Incitement Double Standard Strikes Again

by Tamar Sternthal

PA's Karake honors the mother of four terrorists [Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, Aug. 28, 2010, courtesy of Palestinian Media Watch]

As we noted last week, any incident whiffing of Israeli incitement, including Rabbi Ovadia Yosef's vitriolic remarks make big news, but Palestinian incitement, including Abbas and Fayyad's honoring of a mastermind of the Munich massacre, continue to go unreported.

With a new week, we are confronted with fresh examples of officially-sanctioned Palestinian Authority incitement, and yet again, the continuing silence of the Western press corps.

In the first incident, the Palestinian Authority's Minister for Prisoner Affairs Issa Karake honored a mother whose four sons were involved in suicide bombings and other terror attacks. He praised her:

The Palestinian mother is a central partner in the struggle... It is she who gave birth to the fighters, and she deserves that we bow to her in salute and in honor.

Karake also visited the home of Ayyat Al-Akhras, who murdered two Israelis in a 2002 suicide bombing attack in a Jerusalem supermarket.

Second, the Palestinian ambassador to Tehran, Salah Zawawi, called for "eradication of the fabricated regime [ie, Israel] in due course."

While this information is published in the government controlled Palestinian and Iranian media, and translated into English thanks to Palestinian Media Watch, Western journalists simply can't be bothered to report Mideast incitement unless they can point a finger at Israeli Jews.

Tamar Sternthal

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Israeli-Palestinian Direct Talks Will Lead Directly to Failure

by David Solway

If the peace talks fail, they fail; if Israel surrenders to Palestinian demands, Israel fails.

The “Israeli-Palestinian direct talks” are now underway in Washington in which, yet once again, the intractable dilemma that bedevils the region will be addressed and hopefully resolved, at least in part. All the parties have expressed a guarded optimism, to a greater or lesser degree, that this latest round of talks will bear some kind of fruit. Everything, apparently, is on the table — even, according to some reports, the division of Jerusalem. With clearly anti-Israeli figures like Barack Obama and Ban Ki-moon — let’s be honest about this — fanning the proceedings, it should be evident things will not go well for Israel, and that the country will be blamed for not offering sufficient giveback to the Palestinians and for the inevitable derelictions that will ensue. Indeed, the UN secretary-general is on record urging that Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas be “given full support” and international recognition. Nowhere does he extend the same counsel on behalf of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Nor does Ban acknowledge that Abbas has no legal authority to participate in the peace conference since his term as president expired in January 2009 and he has not called new elections.

Netanyahu is obviously keeping his gaze fixed on the big picture: the so-called “peace process” which to date has been all process and no peace, envisioning the chimera of two states living side by side in sandaled amity; intense American pressure; the discriminatory media ready to pounce upon Israel for every pretext they can manufacture; and the international trend toward delegitimation of the Jewish state. But sometimes the smaller portraits are just as important, and sometimes even more important, than the larger picture that monopolizes the attention of the usual suspects: diplomats, officials, negotiators, and, of course, the usual cohort of “liberal” agitators both in the West and among Israel’s arguably treasonable left-wing academics.

Given enough time, the little cameos add up and eventually come to crowd the entire frame, a development which the big picture people refuse to consider. They tend to neglect or to put out of mind the implicit assumption of an intimate contract between the state and the nation, the filaments that bind the government to the individual citizens it represents, which can fray and snap if the government is no longer perceived as honoring that contract, of holding up its end of the bargain. Speaking before a Tel Aviv audience on January 28, 2009, Aviva Shalit, the mother of kidnapped soldier Gilad Shalit, faulted the government for abandoning her son, stating that the unwritten covenant between Israel’s leaders and its soldier-citizens “has cracked.” This is the unspoken peril now confronting the Israeli leadership.

The Israeli administration under Ariel Sharon waited too long to respond to the suicide attacks of the Second Intifada provoked by arch-terrorist Yasser Arafat, which claimed 1,100 little portraits. When it finally sent the IDF into the Jenin terrorist nest, it sacrificed 13 of its young soldiers to booby-trapped buildings instead of doing what the Americans do regularly, striking from the air. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert waited years while the town of Sderot came under fire from thousands of Hamas-launched Kassam rockets and the community was effectively paralyzed, before giving the order to launch a retaliatory incursion into Gaza. Apart from the fatalities, statistics show that nearly 80% of Sderot’s children suffered from PTSD and required intensive medical treatment. Many still do. These tiny portraits obviously did not figure in Olmert’s big picture calculations.

Another little portrait, Gilad Shalit, still remains in captivity in Gaza, when a credible threat to destroy Hamas root and branch, clearly within Israeli capability, would lead to his release. On August 31, as the latest Washington exercise in futility was just getting underway, Hamas operatives murdered four Israeli civilians, Kochava Even-Chaim, Avishai Schindler, and Tali and Yitzhak Ames. Seven children lost their parents. On the following day two more Israelis, Moshe Moreno and his wife, were wounded in yet another drive-by shooting. One recalls Shalhevet Pass, aged 10 months, drilled in the head by a Palestinian sniper; Dorit Aniso, aged 2, and Yuval Abedeh, aged 4, playing under an olive tree, killed on the festival of Sukkot by a Gaza rocket in the Western Negev; and pregnant Tali Hatuel, shot point blank in her car by gunmen from Rafah, with her four young daughters, Hila, aged 11, Hadar, aged 9, Roni, aged 7, and Meirav, aged 2. These and many thousands like them are the smaller portraits filling up the canvas. They have now become the big picture.

And what that real big picture tells us is that it is time to cease the useless and increasingly bloody parlor game that goes by the name of a “peace process,” a “road map” to nowhere. It is time to solve the political and military stalemate from which Israel suffers and will continue to suffer by letting it be known that, in the event of another provocation, it will not hesitate to administer an all-out, crushing military defeat upon its enemies, as it should have done during the Lebanon war of 2006 and Operation Cast Lead in Gaza in 2008. For Israel’s enemies have their own big picture, the annihilation of Israel, whether in a “single storm,” as Iran has promised, or by stages and slices, the strategy of the Palestinian Authority carried over from the days of Yasser Arafat.

What goes by the name of “Peace Now” is only an evasive sobriquet for War Later. Hamas and Hezbollah must and can be neutralized sooner rather than later, for the longer that reckoning is put off, the more devastating the consequences will be for Israel. As for the West Bank, Israel must ensure that it retains the necessary strategic depth and establishes an armed presence on the West Bank hill terrain, the “prominent high ground” that, following the Six Day War, the American chiefs of staff agreed Israel should control for defensive purposes. And as for Jerusalem, it must remain the indivisible Jewish capital, for solid historical and political reasons. Ramallah, by all accounts a thriving city, is a good enough Palestinian capital.

The time to act with fortitude and determination is now and the stage is not in Washington. Naturally, the temptation will be to fall back on geopolitical considerations, on the necessity of not alienating the United States — which means Barack Obama, a hostile administration, and the nefarious State Department, aka Foggy Bottom — and on the argument that negotiations and concessions actually reduce the number of casualties or, in other words, that the big picture is to the advantage of the little portrait.

But Menachem Begin did not genuflect to the U.S. or crawl abjectly before the “international community,” and as a result, despite setbacks, achieved more than any of his successors in the political arena. He negotiated from a position of strength, without which the peace agreement with Egypt would never have come to pass. The Oslo Accords that led to great Israeli suffering, and Bill Clinton’s Camp David fiasco, should serve as an object lesson to anyone who still credulously maintains that peace in the Middle East can be brokered in a spirit of gentlemanly accommodation, sacrificial deference on the part of the Israelis, and handshakes on the White House lawn. Peace will come only — should it ever come — in the wake of a massive Arab defeat or, in the best case scenario, if the Palestinians, including Hamas, as well as Hezbollah, truly understand that what is on the table is not a few lukewarm dishes presumably shared by Israel and the Palestinians but their very existence. They must be brought to realize that continuing to serve as Iran’s sock puppets will lead to neither prosperity nor conquest but to their destruction. As I say, this is a best case scenario.

And as it should go without saying, Prime Minister Netanyahu must revive in himself the spirit of Ze’ev Jabotinsky, the practical, hard-headed, and unwavering patriot who helped bring a militarily strong Jewish state into being. Netanyahu must recognize that no Israeli concessions will satisfy the insatiable appetite of the “international community” or the Palestinians, who will always clamor for more until the country becomes the rump state proposed by the Peel Commission of 1936-37 and eventually ceases to exist as an independent Jewish state altogether. Israel must project power, not weakness. In a region which understands only sinew and nerve, tenacity and violence, Israel has no choice but to act like the strong horse, not like a spavined mare.

Plainly, these are not pleasant options I am proposing, but it is not as if Israel is blessed with a variety of agreeable choices. While the negotiators dither and compromise, while officials shuttle back and forth between the diverse capitals with fantasy-driven proposals, and while ever more pressure is brought to bear upon Israel to diminish its chances for survival, another Israeli is shot here, another family is obliterated there, another soldier is kidnapped in the Negev or killed by a sniper on Israeli soil near the Lebanese border. To quote Kurt Vonnegut from Slaughterhouse-Five, “so it goes.” The cameo casualties keep piling up.

Whether one likes it or not, the fact is that the diplomatic canvas as it is currently being painted is a snare and a deception, and a prohibitively costly one at that. The prime minister must flex his muscles, resolutely further the country’s material and security interests, and demand substantial concessions from the Palestinians if they are candidly devoted to peace rather than, as was the case with his predecessors Ariel Sharon, Ehud Barak and Ehud Olmert, offer to give up the store in pursuit of a will o’ the wisp. He must not flinch from making it clear to all that he is prepared to react immediately and with force majeure to the next Kassam or Grad, the next mortar shell, the next suicide bombing, the next kidnapping, the next stabbing, the next drive-by shooting of civilians, the next sniper who fires on an Israeli soldier trimming a bush, the next traumatized child in Sderot or Ashkelon, the next flotilla, the next guerrilla intrusion from Gaza. Otherwise, for every next there will be another next.

The prime minister of Israel is responsible for every Israeli citizen. For this reason, he must toughen up and fix his gaze on the smaller portraits which, when all is said and done, constitute the big picture.

David Solway is a Canadian poet and essayist. He is the author of The Big Lie: On Terror, Antisemitism, and Identity, and is currently working on a sequel, Living in the Valley of Shmoon. His new book on Jewish and Israeli themes, Hear, O Israel!, has just been released by Mantua Books.

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Echoes of a Shofar

by H/T Muqata

"Echoes of a Shofar" is the premiere episode in the "Eyewitness 1948" short film series produced by Toldot Yisrael and the History Channel. It is the centerpiece of an educational pilot program being developed with The iCenter and made possible through the generous support of the Jim Joseph Foundation.

Under a British law in Palestine passed in 1930, Jews were forbidden to blow the shofar at the Kotel, pray loudly there, or bring Torah scrolls, so as not to offend the Arab population.

Despite this restriction, for the next seventeen years, the shofar was sounded at the Kotel every Yom Kippur. Shofars were smuggled in to the Kotel where brave teenagers defiantly blew them at the conclusion of the fast. Some managed to get away - others were captured and sent to jail for up to six months.

Six of these men are still alive.

Two weeks ago, these six men returned to the scene of their "crime". Armed with shofars, they recounted their individual stories and blew shofar again at the Kotel.

This is their powerful and inspiring story.


H/T Muqata

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Flying Flotilla To Gaza Will Flout US Law Against Aid To Hamas

by Daled Amos


IMRA [Independent Media Review & Analysis] notes that it is being reported that there is now a plan to send a flotilla to Gaza by air next year:

A pro-Palestinian group based in the US will send a plane loaded with aid to the Gaza Strip in defiance of Israel's air and sea blockade, an official said Sunday.

"We intend to send an aircraft to Gaza in much the same way boats were used -- without going through Israeli or Egyptian airspace," said Paul Larudee, an organizer with the California-based Free Palestine Movement sponsoring the flight.

Authorities in Gaza are supportive of the initiative and are working to locate a landing site, Larudee said. Gaza's now-defunct Yasser Arafat International Airport is not being considered, he said.

In the meantime, Free Palestine Movement officials will look for a plane designed for rough landings and takeoffs such as those used in Alaska and other locales lacking proper aviation facilities, Larudee said. The plan is to send a light aircraft equipped with material sometime in the spring of 2011, after the next sea voyage.

"Breaking the blockade by air may be even more feasible than by sea. An aircraft cannot be boarded while in flight, and the right aircraft can land almost anywhere in Gaza," a statement on the group's website says.

Following on the heels of the flotilla being planned by Rashid Khalidi--Obama's friend with ties to the PLO--maybe it is time to address the legal issues associated with American assistance to terrorist groups.

Jonathan Schanzer asks Do Gaza Flotillas Provide Material Support to Hamas?--and refers to former federal prosecutor Andy McCarthy who looked into the legality of the flotilla:

McCarthy notes that it is illegal for Americans “to furnish or fit out a vessel in the service of any foreign entity ‘to cruise, or commit hostilities’ against a nation with which the U.S. is at peace.” Israel, of course, is an American ally that is imposing a policy in Gaza that Washington officially supports.

McCarthy also notes that the Logan Act prohibits U.S. citizens “from carrying on ‘any correspondence or intercourse’ with any foreign government… to ‘defeat the measures of the United States.’” To this end, McCarthy then suggests that the Justice Department should investigate flotilla organizers’ communications with the de facto Hamas government in Gaza, particularly if they seek to undermine U.S. policy.

In the end, it is McCarthy’s third point that is the most convincing: The Justice Department, under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, could also investigate American flotilla organizers for providing material support to a terrorist group.

The application of the law has been further defined by the Supreme Court:

According to a Supreme Court decision in June (Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project), the prohibition against material support can apply even when the offerings are not money or weapons.

...However, as Chief Justice John Roberts noted, even if the support is administered with peaceful intent, it can lighten the financial burden of a terrorist group, and thus allow it to expend resources on terrorist activities.

It is all well and good for left wing groups to pursue their agendas, but when they intend to break the law in order to do it, it is time to see whether the US government takes it own laws seriously.

Daled Amos

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Will the Real Bibi Netanyahu Please Stand Up?

by Allison Kaplan Sommer

Israelis on the right and the left are wondering whether their prime minister may be undergoing a political mid-life crisis.

It was difficult for Israelis to get excited about the pictures of President Obama flanked by Middle East leaders at the White House last week in the opening hoopla of the direct peace talks. Regular television programming in Israel was suspended, and instead of soap operas or afternoon game shows on Israeli television, blanket coverage of the smiles, handshakes, speeches, and numerous photo opportunities took over the airwaves. But to the viewer — and the onscreen commentators — the events seemed just as staged and artificial as the usual television fare.

“Those Americans, they like to start these things off with some nice pictures,” commented Arab affairs correspondent Ehud Ya’ari cynically during the live broadcast of the opening ceremony. “There are a lot of cameras around, so they are all saying ‘cheese.’”

Ya’ari’s tone made it clear that he believed the scene wouldn’t remain a pretty tableau for long.

Already, the view from the Middle East had become downright ugly. Israelis were mourning the four civilians who were slaughtered by terrorists outside Hebron, among them, a pregnant woman. They were the first victims of the newly revived peace process, and, it was gloomily predicted, they wouldn’t be the last.

Even without the attacks, reaction in Israel to the media circus in Washington was bound to be subdued. Israelis have seen so many approaches start out optimistically and then fail miserably, they weren’t about to become hopeful too quickly.

And yet, one element caught their attention. To both right and left, Prime Minster Binyamin Netanyahu, as he took his place in front of the microphones, seemed different from the politician they thought they knew. From the outset, there was one concrete change pundits focused on. Three times he used a phrase that had never before been uttered by a leader of his party. Netanyahu became the first Likud leader to publicly use the term “West Bank” to refer to the post-1967 territory instead of the traditional reference to “Judea and Samaria.” None of his predecessors did that — not Menachem Begin, not Yitzhak Shamir, not Ariel Sharon (even after he broke away from Likud to form the Kadima Party).

According to Yediot Aharonot correspondent Shimon Shiffer, who asked him about the change in his semantics after his speech, Netanyahu looked “embarrassed” about his use of the term and said that it was done for practical reasons and was not evidence of a change in ideology. But Shiffer pointed out in an interview on Israel radio that “Netanyahu also did other things in that speech that I never thought he would do.”

When Netanyahu declared that the Hamas terror attack would not derail Israel’s determination to pursue negotiations, Shiffer said that veteran diplomatic reporters were reminded of an Oslo-era Yitzhak Rabin. Shiffer and his colleagues noted the irony — back in the days of Oslo, Netanyahu was one of Rabin’s harshest critics, attacking him mercilessly for pursuing peace in the face of Palestinian violence.

In what was certainly a first, Netanyahu was praised by an editor of the left-wing newspaper Ha’aretz on the pages of the equally liberal Washington Post. For his performance on the White House lawn, Netanyahu was hailed as a “moderate, level-headed leader” by Aluf Benn:

Contrary to popular wisdom, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu is proving to be the most dovish leader that Israel has had in many years, one who is using military force cautiously and seeking, at long last, a diplomatic resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. “I came here today to find an historic compromise that will enable both our peoples to live in peace and security and in dignity,” he said at last week’s Middle East peace summit at the White House. These are words that most Israelis never expected to hear “Bibi” utter.

So enraptured was Benn with his prime minister that he not only compared Netanyahu’s changed posture to his Israeli predecessors, but to President Richard Nixon’s decision to make his historic trip to China.

The mirror image to Benn’s enthusiasm was the stinging commentary of the Jerusalem Post’s Caroline Glick. Glick, previously a supporter of Netanyahu’s hard-line positions, wrote unhappily:

The most distressing aspect of Netanyahu’s enthusiastic participation in a process the Israeli public rationally opposes is that it is him doing it. With Netanyahu now joining the ranks of those who attack Israel’s defenders as enemies of peace and claim that defending the country is antithetical to peace, who is left to defend us?

So is Netanyahu, like Begin, Rabin, and Ariel Sharon before him, on the verge of a transformation when it comes to territorial compromise? Is he truly willing to antagonize and subsequently lose his right flank in order to pursue the peace process as actively as he has promised, including what will be painful concessions?

At his cabinet meeting on Sunday morning, it sounded like that very well might happen. “There may be some important countries which have yet to stand up for a move of peace, but my impression from their willingness to reach peace despite the attacks reflects a feeling of maturity in the Arab world,” Netanyahu said.

For now, those to the right of the prime minister — most prominently, Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman — are still watching and waiting, hoping that it turns out that instead of a real change of heart, Netanyahu is playing a high-stakes game of chicken. Indeed, if he believes that the Palestinian leadership is in too weak a position to seriously sign a peace agreement with Israel, he loses nothing by posturing himself as willing to compromise. By playing ball in a game on which both Obama and Hillary Clinton have staked their personal prestige, he earns American goodwill on issues crucial to Israel, such as the tough line on Iran’s nuclear program.

He is also carefully laying the ground for the “blame game” that will quickly ensue, should negotiations collapse, as they have in the past.

That is the line that some Palestinian leaders, clearly confused and thrown by the new Netanyahu, are pushing. Calling Netanyahu an “operator” and a “con man,” they accuse him of trying to fool Obama and the world into believing he’s interested in compromise and peace when it is all an act designed to put the ball in the Palestinian’s court.

The key date on which Netanyahu will have to show his his cards is September 26. On that day, the nine-month freeze in new construction in the settlements that Netanyahu agreed to as a goodwill gesture is set to expire.

The Palestinians have now threatened repeatedly that if building begins again after that day, they will pull out of the direct talks. If that happens, there is no way Netanyahu could escape the blame.

But if he continues the freeze, particularly without any corresponding gesture from the Palestinians, there is a strong likelihood that the far-right parties will pull out of his coalition. Then he would have to scramble to reshuffle his government. Those familiar with Israeli politics know that these internal negotiations will be at least as challenging — if not more so — than anything he faces in Washington.

Allison Kaplan Sommer is a writer and former PJM editor based in Ra'anana, Israel.

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

When the West Bankers Arrive in Washington

by Hillel Frisch

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Substantive progress in the peace process is hardly what Mahmoud Abbas is seeking to achieve in Washington. While he wishes to maintain an appearance of movement in the negotiations, he cannot yet afford to lose the Israeli army presence in the West Bank as the threat of a Hamas takeover there still looms. While all of the major political actors involved concur on this point, the pretense of peace talks is essential to keeping the Arab world at bay.

• When Abbas arrives in Washington, he and his retinue will be focused on exclusively three issues making sure that the settlement freeze continues,
  
• that aid which covers over 70 per cent of the Palestinian Authority budget will continue to flow into its coffers,
  
• and that there will be sufficient "momentum" in the peace process to placate the "Arab street."
  

Any meaningful progress towards peace is simply beyond these West Bankers hopes or capabilities. Oddly enough, this very low threshold of expectations is supported by the only states that matter to the West Bankers - the United States, Egypt (and far less importantly, the other moderate Arab states) and of course Israel. The fanfare of appearances in Washington, then, is calculated to make up for the absence of substance.

Substantive progress in negotiating peace is hardly what Abbas and the West Bankers want, let alone feel they can get. The real reason for their reticence in making such progress since 2007 is related to the danger Hamas poses to the West Bank leadership. Though the number of West Bankers arrested by Israeli forces declined from 8,000 in 2006 to 5,000 in 2009, their sheer numbers still indicate that Hamas, and to a much lesser extent, Islamic Jihad, remain a substantial threat to Abbas, and that the threat of a Hamas takeover in Judea and Samaria has yet to dissipate.

Dealing with this threat entails good security cooperation between Abbas and Israeli security forces- an arrangement in which Israel deals with the Hamas terrorist infrastructure by night while Abbas' security forces harass Hamas terrorists Israel releases by day- as well as the dismantling of social infrastructure that Hamas has created painstakingly over the years.

Abbas is essentially using the IDF to gain the kind of political and security foothold Arab leaders recognize as being essential to the art of ruling. He is also assuming the role of the traditional Arab ruler - controlling all the funds, avoiding elections (which will only be held if the outcome is a foregone conclusion), reducing the regime's party to an arm of the executive, allowing no opposition, and making sure that his picture appears daily on the front page of the media. Only such a ruler qualifies as a member of the quintessential Arab leaders' club.

Such security cooperation can hardly take place once any kind of peace arrangement is achieved. At that point, Israeli security presence in Judea and Samaria, a daily feature of West Bank life since the Defensive Shield operation in April 2002, would have to cease. This would leave Abbas' security forces to face Hamas alone. So, Abbas prefers not to make progress in the peace talks until the terrorist swamp is more effectively dried up. He is treading on that path but has not gotten far enough to make the kind of progress in the peace process that would make Israeli security forays politically impossible.

All the major political actors with whom Abbas has to deal - the US, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and of course Israel, concur on this point. Every al-Qaida gain in Somalia, every Islamist attack in Iraq, Yemen, and even as far away as Morocco; every Hizballah provocation against al-Hariri's government in Lebanon, often at Iran's bidding, not to speak of terrorism in Sinai that may be related to Hamas, reinforce the idea that a Hamas takeover in the West Bank must be averted at all costs. This means, then, that no substantial progress in the peace talks can be made before such a danger is dealt with.

At the same time, the Iranian and Islamist threat to the"Western" alliance requires from the perspective of these political actors, with the exception of Israel, the impression of movement in the negotiations between Abbas and Netanyahu. This is necessary in order to placate the "Arab street"- to prevent it from threatening the moderate governments or feeding the ranks of the radicals- and to create the kind of political environment that would allow the United States and Israel to deal with the far more imminent Iranian nuclear threat.

Israel must not be diverted from pursuing its national interests by the"Arab street" argument. The Arab states, including Yemen and even the major political forces in Iraq, will fight to the death to maintain their privilege to rule. Note how successfully the Arab Gulf states have coped with the terrorist fallout in Iraq. They know how to reign in the Arab street with or without impressions of movement, which the negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority are intended to convey. In any event, the Arab street cannot be fooled by impressions.

So too, Israel should live under no illusions of its own. While it is true that bolstering the Arab state system is the bulwark against both the Iranian and Islamist threat, Israel must challenge the idea that this is predicated on the creation of a Palestinian state. No matter how adept Abbas becomes at ruling the West Bank, he is incapable of bringing the Gazans into the peace process. If ever a peace treaty were signed between Israel and Abbas, we can be assured that Hamas will launch Qassam rockets to make sure that the conflict is not terminated.

Hillel Frisch is Associate Professor of Political Science at Bar-Ilan University and Senior Research Associate at the Begin-Sadat (BESA) Center for Strategic Studies.

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Just Your Everyday "Rally for Justice in Palestine and the Oppressed Everywhere" (Except In Israel)

by Daled Amos

"The time has come that we must stir up our 'religious leaders' in this country to speak the truth about Israel. They must put their hands on the Quran and say that they do not recognize Israel as a legitimate entity. If they cannot do that, they must be branded as kaffirs [infidels]. It's as simple as that. Because the Quran says – drive them out from where they drove you out."

Kaukab Siddiqi

Here is the video--from the "Annual Al-Quds Day Rally for Justice in Palestine and the Oppressed Everywhere." The video automatically starts with Siddiqi:

When you have an associate professor of English haranguing a crowd about the Koran, you know it's not because of his knowledge of the Islam or Koran, but because he'll say anything to stir up a crowd.

His reference to the Korah is to Sura 2:191--Kill them whenever you confront them and drive them out from where they drove you out...

The reference is not to a general command but to a specific battle--of Badr, and raises an interesting side point. Islam 101 quotes from Toward Understanding The Qu'ran:

In verse 2.190, God instructs Muslims to fight back, but not to transgress and remain just even during the battle. "They are told that material interests should not be the motivation for their fighting, that they should not take up arms against those were not in opposition to the true faith, that they should not resort to unscrupulous methods or to the indiscriminate killing and pillage which characterized the wars of the pre-Islamic era, the Age of Ignorance. The excesses alluded to in this verse are acts such as taking up arms against women and children, the old and the injured, mutilation of the dead bodies of the enemy, uncalled for devastation through the destruction of fields and livestock, and other similar acts of injustice and brutality. In the Hadith all these acts have been prohibited. The real intent of the verse is to stress that force should be used only when its use is unavoidable, and only to the extent that is absolutely necessary." (note 201, page 151, Towards Understanding the Quran, Volume 1)

In his book The Crisis of Islam, Bernard Lewis gives a similar description of Sharia itself:

Because holy war is an obligation of the faith, it is elaborately regulated in the sharia. Fighters in a jihad are enjoined not to kill women, children, and the aged unless they attack first, not to torture or mutilate prisoner, to give fair warning of the resumption of hostilities after a truce, and to honor agreements. [p. 39]

Besides dictating who can be attacked, Sharia also dictates how:

The medieval jurists and theologians discuss at some length the rules of warfare, including questions such as which weapons are permitted and which are not. There is even some discussion in medieval texts of the lawfulness of missile and chemical warfare, the one relating to mangonels and catapults, the other to poison-tipped arrows and the poisoning of enemy water supplies. On these points there is considerable variation. Some jurists permit, some restrict, some disapprove of the use of these weapons. The stated reason for concern is the indiscriminate casualties that they inflict. At no point do the basic texts of Islam enjoin terrorism and murder. At no point--as far as I am aware--do they even consider the random slaughter of uninvolved bystanders. [p. 39.]

Would Siddiqi agree that Hamas, which transgresses the Koran by its indiscriminate attacks on women and children, is a terrorist group?

We are left with the question as to what degree self-described "Muslim" governments like Hamas or "resistance" groups like Hezbollah--or demagogues like Siddiqi--really take the Koran into account.

by Daled Amos

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

What Kind of Academic Signs These Anti-Israel Petitions?

by Fred Gottheil


A year and a half ago, January 2009, David C. Lloyd, Professor of English at the University of Southern California, wrote a three-page petition concerning U.S. relations with Israel, which he addressed to incoming President Barack Obama. His petition was endorsed by nine hundred signatories, most located at universities and colleges in the United States, but some affiliated with academic institutions in Canada, United Kingdom, and even Israel.

Lloyd's petition was notable not only for its criticism of Israeli policy -- that is standard fare among the set of academics who subscribe to a post-colonial view of the world -- but rather for its demonizing of the Jewish state.

His technique was anything but novel. It associated Israel with pre-Mandela South Africa. Lloyd's South African-linking brushstrokes were many and crude, citing "collective punishment," "apartheid regime," "racist regime," "besieged Bantustans," "crimes against humanity," and "ethnocidal atrocities." These were layered on his fact-distorting canvas like icing on a poisoned cake.

The petition was written just weeks following the December 2008 Gaza war, which was Israel's response to the more than six thousand rockets launched randomly and sporadically from Gaza into Israel over a three-year period beginning in 2005. While Professor Lloyd describes in much detail the damage inflicted on Gaza by the Israeli response, the petition completely ignores the casus belli -- Hamas' rocket-shelling and terrorist activity. Even Egypt warned Hamas prior to the Gaza war that its violent provocations would invite an Israeli response, and when that response came, Egypt pointed its accusing finger at Hamas. That, too, Lloyd ignored.

Lloyd's anti-Israel petition found its way to over 150 campuses, although a dozen -- among them Hofstra, UC Berkeley, UC Irvine, UC Riverside, University of Texas at Austin, and University of Minnesota -- account for a disproportionate number of signers.

But accepting as genuine the petitioners' stated goal of seeking social justice in the Middle East, I thought it fitting to contact the signatories of the Lloyd petition to offer them yet another opportunity to express their commitment to social justice in the region, this time by endorsing a Statement of Concern regarding human rights abuses practiced against gays and lesbians and against women in general in many of the Middle Eastern countries, including the territories controlled by the Palestinian Authority. The idea was really uncomplicated: Since they expressed a concern about social injustice in Israel, they might also be willing to express their concern about human rights abuses practiced against women, gays, and lesbians in other parts of the Middle East.

The detailed material for this Statement of Concern was gathered from sources as widespread as U.N. agencies, survey research units, the High Commissioner for Human Rights, scholarly journals, and social justice-related NGOs such as Asylum-Law and Human Rights Watch.

The Statement provided evidence of both the practice and the condoning of the practice by religious, political, and even academic authorities of honor-killing, wife-beating, and female genital mutilations. Documentation was offered for specific countries, for specific practices, and referred to specific authorities condoning the practices identified.

Unlike the Lloyd petition, the Statement concerning discrimination of women and gays and lesbians in the Middle East was not designed to petition President Obama or any other persons or organization. The four-page Statement, along with its signatories, was simply to be placed in the public domain in whatever manner was appropriate and which budget allowed.

It made no reference to the content in the Lloyd petition, however distorting that content may have been. It simply addressed the issues of human rights violations of women, gays, and lesbians in the Middle East. The expected signatories to the Statement were to be drawn only from those American academics who signed the Lloyd petition.

The process of authenticating those signatories was anything but problem-free. It required painstakingly checking through the websites of the nine hundred signatories, and through appropriate department or college websites when personal ones were unavailable. Graduate-student signatories were included when evidence of teaching or published research was available. Excluded were non-academics and non-American academics, and they were many. That screening reduced the number of signatories to be contacted from nine hundred to 691. Some of the 691 were dead ends so that in the end, 675 e-mails -- with the Statement attached and a request for support -- were sent, received, and presumably read.

Here are the findings. Only thirty of the 675 "self-described social-justice seeking academics" responded, 27 of them agreeing to endorse the Statement. But these 27 signatories represent less than five percent of the 675 contacted. In other words, 95 percent of those who had signed the Lloyd petition censuring Israel for human rights violation did not sign a statement concerning discrimination against women and gays and lesbians in the Middle East.

Surprised? If so, prepare for yet a bigger surprise. As many as 25 percent of the Lloyd petition-signing academics were faculty associated with gender and women studies departments. Yet of these, only 5 endorsed the Statement calling for attention to the discrimination against women in the Muslim countries of the Middle East. Put more bluntly, 164 of the 169 faculty who had chosen to focus their life's work on matters affecting women, and who felt comfortable enough to affix their names to Lloyd's petition censuring Israel, chose not to sign a Statement of Concern about documented human rights violations against gays, lesbians, and women in the Middle East.

What should we make of this? Perhaps it is that we should be aware of what we don't see when we see petitions and their signatories. While academics are entitled to voice opinions no less than anyone else, those -- as in the Lloyd petition -- who explain their criticism of Israel and demand change in our relationship to that Jewish state on grounds of "social justice" may indeed have other agendas in mind. What they were willing and unwilling to sign tells us a great deal about who they are and what social justice means to them. It appears their "social justice" is reserved only for their own kind. And it matters. After all, many of them teach "social justice" in their classrooms.

Fred Gottheil is Professor, Department of Economics, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

The truth about our 'partners'

by Moshe Elad


As always, Palestinian negotiators more interested in PR victory than in independence

About a decade ago, upon the al-Aqsa Intifada's outbreak, I participated in a CNN panel with Diana Buttu, a renowned Palestinian attorney belonging to the PLO's negotiations department. The high salary she was received for her appearances, her fluency, and the significance she attributed to Palestinian propaganda prompted me to tell her and other panelists: I admit that the Palestinians are propaganda masters, and you'll continue to be just that for many years to come…but you won't get a state.

The recently launched Geneva Initiative campaign, where Palestinian partners seek to become your friend, just like on Facebook, demonstrates it again; The Palestinians are interested in a public relations win against Israel more than they aspire for independence.

About a decade ago, they secured the services of Ed Abington, the former US consul general in Jerusalem; in exchange for more than $2 million, Arafat asked him to "wipe Israel out" on the public relations front. We all know the result: Arafat was shunned by the Bush Administration and ended his life with the image of a perpetual terrorist in Ramallah, while Hamas toppled the Palestinian Authority in Gaza and left it weaker and more pathetic than ever (yet with an excellent PR department.)

Now, upon the launch of the 2010 direct talks, it's the Geneva Initiative's turn to attempt to elicit a Palestinian "PR victory." Why a PR victory? Because marketing Abbas, Erekat, Rajoub and their comrades as men of peace is a tough mission.

Let's take Chief Negotiator Saeb Erekat, for example. He had been etched in the Israeli public's consciousness during the bloody battle at the Jenin refugee camp during Operation Desert Shield in 2002, when he deceived the global media by disseminating false figures about "thousands of Palestinian victims" – eventually he was even boycotted by the media. Indeed, a more proper caption for Erekat's photo in the recent campaign would be: "Would you buy a used car from this man?"

As to President Abbas, yet another propaganda star, I shall note that a few days ago, his minister of religious affairs said in his presence that "the word 'war' will not be removed from the Palestinian lexicon as long as Jerusalem is occupied." Abbas tells Israeli and Western elements that the refugee problem is "solvable," yet at the same time he inflames the passions of refugee camp dwellers by pledging that "the return is near" – and not to the West Bank, but rather, to Haifa, Akko, and the Galilee. So what kind of partner are they marketing here exactly, a partner for war?

'Armed struggle legitimate'
Abbas and Yasser Abed Rabbo, yet another campaign star, keep on threatening that "the armed struggle hasn't ended, but rather, only changed its shape." What does Abed Rabbo wish to remind us of, that he started his way at Nayef Hawatmeh's Democratic Front, responsible for one of the gravest massacres in Israel's history? We remember. And what does Abbas wish to hint, that he played a role in the massacre of our athletes at the Munich Olympics? That the research work he wrote denied the Holocaust and associated the Nazis with the Jewish community in Eretz Yisrael? Who can even forget that?

Another PR star is Jibril Rajoub, who was removed from the president's decision-making circle in favor of his role as…chairman of the Palestinian soccer association. This old-new partner is so cooperative that he even objects to a joint Israeli-Palestinian soccer game. Those who try to remind him that US-China relations developed in the wake of a ping-pong game are wasting their time. The sportsmanlike spirit of Rajoub and his men stops at the Ramallah-Jerusalem border. What a great partner.

The Geneva Initiative group would do well to make clear to the Israeli public what Palestinian Authority officials truly think about peace with Israel. For example, that refugees will return only to "places they were expelled from" in Palestine (that is, within the Green line); or that no Palestinian will agree to a deal as long as even one settlement remains in the West Bank ("the situation has to be just like the Gaza disengagement"); and also: "The whole of east Jerusalem is Palestine's capital."

The Geneva people should also highlight the official Palestinian position, whereby as long as the occupation persists, "the armed Palestinian struggle is legitimate." And most importantly: That at best, we'll see agreement on a "temporary peace treaty," whose practical implication would be security arrangements, but certainly not true peace and an end to the conflict. Is there an Israeli partner for that? I doubt whether even the Geneva Initiative people would agree to accept such deal, yet for the time being they are serving the Palestinian PR machine.


Colonel (res.) Moshe Elad is a researcher at the Shmuel Neeman Institute at the Technion. He also serves as a National Security Studies lecturer at the Western Galilee Academic College.

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Monograph: As Negotiations Resume: The Palestinian Authority Stand on the “Right of Return”

by Arliene Kushner

Mahmoud Abbas

Of primary interest when examining the position of the Palestinian Authority with regard to the “right of return” is the stand of Mahmoud Abbas (aka Abu Mazen), president of the PA.

Abbas’s position on the matter is of long-standing and far precedes his presidency.

qIn 2000, as Secretary General of the PLO Executive Committee, he wrote about the issues confronted in Camp David. As to the “right of return,” he said:

“We encountered, and will encounter in the future, fierce resistance on this subject from the Israeli government, because the bottom line is that [the return of refugees] means altering the demographic character [of Israel] that the Israelis hope to preserve.

“...It is noteworthy in this matter, and this is also what we clarified to the Israelis, that the Right of Return means a return to Israel and not to the Palestinian State... When we talk about the Right of Return, we talk about the return of refugees to Israel, because Israel was the one who deported them and it is in Israel that their property is found...”[1]

In 2003, he told heads and leaders of the Popular Councils in the Gaza Strip Refugee Camps:

"Peace will not be achieved without the refugees getting back their sacred rights, which cannot be touched... It is the individual right of every refugee, and no one can reach an agreement in this matter without his consent."[2]

A day after the Fatah movement chose Mahmoud Abbas as its candidate for the January elections for PA president (to replace a deceased Arafat), in late November 2004, he told the PA legislature that he would follow in Yasser Arafat's footsteps and demand that Israel recognize the right of return of Palestinian refugees to Israel.

During a memorial for Arafat, who died November 11, 2004, Abbas declared "We promise you [Arafat] that our heart will not rest until we achieve the right of return for our people and end the tragic refugee issue."^[3]

And so has Abbas continued this theme over subsequent years.

At the Cairo Conference for “Palestinian National Dialogue, in mid-March 2005, at which Abbas led the PLO/PA faction, a declaration was made reinforcing the Palestinian demand for refugees to "return to their homes" in the current State of Israel.[4]

A subsequent Palestinian National Dialogue Conference - sponsored by PA President Mahmoud Abbas - was held in Ramallah and Gaza on May 25-26, 2006. At the end of the Conference, a statement outlining its principles was released. Among them:

“...the right of return is a sacred right of the Palestinian refugees.

“...The national dialogue conference rejects all attempts that aim to cancel the right of return of refugees and that aims to disperse the refugees in the various countries of the world. The national dialogue conference affirms that the right of refugees is a sacred right in their homeland and it is a collective and individual right that no force in the world can cancel the right of our people and the right of our refugees in their homeland and in their lands and homes.”[5]

At a public rally in the beginning of 2007, Abbas declared: “The issue of the refugees is non-negotiable... We... reject any attempt to resettle the refugees in other countries”[6]

With regard to the failed negotiations with Olmert, 2008, journalist Ben-Dror Yemini wrote: “Abu Mazen insisted on mass return of the refugees. That was the reason why Abu Mazen discarded the proposal and not, as proclaimed, due to Olmert’s waning days as prime minister. Abu Mazen said so himself, in his own voice.”[7]

At the Fatah Conference held in August 2009, Abbas reaffirmed Fatah’s commitment to the peace process and the establishment of a Palestinian state alongside Israel on the basis of the 1967 borders (sic), with Jerusalem as its capital, and the right of return for Palestinian exiles. [8]

In the weeks and months leading up to the Proximity Talks with Israel, and now, presumably, direct talks, Abbas has repeatedly included “right of return” among the demands of the PA:

• Aides say Abbas wants guarantees that any such talks would quickly move to seeking final agreements on the core issues of the conflict - borders, settlements, right of return for Palestinian refugees and Jerusalem.[9]

• Binyamin Netanyahu and Mahmoud Abbas will open negotiations on 'core issues' in ... for a demilitarized Palestine, and the right of return for refugees.[10]

• “There is simply no evidence that any behind-the-scenes progress has been made on key ‘final status’ issues (borders, Jerusalem, the Palestinians’ ‘right to return’ to Israel)...”[11]
  
  
  

Writes Sami Moubyed, echoing many analysts:

“Abbas has no war medals on his neatly pressed Western suit, making it very difficult - if not impossible - for him to make any concessions on peace, and get away with it before ordinary Palestinians.

“Making peace needs decorated war heroes - Arafat would not have been able go to Oslo in 1993 without having led the Palestinian resistance for 30 years. Otherwise, he would have been labeled as a traitor by his own people. Arafat was a man who could take decisions, and bear the consequences. He would say: ‘Only this hand [waving his right hand], can sign a peace treaty with Israel!’

“If Abbas decides to make concessions to Israel, and signs a flawed peace treaty, he risks being killed by an extremist Palestinian. Precisely by his death, Arafat has marked the ‘red lines’ of Palestinian politics. What he did not concede during his lifetime nobody will be able to give after his death: abandoning Jerusalem as the capital of the ‘State of Palestine.’ and the right of return for refugees.[12]

Others

It is instructive to consider, as well, statements on the issue of “return” made by other members of Fatah/the PLO/the PA.

Perhaps most striking, and revealing is the statement made by Sakher Habash, member of the Fatah Central Committee, in the course of a seminar on "The Palestinian Refugee from the Political Parties' Perspective," held at Al-Najah University in Shechem in 1998:

“...To us, the refugees issue is the winning card which means the end of the Israeli state. They have, therefore, refused to solve it this way. Meanwhile, we should not seek negotiable solutions.”[13] (Emphasis added)

A number of statements by relevant sources were released on Nakba Day, May 15, 2010 (Nakba: the “Catastrophe” - the day of mourning Israel’s founding).

Fatah released a statement declaring that:

"it will continue struggling until the principle of right of return as well as freedom and independence for the Palestinian people are achieved.

"The return of the Palestinian refugee to his or her home is a constant right that can never be debated and a solution to the refugees issue would never be fair as long as it doesn't include all their historic rights," said the Fatah statement.[14]

Abbas Zaki, member of the Fatah central committee and the former PLO representative in Lebanon:

“We believe wholeheartedly that the Right of Return is guaranteed by our will, by our weapons, and by our faith...The use of weapons alone will not bring results, and the use of politics without weapons will not bring results. We act on the basis of our extensive experience. We analyze our situation carefully. We know what climate leads to victory and what climate leads to suicide. We talk politics, but our principles are clear.”[15] (Emphasis added)

The PA held a central rally in Ramallah, attended by members of the PLO Executive Committee and the Fatah Central Committee. Participants held keys representing their lost homes in Israel, and speakers emphasized the refugees' right to regain their houses and lands and to receive compensation. One of the placards held aloft said "We will return to Haifa, Akko, Lod, Ramle, and Nazareth."[16]

Fatah and Hamas members held a joint march in Gaza under the heading "United, We Shall Return."[17]

The PLO international relations department stated in an official communiqué: "The refugee problem is sacrosanct, and is a top priority for the PLO leadership, which rejects the [option of] settling the refugees permanently in their host countries. The refugees have a legitimate right to return to the homes from which they were expelled... in accordance with [U.N.] Resolutions 194, 242 and 338 and the Arab peace initiative."[18]

Hani Al-Masri, an official in the Palestinian Information Ministry and a columnist for the PA daily Al-Ayyam, wrote: "The Palestinian problem cannot be resolved without finding a just solution to the refugee problem, because [the right of return] is a natural, historical and legal right, and is included in international resolutions. U.N. General Assembly Resolution 194 stipulates that the refugees must return to their homes and to the property from which they were expelled, and in addition must be compensated.[19]

Adel Abd Al-Rahman, columnist for the PA daily Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, wrote: "One must defend the right that is sacred to every Palestinian, namely [the right] to return to his homeland, the land of his fathers, based on [his] natural and legal right to [his] land, history and identity, and based on U.N. resolutions, particularly Resolution 194... The right of return is a sacred right that no force or country - not even the Palestinian politicians - can revoke, because it is a political right of the Palestinians as a collective, as well as an individual right, and nobody can [waive it] on behalf [of the individual in question, not even] his father or mother. The right belongs not only to the refugees who were expelled in 1948, but to anyone whose father or mother is Palestinian, regardless of when and where he was born - for Palestine is Arab and Palestinian land, and it belongs to all Palestinians regardless of faith, race, color, gender, or political or ideological orientation...

"[Even] if the Palestinian leadership reaches a historic agreement with the state of Israel, this does not invalidate the Palestinian right of return. Every Palestinian may demand to return to his city, village, or [place of] origin, and [he may voice this demand] from any platform or at any international, national, or regional court, in order to realize the right of return and utilize every means in the struggle to return to the land of his fathers."[20] (Emphasis added)

---

[1] Al-Hayat (London), November 24, 2000, as reported in MEMRI Special Dispatch #157, November 28, 2000.

[2] Al-HayatAl-Jadida (PA), October 25, 2002, cited in MEMRI Special Report # 15, April 29, 2003.

[3] AP report carried by Haaretz, November 23, 2004.

[4] Michael Widlanski, ‘In Arafat’s Footsteps,” Frontpage Magazine, April 8, 2005.

[5] Political Affairs Magazine, June 2, 2006.

[6] Khaled Abu Toameh, ‘Abbas: Aim guns against occupation,’ Jerusalem Post, January 11, 2007. Abbas made his statement at a public rally.

[7] Ben-Dror Yemini, Maariv, March 31, 2010.

[8] Carnegie Endowment for Peace, Web Commentary, August 17, 2009.

[9] Modhammed Assadi, Reuters, February 19, 2010.

[10] The Guardian (UK), August 20, 2010.

[11] John Bolton, NY Daily News, August 25, 2010.

[12] Intifada - Voice of Palestine, September 1, 2010.

[13] Jerusalem Newswire, November 24, 2004. Was originally on the website of Fatah on August 12, 1998:
www.fateh.org/e_public/refugees.htm - cited by IMRA: http://www.imra.org.il/story.php3?id=22901.

[14] English People Daily, May 16, 2010.

[15] Interview to NBN TV in Lebanon on April 9, 2008, as reported by MEMRI in Report # 1896. Zaki was PLO representative to Lebanon when he gave this interview.

[16] Al-Hayat Al-Jadida (PA), May 18, 2010; WAFA (PA), May 17, 2010, both cited by MEMRI, Special Dispatch No. 2995, June 3, 2010.

[17] Al-Hayat Al-Jadida (PA), May 16, 2010, cited by MEMRI, Special Dispatch No. 2995, June 3, 2010.

[18] WAFA (PA), May 13, 2010, as cited by MEMRI, Special Dispatch No. 2995, June 3, 2010.

[19] Al-Ayyam (PA), May 15, 2010, as cited by MEMRI, Special Dispatch No. 2995, June 3, 2010.

[20] Al-Hayat Al-Jadida (PA), May 16, 2010,, as cited by MEMRI, Special Dispatch No. 2995, June 3, 2010.

Arliene Kushner, Senior Research Policy Analyst, Center for Near East Policy Research

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Just Out: TIME Magazine’s Latest Blood Libel About Israel

by Phyllis Chesler

The September 13, 2010 issue of TIME Magazine arrived yesterday. The cover story is titled “Why Israel Doesn’t Care About Peace” and is illustrated by a large Jewish star composed of daisies. Yes, daises—as in “counting daisies, don’t have a care in the world.”

This is precisely the point of Karl Vick’s article. He writes:

Israelis are no longer preoccupied with the matter [of peace with the Palestinians]. They’re otherwise engaged: They’re making money; they’re enjoying the rays of the late summer … they have moved on.

Vick quotes an Israeli real estate agent in Ashdod, one Eli, who tells him:

People are indifferent. They don’t care if there’s going to be war. They don’t care if there’s going to be peace. They don’t care. They live in the day.

According to Vick, Israelis don’t care about peace, peace negotiations, or about the Palestinians because they are simply having too good a time: sunbathing, swimming, café-hopping, profiting from start-up companies, and, according to polls cited by Vick, utterly disconnected from “politics;” indeed Vick suggests that Israelis resemble Californians more than they resemble Egyptians. These are all points which scream: Israel does not fit in; if Israelis were only more impoverished, more indolent, and paradoxically, even more “laid back,” they might be recognizable as indigenous to the region, a true part of the Middle East.

These are Vick’s thoughts, not mine.

Of course, Jews are the original Palestinians and the most indigenous of the region’s inhabitants; yes, there are many impoverished Israelis, both Jews and non-Jews; and, let’s not forget that there are even some Israelis who remain permanently on high alert for the next terrorist attack, permanently scarred by the last ones. For a moment, let’s forget about all that. Allow me to ask: Why doesn’t Vick also point out that Palestinians are leading the high life on the West Bank and in sumptuous villas on both the West Bank and in Gaza; that they, too, are sunbathing, swimming, shopping, dining out, and relaxing at the beach—at least as much as the Islamist thugs who run the lives of Palestinians will allow it?

Vick and his editors at TIME seem to think that showing six photos of Israelis at leisure: blowing smoke on a beach chair, lounging on a beach chair, resting in an army uniform on the beach without a chair, playing with one’s baby in a stroller, sitting at a café—are proof that Israelis are engaging in activities which are not admirable, are, in fact, “proof” that they are not suffering but rather, proof that Israelis simply don’t care about peace with the Palestinians. And Vick brings in polls as well as expert and person-in-the-street opinions to back up this claim.

Vick writes that real estate is booming, as is business in general, Israeli “brainiacs” have helped their nation avoid the economic disasters that have plunged Europe and America into a recession. He literally writes this. “Israel avoided the debt traps that dragged the U.S. and Europe into recession. It is known as a start-up nation—second only to the U.S. companies listed on the Nasdaq exchange.”

Is Vick aware that, consciously or not, intentionally or not, he is counting on the world’s long-held resentment about Jewish creativity, genius, and scientific and economic success—counting on the world’s willingness to scapegoat Israel once again for crimes that it has not committed? Or because Jews seem to “know something,” maybe they are channeling God directly and thus, the deck is stacked against non-Jews. Vick presents Israel’s “success” as somehow unseemly, because it makes other nations look bad. Does he harbor the suspicion that Jewish prosperity has been “stolen” from non-Jews or is he merely advertising that Jewish gold is there, ripe for the taking?

Buried—but really buried– in Vick’s four page cover piece are snippets of true facts: That the Israelis are weary of peace negotiations which never succeed because the Palestinians do not want peace; that Arabs and Palestinians want to destroy the Jewish state and as many Jews as possible.

But Vick fails to convey that negotiations cannot work as long as the ultra-Nazified Arab Islamic propaganda against Jews and Israel continues to turn out children who hate Jews and who become human homicide bombs, snipers, kidnappers, kassam rocket throwers, etc.

Here is what Vick utterly fails to comprehend, namely, that the Israelis are not merely tired, disenchanted, living in la-la land a la southern Californians (hence, the Jewish star made of daisies on the cover). The Israelis are actually showing the entire world how to embrace life, even as they live, trembling, in the shadow of death. They are teaching the world how to “love life more than they fear death.” A new and wonderful book A New Shoah. The Untold Story of Israel’s Victims of Terrorism by Italian journalist Giulio Meotti, which is not yet out, makes precisely this point.

The Jewish insistence on life may be the key to our survival as a people despite ceaseless persecution. It might be the lesson, the model, for all humanity in an era of genocides, civil wars, torture chambers, tyrannies, and totalitarian regimes. Why is TIME turning things on their head and refusing to recognize the courage and the heroism of Jewish Israelis who choose to live in the moment when the moment is all they have? Against all odds, the Jews simply refuse to give up. As Meotti writes of the numerous victims of terrorism during the ongoing Intifada of 2000, “Israel teaches the world love of life, not in the sense of a banal joie de vivre, but as a solemn celebration.”

Meotti begins where I began in early 2004, when I wrote about a new Holocaust in the pages ofThe Jewish Press, a Holocaust which is now based in Israel. At the time, I was not heard beyond a small circle. I did what Meotti now does in his opening pages. Meotti fully understands that Israel is the “first country ever to experience suicide terrorism on a mass scale: that more than 150 suicide attacks have been carried out plus 500 have been prevented.” According to Meotti, there have been “1,723 people (murdered) and 10,000 injured” in Israel. As I did, Meotti converts these numbers into the demographic equivalent of attacks on Americans. When I did so there were somewhat fewer people in both categories. Thus, Meotti writes that in American population terms, this means that “74,000 Americans” would have been killed and “400,000 injured.”

Vick does not factor this grave reality into his article. Nor does he seem to know how high the Jewish population growth was in the DP camps right after the Holocaust. Can he comprehend that permanently endangered Jews—a people that has survived as a people for nearly six thousand years—the Chosen People—have always chosen life in the moment, have chosen to seize life with both hands, even as they memorialize their dead and make sense of their persecution in a way that illuminates this particular Hell for all humanity?

Meotti describes the often surreal nature of the suicide-homicide bombings which occur on buses, in shopping malls, at cafes, hotels, and nightclubs. What this dead-on attack on civilians means is the “a few dozen yards away life went on supposedly as usual….this is an optical illusion. Concealed beneath this energetic routine lies deep despair.”

Perhaps Mr. Vick and his editor ought to read Meotti’s book.

What Meotti is doing is remembering the lives and the deaths of the Israeli victims of Palestinian terrorism during the last decade. I have only read the first few chapters but cannot put it down. These are unknown stories, unnamed victims, whose mortal remains have often evaporated, disintegrated as surely as those Jews who literally went up in smoke during the Nazi Holocaust. His stories are mainly of victims who were unarmed and helpless and who, it turns out, were actually exceptionally kind to others, often to the very Arab Palestinians who shot them down, bludgeoned them to death, or blew them up into unrecognizable bone fragments, drops of blood, perhaps a few teeth.

I look forward to completing Meotti’s book. I hope that people more fully understand that TIME Magazine as well as countless other media in the Western world, can no longer be trusted to tell the truth.

Phyllis Chesler

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Red Cross Justifies Hosting Hamas Leaders

by Hillel Fendel


Three wanted Hamas leaders have taken refuge in Red Cross offices in Jerusalem – while Hamas prevents RC from visiting Gilad Shalit in Gaza. A rally demanding Israeli action and protesting the Red Cross will be held at Red Cross offices tonight.

The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) has given “asylum” to three Hamas leaders who fear that the Israeli police might arrest and/or deport them. The three have been there for 40 days. Israel is clearly hesitant to arrest them on Red Cross premises, for fear of “how it will look” – and the standoff continues.

Meanwhile, the three have opened a type of headquarters at the Red Cross, with visitors and journalists constantly coming and going. Hamas took responsibility for last week’s terrorist murders of four Jews near Hevron and for an attempt to kill two more the next night.

Israel National News (INN) spoke to stand-in ICRC spokesperson Cecilia Goin, who explained, “We have made it clear that if the police come to arrest them, we do not have extra-territorial status and we will do nothing to stop the police.”

Asked, “Why, then, are you letting them live on your premises?” Goin explained that the ICRC considers eastern Jerusalem “occupied territory” and that the three Hamas men "are considered protected persons under international humanitarian law, as stated in Article 4 of the Fourth Geneva Convention."

“Interpretation of that article is a matter of dispute," INN noted, “but why is the ICRC not consistent with its interpretation and protecting the Hamas men from what it feels would be an illegal arrest by Israel?” Goin reiterated that the ICRC could not/would not prevent the Israeli police from arresting them.

What About Gilad Shalit?
Another question hovering in the air was the question of Gilad Shalit. Goin explained that the ICRC has met several times with Hamas regarding Shalit, “and each time we demanded that we be allowed to visit with Gilad Shalit, or at least to pass him the thousands of letters, cards and messages that are stored in our Gaza office for him. But each time, Hamas has refused.”

“On the one hand,” INN asked, “Hamas is not letting you visit Shalit, while on the other hand, you host Hamas leaders – not in order to protect them, because you say you will not block their arrest, but giving them a platform for the media, etc. – who are representatives of the very organization holding Shalit and not allowing you to visit him. Is this a case of one ICRC arm not being aware of what the other is doing, or simply a double standard at Israel’s expense?”

The spokesperson repeated that Hamas is not allowing ICRC to visit Shalit, despite its attempts, and that the Hamas leaders are receiving humanitarian protection.

A protest will be held outside the Jerusalem Red Cross offices at 6 PM this evening (Monday) demanding that both Israel and the ICRC put an end to the situation. David Ish-Shalom, organizer of the protest, says, “Just last week, Hamas took ‘credit’ for murdering four Jews near Hevron – and now, its leaders are guests of the Red Cross, right in the heart of Jerusalem [the Shimon HaTzaddik/Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood]. The Israeli security forces deserve great credit for pursuing terrorists, but isn’t it about time that Hamas leaders – who in this case happen to be only 100 meters from the city’s police headquarters – should be caught as well?”

“While Gilad Shalit does not receive any visits from the ICRC or anyone,” Ish-Shalom continues, “the ICRC itself hosts Hamas on its premises. We will protest outside the ICRC for as long as this dangerous, absurd and sick situation continues.”

ICRC Doesn't See Hamas as a Terror Org
Sam Sokol of the Five Towns Jewish Times originally reported six weeks ago that the ICRC does not categorize Hamas as a terrorist organization. “It is not up to the ICRC… to confer a particular status on people or organizations or to recognize their legitimacy,” a spokesperson said, adding that the Red Cross differentiates between the "militant" and "political" wings of terrorist organizations.

Foreign Ministry spokesman Yigal Palmor said that Israel does not accept this distinction, Sokol reported: “Distinguishing between a military branch and a ‘political’ or ‘charitable’ branch of a terror group is like distinguishing between the two hands of a convicted murderer,” Palmor said.

Hillel Fendel

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Whether or not Ground Zero mosque is built, U.S. Muslims have access to the American Dream

by Abdur-Rahman Muhammad


Let us get one thing straight: Barring difficulties in fund-raising, the Park51 project, the so-called "Ground Zero mosque" will be built. Despite the fact that roughly 70% of the American people oppose it, U.S. laws ensure that not even the project's most bitter foes will be able to stop it.

That's the reason why the question of whether America is "Islamophobic" - now bandied about so casually, as though opposition to the mosque has revealed a nasty strain in the American psyche, akin to the terrible racism or anti-Semitism that once ran wild - is so deeply offensive. This loathsome term is nothing more than a thought-terminating cliche conceived in the bowels of Muslim think tanks for the purpose of beating down critics.

Muslims are everywhere in this country, doing practically everything. There are Muslim doctors, lawyers and businessmen - like Park51 developer Sharif El-Gamal, who went from waiting tables just a few years ago to being a multimillionaire. There are Muslim soldiers and CIA agents.

Could this be possible if America were Islamophobic?

Muslims have approximately 2,000 mosques across America, of which many have adjoining schools. Muslim children often receive the most elite educations this country has to offer. (My thoughts here go to convicted terrorist supporter Sami Al-Arian. Al-Arian railed against America from a cushy teaching position in Florida; his daughter later earned a master's degree from Columbia, and his son is working toward a Ph.D. from Georgetown.)

Surveys have shown that Muslims in this country are above average in both education and living standards. They are living the American Dream. Nothing and no one can (or should) legally bar them from what Abraham Lincoln called "the right to rise."

Given all this, how did the narrative of "oppression" and so called "Islamophobia" take root so strongly among American Muslims?

It began when Muslims began coming to this country in large numbers in the mid-1960s, after civil rights legislation opened the borders to Muslim countries. Like all new arrivals, they sought to find their footing in the new land and to locate allies. To that end, they immediately developed a close relationship with African-American Muslim leadership, some of whom had earlier come through the Black Muslim movement. They saw great advantage in attaching themselves to this movement's cultural icons - including personalities like Muhammad Ali and Malcolm X.

The term "Muslim-American" was created and put into use in order to racialize Muslims. (Indeed, where are the "Buddhist Americans" or "Hindu-Americans"? There may be "Jewish-Americans," but this term is used far more rarely.) This term gave many different groups of Muslims - Arabs, Pakistanis, Bosnians, etc. - a common "race" around which to bond.

This sense of victimization has now reached a point - especially given the consistent rhetoric of groups like the Council on American-Islamic Relations - that many rank-and-file Muslims now genuinely believe that they are a persecuted and oppressed group.

Has there been some ugly anti-Muslim rhetoric, particularly surrounding the Park51 project? Certainly. Are there some abhorrent, though exceedingly rare, acts of violence against Muslim people on the basis of their religion? Yes. Are some Americans ignorant of Islam and concerned about extremists in their midst? Yes.

But is there any consistent pattern of systemic discrimination akin to what other groups have seen at other periods in American history? Absolutely not.

Black Muslim leadership has foisted an ideology of victimization on immigrant Muslims, and it has stuck. Now we see these same leaders, fearing they have outlived their usefulness to the immigrant Muslim establishment, announcing the formation of a "Coalition of African American Muslims" that supports the mosque. It includes anti-Semitic race-baiter Louis Farrakhan and Siraj Wahhaj, who has defended the 1993 WTC bomb plotters and called the FBI and CIA the "real terrorists."

Critics of the Park51 project should see this for what it is: an attempt to conflate all opposition to this particular mosque with blanket hatred of the Muslim religion.

That's a devious tactic, and it must not succeed.

Abdur-Rahman Muhammad is a Washington, D.C.-based writer who was once the Imam of a mosque. Though still a Muslim, he now works to combat Islamic extremism in the American Muslim community.

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Another Islamist Rally for Hate in D.C.

by IPT News


Dozens of people gathered in Washington's DuPont Circle Friday morning for the "Annual Al-Quds Day Rally for Justice in Palestine and the Oppressed Everywhere."

The Quds Day rally in Washington has become a gathering of the fringe of the fringe of rabidly anti-Israel demonstrators. Speakers included Medea Benjamin of Code Pink and two people who have espoused radical conspiracy theories at the Islamic Society of North America's (ISNA) annual conferences.

As Palestinian and Israeli leaders meet in peace negotiations just a few miles away, the speakers called for a rejectionist line on Israel.

"The time has come that we must stir up our 'religious leaders' in this country to speak the truth about Israel," said Kaukab Siddiqi. "They must put their hands on the Quran and say that they do not recognize Israel as a legitimate entity. If they cannot do that, they must be branded as kaffirs [infidels]. It's as simple as that. Because the Quran says – drive them out from where they drove you out."

As was the case at last year's demonstration, speakers spewed hate speech to a crowd dotted with Hizballah flags. Among the speakers was retired ambassador Edward Peck, and Mauri Saalakhan,

Salaakhan peddled copies of his book, The Palestinians' Holocaust, at the 2009 ISNA convention. It's a collection of essays including his claim that Israel was responsible for the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 and includes a defense of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

At the 2010 ISNA conference held in July, Peck described his experience on board the Mavi Marmara, the Turkish ship that was the site of a violent clash with Israeli commandos as it tried to break the blockade on Gaza in May. He also cast Israel as holding power over American policy in the region, saying the U.S. would open communications with Hamas "when Israel gives us permission."

Other speakers went far further. Abolfazl Nahidian, identified as imam of a mosque in Manassas, Va., cast the 9/11 attacks as a Zionist plot:

"September 11 is not done by Muslims. It is done by the plot of the Zionists in order to justify to occupy the land of the Muslims such as Afghanistan, such as Iraq, such as Pakistan, now moving on to the rest of the areas. They plot and they scheme and no doubt God is plotting and scheming against them too."

Last year, Nahidian wrote to President Obama, citing a Quranic verse that says "Do not take Jews and Christians as your authority," and asking the President not to "interfere with the affairs regarding Islamic issues based on our Holy Quran" including the disputed Iranian election results.

Siddiqi, introduced as a community activist, also included a threatening message for Jews:

"For the Christians I say please pray for Gaza. For the Jews I would say see what could happen to you if the Muslims wake up. And I say to the Muslims, dear brothers and sisters, unite and rise up against this hydra-headed monster which calls itself Zionism. Each one of us is their target and we must stand united to defeat, to destroy, to dismantle Israel if possible by peaceful means. Perhaps, like Saladin, we will give them enough food and water to travel back to the lands from where they came to occupy other people. There's no question of just removing the settlements. These settlements are only the tentacles of the devil who resides in Tel Aviv."

IPT News

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.