrier, surround his car again, hitting his windows with sticks and throwing stones, before he apparently shoots his weapon, causing them to disperse. (It is possible that he shot the gun from his initial position and IDF tear gas dispersed the crowd, I'm not sure of the timing, but clearly he was in a desperate, life threatening situation before he fired his weapon.)

There is no way that the Israeli could have acted any differently. (He says he shot into the air. Presumably he shot after opening his window a crack, leaving him with little angle to shoot directly in the air, and that is how the stone-thrower was killed.)

Instead of calling for an investigation first, Mladenov emphasizes that the person who was about to be lynched was a "settler," implying that his life is worth less than anyone else's, a curious position for a UN official.

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.

05/18 Links Pt2: PA schools named after terrorists and Nazi collaborators; All 50 governors sign anti-BDS statement

From Ian:

50 Jerusalem Facts for the 50th Anniversary of Its Reunification

Israelis will celebrate the 50th anniversary of Jerusalem’s reunification on May 23-24 of this year. Leading up to the holy city’s semi-centennial milestone, here are 50 facts highlighting the rich tapestry of Israel’s capital:
Reunification
1. Jerusalem Day is an Israeli national holiday that commemorates the reunification of Jerusalem in the 1967 Six-Day War.
2. During the Jordanian occupation of Jerusalem, Jews were not allowed to access their holy sites, including the Western Wall.
History
3. Jerusalem has been attacked 52 times, captured and recaptured 44 times, besieged 23 times and destroyed twice during the past 3,000 years.
4. Israel is the only country to enter the 21st century with a net gain in its number of trees; you can enjoy some of them during a picnic or barbecue in the Jerusalem Forest.
5. The name “Jerusalem” most likely comes from “Urusalim,” a word of Semitic origin meaning “Foundation of Shalem (wholeness)” — or “Foundation of God.”

Rabbi Sacks on Jerusalem: The 50th Anniversary of Reunification (h/t Elder of Lobby)

As we approach Yom Yerushalayim (Jerusalem Day) on the 23rd / 24th May, and the 50th anniversary of the reunification of our beloved city, here are a few thoughts about what Jerusalem means to me. (This video includes captions in Hebrew. If you wish to receive an MP4 version of this video for use in your community, school or organisation on Yom Yerushalayim, please email info@rabbisacks.org and put 'Jerusalem 50 video' in the subject line.)

Thousands of Six Day War documents declassified

Israel on Thursday released thousands of previously classified official documents charting political decisions during the 1967 Six-Day War when it reclaimed Judea, Samaria, and eastern Jerusalem..
Made public by the Israel State Archives ahead of the 50th anniversary of the June 5-10 conflict, the 150,000 pages contain minutes of the wartime security cabinet and transcripts of other ministerial meetings, a government statement said.
At the end of the fighting with Egypt, Jordan and Syria the Jewish state was left in control of Judea and Samaria, the Gaza Strip, eastern Jerusalem, part of the Golan Heights and the Sinai Peninsula.
The publication gives access to unpublished information on the war, long the object of research and historical writing.
"For the first time in 50 years it will be possible to closely follow the dynamic within the government regarding the Six-Day War," chief archivist Yaakov Lazovik said in the statement.

In just the past month, at least two women were murdered in Rafah, Gaza alone. A man shot his daughter and a husband stabbed his wife to death in her sleep.

Times of Israel discusses the little-known loophole that allows Palestinian murderers of women to get off easy:

Despite a series of reforms to the Palestinian legal code since 2011 aimed at preventing so-called “honor killings,” the law has continued to allow men who murder, assault and rape women in the Palestinian territories to receive significantly reduced sentences.

Over the past half year, a petition initiated by Palestinian women’s rights groups has received over 12,000 signatures asking Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas to do away with the measure, which allows judges to use their discretion in cases that have “extenuating circumstances.”

Yet while the law’s effect on women is well-known and well-documented, neither canceling, freezing nor amending it is in the cards.

According to a legal adviser for the Palestinian Authority’s Women’s Affairs Ministry, the law is necessary to ensure justice in some cases.

...[I]n the majority of other such cases in Jordan and the Palestinian territories, the “extenuating circumstances” the judges cited to lighten the sentences were that the family dropped charges against the defendants — who are part of the family — saying it was an honor killing.

Once the charges are dropped — in Palestinian legal parlance this is called “dropping the personal right [of the victim]” — the judge can use Article 99 to lighten the sentence.

Palestinian women’s rights advocates have argued the law is a two-pronged dagger: it incentivizes murder by minimizing punishment and also incentivizes murderers of women to claim they killed for their family’s honor.

“We have documented cases where someone was killed over inheritance or financial issues but it was documented as an honor killing,” Victoria Shukri, director of the Women’s Courts Project in TAM, a women’s rights organization, told The Times of Israel in a recent telephone interview.

A 2014 United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights report found that the dropping of personal rights is most often the “extenuating circumstance” judges cite before granting clemency to abusers or murderers of women.

The UN report notes that Mahmoud Abbas supposedly modified the penal code to eliminate the exemption for "honor killings" - but Palestinian judges ignore the new language!

Moreover, the conflict of interest involved in the "waiving of right" exemption is simply ignored:

It is noted that Palestinian courts will in general
allow one of the heirs to the victim to waive their
personal right to punishment of the perpetrator
in cases of murder of women under the pretext of
honour, as a cause for extenuating punishment. This
is what a majority of the judgments of the courts of
first instance (Criminal) are based on, a matter that
is explicitly expressed by the Court of Appeal held
in Ramallah, in its judgment No. 54/2005, when it
concluded “jurisprudence shows that when one of
the heirs waives a personal right, this is a reason for
extenuation”. Therefore, one of the heirs can waive
their right and courts can extenuate the penalty for
the offender. This is the result in the vast majority
of the cases reviewed. Waiving the right was in most
cases done by a single person, be it the father of the
victim or her brother or mother.
In other words, the family that waives its right may be
taking advantage of the fact that the criminal offense
has been committed in defense of its own honour, as
claimed by the defense in most of these cases. The
courts have demonstrated no interest in looking into
conflict of interests or deliberate complicity in cases
where perpetrators had committed murder after
incitement by the family, as in felony No. 18/97 at
the Nablus first instance court, where the accused
had killed his sister following the urging of his family

Abbas' supposed declaring "honor killings" to be murder in 2011 has done literally nothing to help Palestinian women.

(h/t/ Josh K)

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.

Vic Rosenthal's Weekly Column

European history is full of wars, culminating in the massive eruptions of violence that characterized the first half of the 20^th century, which overflowed the boundaries of Europe to the point that they were called “World Wars.” These wars were responsible for an unimaginable amount of suffering. Whole generations of young European men were wiped out by WWI. About 61 million people, more than half of them civilians, lost their lives in WWII. Genocides were committed, entire cities erased from the earth.

After WWII, Europe and her allies responded to the trauma. They blamed nationalism, jingoism, militarism and racism. They came to distrust expressions of patriotism, and to dislike borders and barriers to free passage of people and goods. They decided to create a new world, one in which the forces that had led to the horrors of the 20^th century were suppressed, and in which reasoning and negotiation would replace war. They created the UN and its countless agencies; and they tried to unify Europe, first economically and then culturally, by means of the EU.

They tried to improve individual lives as well, to eradicate hunger and poverty, to provide free education to all, to reduce social and economic inequality, to ensure that everyone that could work could get a job and that those that couldn’t work would still have the necessities of life. The Dickensian conditions of the 19^th century would not return; a new humanistic, universalist, caring ethic would replace the social Darwinism of old.

Western society, it was thought, had to change. War was an unaffordable luxury in a world of machine guns, strategic bombing and now nuclear weapons and ICBMs. It was often said that a WWIII would bring about the end of civilized life (if not all human life) on the planet. The changes were seen as an evolutionary development in order to adapt to a new environment. Things had to change, or humankind would destroy itself.

But evolutionary changes brought about by environmental pressure can have unintended consequences. A genetic trait that offers protection against malaria and which became common in Africa for that reason, also renders people that have it susceptible to Sickle-cell Disease. And the evolutionary social and political change in Europe and to a lesser extent in America may have helped reduce some of the dangers that threatened civilization, but it also made Western society more susceptible to others.

One of those dangers is the Islamic jihad.

One definition of jihad is a struggle – which can be violent or non-violent – to establish Islamic rule and law (shari’a). Douglas E. Streusand explains:

For the jurists, jihad fits a context of the world divided into Muslim and non-Muslim zones, Dar al-Islam (Abode of Islam) and Dar al-Harb (Abode of War) respectively. This model implies perpetual warfare between Muslims and non-Muslims until the territory under Muslim control absorbs what is not, an attitude that perhaps reflects the optimism that resulted from the quick and far-reaching Arab conquests. Extending Dar al-Islam does not mean the annihilation of all non-Muslims, however, nor even their necessary conversion. Indeed, jihad cannot imply conversion by force, for the Qur'an (2:256) specifically states "there is no compulsion in religion." Jihad has an explicitly political aim: the establishment of Muslim rule, which in turn has two benefits: it articulates Islam's supersession of other faiths and creates the opportunity for Muslims to create a just political and social order.

The “quick and far-reaching … conquests” in the West were stalled in 1683 at the Battle of Vienna, when the troops of the Ottoman Sultan were stopped by the combined forces of the Habsburg Monarchy, the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth and the Holy Roman Empire. By then Islam had a firm foothold in parts of Asia, Africa and Europe, but as time passed the Islamic world began to lag behind the West militarily, economically and culturally. The long jihad had made Islam the second-most common of the world’s religions, and placed a large portion of the inhabited earth in Dar al-Islam (the abode of Islam, i.e., under Islamic rule), but its advance had ended – at least until recently.

Jihad need not be conventional warfare. It is possible to expand Dar al-Islam by war, but also by subversion, by demographic means – migration and reproduction – and by da’wa(proselytizing), which can be totally non-violent or include terrorism as a persuasive component.

The weakness of the West today has allowed the still smoldering Islamic jihad to rekindle itself. Every form of jihad can be found in action today: kinetic warfare in Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan (jihad can target “heretical” Muslims as well as non-Muslims); infiltration, subversion and da’wa, including terrorism, in the US; and of course demographic jihad in Europe.

In the US, the Muslim Brotherhood has had an elaborate plan for subversion and da’wa in place for several decades. It has infiltrated government agencies including those related to national security. Conversions to Islam spiked after 9/11, and the number of prison conversions has also increased (this phenomenon is also seen in other Western countries). There has been an increase in Muslim immigration to the US in recent decades, but of course it does not compare to the mass migration into Europe.

Dutch politician Geert Wilders called the flow of Muslims into Europe “a Tsunami” and the expression fits. In addition to the large number of immigrants, they tend to be younger and to have more children than the native Europeans. In Germany, the fertility of native Germans was 1.5 children per women in 2016, far below the replacement rate of 2.1, while foreign women living there had 1.95 children. Since the amount of immigration has very recently shot up (900,000 applied in 2015) we can expect that as these immigrants settle in they will have even more children.

Islamic terrorism in Europe has also made headlines recently, including high-profile mass killings in France, the UK, Germany, Sweden and Belgium. There has also been an increase in “misdemeanor terrorism” like harassment of Jews, much of it perpetrated by Muslims.

In the UK, outrageous behavior by Muslims (e.g., the Rotherham rape scandal) was allowed to continue for years because police and other officials feared being called “racist.” In another shocking case, thousands of women were sexually assaulted on New Year’s eve of 2016 in several German cities. Few of the perpetrators were prosecuted.

The massive migration into Europe was facilitated by the EU’s Schengen Agreement, which allows free passage between EU countries. Combined with liberal rules for asylum and lax enforcement, almost anyone could get to any country (rules have been tightened and enforcement improved to some extent). Europe’s walls were not breached; she voluntarily opened her gates. Germany, especially, welcomed migrants, many of whom passed themselves off as Syrian refugees with fake passports.

Unfortunately, the evolutionary changes in European (and, to a lesser extent, American) society after WWII have placed it at a disadvantage relative to the Islamic jihad. Jihadists are strongly dedicated to their cause, even in some cases prepared to sacrifice their lives in suicide attacks. Native Europeans, on the other hand, are less committed to their faith and to their nations. While some 72% of Europeans identify as Christian, this number is falling, with the influx of non-Christians and an increase in those who are becoming “unaffiliated.” Church attendance is low, and liberal religious leaders sermonize against “Islamophobia” rather than Islam.

Nationalism is associated with fascism, and criticism of Islamic ideology with hate speech, which is illegal in some countries and can be punished with fines or imprisonment. Thus European law is aligned with Islamic blasphemy laws! This is a particularly dangerous trend, which Richard Landes has named “Proleptic Dhimmitude,” defined as “taking on the requirements of dhimmitude in anticipation of Muslim rule.”

So what will be the outcome? Will unassimilated Muslim populations increase, along with terrorism, conversions to Islam, disrespect for liberal traditions, harassment of Jews and women? Will taboos against insulting Islam and Muslims continue to stymie the prosecution of Muslim criminals? Will European society find itself adapting to Islamic standards rather than the other way around? And ultimately will countries like the UK, France and Germany become shari’a compliant?

I believe that if current trends continue, the answer will be “yes.” But there is an alternative. It will require a serious shift in attitudes on the part of native Europeans. They were right to regret their 20^th century behavior, and right to try to ensure that it did not happen again. But they went too far when they denied their own national identities.

If they are to prevail over the jihadists, who know who they are and what they are fighting for, they will need to care about their own countries, their history, traditions and religions. They will have to be French or German first, and only then European (the British have already made this decision). They will have to re-embrace nationalism and patriotism, which are not the same as fascism. They will have to care more for their own people than for others, while still treating the others like human beings. They will have to control their own borders.

They will have to make the all-important distinction between the ideology of Islam and Muslim people, and emphatically reject the former while protecting the rights of the latter (and by “rights” I mean things like the right to live where one wants and not the “right” to not be offended). They will have to enforce the laws of their nations fairly.

They will have to learn that there are some things that aren’t open to negotiation, and some disagreements that can’t be settled by talking. They will have to maintain military forces just in case someone tries to take what is theirs by force.

Do the contributions of European civilization, Shakespeare, Mozart, Michelangelo, balance its mistakes, moral lapses and even heinous crimes, and justify its continued existence? Or ought it to join the Roman and Byzantine Empires, the Aztecs and all the rest in the dumpster of history?

The choice is in European hands.

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.

05/18 Links Pt1: WH: No Plans to Announce Embassy Move During Israel Visit; Cruz: Western Wall 'part of Israel' & Jerusalem Israel's capital

From Ian:

White House: No Plans to Announce Embassy Move During Israel Visit

The White House does not expect to announce plans to move the U.S. embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, despite President Donald Trump’s campaign promise to do so.
“There’s no planned announcement for the embassy on the trip,” a White House official told Breitbart News. The official however cautioned that the plan could change, pointing out that Trump “has his own mind and will make his own decisions.”
Trump’s U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley indicated on Tuesday that the capital should be in Jerusalem and that she saw the Western Wall as part of Jerusalem.
A White House source speaking to Reuters said that moving the embassy to Jerusalem remains a goal of the Trump administration, but that they do not want to complicate their goal of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.
The official signaled optimism about an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal, although the administration was “well aware” that many presidents had tried and failed to reach a deal.

Cruz: Western Wall 'part of Israel' & Jerusalem Israel's capital

Senator Ted Cruz, R-Texas, reiterated his position on the Western Wall and Jerusalem Tuesday, telling Conservative Review that the former is part of Israel and the latter remains its “undivided” capital.
The Texas senator’s statement follows statements from three separate Trump administration officials refusing to say whether the Western Wall in (Israel’s capital city of) Jerusalem is part of Israel. The wall is one of the holiest sites in Judaism, and it’s visited by thousands of Jews from all over the world each day.
“The Western Wall is part of Israel,” Cruz tells Conservative Review, “and Jerusalem is the eternal and undivided capital of Israel.”
Cruz has long pushed for the president and the past administration to make good on promises to move the American embassy in Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. In January, he introduced (along with Sens. Dean Heller, R-Nev., and Marco Rubio, R-Fla.) the Jerusalem Embassy and Recognition Act, which called for the relocation of the embassy.
“Jerusalem is the eternal and undivided capital of Israel,” Sen. Cruz said in January. “It is finally time to cut through the double-speak and broken promises and do what Congress said we should do in 1995: formally move our embassy to the capital of our great ally Israel.”

Unfazed by Western Wall row, Jerusalem mayor still expects Trump to move US embassy

Jerusalem Mayor Nir Barkat insisted Wednesday he is unfazed by US officials disputing or refusing to affirm Israeli sovereignty over the Western Wall, and said he still expects the Trump administration to move the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.
Four days before President Donald Trump is due in Israel for his first-ever visit, Barkat praised Russia’s recent recognition of Western Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, and said he expected more from the Americans. While it was legitimate for Trump to consult with all regional stakeholders before relocating the embassy, the mayor said that the president’s appointment of several top officials seen as staunchly pro-Israel indicates that he will ultimately order the relocation.
“I wouldn’t give too much value to a statement by a person anywhere in the world,” the mayor said, referring to reports that a US consular official stationed in Jerusalem told his Israeli counterparts during preparations for the Trump visit that the Western Wall is not Israeli territory but “part of the West Bank.”
“Everywhere you put a shovel in the ground there are Jewish roots. So we don’t need anybody to explain to us how the city was and will always be — Jewish, on one hand, but respectful of other religions on the other. I do think that the Trump administration understands that very well,” Barkat told journalists during a briefing on the sixth floor of City Hall.