Love of the Land: April 2019

Tuesday, April 30, 2019

Dominique (Dom), British terrorists and the Mike’s Place bombing - by David Collier

This is Hamas and this is radical Islamic terrorism. The same terrorism that strikes in London, Paris, New York, Columbo, Nairobi, Cairo and anywhere else they manage to detonate their bombs. Terrorism that deliberately destroys lives. When people knowingly align with Hamas, when they call them ‘friends’, when they say ‘Kaddish‘ for Hamas terrorists – there is no excusing or forgiving such an ethical loss of direction. Even today, Hamas have martyr pages for these terrorists. People who wanted to kill civilians in pubs. This wasn’t the only time that someone I knew was killed by terrorists in Israel, but Dominique was part of my world. In an obscene twist, so were the terrorists. Because it took place shortly after midnight, most of those involved in the attack recognised the 30th April as the anniversary. For me it will always be the 29th. That was the last time I saw Dominique Haas smile.

David Collier..
Beyond the Great Divide..
29 April '19..

The 29th April is always a sombre day for me. Sixteen years ago today (29th April 2003), I was talking to a friend of mine ‘Dom’, about a new business adventure she was starting. I was eating a cake, a sample that she had brought me to taste. Dom came to pay for a flight I had sorted out for her. She had been to France to see her family and when she wanted to return from Paris, she’d call, I’d book the flight, and we’d settle once she had arrived. We chatted, I told her the cake was delicious and then we said our goodbyes. It must have been about 11am. ‘See you later’ I think I said to her. I wouldn’t though, in fact I never saw her alive again.

I had known Dominique (Dom) for about six years. Like many from Western Europe trying to find their way in Tel Aviv, Dom was part of the tourist crowd. A few hostels and pubs littered the Ben Yehuda, Allenby area and were full of working travellers. Thousands of young Europeans gravitated towards Tel Aviv’s Mediterranean shore. The hostels supplied the work, the pubs the recreation. Dom had been part of the scenery for a long time. I had first met her in the late 1990’s and if I remember rightly, at the time she worked in a launderette that doubled as a billiard/pool hall. We had been in touch ever since. Dominique was extremely popular and since I had my own tourism related business, Dominque was always sending me new customers.

Dom, the Buzz Stop and Mike’s Place

Dom worked for a while at a beachfront pub called the ‘Buzz Stop’. Originally sited near the ‘dolphinarium’ on the Southern beaches of Tel Aviv, the owner Eli, eventually moved it to the centre of town, near what was then the American Embassy. In 2001 another pub opened next door -a live blues music bar called Mike’s Place. Dominique switched from working at the Buzz Stop to Mike’s Place. She worked at Mike’s Place from the day that it opened. I frequented both. They were my local hang-outs and I knew most of the regulars.

The 29th April 2003 arrived and the second Intifada was still going strong. In January there had been a massacre in Tel Aviv’s Central Bus Station – a double suicide bombing. March saw a suicide bomb massacre in Haifa and another bombing in Netanya. In April Kfar Saba was the target of a suicide bombing. There were going to be four additional suicide bombings in May.

But Mike’s place was a pub on a beach front and full of tourists. It was a world away from the conflict. The evening of the 29th had been busy. It was Tuesday night- ‘Jam night’ for the Blues bar and everyone inside was having fun. Yet just a few hundred yards away in Hayarkon Street, two men were busy getting ready to kill.

(Continue to Full Post)

Updates throughout the day at http://calevbenyefuneh.blogspot.com. If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.Twitter updates at LoveoftheLand as well as our Love of the Land page at Facebook which has additional pieces of interest besides that which is posted on the blog. Also check-out This Ongoing War by Frimet and Arnold Roth. An excellent blog, very important work.

Monday, April 29, 2019

No offer that allows the continued existence of a Jewish state will be acceptable to them. No, it’s not about “race”. by Victor Rosenthal

The Jew-hatred that burns so hot among the Palestinian Arabs, nurtured over the years by the Palestinian leadership and tolerated and even subsidized by the West, is the single most important factor that prevents a peaceful end to the conflict here. But that doesn’t fit Bernie and Beto’s worldview. They worry about the human rights of the Palestinian Arabs, but don’t notice that the right to life of the Jews in Israel is threatened by an array of dozens of countries, including some that are armed to the teeth with rockets aimed at Israel. They think that Israel has not offered enough to the Palestinians, despite the fact that she offered far more than she could afford several times, and the offers were rejected – because no offer that allows the continued existence of a Jewish state will be acceptable to them.

Victor Rosenthal..
Abu Yehuda..
28 April '19..
Link: http://abuyehuda.com/2019/04/no-its-not-about-race/

Americans need to take a vacation from using the word “racist,” at least in connection with Israel, because they don’t have the slightest idea of what they are talking about, and it’s insulting as hell. Especially from presidential hopefuls:

That [US-Israel] relationship, if it is to be successful, must transcend partisanship in the United States, and it must be able to transcend a prime minister who is racist, as he warns about Arabs coming to the polls, who wants to defy any prospect for peace as he threatens to annex the West Bank, and who has sided with a far-right, racist party in order to maintain his hold on power. – Beto O’Rourke

I just believe that the United States should deal with the Middle East on a level playing field basis. In other words, the goal must be to try to bring people together and not just support one country, which is now run by a right-wing – dare I say – racist government. – Bernie Sanders

I know that Americans are obsessed with race. It’s understandable, given the historical facts that half of the country had a slavery-based economy until 1865, that vicious legally-sanctioned discrimination against the descendants of those slaves persisted until the 1960s, and that racial hatreds – on the part of both whites and blacks – are still prevalent in American society.

This is an American problem. It is not Israel’s problem, although Israel’s problem is based in history, too. It is the history of violent Arab/Muslim rejection of Jewish sovereignty anywhere in the region, which is championed today by the Palestinian Arab leadership represented by the PLO and Hamas.

Israel’s problem is not race-related. Jews and Arabs are closer genetically than Jews – even Ashkenazi Jews – and Europeans. It is not color-related. Jews and Arabs both come in all colors. It is not even an ethnic conflict, since Jews and Arabs can and do get along – despite many cultural differences – in Israel, in environments where the influence of the PLO and Hamas is weak.

Our conflict is a violent political conflict. But unlike similar conflicts all over the world, ours is not allowed to end. The Jewish people has spiritual, historical, legal, aboriginal, and moral rights to what we call the Land of Israel, and we’ve defended those rights through several wars. But for two main reasons, the conflict cannot be ended.

One reason is that the Western world is not happy with the idea of a sovereign Jewish state. It doesn’t like the idea of an ethnic nation-state in general, and it doesn’t like the idea of a Jewish one in particular. It has internalized the KGB-developed narrative of a Palestinian people whose “human rights” are denied by the very existence of a Jewish state. So the West keeps pushing various “solutions,” and the Arabs keep rejecting the ones that allow the Jewish state to continue to exist.

Sunday, April 28, 2019

Israel is not the one denying the Palestinians an independent state - by Aaron Kliegman

...The Palestinians could take a few notes. So too could the media and anti-Israel politicians, who only perpetuate the conflict by giving the Palestinians a pass on accepting responsibility for their own stateless plight.

Aaron Kliegman..
Freebeacon.com..
27 April '19..

It is easy to forget that, in 1947, when the United Nations recommended the creation of a Jewish state in Mandatory Palestine, the international body also recommended the creation of an Arab state—what would today be a national home for the Palestinians. The idea was to partition the land into two separate entities—in other words, a two-state solution. Indeed, in 1988, the Palestine National Council described the partition resolution as what "still provides those conditions of international legitimacy that ensure the right of the Palestinian Arab people to sovereignty." Yet at the time of the resolution, the Arabs—no one used the term "Palestinians" then—boycotted the U.N. Special Committee on Palestine, which the General Assembly empowered to make recommendations about the future government of the territory, rejecting both the partition and a single, binational state. Then the Arabs completely, and unambiguously, rejected the General Assembly's partition plan, believing that, once the British left Mandatory Palestine, they would defeat the Jews and control the entire area. Of course the Arabs failed, despite the help of several armies. The Jewish state of Israel, established in 1948, endured, and the Palestinian Arabs, who could have had their own state, remained stateless.

Since then, the Palestinians have repeatedly turned down offers of statehood. First, they did not seek the West Bank when Jordan controlled it from 1949 to 1967. Only when the land was back in Israeli control following the Six-Day War did the Palestinians again call it disputed. Twelve years later, Israel worked to offer the Palestinians autonomy, which would have been a major step toward full independence, to no avail. Then in 2000 and 2008, Israel offered the Palestinians control of virtually all of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, with a capital in East Jerusalem. Each time the Palestinians rejected the offer, even waging a violent uprising against the Israelis following the failure in 2000. One would be hard-pressed to find another national independence movement, beyond the Palestinian one, that has turned down formal offers of statehood in the territory they claim. Indeed, the Palestinians have, time and again, set new standards for stubbornness.

And yet, despite this history, most of the world seems to blame Israel for the Palestinians' situation.

(Continue to Full Column)

Thursday, April 25, 2019

The Good Prince, the Bad Prince and the Iran Deal - by Victor Rosenthal

...I know I am not exaggerating when I say that President Trump is a controversial figure in the US. But he is not controversial in Israel, where almost everyone agrees that he has been the most pro-Israel president – in terms of actual actions, not just words – since Truman. And most Israelis would be happy to see him re-elected in 2020. But that’s up to American voters to decide. And unfortunately, perhaps in part because Trump has been so pro-Israel, many of his opponents have moved in the opposite direction. Six of the most likely candidates to oppose Trump have said that if elected they would restore US participation in the nuclear deal – that is, they would remove the sanctions re-imposed by President Trump.

Victor Rosenthal..
Abu Yehuda..
25 April '19..
Link: http://abuyehuda.com/2019/04/the-good-prince-and-the-iran-deal/

It’s become a truism that the hatred and harassment of individual Jews and Jewish communities that once was prevalent in the lands of the diaspora before the rebirth of a Jewish state has since morphed into loathing and persecution of that state.

There are other parallels. Jewish communities in Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East had a precarious existence, depending on the good will of the local prince or emir. If the ruler liked the Jews – or, probably more correctly – found them more useful than despicable, they could live their lives relatively undisturbed. If, on the other hand – well, you know the story.

Today the position of the Jewish state is also dependent on powerful people and entities far beyond Israel’s control. In particular, the State of Israel is strongly affected by the policies and actions of the US. In America, foreign policy, and especially practical actions and reactions to events in the international arena, are primarily in the hands of the president and his appointees. These days, the President of the United States is the “prince” whose attitude most affects whether Israel thrives or withers.

Israel could have tried harder to reduce her dependence on the US and her susceptibility to pressure from the American government. She should have. I would like to believe that the desirability of this is becoming evident to Israeli officials, but the pull of “free” military hardware is hard to ignore. And there is some truth in the idea that Israelis simply admire the US and value a close relationship with her.

In recent times, Khamenei has been playing Haman to the American president’s Ahasuerus. The Iranian playbook calls for Israel to be battered by simultaneous attacks from Hezbollah’s and Hamas’ rocket forces, and invaded by proxies from both the North and South. The regime is working on increasing the number, payloads, defensibility, and accuracy of the rockets in the hands of her proxies as well as in Iran herself. At the same time she is developing new proxies by establishing Iraqi Shiite militias in Syria, modeled on the Lebanese Hezbollah. All this is intended to be shielded under a nuclear umbrella, whose development is proceeding.

Taken by itself, it seems that war between Israel and Iran is guaranteed. But there is one other possibility – the only alternative that I can imagine, given the objectives of the Iranian regime. And that is that the regime can be toppled by internal opposition encouraged by economic pressure from the US.

It’s a longshot, because a regime that is demonstrably willing to shoot down anti-government protesters in the street, that is buttressed by paramilitary militias, and that terrorizes and murders opposition figures, is hard to overthrow. The regime is quite prepared to control the allocation of resources in such a way that the general population suffers bitterly as long it remains in power, so economic pressure needs to be tough and protracted.

The alternative is a very destructive war for both Israel and Iran. If it comes to this, then I would hope that Israel will strike preemptively and hard. But that’s another discussion.

Wednesday, April 24, 2019

Is there any people that deserve a state less than Palestinian Arabs (assuming they actually constitute a people)? - by Ken Cohen

Their entire brief history shows that their primary aspiration is the destruction of Israel and the genocide of its Jewish citizens. In the event they are successful in this horrific pursuit, getting a state of their own would just be a residual bonus.

Ken Cohen..
JNS.org..
23 April '19..

With U.S. President Donald Trump’s peace plan due to be announced in June, there is the unnerving possibility that Palestinian Arabs may take a giant step towards statehood. Such a move would inevitably lead to warfare and bloodletting in the Middle East.

In the absence of a clear path to statehood—which the Trump plan is unlikely to provide—Palestinian Arabs would likely respond in the only way they have known: terror and violence. Yet that violence, which Israel has contained for decades, would pale in comparison to the long-term explosions that would follow Palestinian statehood (or even its approximation).
Often overlooked, though, is this more profound reality: The Palestinian Arabs have no reasonable basis for achieving statehood.

Indeed, when it comes to peoples around the world seeking their own countries, Palestinian aspirations are the most unworthy.

(Continue to Full Column)

Tuesday, April 23, 2019

Truth be told, who denied the Palestinians an independent state? Not Israel - by Jonathan S. Tobin

Why does “The New York Times” continue to deny historical truth in its latest lament about the plight of the Palestinians?

Jonathan S. Tobin..
JNS.org..
22 April '19..

According to The New York Times, the re-election of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has left Palestinian families seeing “no light at the end of the tunnel.”

A feature published on the front page of Monday’s Times focuses on the despair felt by Palestinian families about the current stalemate in the peace process. They know that the Palestinian Authority that rules over their cities, towns and villages is horribly corrupt and unable to conclude a peace deal with Israel. And they understand that Israelis have no more faith in the prospects of peace than they do.

The piece shows that some Palestinians are rethinking the ideology that has fueled a century-long war on Zionism. But they also don’t mention a basic fact that defines the current situation: The Palestinian leadership has repeatedly rejected compromises that would have given them the statehood they claim to want. It’s interesting that nowhere in the 1,000-word article does the Times take notice of this fact.

This omission speaks volumes not only about the ignorance and obtuse nature of the criticism of Israel that emanates from the paper, but also about the chattering classes and foreign-policy establishment that take their cues about the Middle East from its pages.

(Continue to Full Column)

Monday, April 22, 2019

The Anti-Defamation League's distortion of the annexation debate - by Stephen M. Flatow

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu never called for the “annexation of the West Bank.” What he said was that he might propose extending Israeli law to Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria.

Stephen M. Flatow..
JNS.org..
22 April '19..

Some liberal American Jewish organizations are urging U.S. President Donald Trump to oppose Israeli annexation of any part of Judea and Samaria. Some conservative Jewish organizations are urging the opposite. Good. It’s time we had a full debate in the American Jewish community about this issue. Serious dialogue and a meaningful conversation are long overdue.

Unfortunately, the Anti-Defamation League has gotten the conversation off to a poor start by distorting and misrepresenting some of the key facts that need to be considered.

In an op-ed in The Forward, ADL spokesman Kenneth Jacobson began by noting that the ADL was one of the signatories on the letter denouncing “any steps by Israel to annex territory in the West Bank.”

But as the op-ed progressed, Jacobson’s language became more and more slippery. By the third paragraph, he had gone from “steps to annex territory in the West Bank” to talking about outright “annexation of the West Bank”—that is, the whole thing.

That’s a red herring because Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu never called for “annexation of the West Bank.” What he actually said was that he might propose extending Israeli law to Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria.

Not content with having altered Netanyahu’s words, the ADL spokesman then proceeded to argue against what Netanyahu didn’t say. Jacobson listed all sorts of frightening things that might ensue as a “result of annexing the West Bank.”

(Continue to Full Column)

A sovereign nation owes no explanations to foreign “masters” or patrons - by Forest Rain

...Colonized Jews hate being told that they are colonized. The idea that the culture of the land in which they live dominated and swallowed up their Jewish identity is repugnant. Historically Jews have preferred to believe that are happily integrated and welcome in the society in which they live (“I’m not Jewish, I’m a German of the Mosiac faith”). Historically it has been non-Jewish neighbors who taught Jews otherwise. Colonization is a harsh definition, it is more common to hear the softer terminology: “diaspora mentality” which means having the mentality of a scattered people, living at the mercy of others. In other words, this is the mentality of people who are not sovereign and lack the power to determine their own fate.

Forest Rain..
Inspiration from Zion..
20 April '19..

There are two kinds of people who hate strong Jews: your run-of-the-mill Jew haters (classical antisemites) and colonized Jews.

2000 years of living as unwelcome guests in other people’s lands have taken a toll on the Jewish People. Putting your head down, being quiet in the face of abuse and minimizing signs of Jewishness have become habits, so deeply ingrained that many fail to recognize their existence. Judaism upholds the sanctity of life and, because of this, actions taken by Jews to hide their Jewishness in order to survive were approved. Even religious traditions were changed in order to adapt to the realities of living in places where it was not necessarily a good idea to be “too Jewish” – for example, lighting and placing the Hanukah candles inside the home rather than in a public place where everyone passing by can see.

The re-establishment of the Jewish State led to a new alignment of powers. Now the classical antisemites can direct their Jew-hatred at the Jewish State rather than their Jewish neighbors. The oldest hatred has been reborn with modern branding: “I don’t hate Jews, I just hate Israel.” Or, an even more sophisticated version: “I don’t hate Jews or Israelis, I just hate the Israeli government.”

For colonized Jews the statements are different. The fact that these are said by Jews and seem more “nuanced” makes them harder for most people to address: “I love Israel, that’s why I hate the policies of the Israeli government.” Or “Why does Israel have to make waves and cause problems? Why was it necessary to move the embassy to Jerusalem? Pass the Nation-State Law? Those things were obvious and just upset people.”

Colonized Jews hate being told that they are colonized. The idea that the culture of the land in which they live dominated and swallowed up their Jewish identity is repugnant. Historically Jews have preferred to believe that are happily integrated and welcome in the society in which they live (“I’m not Jewish, I’m a German of the Mosiac faith”). Historically it has been non-Jewish neighbors who taught Jews otherwise.

Colonization is a harsh definition, it is more common to hear the softer terminology: “diaspora mentality” which means having the mentality of a scattered people, living at the mercy of others. In other words, this is the mentality of people who are not sovereign and lack the power to determine their own fate.

It is important to note that while Jews who live in the diaspora are more likely to have a diaspora mentality, there are plenty of Israelis with the same mindset.

This terminology enrages those who it most aptly describes.

(Continue to Full Post)

Sunday, April 21, 2019

This is the Palestinian reality that the Deal of the Century is about to be dealt - by Khaled Abu Toameh

...Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas has undoubtedly read the Hamas charter. He knows that if he accepts any peace plan that does not include the expulsion of all Jews from their homes, he will be denounced by his rivals in Hamas as a traitor. Abbas is also aware of Hamas's threats to shower Israel with rockets. He knows that at the same time as Hamas attacks Israel, it will seek to flatten him for "betraying" Arabs and Muslims in "allowing" Jews to continue living in "their" state. This is the Palestinian reality that the "Deal of the Century" is about to be dealt.

Khaled Abu Toameh..
Gatestone Institute..
17 April '19..

April 15 marked the 18th anniversary of the firing of the first Hamas rocket toward Israel. On this day, 18 years ago, Hamas's military wing, Izaddin al-Qassam, launched its first rocket attack at Israeli population centers near their border with the Gaza Strip.

On the eve of this occasion, Yahya Sinwar, the Hamas leader of the Gaza Strip, threatened that his movement will continue to fire rockets at Israel. The rockets, he said, will be fired at Israeli "settlements" not only near the border with the Gaza Strip, but also at supposed "settlements" in the Israeli cities of Ashkelon, Ashdod and Tel Aviv.

Sinwar said that the recent Egyptian-sponsored ceasefire understandings between Hamas and Israel are not a peace agreement. The understandings, he explained, do not require Hamas to disarm or halt, near the border with Israel, the weekly demonstrations, also known as the "Great March of Return."

"The understandings do not have any political dimension," the Hamas leader said. "I promise that if a war is imposed on us, the occupation will have to evacuate its settlements, not only near the Gaza Strip, but also in Ashdod, Ashkelon, the Negev and even Tel Aviv. Remember this promise."

Sinwar's threats serve as a reminder that Hamas and other Palestinian terror group consider Israel one big settlement that needs to be annihilated. Hamas and the other terror groups do not see a difference between a Jew living in the West Bank and a Jew living in Tel Aviv or Ashkelon. To terror groups, all these Jews, regardless of whether they live in the West Bank or in Israel proper, are "settlers" and "colonists."

For them, Tel Aviv, Ashkelon, Ashdod and all Israeli cities are no different than Jewish communities and neighborhoods in east Jerusalem and the West Bank. That's why Hamas and the terror groups consider all "settlements" -- inside Israel and in the West Bank -- as legitimate targets for their rockets.

(Continue to Full Post)

Thursday, April 18, 2019

Time to Uproot the False “Nakba” Narrative - by Dr. Raphael G. Bouchnik-Chen

The term “Nakba,” originally coined to describe the magnitude of the self-inflicted Palestinian and Arab defeat in the 1948 war, has become in recent decades a synonym for Palestinian victimhood, with failed aggressors transformed into hapless victims and vice versa. Israel should do its utmost to uproot this false image by exposing its patently false historical basis.

Dr. Raphael G. Bouchnik-Chen..
BESA Center Perspectives Paper No. 1,143..
16 April '19..
Link: https://besacenter.org/perspectives-papers/nakba-false-narrative/

Nowadays, the failed Palestinian Arab attempt to destroy the state of Israel at birth, and the attendant flight of some 600,000 Palestinian Arabs, has come to be known internationally as the “Nakba,” the catastrophe, with its accompanying false implication of hapless victimhood.

This, ironically, was the opposite of the original meaning of the term, when it was first applied to the Arab-Israeli conflict by the Syrian historian Constantin Zureiq. In his 1948 pamphlet The Meaning of the Disaster (Ma’na al-Nakba), Zureiq attributed the Palestinian/Arab flight to the stillborn pan-Arab assault on the nascent Jewish state rather than to a premeditated Zionist design to disinherit the Palestinian Arabs:

When the battle broke out, our public diplomacy began to speak of our imaginary victories, to put the Arab public to sleep and talk of the ability to overcome and win easily – until the Nakba happened…We must admit our mistakes…and recognize the extent of our responsibility for the disaster that is our lot.

Zureiq subscribed to this critical view for decades. In a later book, The Meaning of the Catastrophe Anew (Ma‘na al-Nakbah Mujaddadan) published after the June 1967 war, he defined that latest defeat as a “Nakba” rather than a “Naksa” (or setback), as it came to be known in Arab discourse, since – just as in 1948 – it was a self-inflicted disaster emanating from the Arab world’s failure to confront Zionism.

Wednesday, April 17, 2019

Election day in Israel has become a day of mourning for J Street and other Jewish critics of Israel - by Stephen M. Flatow

...Every four years, they delude themselves into thinking that the Israeli left will finally triumph, and every four years they watch in horror as the Israeli left goes down in defeat. It’s like Charlie Brown thinking that this time, Lucy won’t pull the football away. This year’s election outcome was the worst yet.

Stephen M. Flatow..
JNS.org..
16 April '19..

In the space of 48 hours last week, four Jewish Democrats in Congress denounced Israel’s prime minister, two more Democrats wrote an op-ed in The Washington Post denouncing Israel’s prime minister, and 10 Jewish liberal groups issued a statement denouncing Israel’s prime minister. What a remarkable coincidence!

The allegedly spontaneous three-pronged media assault began with Representatives Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) and Gerald E. Connolly (D-Va.), on the op-ed page of The Washington Post on April 10, absurdly accusing Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu of “sanctioning violence against Palestinians in the occupied territories.” The phrase “sanctioning violence” linked to an article in The New York Times that presumably proved that charge.

One little problem: The Times’ article didn’t contain a single word about Netanyahu sanctioning violence against Palestinians. Whoever provided Van Hollen and Connolly with the “facts” for their article profoundly misled them and sullied their names in the process. Too bad the congressmen didn’t check the facts before signing their names to such an outrageous allegation.

The next day, four other Democrats in Congress—Eliot Engel, Nita Lowey, Ted Deutch and Brad Schneider—issued a statement warning Netanyahu not to take any “unilateral steps” that might interfere with creating a Palestinian state. Which means, of course, a Palestinian state along the 1967 armistice lines—reducing Israel to just nine miles wide.

To sugar-coat their bitter statement just a bit, the four acknowledged that, as they put it: “To paraphrase Abba Eban, the Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.” Nevertheless, the congress members demanded that Israel search high and low for an opportunity to create “Palestine” in Judea and Samaria.

(Continue to Full Column)

Tuesday, April 16, 2019

Why Israel Reelects Netanyahu - by Judith Bergman

Foreign observers of the Israeli elections have failed to realize that almost all Israelis, more than 25 years after the disaster of Oslo, know that the so-called ‘two-state solution’ would be Israel’s ‘final solution’. They do not see in Netanyahu as a perfect leader but they vote for him because no other recent Israeli leader has been able to create so many victories for Israel.

Judith Bergman..
MiDA..
15 April '19..

While President Donald Trump was among the first to congratulate Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on winning the Israeli elections, as did Austrian Chancellor Sebastian Kurz, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, Cypriot President Nicos Anastasiades and Honduran President Juan Orlando Hernández, among others, the large and most powerful countries of the European Union, France, UK and Germany held back.

Perhaps they were waiting for the next Israeli government to be formed first. Perhaps it was just hard for them to congratulate someone with whom they so intensely disagree on Middle East policy. These three countries, after all, dictate policy in the EU, an organization whose foreign policy chief, Federica Mogherini, recently participated in the meeting of the Arab league, where she declared, “The first point, the first top issue on our respective agenda: Israel and Palestine. We need to continue to work together very closely, because we share the same sense of priority, the same sense of urgency, the same concerns and the same objectives: to get back to meaningful negotiations towards the two-state solution, which is the only viable, realistic solution”. She also strongly reassured the Arab League, “And you know that you can count on the European Union on the Palestinian issue. We share exactly the same views and it is vital in this moment that we work together on this”.

(Continue to Full Column)

Monday, April 15, 2019

One Israel, four Jewish members of Congress and four oxymorons - by Stephen M. Flatow

The statement issued by four Jewish members of Congress challenging Israel’s prime minister may have set a new record for contradictions.

Stephen M. Flatow..
Israel National News..
15 April '19..
Link: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/23736

Have you ever seen so many oxymorons in a single paragraph? The statement issued by four Jewish members of Congress challenging Israel’s prime minister may have set a new record.

The statement was issued by Representatives Eliot Engel and Nita Lowey of New York, Ted Deutch of Florida, and Brad Schneider of Illinois, all Democrats. They were responding to a remark made by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in a recent interview, in which he indicated he might propose extending Israeli law to Jewish communities in Judea-Samaria.

Anyone who is familiar with the actual situation on the ground in those territories knows that way back in 1995, the Palestinian Authority extended its laws to the cities in which 98% of the Palestinian Arabs live. So why the double standard? Why can’t Israeli law be implemented in the Jewish towns? Why do the Jews still have to be governed by the arbitrary and cumbersome system of the old Israeli military administration, while the Arabs get to live under their own laws?

The four congress members didn’t offer an answer to that question. You know why? Because nobody ever asked them. Journalists never pose such questions, because they might not get the answers they like. Even more risky—such questions might stimulate the members of Congress to give some genuine serious thought to these issues, instead of just regurgitating the talking points that their advisers pick up from the opinion pages of the New York Times and the Washington Post, and the talking heads on the Sunday interview shows.

The first oxymoron in the statement by the congressional gang of four was this doozy: “Israel’s ability to guard itself from threats is non-negotiable. We hope that any security measures are implemented within the context of preserving the eventual possibility of a two-state solution.”

The definition of an oxymoron is an expression that has within it two terms that contradict each other. The creation of a Palestinian state in Judea-Samaria, which these members of Congress are advocating, would make it impossible for Israel to “guard itself from threats,” as they put it.

The biggest lesson from the @Airbnb episode? Ignore @Amnesty's attempts at blackmail - by Elder of Ziyon

Only Airbnb caved to the Amnesty campaign - and now only Airbnb is subject to the hate mail and controversy. Do the right thing to begin with and don't let others meddle with your business model. It seems obvious, and three out of the four companies targeted by Amnesty did exactly that. The fourth is paying a dear price for not following that rule.

Elder of Ziyon..
14 April '19..

Last week, Airbnb backtracked on its November decision to de-list Jewish-owned homes in Judea and Samaria, causing lots of headlines and a new lawsuit by Palestinian Arabs against them.

How could Airbnb have avoided the controversy? By not caving to the blackmail by Amnesty International to begin with.

(Yes, it is blackmail - claiming that their business model was illegal and that they would be subject to international law sanctions if they don't do what Amnesty demands.)

The original Amnesty report targeted Tripadvisor, Booking.com and Expedia, besides Airbnb. Those other three companies politely told Amnesty that they provide travel information to everyone about everywhere, that they are transparent about where the attractions are and that they don't think they are doing anything illegal, which is a polite way of telling Amnesty that they were wasting their time.

(Continue to Full Post)

Sunday, April 14, 2019

Double Jeopardy? No, @DaoudKuttab, there is no "double jeopardy" in having celebrity terrorist Ahlam Tamimi face trial in the US

There is no issue of Double Jeopardy here in the extradition of the Hamas terrorist Ahlam Tamimi to the US. The only thing that is really in jeopardy is justice.

Daled Amos..
Elder of Ziyon..
12 April '19..

Isn't it amazing how blessed social media is with so many experts in International Law?

This is especially true when it comes to Israel.

You can always find people who have never been there, show absolutely no knowledge of the land, its people or its history -- yet are perpetually prepared to offer their expert opinion on the knottiest issues.

On the other hand, you can also find people in the Middle East who believe themselves expert in matters of international law when it comes to countries far away, such as in the US.

Take Daoud Kuttab.

Kuttab, a Palestinian Arab, is a journalist and a former professor of journalism in Princeton. So he knows a thing or two about journalism -- but not about international law.

During the August 9, 2001 Sbarro massacre, masterminded by Hamas terrorist Ahlam Tamimi and carried out by Izzadin al-Masri, 15 people were murdered, including 8 children and 130 were injured. Another victim remains in a coma. Three of the victims were Americans, including Malki Roth.

Tamimi was caught and her remorseless grin while exulting in retelling the story of her terrorist attack appears all over YouTube.

Tamimi was sentenced to 16 life terms.

And that should have been the end of her story.

(Continue to Full Column)

Truth be told, the idea that “Netanyahu has killed the two-state solution” is silly - by Victor Rosenthal

...PM Netanyahu’s decision to extend Israeli law to the settlements in Area C would not have any effect whatever on Palestinians living under the control of the Palestinian authority, and it does not change the status of the territories in which they are located. Israel will never abandon Judea and Samaria entirely, although it is possible that some part of them could become an autonomous Palestinian entity. But – for security, if for no other reason – Israel could never agree to a sovereign Arab state west of the Jordan, nor could it agree to the kind of massive withdrawal and dismantling of settlements that was envisioned in the Obama period.

Victor Rosenthal..
Abu Yehuda..
12 April '19..
Link: http://abuyehuda.com/2019/04/everyone-knows-but-everyones-wrong/

I don’t know how many times I’ve seen Judea and Samaria referred to as “occupied Palestinian territories,” and Jewish settlements there called “illegal under international law.” But the territories are not “Palestinian,” they are not “occupied,” Jewish communities there are not illegal, and Israel is not oppressing millions of Palestinians who also live there.

PM Netanyahu’s promise to extend Israeli sovereignty to the settlements – and not, by the way, “to annex the West Bank” as so many headlines have it – has re-ignited debate about these issues. But nothing’s changed. Here are some popular but false statements about Judea/Samaria and the Jewish communities that have been established there:

1. The “West Bank” is “Palestinian land” which Israel is occupying

Judea and Samaria, like the rest of Israel and Jordan, were part of the Ottoman Empire from the 16th Century until the end of WWI. After the war, the League of Nations agreed to set aside this portion of the former Ottoman territory to be held in trust by Britain to become a national home for the Jewish people. Britain gave the eastern portion to Abdullah bin Hussein as a reward for his help and that of his father, Sharif Hussein of Hejaz, in the war; this would ultimately become Jordan. The land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean, including what would become the State of Israel and Judea/Samaria and Gaza became the Mandate for Palestine.

The Arabs living in the Mandate were strongly opposed to Jewish sovereignty, and the British, from a combination of the desire to appease the Arabs to reduce their violence (which expressed itself against both Jews and the British rulers), the desire to keep “Palestine” under their control for strategic purposes, and sheer antisemitism, abandoned their responsibility to the Jewish people and tried to throttle Jewish immigration, while allowing Arabs from surrounding areas to enter.

In November 1947, the UN – which had assumed the obligations of the League of Nations – passed a resolution (UNGA 181) recommending the partition of the Mandate into a Jewish and Arab state. The Palestinian Jews were prepared to accept a truncated state (it would be the second truncation of the land originally set aside for the Jews), but the Palestinian Arabs and the Arab nations wanted all the territory to be under Arab sovereignty, and rejected the resolution.

It is important to note two things: first, the resolution, because it was passed by the General Assembly and not by the Security Council under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, was advisory, not mandatory. And second, because the recommendations were never implemented, they became moot.

The British, exhausted after WWII and tired of the attacks against their occupation forces by both Jews and Arabs, ended the Mandate in May, 1948, and went home. The Jews, who had used the Mandate period to build all the institutions required for a state – an army, an educational system, a labor federation, various state enterprises, and more – declared the State of Israel in the area assigned to them by the partition resolution. The Arabs, who could have done the same, did not do so. They redoubled their violent attacks on Jews. At the same time, the armies of five Arab nations invaded the area, intending to destroy the new state of Israel and take the land for themselves (and not to establish a state for the Palestinian Arabs!)

The war that followed ended with a cease-fire in 1949. The Arab nations would not agree to make a permanent peace or recognize the Jewish state, but they signed cease-fire agreements that demarcated the positions of their troops. These agreements explicitly stipulated that the cease-fire lines were not national borders. The areas of Judea/Samaria and Gaza were occupied by Jordan and Egypt respectively, and in 1950 Jordan formally annexed the territory it had occupied and named it the “West Bank.” This is the first time that name was used to refer to what had previously been called “Judea and Samaria.”

Saturday, April 13, 2019

Destroying Jewish and democratic values in one easy step - by Evelyn Gordon

The left’s subversion of language has thus wreaked long-lasting harm on both Israel and the Jewish people. And all of us will be paying the price for many years to come.

Evelyn Gordon..
JNS.org..
10 April '19..

Distorting the meaning of language is a seductive but dangerous game. It’s seductive because it provides enormous short-term benefits. It’s dangerous because, as two recent examples show, it can ultimately eviscerate fundamental values.

One example comes from this week’s Israeli election, in which Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud Party actually gained seats despite multiple corruption cases against him. A survey published in February by a Haifa University political scientist explains why: Most voters for Likud and allied parties don’t believe the allegations because they don’t trust the legal system. Fully 65 percent of Likud voters and 75 percent of haredi voters think law-enforcement agencies are simply trying to oust Netanyahu.

On one level, this is shocking. But on another, it’s not shocking at all because the Israeli left has spent decades successfully subverting the concept of “the rule of law” for its own political benefit.

For instance, Israel’s Supreme Court repeatedly overturns government policies not because they violate any law, but because the justices deem them “unreasonable.” Whether or not a policy is reasonable is a question other democracies leave to the voters. But the left has successfully branded all efforts to curb such judicial policy interventions as “contrary to the rule of law,” and thereby managed to stymie proposed reforms: Most legislators don’t want to “sabotage the rule of law.”

Moreover, in almost every Western democracy, the executive and legislative branches choose Supreme Court justices; only in Israel do sitting justices have veto power over the choice of their successors. Yet the left has branded every attempt to align Israel’s judicial appointments system with this Western norm as “contrary to the rule of law,” and thereby successfully staved off change.

(Continue to Full Column)

Friday, April 12, 2019

Any Surprise That Despite The Israeli Election, The Palestinian National Goal Remains The Same? - by Justin Amler

The truth is: just as the Hamas terrorist group said the other day – something with which I agree, it makes no different who is elected in Israel for the Palestinian national goal remains the same as it always was – the destruction of the Jewish State of Israel.

...Saeb Erekat, who I was sure
resigned about 20 years ago

Justin Amler..
MiDA..
11 April '19..

Something funny happened the other day. Something kind of silly, somewhat bizarre and highly amusing. Palestinian Authority spokesman, Saeb Erekat, who I was sure resigned about 20 years ago, condemned the results of the Israeli elections, saying it was a ‘vote against peace and for the occupation.’

I always find it amusing when a representative of a fascist dictatorship comments on the results of a democratic election. Because when was the last time there were any elections under the Palestinian authority – an authority that represents a nation that didn’t exist until a few decades ago when a strategic decision was made to create the Palestinian nation as a way to destroy the Jewish one – creating Palestine in order to destroy Israel.

(Continue to Full Post)

Thursday, April 11, 2019

Sovereignty. Why It Is So Important That Bibi Did Not Speak Of Annexing Judea And Samaria - by Varda Meyers Epstein

Sovereignty brings a new note into the conversation about Judea and Samaria, a topic that has grown in importance, as Jews have begun to tiptoe into new waters, experimenting with the word “indigenous.”

Varda Meyers Epstein..
Judean Rose/Elder of Ziyon..
10 April '19..

“Annexation” is a word I’ve fought against for years. Especially as applied to Judea and Samaria. You annex land that doesn’t belong to you. If it belongs to you, on the other hand, you exercise your sovereignty and say, “This is ours.”

Getting this message across has been difficult. People find it easier to speak of annexation. Fewer syllables or something. They don’t realize the import of what they’re suggesting when they use the “a” word. If I call them on it, they tell me I’m quibbling, that it’s just semantics.

That is why I was beyond ecstatic when Netanyahu, in an interview with Army Radio on Saturday night, clarified that he was not speaking of annexation. “I did not say I would annex the West Bank,” said Netanyahu, “I said I would apply Israeli law to Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria.”

In a later television interview (Hebrew only), the Prime Minister did one better, using the word "sovereignty."

It is true he was saying these things on the eve of an election, so such declarations could be seen in that light, as so much campaign smoke. On the other hand, this is the first time a sitting prime minister, or anyone in a position of authority in an Israeli government referred to exercising sovereignty in the territories. It was the first time a sitting prime minister declared that there is no need to annex Judea and Samaria, because they are already ours. The same prime minister who commissioned the Edmond Levy Report was at last utilizing that report, a report which found that Israel has a legal right to the territories that are Judea and Samaria.

(Continue to Full Post)

Wednesday, April 10, 2019

Evidently Wits University can have antisemitism and support for terrorists - but a female Ethiopian Israeli reservist is not acceptable - by Elder of Ziyon

...Look how upset these people are at a proud, black Jewish Zionist woman. This anger in the video has nothing to do with "justice" or supporting Palestinians - it is pure hate that someone who passes all the intersectionality victimhood rules disagrees with them.

Elder of Ziyon..
09 April '19..

The Wits (University) Vuvuzela reports:

A guest speaker for the South African Union of Jewish Students (SAUJS) at the Israeli Apartheid Week (IAW) was escorted off the Wits University campus on Thursday, April 4, after it was found that she is a soldier.

Ashager Araro, a well-known Israeli-Ethiopian Zionist and reserve soldier of the Israeli Defence Forces left the campus surrounded by private security after supporters of the Palestinian Solidarity Committee (PSC) confronted her about her military role.

PSC and SAUJS supporters found themselves in a heated and tense exchange over Araro as both groups of students converged on the piazza in front of the Chamber of Mines building.

“You guys are letting soldiers on to our campus now, we’ll note this,” said a Palestinian supporter to Jabu Mashinini, senior programme adviser for student governance, in reference to Araro.

Apparently, both the Jewish/Zionist students and the Israel haters had informally agreed that no military personnel would be allowed to participate.

But explicitly supporting terrorist is perfectly fine.

(Continue to Full Post)