Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Friday, September 20, 2019

09/20 Links Pt1: Caroline Glick: The strategic cost of Israel’s political instability; Armenia to open embassy in Israel by 2020; Hezbollah member arrested for scouting possible terror sites in New York, Boston

From Ian:

Caroline Glick: The strategic cost of Israel’s political instability

When Yisrael Beytenu Chairman Avigdor Lieberman abruptly resigned his position as defense minister last November and started the countdown to the Knesset elections in April, he plunged Israel into a state of political instability. Following the April elections, by refusing to serve in a government led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and so forcing Israel into a second election, Lieberman prolonged the instability he instigated.

Tuesday’s elections ended in deadlock. Neither major party can form a governing majority. And so, there is no end in sight for the instability Lieberman provoked and prolonged.

Israel’s prolonged political volatility and uncertainty have had a disastrous impact on Israel’s strategic flexibility. Indeed, it has induced strategic paralysis. Israel cannot respond in a meaningful way to threats or take advantage of strategic opportunities that present themselves.

The implications of this dire state of affairs were brought to bear twice in one day during the campaign. In a press conference last Tuesday, Netanyahu announced his intention to apply Israeli sovereignty to the Jordan Valley after the elections. Netanyahu’s announcement included the revelation that US President Donald Trump supports the move. American officials backed his claim after the fact.

This was a stunning development. No US administration has ever supported Israel’s right to assert its sovereign rights in Judea and Samaria without Palestinian permission until now.

But the media and Netanyahu’s political opponents on the left and right ignored this basic fact and instead derided his statement as nothing more than a cheap election stunt to rally his base.

In a way, they were right. After all, all Netanyahu did was make a promise. But it was due to Israel’s strategic paralysis that he had no other option.

Where did Bibi go wrong? - analysis

‘Six things does the Lord hate,” observed King Solomon, and “seven are an abomination unto him” (Proverbs 6:17-19). Three of those – “a proud look, a lying tongue,” and “him that sows discord among brethren” – add up to Bibi Netanyahu’s moral meltdown and political demise.

Pride made Israel’s longest-serving prime minister misjudge the mainstream electorate’s size, priorities and feelings, which under his sleepy radar traveled steadily from respect through doubt to wrath.

The social discord he sowed as a matter of ploy and habit needs no elaboration, nor does the “lying tongue” he deployed while libeling almost everyone, from judges and cops to the entire press.

At this writing it is too early to say that Netanyahu’s 37-year public career is over. It is not too early to say that a critical mass of the electorate this week announced the beginning of its end.

Having entered this election with 41 lawmakers (Likud’s 35, Finance Minister Moshe Kahlon’s four, and Moshe Feiglin’s equivalent of two) Netanyahu lost a fifth of this original electorate. Yes, in terms of parliamentary blocs we face a cloud that will take time to scatter, but on the personal level this poll produced a resounding vote of no confidence in a leader who lost touch with his nation and task.

NETANYAHU MISJUDGED the voters on three planes: the social, the institutional and the ideological.

Socially, he assumed that average Israeli Jews see Israeli Arabs as fair game. In his superficial reading of Israeli society – a binary us-and-them dichotomy between “the Left” and “the Right” – the former are ready to give “the Arabs” everything and for no price, while the latter trust not one Arab, will cheer any anti-Arab broadside, and will prize whoever delivers it.

Appeasement vs. incitement: two takeaways from the Israeli election

We don’t yet have a prime minister candidate, nor a clear path to a government. Both will take some time. But there are already valuable and useful lessons that have emerged from this week’s election.

The first relates to Israel’s Arab population. For years, the Arab Knesset members focused on nationalistic issues in the parliament, serving as the mouthpiece of the Palestinian Authority in decrying “the occupation,” criticizing the Israel Defense Force, and not indicating any desire to be partners in the leadership of Israel.

Arab MK’s would not even recommend anyone to be prime minister lest they be accused of having any association with Jewish candidates from Zionist parties. The recognition that their representatives would not be working for their interests and needs, and would not even consider joining a government which is where real societal reforms can be made, played a significant role in the low Arab voter turnout in past elections.

But in this election, MK Ayman Odeh, chairman of the Joint Arab List, changed course. He gave an interview in Yediot Aharonot just a few weeks ago in which he said, “I want to lead Arab politics from a politics of protest to a politics of influence. We are 20% of Israel’s population, and we are needed to bring equality, democracy and social justice to Israel.”

While Odeh ruled out the possibility of joining a Netanyahu-led government, he presented four conditions for entering a Gantz-led government:

“The first is the construction of a new Arab city and redoing the rules to allow for more Arab construction and stopping demolitions in Arab areas. Second is a government focus on fighting crime in Arab areas, including an operation to gather all the weapons that people own in the Arab population. Third is in the welfare realm including building a public hospital in an Arab city, and raising stipends for the elderly. Finally, there must be direct negotiations with the Palestinian leaders to bring an end to the occupation and to establish a Palestinian state, alongside canceling the Nation-State Law.”

The first three conditions focus on needs also relevant to the Israeli community and could be easily accepted by Benny Gantz. While the last condition is more complicated, the very fact that their leader is placing real day-to-day issues on the table as a possible entry into a government energized much of the Arab population, making them feel that it was worthwhile to vote to try to place their representatives in positions of influence. And that led to a larger Arab turnout than usual, which enabled them to stay in double-digit mandates despite the high turnout throughout the country.

Who are Israel's official enemies? This is a surprisingly difficult question to answer

David Halbfinger in the New York Times writes:

For three years now, Asmaa Azaizeh has run a popular Arabic-language book festival in Haifa, a mixed city that has become a vibrant culinary and cultural capital for Palestinian citizens of Israel.

But as this year’s festival opens on Friday, it is being held without hundreds of titles Ms. Azaizeh wanted to showcase. Israeli border officials barred them from being imported from Jordan, under an 80-year-old law that predates the existence of the state of Israel.

Arabic translations of George Orwell, James Joyce and William Faulkner; of Sylvia Plath, Susan Sontag and Nelson Mandela; of Shakespeare, D.H. Lawrence, Orhan Pamuk, and Agatha Christie were all rejected and sent back to a Jordanian distributor.

The reason? The books were printed in Beirut.

An Israeli law that dates back to World War II-era British Mandatory Palestine forbids trading with the enemy, and Israel applies that policy to Lebanese, Syrian and Iraqi publishers, among others.

The books’ content is not the issue, Ms. Azaizeh said. Only the location of the publisher — despite the fact that she was purchasing the books from a company in Jordan, with which Israel does have a peace treaty and trade relations.

The law in question is the British 1939 Trading with the Enemy Act, which defines an enemy as "any State, or Sovereign of a State, at war with His Majesty," among others.

Israel maintained the law upon independence in 1948.

But who is an enemy now? This is a surprisingly difficult question to answer.

Israel's laws don't formally provide a list of enemies. The closest they have come from two laws.

The 1954 Law against Infiltration lists Lebanon, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Yemen as countries that could be the source of infiltrators. (Jordan and Egypt were on the list in 1954 but removed after the peace treaties.) This seems to be the source of not allowing books from Lebanon.

The other law is the Citizenship Law, which states that “the Administrative Court may, at the request of the minister of interior, cancel the Israeli citizenship of a person who… perpetrated an act which involves breach of faith to the State of Israel.” It also forbids “obtaining citizenship or the right to settle permanently in" various countries. One of the footnotes updated in 2008 list includes the names of Iran, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Libya, Sudan, Syria, Iraq, Pakistan, Yemen and the area of the Gaza Strip.

This is not a formalized list of enemies, but it is a reasonable working list. From a legal perspective, it is unclear if it is official, though.

Notice that even in 2008 it didn't include Gulf states, Morocco, or Algeria.

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.

If these photos enrage you, you just may be an antisemite

Ma'an, the independent Palestinian news agency, published an article saying that "448 settlers stormed the courtyard of the Al-Aqsa Mosque" in the past week.

In English, this means that 448 Jews visited the Temple Mount, the holiest site in Judaism. This week there were more Jewish visitors than usual because election day is a holiday in Israel.

Ma'an goes on: "Hundreds of settlers, accompanied by Jewish rabbis, stormed the courtyards of Al-Aqsa and performed Talmudic rituals, with security protection from the occupation forces."

In case that doesn't anger the Arab audience of the article enough, they published a photo of these storming settlers.

Palestine Today added more of what they consider incendiary images of Jews taking photos in front of the Dome of the Rock, the site where the Jewish Temples were built and destroyed:

Yes, there are more photos of smiling Jews on the Temple Mount on Arab websites than in Jewish news media.

Now keep in mind that photos like this are taken all the time by Christian visitors:

And Muslims take tons of photos - and their selfies can even be taken at night when non-Muslims are banned from the site:

Yet the photos of Christians and Muslims happily posing in front of the iconic dome are not front page news, anywhere.

Only Jews taking the same types of photos, in the same spot, with the same smiles, causes Arabs, Muslims and their fellow travelers to become enraged.

The Arab articles about "storming settlers" invariably mention that they are protected by a group of armed Israeli police.

Now, why is that?

Because religious Jews visiting the site without that protection would be lynched by crowds of Muslims who are incited to murder by daily exposure to articles like this! Arabs are fed a steady diet of incitement, demonizing any Jew who dares to visit the site that was the site of Solomon's Temple 1600 years before Islam existed.

If this isn't antisemitism, what is?

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.

How English Wikipedia Parrots the Arab Narrative of 1948 (Tomer Ilan)

Guest post by Tomer Ilan:

Wikipedia is an extremely powerful tool that has a huge influence on billions of people.

It is the 4^th most popular website (excluding China) with 18 billion page views per month. For many, it is the only encyclopedia they ever use and the main or sole source of information.

Although Wikipedia operates in 285 different languages, English Wikipedia is the most influential, by far. On top of the huge number of native English speakers, many international users turn to English Wikipedia to search for information about subjects related to Israel which are not available in their own language's version.

With regards to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, Wikipedia has very different information in the English, Hebrew and Arabic versions of the same article. In most cases the English version fully adopts the Arab narrative.

This bias is apparent, for instance, with regards to articles on Arab villages abandoned in the 1948 war.

As an example, here's a table comparing the Hebrew, English and Arabic versions of the events of 1947-1948 in the village of Al-'Abbasiyya:

Hebrew	English	Arabic
On November 30, 1947, villagers from Al-Abbasiyya attacked a bus, killing 7 Jews.	No mention	No mention
On December 13, 1947, the Irgun attacked the village killing 2 Arabs.	On December 13, 1947 the Irgun attacked the village killing 7 Arabs, mostly women and children.	On December 13, 1947 the Irgun attacked the village killing 7 Arabs, mostly women and children.
In April 1948, Hasan Salama, commander of the “Palestinian Holy War Army” gangs moved his HQ to the village and all civilians left.	No mention	No mention
Irgun captures the village from Arab gangs on May 4, 1948.	No mention	No mention
Jordanian Arab Legion captures the village from Irgun on June 11, 1948.	No mention	No mention
IDF captures the village from the Arab Legion on July 10, 1948.	No mention	No mention
On September 13, 1948, most of the village houses were demolished.	On September 13, 1948, David Ben-Gurion requested the destruction of Al-'Abbasiyya among other Palestinian villages whose inhabitants fled or were expelled.	On September 13, 1948, David Ben-Gurion requested the destruction of Al-'Abbasiyya other Palestinian villages whose inhabitants were expelled.

As this table shows, the English version is almost identical to the Arabic version and both distort the narrative by omitting many critical pieces of information only mentioned in the Hebrew version.

No mention of terrorist attack from Al-Abbasiyya and Jewish fatalities before Irgun retaliated.
Arab fatalities in Irgun attack are 350% higher in the English and Arabic versions.
No mention of “Palestinian Holy War Army” and Arab legion making the village a military base starting from April 1948 in the English and Arabic versions.
No mention of the civilian Arab population fleeing in April 1948 in the English and Arabic versions.
No mention of several battles between Jewish and Arab forces in the village between April and July 1948 in the English and Arabic versions.

Reading the English article, you get the impression that Irgun attacked the village unprovoked, then Israel arbitrarily destroyed it and expelled the inhabitants. It’s like a microcosm of the entire false “Nakba” narrative of so-called “Ethnic Cleansing”.

The terrorist attacks emanating from the village, the fact that civilians left and it became a military base, the illegal invasion and occupation by the Jordanian Legion – are all missing from the English version. As far as the vast majority of people who get their information solely from English Wikipedia – those events never happened.

A quick look at other articles on Arab villages abandoned in 1948 reveals the same phenomenon.

How does that happen? Why is Wikipedia so biased?

There’s a wide belief that in Wikipedia “anyone can edit and improve articles immediately” making Wikipedia accurate using the Wisdom of Crowds. While this may be generally true, it is not the case with regards to articles on the Israeli/Arab conflict on English WIkipedia. Those articles are subject to the “30/500 editing restriction”, also known as Extended Confirmed Protection, which prevents users without 30 days tenure and 500 edits on the English Wikipedia.

Apparently, those senior editors who are authorized to edit English Wikipedia articles on the Conflict are a smaller group, in which anti-Israel users are over-represented, who use Wikipedia rules to block the Wisdom of Crowds and dictate an anti-Israel narrative.

New information which contradicts the Arab narrative is blocked from Wikipedia. For instance, David Collier’s research which unearthed British Mandatory documents debunking the myth of Balad al-Shaykh Massacre were removed from Wikipedia just hours after they were added to the article.

By controlling English Wikipedia, the anti-Israel activists control the narrative and are able to rewrite history.

Supporters of Israel should get involved, achieve the 30/500 status that allows them to edit articles about the Conflict and make English Wikipedia much more accurate and balanced.

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.

09/19 Links Pt2: David Collier: The Guardian – anti-Israel bias, more obsessive and vindictive than you think; Head of European Jewish Association: We're not wanted here

From Ian:

Is Israel Abandoning the Liberal Order? Robert Kagan Says Yes. He's Wrong about Israel, and Wrong about the Liberal Order

Considering Israel’s relationship to what he calls the liberal world order and the new anti-liberal world order peopled by nationalist and authoritarian leaders, Kagan poses the question, “Which side does Israel want to be on?” And he answers: “in recent years Israeli foreign policy has been trending in a decidedly anti-liberal direction,” thus showing that the country actively desires to join the anti-liberal camp.

In justification of this charge, Kagan notes that Israel has pursued and maintained relations with the new leaders around the world whose authoritarian power and politics are replacing, to his dismay, the old liberal international order created by the United States after World War II and again at the end of the cold war. Kagan cites many such leaders: Putin of Russia, Xi of China, Modi of India, Orban of Hungary, and others, including the authoritarian leaders of Middle Eastern countries.

Setting aside the question of whether there are any Middle Eastern leaders besides Netanyahu who are not and have not long been authoritarian, the burden of this account would seem to be completely vitiated by two elements that Kagan himself mentions: first, that the new anti-liberal order is a fact of life, however unfortunate; and second, that Israel, despite its present success, is a tiny country endangered in a truly existential way by truly mortal enemies from its founding 71 years ago down to the present day, most recently in the form of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Indeed, in the course of his essay Kagan goes out of his way to insist on how ultimately small, weak, and thus inconsequential Israel is. He describes it as essentially a burden to the U.S. ever since its founding. Even at present, on his reckoning, were it not for America’s concern for the Jewish state, neither Iran nor Israel’s efforts to defend itself and even others in the region from Iran’s predations would matter to the U.S. Iran itself, he reassures us, is “not yet” a threat to America.

If so, what’s the big deal? The obvious conclusion to be drawn from these facts is that Israel, in order to continue to survive, is adapting to a new order created by forces much greater than its own and very much beyond its control. In so doing, it is behaving the same way other small states must behave, now and always—as a historian like Kagan well knows. From time to time in his essay, he even seems to draw the same conclusion. How, then, does the behavior of this small and ultimately inconsequential state matter as anything more than another sign of our lamentable times? Why Kagan’s preoccupation with Israel, of all the small states faced with the same circumstances?

The Tikvah Podcast: Micah Goodman on Shrinking the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

If you follow Israeli politics, then you know that within the past year, the Jewish state has experienced two deadlocked elections. What explains this political stalemate?

According to Micah Goodman, one of Israel’s leading public intellectuals, Israeli politics is trapped in a Catch-67. Most Israelis have been persuaded by the Right that peace with the Palestinians isn’t feasible and that withdrawal from Judea and Samaria would be a security nightmare. But they are also persuaded by the Left’s argument that Israel’s control over the West Bank poses a demographic time-bomb that threatens the nation’s character as a Jewish and democratic state. They think that establishing a Palestinian state right now would be a disaster and that remaining in the territories would be a disaster.

How can Israel get out of this impossible situation? By abandoning comprehensive peace plans and messianic solutions, argues Goodman. Rather than solving the conflict or ignoring it, Israel ought to focus on shrinking the conflict by improving the day-to-day lives of Palestinians while maintaining an unwavering commitment to national security. In his Altantic essay, “Eight Steps to Shrink the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict,” Goodman describes how Israel can do just that. And in this week’s podcast, he joins Tikvah to explore his vital book and thought-provoking essay.

Better Relations with Israel Are in Pakistan’s Interests

In 2003, Pakistan’s then-dictator Pervez Musharraf floated the idea of establishing diplomatic ties with the Jewish state, a position he has also repeated even after stepping down—although little came of the suggestion. A few weeks ago, the country’s current government told reporters that it is considering an overture to Jerusalem. Ephraim Inbar explains what Islamabad would gain from doing so, and that Israel’s ever-closer friendship with India—Pakistan’s chief rival—is an inducement, not a hindrance, to a thaw between the two countries:

Pakistani national interests dictate better relations with Jerusalem. Israel’s new relationship with India was gradually transformed into what Prime Minister Narendra Modi termed “a strategic partnership.” Israeli technology and arms served the Indian military effort well in the 1999 Kargil war against Pakistan. Moreover, closer Indian-Israeli cooperation after the 2008 Mumbai terrorist attacks enhanced Delhi’s capacity to deal with Pakistan-sponsored terror. It can be argued that better relations with Israel might balance the intensified Indian-Israeli military ties. . . .

Iran is also a point of convergence. Pakistan fears Iran, its neighbor to the west, less than Israel does. Yet it’s hard to imagine that Islamabad is indifferent to the possibility of having another nuclear-armed neighbor on its western border. In addition, both countries play games with the Baluchi minorities beyond their borders and compete over influence in Afghanistan. Therefore, the Israeli campaign against Iran, which weakens an adversary, is not [inimical] to Pakistani interests. . . .

Israel, a state in quest of international legitimacy for many years, has always welcomed Pakistani overtures. Pakistan is a large Muslim state, and better relations with Islamabad could be useful in further diluting the religious dimension of Israel’s regional conflict. Israel desires a normalization in relations with all capitals of the world. Furthermore, the Pakistani-Saudi special relations could be leveraged to let both states overcome their inhibitions on relations with the Jewish state.

From Naharnet:

Lebanon's Central Bank announced Thursday it had agreed to the self-liquidation request it received from a bank hit by US sanctions last month over ties with Hizbullah.

"Central Bank Governor Riad Salameh announced today he approved the request made by Jammal Trust Bank SAL," the Lebanese state-run National News Agency reported.

On August 29, Washington slapped heavy financial sanctions on JTB, which was accused of acting as a key financial institution for Hizbullah.

The US Treasury said the bank was used for enabling several of the Shiite militant group's financial activities, "including sending payments to families of suicide bombers."

Iran-backed Hizbullah has been a US-designated terrorist group since 1997 and fights alongside the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in the neighbouring country's civil war.

One of a handful of Shiite-owned Lebanese banks, JTB had specialised in micro-credit in remote areas of the country's Shiite-majority south, which is also Hizbullah's heartland.

In only a few weeks, the US has managed to definitely hurt Hezbollah's ability to do terror. This is the way things should be done with terror groups.

Looking forward to the next bank in Lebanon to be similarly sanctioned. You can be sure that those banks are now looking very carefully at whether they want to keep all of their customers.

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.

Racketeer In Hell Despite Shas Promise Of Heaven To Its Voters (PreOccupied Territory)

Our weekly column (delayed) from the humor site PreOccupied Territory.

Check out their Facebook page.

Gehinnom, September 19 - A criminal who died this morning after casting his ballot on Tuesday for a party representing Jews of Mizrahi heritage found himself among the damned, even though the party leadership assured the public that supporting them in the election would guarantee a place in the Garden of Eden.

Shimon Levy, 54, perished Thursday in a car accident, just two days after voting for Shas in Israel's parliamentary elections. Shas leaders had repeated a campaign tactic from previous contests, telling their voters that voting for Shas guarantees the voter will enter the Coming World.

Nevertheless, Mr. Levy, who had served six years and paid numerous fines for various corruption and racketeering offenses, ended up in Hell.

"I don't understand," gasped the small-time organized crime associate as his flesh was raked from his body, only to regenerate so it could be raked off once again, over and over. "They said if I voted for Shas I'd go to Gan Eden! I did exactly what the Rabbi said! This isn't fair!"

Shas campaign tactics featured posters and images of the late Rabbi Ovadya Yosef, the party's leader and inspiration until his passing at age 93 in 2013. The campaign invoked the Rabbi's words and messages again and again, including statements that anyone who votes for Shas cements a place in paradise - though such statements run afoul of laws that bar inducements on the part of candidates to get voters to cast ballots in their favor. The party aims to appeal to ethnic solidarity on the part of Mizrahim who feel both proud of their heritage and marginalized by the dominant Ashkenazi cultural elite. That strategy results in the use of tropes that often fuse culture and religion, in a manner that stirs loyalty even from many Mizrahim whose lifestyle departs from religious strictures in significant ways.

Representatives of Shas declined to comment on the discrepancy between the campaign promise and Mr. Levy's posthumous fate, as well as on such promises violating electoral laws. Experts point to various Talmudic passages as possible sources of resolution, noting in particular a section toward the end of Tractate Yoma discussing the circumstances and combinations of repentance, Yom Kippur, and various forms of suffering that can atone for different types of sins.

"All the sources seem to agree that interpersonal sins require that the victim consent to forgive," observed Rabbi Mendel Luphol. "That may be what made the difference in this case, considering all those directly and indirectly affected by Mr. Levy's crimes over the years. I have to wonder, then, about the afterlife prospects of someone who promises people Heaven without disclosing the fine print governing the terms and conditions."

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.

09/19 Links Pt1: No Principles, No Dignity, No Power, No Deterrence; Updated tally shows Blue and White increase lead over Likud 33-31; Iran’s judo federation calls ban over Israel boycott policy ‘unfair’

From Ian:

MEMRI: No Principles, No Dignity, No Power, No Deterrence

The 9/14 attacks, correctly referred to by Secretary of State Michael Pompeo as "an act of war", is a harsh humiliating blow dealt to the U.S., signaling an American multilevel failure:

First, there was a failure of deterrence. The Iranians took a calculated risk and were proven correct. They view themselves the military regional equals of the US and via their proxies even beyond the region.

American military officials openly betray their fear of Iranian power and retaliatory capability on CENTCOM targets and they thus make Trump's boast that the US is the world's strongest military power, empty posturing In fact it is Iran that is actually deterring the U.S. from any retaliation. Iran relies on its proven ability to act in the local theater while its results have a global ripple effect.

Secondly, it was a failure of U.S. intelligence (military, NSA, CIA and others). Apparently, there was no early warning about an operation that must have had dozens of parties engaged in the decision process, the secret planning and the preparations. Since May 2019, MEMRI has issued several strategic warnings about the Iranian threats to carry out such attacks, based on open Iranian sources.

Thirdly, the successful Iranian attack represented an American technological failure, as not a single cruise missile or drone was intercepted. Iranian Foreign Minister Jawad Zarif ridiculed the U.S., tweeting "Perhaps [the US is] embarrassed that $100s of blns of its arms didn't intercept Yemeni fire".

Fourthly, and most disturbingly, it is a case of political failure - no one in the U.S. administration expected such a bold direct Iranian attack. True, Iran has resorted to proxies to afford it deniability, but now the Iranian leadership has realistically gauged American hesitancy and conflict aversion and believed that Iran could risk making a direct attack, discounting the possibility of strong American retaliation. Considering the global effect of this bold attack, so far, the calculated risk has proven to be a sound bet.

Noah Rothman: No, We Shouldn’t Let Saudi Arabia ‘Fight Its Own Wars’

The principle of reciprocity would logically limit Saudi strikes to the targets responsible for the attack on the Aramco plant in Abqaiq. A tailored response that would be seen as proportionate and, therefore, not worth risking a broader conflict over would be limited to the bases and infrastructure north of the Arabian Peninsula from which the cruise missiles and drones that struck the Saudi refinery over the weekend originated. But Riyadh’s options are not—and, perhaps, should not—be so limited.

Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps and Quds Force soldiers and brass are spread out across the Middle East, and their locations are reportedly known to American officials. Regular Iranian military outposts are in Iraq, Lebanon, Yemen, and Syria, too. Hitting these locations outside Iranian borders would rob Tehran of the claim that its territorial sovereignty was violated, but such an operation would also validate the claim that the Saudis are executing a region-wide strike on the sources of Shiite political authority. That claim could fast become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

These pitfalls are not unknown to American military planners, and the risk these scenarios present arguably outweigh the rewards. In the end, a mission designed to reestablish deterrence and restore balance to the relationship between the Middle East’s two competing regional hegemons could have the precise opposite effect. If such an option is being seriously considered by the president, it’s hard to avoid the conclusion that there will be no U.S.-led military response, much less a U.S.-supported military response from one or more of its allies. And that could be disastrous.

Iran’s aggressive behavior follows a clear pattern of escalation. It has executed sophisticated covert operations targeting the global oil supply by disabling and hijacking ships in the strategically vital Strait of Hormuz. It has destroyed a $120 million American aerial surveillance drone operating above international waters. And now, it has executed an elaborate assault on a Saudi refinery. Iran is behaving rationally by testing the limits of provocation as a tool of statecraft. Its strategic objective is to stoke anxieties among America’s Middle Eastern and European allies and, ultimately, erode global will to maintain the present suffocating sanctions regime. Eventually, Iran is likely to miscalculate, executing a bloody attack that demands a disproportionate response from the United States. This is an outcome that American policymakers are right to avoid, but not at any cost.

It would be a shame to see Trump’s “maximum pressure” campaign against Iran derailed by a limited retaliatory strike on Iranian targets, but the alternatives are intolerable. Unfortunately, the Trump administration doesn’t seem to see it that way.

A U.S.-Israeli Defense Pact: How to Ensure That Its Advantages Outweigh Its Disadvantages

The idea of a defense pact between Israel and the U.S. has already been considered several times and rejected. Both sides are cautious about making commitments that would limit their freedom of action and require them to act militarily in contexts that are not viewed as vital by their respective populations.

Israel has reserved the right of nonintervention in conflicts that do not directly affect Israel, preserving its independent decision-making when it comes to using its power, and, above all, upholding the principle that Israel should be able to defend itself by itself.

To date, Israel's expectations of the U.S. in the security domain have gone unfulfilled in a number of cases. According to unwritten understandings, Israel is to deal with threats within its own immediate environment while relying on U.S. assistance in intelligence, equipment, and resources, and the U.S. is supposed to prevent, with Israeli help, the emergence of strategic threats to Israel and to the U.S. from the second and the third tier.

At several critical junctures the U.S. has decided to prefer other interests over Israel's security needs, allowed the threats to its security to intensify, and forced it to stretch its capabilities to the limit, with Israel devoting huge budgets to its defense.

Nevertheless, a U.S.-Israeli defense pact could help promote the common goal of deterring Iran and curbing its activity by making it clear that aggression against Israel is tantamount to aggression against the U.S. and would prompt harsh American countermeasures.

Such a pact must preserve both sides' independence of decision-making in case of disagreement about a joint action; reinforce the principle that Israel must continue to be capable of defending itself by itself, to the extent possible; and it must not put new limits on Israel's ability to develop ties with other important states such as China and Russia.

Zaid Al-Fadeel, writing in Akhbar Ten, decries the failures of the Arab world to destroy Israel thus far. He lists missed opportunities, and failures of Arabs to cooperate with each other.

His biggest regret, which he hopes it is not too late to fix, is that the Arabs in the 1920s and 30s did not try to get the Mizrahi Jews of Mandate Palestine to work with them to create a single Arab state that would exclude Ashkenazim, who he considers Zionist.

Our management of the conflict with the Zionist enemy failed during the previous stage, and we were led to that failure unconsciously. Our rhetoric of hatred and contempt was based on a naive nationalist content, followed by a similar religious rhetoric in a manner and method which cut all forms of emotional communication with the community of Arab Jews, who found before them no choice but to case their lots with the Zionist trend.

He concludes:

We need to weave practical lines of communication with the various Jewish Arab communities in occupied Palestine, who have been associated with us for centuries.

I can imagine that when we can achieve this, we will emerge from the deadly negative nature of the conflict to its positive and constructive form, and we will be able to create a common civil state, in which the loser is the Zionist mind in its abhorrent capitalist spirit.

While there were some very small and ultimately forgotten initiatives by some Mizrahi Jews to create a binational state during the British Mandate - now being magnified in importance by the academic Left as if these were more than a couple of individuals - the Jews from Muslim lands knew quite well how they were treated when they were under Islamic rule. Better than in Europe, for sure, but never treated as equals, and knowing they never could be treated as such. The pogroms and laws that immediately preceded and followed the declaration of the State of Israel proved that they were never considered full citizens to begin with, despite all the Arab rhetoric about how they were respected and equal.

This pie in the sky article shows that many Arabs never have, and never will, accept a Jewish state in the Middle East, and will always try to find ways to destroy it, irrespective of any peace deal.

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 desecrating Al Aqsa! As they always do!

Arab media never gets sick of showing Jews walking around peacefully on the Temple Mount and writing the most inflammatory text to accompany the pictures.

This is from Masralarabia:

Hours after the call of the "Temple Groups", Jews desecrate Al Aqsa

Hours after the so-called " Temple Groups " called to take over the Al-Aqsa Mosque, dozens of extremist settlers and Israeli intelligence agents stormed the Al-Aqsa Mosque from the Mugrabi Gate with heavy security.

The Israeli police provided full protection for these extremists, from entering through the Moroccan gate and wandering in the courtyards of Al-Aqsa to the exit of the Chain Gate.

According to the Islamic Endowments Department in occupied Jerusalem, 64 settlers stormed the Al-Aqsa Mosque, and wandered in the courtyards amid attempts to perform Talmudic rituals, in addition to 33 elements of the occupation intelligence storming the site.

Funny how no Western media ever calls this every day language in Arab media incitement against Jews. But how can anyone read it otherwise?

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 most recent poll from the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research shows that Palestinians consider their government corrupt, they do not trust Mahmoud Abbas as their president but they are fearful to say the truth out loud.

61% of Palestinians - including 55% in the West Bank - want Abbas to resign.

When asked if they believe that Abbas really will end all agreements with Israel, the vast majority thought it was laughable. 76% said that the idea was a media stunt. When asked about specific parts of the Oslo-era agreements that Abbas might revoke, 71% do not believe he will dissolve the PA, 69% do not believe he will end civil cooperation with Israel, 69% don't believe he will officially annul the PLO recognition of Israel, and 65% do not believe that he and his top officials will return their VIP cards given out by Israel to make travel easier.

A whopping 80% believe that the Palestinian Authority institutions are corrupt, and 65% believe the same about Hamas institutions.

60% of Palestinians, a majority in both Gaza and the West Bank, believe that they will not receive a fair trial if the end up in a Palestinian court. 72% of those in the West Bank say that the Palestinian judiciary is corrupt, lacks independence, or rules according to other whims and interests.

One reason we don't hear about any of this is because there is no free speech at all: Only 36% of the West Bankers say that people can criticize the PA where they live without fear while 59% say that they cannot. That is even worse than in Gaza, where 43% say they can criticize Hamas freely and 53% say they cannot.

This simple fact is ignored in reporting by the media and NGOs who have no idea that the people they interview will generally lie rather than admit their dissatisfaction with their government.

31% of all Palestinians, including 41% in Gaza, would like to emigrate.

Where is the coverage? This is a far more accurate representation of how Palestinians think than you will ever find in Reuters, CNN or the New York Times.

On another note, slightly more Palestinians, 48% believe that humans can be possessed by jinn (demons) than the number who thought that they were mere superstition (44%.).

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.

When Ilhan Omar told Face the Nation’s Margaret Brennan that Benjamin Netanyahu’s existence is contradictory to peace, it was a death threat, a call to murder the Israeli prime minister, an invitation to murder a Jew.

Let’s take a look at the transcript:

MARGARET BRENNAN: You were specifically banned by the prime minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu from visiting that country. He faces a very tough election in the next few days. If he doesn’t win, are you going to try to go back and do you stand by your call for a boycott of Israel?

REP. OMAR: I certainly hope that the people of Israel make a different decision. And my hope is that they recognize that his existence, his policies, his rhetoric really is contradictory to the peace that we are all hoping that that region receives and receives soon.

Omar did not say that Netanyahu’s reelection is contradictory to peace. She said his very existence prevents peace. That as long as Netanyahu is alive, peace is impossible.

Ergo, someone needs to kill him: Netanyahu must die.

The way Omar inserts this into the narrative may be sly and understated. But it is there, a question asked and answered: How can we bring peace? By eliminating Netanyahu.

Referring to Netanyahu's existence as something that goes against peace serves as the perfect bait to court any extremists who might be listening. Omar is saying, “Netanyahu needs to die. Who will kill him?”

It is a call to action, a call to arms.

It is not the first time we have seen a brazen call to kill one Jew or many, words nestled in a cunning manner like a coiled snake that makes itself small in the grass, words interwoven with enough other words to offer cover. The words are our warning. Typed words, spoken words, words recorded for posterity. Code words. Phrases. Manifestos, online or in books. Words to be interpreted, explicated.

Words then the weapons, and finally the murders, whether one or many, at Auschwitz, AMIA, or Tree of Life.

Words like “Jews don’t require peace” which really mean: “Jews need to die.”

It is obvious, out there in the open, yet hidden in plain sight like the snake in the grass you don’t see when you close your eyes because you’d rather not see it: rather not be a party to what could happen, what will happen, what always happens: Amalek rising up for the kill, poised to strike.

And after the fact, you can always say it wasn’t clear to you at all. You never suspected, never saw the snake in the grass, the threat that lurked behind the words, never read the meaning nor saw the signs. Never knew that when Omar said “Netanyahu’s existence is contradictory to peace,” she was calling for his death, because the opposite of his existence is his death.

Why say these things now? Because the brouhaha over the application of Israel's No Entry Law came and went. We had the outraged talking heads spouting off for a week or so. "Undemocratic" they called Israel. "Apartheid state," they said. And then the outrage ran dry. Because news cycles are nothing if not short.

This is the reason Omar needed this Face the Nation interview, now at this time. It was a chance to get airtime and talk about BDS: the acronym that gets everyone fuming, the perfect fuel to rekindle that age-old lust for the destruction of Israel.

Anti-Semitic Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) says she hopes Israel does not re-elect Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu because his “existence” is problematic

Omar also continued to champion the anti-Semitic Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement which is designed to destroy Israel pic.twitter.com/bIWvuPQHDx
— Ryan Saavedra (@RealSaavedra) September 15, 2019

Also, BDS opposes a two state solution and openly advocates, as part of its founding aims and principles, the destruction of the Jewish state. So, lol: pic.twitter.com/EIfh9cmdKm
— Seth Mandel (@SethAMandel) September 15, 2019

In hindsight, we know the truth, that barring Ilhan Omar from entering the Jewish State was an act of supreme wisdom. Who cares about the word fallout, the slurs against our nation? Here is a person who wished harm to our prime minister in a televised interview.

At the very least we must stipulate that there are at least two ways to interpret Omar's words: that the prime minister should not be in office, or that he should be gone from this earth. Is it so far fetched to think she means the latter? Because all the really bad things in Jewish history began with words just like these. Words you look at, after the fact, and think, "How could I ever have thought 'Final Solution' didn't really mean 'final'?"

The world is predictable. It will ignore Omar’s sly, understated words and their meaning. And the Jews will continue to be reviled, even by their own, as they play limbo, slipping beneath the word arrows as they are slung, the calls to murder the head Jew, the prime minister of the Jewish State, inserted with care into the narrative during a public interview that everyone hears, even as fingers plug ears, and cognition fails.

It's an ancient story, an ancient call, a call we don't often hear in time.

We need to be paying attention.

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.