It's May. The ‘conquest-over-occupation’ season opens

...Conquering Jerusalem? Did the top cleric not acknowledge the fact that Jerusalem was not a Muslim city before its “conquest?” He did. So, how can the occupation of a non-Muslim city, Constantinople, be a “conquest” but the occupation of a non-Muslim city, which was once occupied by Muslims, be “occupation”?

Burak Bekdil..
Huuriyet Daily..
23 May '14..

It’s May. It’s the month when Islamist Turks observe the tradition that explains why “conquest” is good but “occupation” is bad.

For instance, Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu thinks that “those who do not understand the importance of Jerusalem and Palestinian rights are attacking the conscience of humanity.” I hope this columnist fell into Mr. Davutoğlu’s “brave” category when he wrote that “Turkey is not North Korea,” (this column, “Turkey is not North Korea – nor Syria, nor Egypt,” May 14), but today he will be attacking the conscience of humanity.

Mr. Davutoğlu thinks Jerusalem and the al-Aqsa Mosque (where he has said he wants to pray after Jerusalem has become the capital of the Palestinian state) have been under occupation since 1948 – when the state of Israel was founded, which is wrong. Last week, he said that “under the term[s] of international law, Jerusalem is under [Israeli] occupation.” Then he asked: “If U.N. decisions [resolutions] are not being implemented then why are they taken in the first place?”

If Mr. Davutoğlu was attending chess classes at the age of 11 he would probably be kindly requested to quit immediately. How can a foreign minister cite U.N. resolutions about “Jerusalem’s occupation” when several other U.N. resolutions have described his own country as the occupier of Cyprus over the last four decades?

Ironically, Mr. Davutoğlu’s speech on the occupation of Jerusalem came around the same day as the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ordered Turkey to pay 90 million euros to Greek Cyprus for the 1974 occupation and the island’s subsequent division. Really, could you explain, honorable minister, “if the U.N. [and the Council of Europe’s] rulings are not being implemented, then why are they taken in the first place?”

But in response to the ECHR’s verdict, Mr. Davutoğlu said that he viewed the ruling as “neither binding nor of any value.” That would be a breach of the Constitution, since Article 90 of the Turkish Constitution states that “international agreements duly put into effect have the force of law. No appeal to the Constitutional Court shall be made with regard to these agreements, on the grounds that they are unconstitutional.”

Of course, we could always ask Mr. Davutoğlu if he would be willing to explain why Israel should be obliged to implement all U.N. resolutions, but in Turkey’s case both U.N. resolutions and ECHR rulings should be “neither binding nor of any value.” I am sure he won’t explain. But I think I know the answer.

The only remaining dignified response is for Jews to bid Europe adieu.

The following  article was written and posted on Friday, 23 May, the day before the Shabbat attack and murders in Brussel.

P. David Hornik..
Frnotpagemag.com..
23 May '14..

The Anti-Defamation League created a stir last week by releasing the results of a global survey of antisemitism, the most comprehensive ever.

These results are considered shocking by many. Actually, for those who bother to keep up with reality, they contain no surprises.

The Middle East and North Africa come out worst, with 74 percent among population groups qualifying as antisemitic according to the poll’s 11-question index. The most antisemitic political entities in the world? The West Bank and Gaza, coming in at 93 percent. (Yes, those same Palestinians with whom Israel is always under pressure to “make peace.”)

The next worst region is Eastern Europe, with 34 percent scoring as antisemites. But not too far behind is Western Europe—the home of multiculturalism, advanced environmental awareness, bevies of human rights NGOs, and so on—at 24 percent.

The West European countries scoring highest for antisemitism were Greece with a whopping 69 percent, France at 37 percent, and Spain at 29 percent. Germany did itself proud by coming in above the West European average at 27 percent—a bit over one-quarter antisemitic seven decades after the Holocaust.

Over the weekend the European Jewish Association (EJA), along with other European Jewish organizations, held a briefing on the survey in Brussels for EU ambassadors and officials.

One of the West European countries scoring lowest for antisemitism was the Netherlands at 5 percent. Yet Rabbi Binyomin Jacobs, chief rabbi of the Netherlands, told this gathering:

Today, there is a strong political polarization, especially in Holland. Radicals from both sides of the political spectrum have become more extreme, and the middle ground is disappearing. I can’t walk a whole day in the street without having at least one person shout the words “dirty Jew” at me, because I am visibly Jewish.

If so, one hates to think what it’s like in the high-scoring countries.

The Palestinian Authority "Who's Next?" Question

...The real path to peace would be a transformation of Palestinian society that didn’t elevate whichever candidate killed the most innocent men, women, and children. And such a society needs a government that doesn’t promote violence and hate; a government that provides services instead of no-show jobs; a government that empowers its own people rather than subjugates and steals from them; a government that allows real political competition so the people have a choice instead of a mirage of democracy or accountability.

Seth Mandel..
Commentary Magazine..
23 May '14..

The Tower magazine calls attention to the Palestinian Center for Public Opinion’s latest survey, which finds that Marwan Barghouti would be the popular pick if presidential elections were to be held for the Palestinian leadership. Barghouti, a founder of an Arafat-era paramilitary wing of Fatah, is currently serving life sentences in Israeli prison for his role in several murders, though he is believed to be behind even more terrorist attacks than those for which he was convicted.

Two things about Barghouti have remained constant over his career: he is soaked in the blood of innocents, and he is exceedingly popular among Palestinians. The two are, obviously, not unrelated. Such a result is of course troubling, but it should be noted that, according to the poll, the Palestinians are merely choosing one terrorist over other terrorists. The problem goes much deeper: the pipeline for Palestinian leadership remains greased with blood.

An understandable reaction to the poll will be: So what. Mahmoud Abbas is now in the tenth year of his four-year term, so immediate succession doesn’t seem to be a pressing issue right now, and Barghouti is in prison anyway.

But there are a few differences this time around. First, the Hamas-Fatah unity deal means it’s more likely that there will actually be elections in the near future. Second, Salam Fayyad’s exit means there isn’t at least a competing pipeline to leadership. Had Fayyad stayed on, he probably couldn’t win an election himself, but he might have staffed the bureaucracy with future contenders who were also reformers, and he might have effected some sort of change in the governing culture. Third, it is not out of the question that Israel would release Barghouti in some sort of prisoner exchange if the Israeli government thinks he’d be a preferable successor than the others in the race.

It’s interesting to note just how similar these stories have been throughout the post-intifada years. Contemplating the Abbas-Barghouti rivalry in the debate over succeeding Yasser Arafat, the New York Times noted in late 2004:

While it is not certain that Israel would release Barghouti if he won the election, the fact remains that whatever the outcome, he will present the Palestinians and Israelis with very difficult options. If he wins but is not set free, the Israelis and the Bush administration would be seen as depriving the Palestinians of democratic choice — something they have advocated as part of enabling Palestinians to create a democratic and responsible political system.

In such an event, Barghouti would become as much a symbol of Palestinian democracy and resistance as Arafat was the embodiment of the Palestinian nationalist movement.

If he loses the election, he will nevertheless have split the vote to the extent of depriving Abbas of a clear mandate to marginalize his radical Islamic opponents, like Hamas and Islamic Jihad, and to negotiate with the Israelis and Americans for a lasting settlement from a position of popular strength. And there is the additional possibility that a third candidate, like Barghouti’s cousin Mustafa, a human-rights activist, could emerge as the marginal winner.

Palestinians have always found Abbas somewhat underwhelming, and Barghouti has always presented this complicated challenge to Israeli political strategy. But the Israelis must also ponder whether their preference for Barghouti is worth releasing an arch-terrorist. Their dealings with Arafat may have convinced them that just because a Palestinian leader has the credibility to lead doesn’t mean he will. Yitzhak Rabin famously dismissed concerns about how Arafat would get his people in line as long as he actually did. In the end, Arafat was a coward, and Israelis have to wonder if Barghouti is as well.

Surprise! We'll Use Unity Accord To Move Terrorism To West Bank

...Ignoring Hamas's declared intentions will pave the way for the movement to use the unity agreement to seize control over the Palestinian Authority and many parts of the West Bank. It will also facilitate Hamas's plans to launch terror attacks from the West Bank against Israel. It now remains to be seen whether the U.S. Administration and EU governments, by blindly endorsing the new unity government, will help Hamas to achieve its goals.

Khaled Abu Toameh..
Gatestone Institute..
23 May '14..

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas is busy these days trying to persuade the West to accept his recent unity accord with Hamas.

Abbas is especially interested in winning the backing of the U.S. and EU for the deal with the Islamist movement because his Palestinian Authority is almost entirely dependent on American and European financial aid.

Abbas's main argument is that the "reconciliation" deal with Hamas, signed last month in the Gaza Strip, would not affect the peace process with Israel.

Abbas was quoted as saying that there is "no contradiction" between the unity deal and the peace talks with Israel and that he remains committed to a "just peace on the basis of a two-state solution in accordance with international legitimacy."

Earlier, Abbas, in the context of his efforts to calm the U.S. Administration and EU governments over the unity accord, declared that the new Palestinian government would recognize Israel and reject violence. His remarks, however, have been strongly denied by Hamas leaders, who say their movement intends to pursue "jihad" against Israel.

Musa Abu Marzouk, deputy chairman of Hamas's political bureau, announced that his movement would never recognize Israel. "This is a red line that cannot be crossed," he said.

In other words, Hamas is telling everyone not to believe Abbas when he says that the Palestinian unity government will renounce violence and recognize Israel's right to exist.

This week, further evidence emerged that Hamas has no intention of changing its ideology in the wake of the unity agreement with Abbas's Fatah faction.

Tzipi Livni as Netanyahu’s Uncomfortable Fig Leaf?

...Some may think she is serving as a fig leaf for Netanyahu, but if they thought more seriously about her role in the peace process over the past year they would realize that her presence in the government did nothing to ease criticism from Washington or from the usual suspects who like to bash the Jewish state. Instead, she proved her theories and those of other Netanyahu critics wrong by trying and failing to get the Palestinians to take yes for an answer. If she stays in the government, and given her history of rank opportunism and love of office, there’s no reason to think she won’t, it will be to continue to serve as a warning to Netanyahu’s detractors that their accusations of Israeli intransigence are without a factual basis. That isn’t a particularly comfortable role for her or Netanyahu. But it does illustrate how foolish those who still laud Abbas as a man of peace really are.

Jonathan S. Tobin..
Commentary Magazine..
22 May '14..

Israel’s far-left Meretz Party doesn’t often offer much in the way of insight about either the Middle East peace process or the country’s government, but today the group’s leader Nitzan Horowitz spoke at least a partial truth when he referred to Justice Minister Tzipi Livni as nothing more than a “fig leaf” for Prime Minister Netanyahu. In an interview with the Times of Israel’s David Horovitz, the head of what is left of the once dominant “peace camp” decried Livni’s continued presence in the Cabinet. Horowitz’s evaluation of Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas as a man of peace and willingness to place a good deal of the blame for the collapse of the peace process on Netanyahu is divorced from the facts and explains why his party and its allies retain only a small sliver of support from the Israeli public. But his comments were generally on target with respect to the anomalous position of Livni inside the government of the man who has been her nemesis.

An earlier Times of Israel report documented the blowback inside the country’s government about Livni’s decision to meet with Abbas in London last week even though Netanyahu had suspended negotiations with the PA after its alliance with Hamas. Reportedly, Netanyahu was livid at her insubordination and wanted to fire her. But after calming down, the prime minister realized that if he made Livni and her small parliamentary faction walk the plank, she would generate a coalition crisis that would leave him with only a small majority in the Knesset. That would put him at the mercy of his right-wing partner/antagonist Naftali Bennett, the head of the Jewish Home Party, who used Livni’s excursion to both call for her resignation and to posture at the prime minister’s expense to the voters.

In the end, Livni accomplished nothing with her mission to Abbas. He is no more willing to budge an inch toward peace now than he was throughout the long months of negotiations during which his representatives stonewalled the eager Livni, who headed Israel’s delegation. But the dustup involving the prime minister and the woman who has always thought that she, and not Netanyahu, should be leading the country is interesting because it illustrates just how wrongheaded the critics who bash Israel’s government as inflexibly right-wing really are.

Americans who buy into the mainstream media’s reflexive dismissal of Netanyahu as “hard-line” (a word that many readers may think is his first name) and intransigent need to understand that the term tells us nothing about his policies. He began his current term in office in 2013, by offering Livni a major Cabinet post (the Justice Ministry) and the portfolio for peace talks with the Palestinians. Doing so was more or less the equivalent of President Obama choosing Mitt Romney to be secretary of state. Such alliances are, of course, less unusual in parliamentary systems, and especially so in Israel where no party has ever won an absolute majority in the Knesset. But it should be understood that Livni campaigned in the last election as a critic of Netanyahu’s peace policies and was then given an opportunity to prove him wrong by being handed the chance to strike a deal with Abbas. While the failure of the initiative championed by Secretary of State John Kerry is rightly considered to be his fiasco, the unwillingness of the Palestinians to come even close to satisfying Livni—the one Israeli that the Obama administration thought was most likely to make peace—tells us everything we need to know about the Palestinians’ responsibility for the collapse of the talks.

A Palestinian state? A possible tactical instrument but never a priority

...However, ignoring reality, Western policy makers consider the Palestinian issue the crown jewel of Arab policy-making, the core cause of Middle Eastern developments and the crux of the Arab-Israeli conflict. An erroneous underlying, Palestinian-driven assumption has produced an erroneous policy, radicalizing Arab and Palestinian expectations, fueling terrorism and inherent Middle Eastern instability, distancing the parties from peace and bringing them closer to war, and undermining Western national security and vital economic interests.

Yoram Ettinger..
Israel Hayom..
23 May '14..

The Palestinian issue has benefited from the Arab/Muslim talk, but -- due to the Palestinian record of intra-Arab subversion -- has never been supported by the Arab/Muslim walk. Arab/Muslim policy makers have never considered the Palestinian issue a strategic interest, but rather a tactical instrument to advance intra-Arab or Muslim interests and to annihilate the Jewish state.

Irrespective of this, Palestine has been a geographic, not a national, concept, as evidenced by the lack of distinct, cohesive national character of its Arab inhabitants. This lack of cohesion has been intensified by the violent internal fragmentation along various lines: cultural (such as Bedouin vs. rural vs. urban sectors), geographic (e.g. mountain vs. coastal Arabs, southern vs. northern, Hebron vs. Bethlehem, Nablus vs. Ramallah, Nablus vs. Hebron), ethnic, ideological, political (pro- or anti-Jordan), historical and tribal identity. Such turbulent fragmentation was fueled by the multitude of Arab or Muslim migration waves from Bosnia, Algeria, Libya, Egypt, Jordan, the Arabian Peninsula, Syria and Lebanon.

The establishment of a Palestinian state was not on the agenda of the non-Arab Muslim Ottoman Empire, which ruled the area from 1517 through 1917. The Ottomans linked the area, defined by most Arabs as a region within Southern Syria or the Levant, to the Damascus and Beirut provinces.

The British Empire, which dominated the Middle East from 1917 until the end of World War II, did not contemplate a Palestinian Arab state, while establishing a series of Arab countries throughout the Middle East. Moreover, the 1917 Balfour Declaration dedicated Palestine, including Jordan, to the Jewish homeland. The 1920 San Remo Resolution, formulated by the principal Allied Powers, formalized the Balfour Declaration-based British Mandate for Palestine, which was ratified on Aug. 12, 1922, by the League of Nations, eventually transferring 77 percent of Palestine (Jordan) to the Arabs. The U.S. House and Senate approved it unanimously on June 30, 1922. In 1945, the Mandate for Palestine was integrated into the U.N. Charter via Article 80, which precludes alterations, and is still legally binding.

Jordan and Egypt occupied Judea and Samaria and Gaza from 1949 through 1967, but did not ponder the establishment of a Palestinian state; nor did the Arab League.

Where fools have tread before

...Such folly is inherently dangerous, because the Pereses, Beilins, Livnis and their numerous think-alike cronies/groupies dominate the media, dictate the national agenda and may inspire/impel a future government as they did the one that gave us Oslo. Their unconscionable recklessness casts a lingering portentous pall over us. Someone once wisely observed that fools rush in where fools have been before.

Republican Senator Arthur Vandenberg: 
“politics should stop at the water’s edge.”

Sarah Honig..
Another Tack..
22 May '14..

The Israeli penchant for dismissing official authority and embarking on freelance diplomatic endeavors could presumably be dismissed as an almost endearing eccentricity. The problem is that it’s anything but endearing. It triggers real disasters.

The hubris to flout the authority of any government – no matter who heads it – exclusively emboldens leftwing players. They range from relatively unknown individuals (though they’re always well-connected to the real clout-bearers) all the way to top-ranking ministers who, fired up by their own chutzpah, set out to hijack history-making prerogatives.

Soon-to-retire President Shimon Peres still does it in his ostensibly ceremonial role of president. But he already behaved badly as foreign minister to both prime ministers Yitzhak Shamir and Yitzhak Rabin.

The latest to dabble in unauthorized diplomacy is Justice Minister Tzipi Livni. She recently conferred with Ramallah figurehead Mahmoud Abbas in London, despite the government’s decision (which she supported) to freeze contact with him for his kiss-and-make-up with Jihadist Hamas.

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu was reported to be displeased with this rendezvous (by way of significant understatement).

It cannot be easy for him (again, by way of significant understatement). His hold on the reins of Israeli diplomacy is continuously challenged by cliques of conceited self-appointed competitors. Livni’s controversial initiative came only days after Peres informed the nation straight-faced that he had singlehanded all but achieved a comprehensive peace agreement (no less) with Abbas in 2011 and that said salvation from all of our existential woes was summarily scuttled by none other than Netanyahu.

More precisely, Peres claimed that Netanyahu asked him to wait “three or four days,” then “the days went by,” and the deal disappeared with them. Of course, one would assume that had there been any substance to whatever it was that Peres claims to have cleverly concocted – and had it been bolstered by any authentic Palestinian commitment – it would have survived for a few additional days.

However, Peres’s aim isn’t to make peace or to make a sense. It is, as per many a precedent on his part, to impart innuendo and garner glory for himself.

Both of these should be fundamental no-noes for anyone who accepts that it is the right of an elected government to determine its own diplomatic strategy. It’s one thing for the opposition or for overly ambitious coalition members to carp and take potshots domestically but quite another to launch their own foreign policy projects. So, anyway, it ought to be wherever the basics of the voters’ democratic verdict are minimally respected.

Temple Mount, Jewish freedom of worship and Israeli sovereignty

...Preventing Jews from praying on the Temple Mount is a capitulation not only to threats and violence but also to Palestinian mythology and denial of historical facts. The proposed bi-partisan bill is a partial yet overdue step to enforce the Jews’ freedom of worship and Israel’s sovereignty in the heart of its capital and on Judaism’s holiest site.

Dr. Emmanuel Navon..
i24 News..
22 May '14..

A bi-partisan bill drafted by MKs Miri Regev (Likud) and Hilik Bar (Labor) was recently submitted to the Knesset to allow Jews to pray on the Temple Mount, including with ritual objects such as a tallit (prayer shawl) and tefilin (phylacteries). The Temple Mount is holy to Jews because the first and second Jerusalem Temples once stood there. However, Rabbis disagree about the permissibility of Jewish access to the Temple Mount: some rabbis (generally the ultra-orthodox) forbid the Jews’ access altogether, fearing that it might desecrate the Holy of Holies; others (generally the Zionist rabbis) allow Jewish access in designated areas. However, Jews who follow the second stance are not allowed by the Islamic Wakf and by the Israeli police to pray on the Temple Mount for fear of Muslim violence.

The proposed bill only refers to the Temple Mount plaza, not to the Al-Aqsa mosque. And yet, Mohammad al-Madani, chairman of the Palestinian Committee for Interaction of Israeli Society, has said that allowing Jews to pray on Judaism’ holiest site would constitute a violation of “the sanctity of Islamic and Christian holy places.” Palestinian political analyst Abdel Raouf Arnaout falsely claimed in the Saudi daily Al-Watan that the bill is meant to allow Jews to pray inside the Al-Aqsa mosque. PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas himself had warned in an interview with the same Al-Watan newspaper (on June 3, 2013) of an Israeli “plot” to destroy the Al-Aqsa mosque and to build the Third Temple in its stead.

The Temple Mount is one of the “core issues” of the Arab-Israeli conflict.

At the Camp David Conference in July 2000, Yasser Arafat shocked the American and Israeli delegations by claiming that the Jerusalem Temple was a myth (Arafat first said that the Temple had been built in the Biblical town of Sichem, but he later denied the Temple’s existence altogether). And yet, when Arafat launched his terror war against Israel in September 2000, he aptly named it the “Al-Aqsa intifada” calling upon Muslims to protect the Al-Aqsa mosque from a Jewish plan to destroy it and rebuild the Jerusalem Temple in its stead. There is no lack of irony in the self-contradictory Palestinian position on the Temple Mount: on the one hand, it denies the past existence of the two Jerusalem Temples; on the other hand, it claims that Israel plans to “re-build” the Temple.

Neither is this contradiction new. Haj Amin al-Husseini, the Jerusalem Mufti in the 1920s and 1930s, triggered the 1929 violence and the Jewish pogrom of Hebron after claiming that the Jews were planning on destroying the Al-Aqsa mosque and on rebuilding the Jerusalem Temple. In 1931, al-Husseini hoped to repeat the bloodbath on a larger scale when he convened a pan-Islamic conference in Jerusalem at which he disseminated photomontages of Jews with machine guns attacking the Dome of the Rock.

Greetings and Welcome to the Holy Land, Pope Francis

In addition to erasing Christianity from the Holy Land, the Mufti also calls for extermination of Jews as a divine mandate. Not exactly a peaceful agenda. Still, the Mufti holds a senior leadership spot in the PA hierarchy. But he may be a bit of a challenge for Pope Francis.

Leo Rennert..
American Thinker..
21 May '14..

There is an interesting and quite revealing meeting on Pope Francis’s itinerary for his two-day visit to the Holy Land. The pontiff is due to shake hands and exchange remarks with the top Muslim leader of the Palestinian Authority, the Mufti Sheikh Muhammad Hussein.

The Mufti, whether known or unbeknownst to the Vatican, teaches that Jesus was a Palestinian preacher of Islam. He also has blessed suicide bombers as “noble martyrs.”

With regard to the history of Jerusalem, the Mufti firmly asserts that it never harbored a Jewish Temple. As for marital advice, the Mufti reminds wives that they are subservient to their husbands – at day and night.

In addition to erasing Christianity from the Holy Land, the Mufti also calls for extermination of Jews as a divine mandate. Not exactly a peaceful agenda.

Still, the Mufti holds a senior leadership spot in the PA hierarchy.

But he may be a bit of a challenge for Pope Francis.

Link: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/05/welcome_to_the_holy_land_pope_francis.html

Leo Rennert is a former White House correspondent and Washington bureau chief of McClatchy Newspapers.

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. Check-it out!
.

Surprise! More Misinformation from Presbyterian Peacemakers

...Hall simply does not know what he is talking about. Jerusalem has been a touchstone for the Jewish people, and all streams of Judaism, for a long, long time. Did the folks at IPMN not know this when they decided to include Hall’s testimony in their “educational” video?

Dexter Van Zile..
CAMERA Snapshots..
21 May '4..

Earlier this year, the Israel Palestine Mission Network of the Presbyterian Church USA, an organization with a well-documented history of demonizing Israel and American Jews, issued a text called Zionism Unsettled. True to form, the IPMN’s booklet includes a chapter that accuses American Jews of "living in a bubble.”

Who is living in a bubble, really? American Jews who support Israel or IPMN leaders?

It's a reasonable question to ask after watching one of the videos on a DVD that accompanies Zionism Unsettled. In an on-camera interview, Irving Wesley Hall (pictured above in a screenshot from the video) reports that prior to the Six Day War, Israelis and Jews did not care too much about Jerusalem.

Up until the 1967 conquest of Jerusalem, it was not regarded by any element of Israeli society or any of the streams of Judaism as somehow central to God's plan for the Jews.

But that all changed in 1967.

The notion that the city was unimportant to Israel and to all of the "streams of Judaism" prior to the Six Day War is, to put it politely, an outrageous misstatement of fact.

Another al-Dura Libel?

...Others are even more skeptical and claim the entire event was a fraud — a Pallywood production in which a credulous world was sold a bill of goods whose only purpose was to smear the Israelis. The fact that the film, which purports to show a demonstration that no one disputes had turned violent, depicts the two casualties merely walking along minding their own business and then falling onto their outstretched palms has rightly raised doubts about its authenticity.

Jonathan S. Tobin..
Commentary Magazine..
21 May '14..

The United States has joined a chorus of non-governmental organizations and international critics of Israel by calling for an investigation of an incident that took place last week in which two Palestinians were killed following a confrontation with Israeli forces in the West Bank. The Palestinians and various NGO’s sympathetic to their cause claim the two, aged 16 and 17 were killed by live fire from Israel Border Police during a demonstration on Nakba Day — the anniversary of Israel’s Declaration of Independence in 1948. What’s more a video taken from a security camera at a Palestinian owned business at the site of the confrontation purports to show the two being killed by gunfire while doing nothing that might have provoked the Israelis to shoot. If that evidence is accurate, then the IDF would have been guilty of, at best, using unnecessary force and, at worst, having committed a crime.

But though the world is eager to indict and convict the Israelis of murders that would be seen as validating criticisms about the unjust nature of its “occupation” of the West Bank, no one should jump to any conclusions about this incident. Washington is right about the need for an investigation but unlike the kangaroo court of international public opinion in which the Israelis already stand convicted, a more sober and less prejudiced probe of what happened may well reveal something very different than the narrative of Israeli brutality and Palestinian victimization. Until we know how much the film produced as evidence was edited and just what the Palestinian demonstrators were doing prior to the shootings, it would be a mistake for anyone, including the Israeli government, to assume that the soldiers were in the wrong.

The first thing that must be ascertained is the context of the deaths. By all accounts, the demonstrators, who had gathered outside an Israeli security facility where Palestinian prisoners have been on a hunger strike, were engaging in violence. If, as has been reported, the Palestinians were throwing rocks and gasoline bombs — both deadly weapons — at the soldiers guarding the prison, the discussion of the soldiers’ response must necessarily be a very different one from the story the Palestinians are telling about peaceful protesters being fired on without provocation. Indeed, even the film of the killings shows one of the deceased wearing a ski mask and the other throwing rocks. While it is not clear whether the violence being used by the Palestinians was sufficient to satisfy the Israeli military’s rules of engagement for the use of fire, this was no Gandhi-like example of peaceful protest. But if the attacks did rise to the level at which the troops felt their lives were in danger — a situation that would certainly apply were the Palestinians approaching with fire bombs ­as well as rocks — then the soldiers were within their rights to defend themselves.

But if, as a senior Israeli defense official told the Times of Israel today, the film was doctored, then the discussion is entirely different. Why should we think that is possible? That’s because the Palestinians have been guilty of deceptions of this sort in the past. They have often staged such confrontations and then tried to sell the world on the idea that the Israelis had committed an atrocity.

When The Rubber Man Meets the Peace Process

...But if the main barrier is Palestinian unwillingness to end their war on Israel, the problem is unsolvable and peace is unachievable. And to most of the world, blaming Israel unjustly is infinitely preferable to acknowledging that unpleasant truth.

Evelyn Gordon..
Commentary Magazine..
21 May '14..

As I noted yesterday, there’s no lack of evidence that even “moderate” Palestinians aren’t interested in ending their war on Israel. Yet most of the world will go through contortions worthy of the rubber man rather than admit it. A classic example is the interview a “senior American official” (widely reputed to be special envoy to the Israeli-Palestinian talks Martin Indyk) gave to Yedioth Ahronoth earlier this month.

The official spent about 3,000 words blaming the talks’ breakdown on Benjamin Netanyahu’s government, and specifically its authorization of settlement construction during the negotiations. Only then did he describe what actually happened during those crucial final months when Secretary of State John Kerry was trying to broker a framework agreement:

“In February, Abbas arrived at a Paris hotel for a meeting with Kerry … He rejected all of Kerry’s ideas. A month later, in March, he was invited to the White House. Obama presented the American-formulated principles verbally – not in writing. Abbas refused.”

Then, in the very next sentence, came this astonishing defense: “The claim on your side that Abbas was avoiding making decisions is not true. He wasn’t running away.”

So long before the announcement of 700 new housing units that Kerry later termed the “poof” moment when everything blew up, Abbas had rejected all Kerry’s ideas and all President Barack Obama’s ideas. Yet he wasn’t “avoiding making decisions” or “running away”; he was a committed and engaged peace partner. Then who is to blame for his serial rejections? Why, Netanyahu, of course: Those “announcements of new housing tenders in settlements limited Abbas’ ability to show flexibility.”

In other words, if Netanyahu is intransigent, it’s Netanyahu’s fault. And if Abbas is intransigent, it’s also Netanyahu’s fault. Under this administration’s definition of “honest brokerage,” only one side is ever to blame; the Palestinians have no agency of their own.

Post-Zionists and Impossible Lies

...The post-Zionist rejected this argument, saying it was false. Jews can enter Area A and she has done so many times. She has friends in Jenin and Ramallah whom she visits, and she was never murdered. At this point even the audience understood that she was totally twisting reality. They, too, remembered the widows of the two Israeli murdered by a lynch mob in Ramallah, and all those families in which the husband just “popped out to get his car fixed in the Palestinian Authority” and never came back.

Karni Eldad..
i24 News..
20 May '14..

Several weeks ago I traveled to London to take part in a panel discussion. The event was sponsored by the Jewish Agency and the local Jewish community and focused on the issue of two states for two people. I went for less than a day, but the impression the trip left me with hasn't even begun to dissipate. Two additional women joined me on the podium: one left-winger, who spent her childhood in picnics with Arabs (meaning she was an activist, an ideologue, not just a left wing sympathizer who hates Arabs and wants to be rid of them). The other was truly left wing. Post-Zionist. Undoubtedly a balanced panel.

I was forced to sit at the table and hear my beloved land called “Israel-Palestine,” to understand that there are Jews who think the State of Israel should be completed annulled.

Whereas the leftist was suggesting all sorts of illogical and unrealistic solutions, given that a day before the debate, Tzipi Livni’s negotiations ended in a resounding crash, the post-Zionist simply lied. With the leftist I could deal: she spoke of two states for two people, although reality has shown that neither side agrees with this concept. I disagreed with her views, but at least she spoke with dignified coherence.

The lies sounded by the radical leftie confused and delighted me. It was the only ray of sun on the trip (except for the shopping and the fact that the audience was surprisingly supportive of my views). They confused me because I had prepared myself to deal with facts, not with lies. The audience, nurtured on media which by and large leans to the left, cannot differentiate between facts and lies. It was my word against hers, regardless of what those words were based on.

Why did her lies delight me? Because ideology is useless, or so I hope, if it is not based on reality. If the post-Zionists are forced to invent and twist facts in order to buttress their view of the world - they are bound to fail.

I'll give you an example. I said: There are large red signs at the entrance to Area A (the part of the West Bank under full Palestinian control) which forbid Israelis from entering, for fear they will be murdered. On the other hand, there’s nothing stopping the Arabs from entering any place in Israel. That is - an Arab from Bethlehem can enter a settlement, and many Bethlehem residents do so, working and trading with us, whereas a resident of the very same settlement cannot enter Bethlehem for fear he will pay with his life.

Israel, the Israeli Arabs and Jabotinsky

...Arab residents face a choice — should they continue to live as a national minority in Israel (or go to another Western country), where they will have civil rights, a great deal of freedom, and economic opportunity; or should they move to an Arab country (even Gaza or the PA) where they would be part of the cultural majority but lack rights, freedom and opportunity? This is up to them. The one option that must be closed to them is to live in Israel and insist on a specifically ‘Palestinian’ national identity that includes — as it must — the commitment to regain ‘Palestine’ (which, in fact, they never had) from the Jews.

Vic Rosenthal..
Abu Yehuda..
20 May '14..





From TheTower.org:

An Israeli news station has reported this morning on a poll conducted by Professor Sammy Smooha of Haifa University showing that the acceptance of Israel by Israeli Arabs increased markedly between 2012 and 2013.

Channel 10/Nana reported (Hebrew) that the poll’s surprising results bucked conventional wisdom:

The research shows that between 2012 and 2013 there was an increase in the percentage of Israeli Arabs recognizing Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish and democratic state, and Israel’s right to maintain a Jewish majority. Similarly, the percentage of Arabs who define themselves as “Israeli Arabs” without a Palestinian identity has increased.

Among the specific results reported were that the percentage of Israeli Arabs who accepted Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish and democratic state rose to 52.8% from 47.4% the year before. There was a more pronounced rise in the percentage of Israeli Arabs who believe that Israel can exist as a Jewish majority state to 43.1% up from 29.6% a year earlier. The number of Israeli-Arabs who accept their identity as such without identifying as Palestinians increased from 32.5% in 2012 to 42.5% in 2013. In 2013, 63.5% of Israeli Arabs consider Israel to be a good place to live up from 58.5% in 2012.

I don’t think this is so surprising. Israeli Arabs have relatives in the area controlled by the Palestinian Authority, and they understand very well that it is characterized by nepotic corruption, arbitrary police power and gangsterism.

But we shouldn’t fool ourselves into thinking that these Arabs are Zionists. Many of them are well-educated professionals who are pragmatic in their politics, but when there are conflicts, like the intifadas, Operation Cast Lead (2008-9) or the almost-war with Hamas that happened in 2012, attitudes become more nationalistic.

In fact, the results of the survey quoted could have more to do with the bad relations in 2012 than the better ones of 2013.

There are also some hard-core supporters of Hamas or other anti-Israel organizations among the Arab citizens of Israel. And it seems that the rhetoric from Arab members of the Knesset has not moderated very much.

The Palestinian Authority, Refugees, the Holocaust, and Peace

...As long as the “moderates” of Fatah are unwilling either to accept the basic responsibilities of sovereignty, like helping their own refugees, or to acknowledge basic historical truths like the Holocaust, they are no more “peace partners” than Hamas is. And by peddling the fiction that they are, Israel and the West aren’t bringing peace closer. They’re merely ensuring that Fatah has no incentive to change.

Evelyn Gordon..
CommentaryMagazine..
20 May '14..

Haaretz reported yesterday that if the Palestinian Authority’s planned Fatah-Hamas unity government actually arises, the U.S., like the European Union, will probably recognize it. Since Hamas has repeatedly said it will neither recognize Israel nor renounce violence, Israel is understandably upset at American and European willingness to peddle the fiction that a government in which Hamas is a full partner complies with those requirements. But Israel itself has helped to peddle a no less outrageous fiction for years–that PA President Mahmoud Abbas’s Fatah party, unlike Hamas, is a “partner for peace.” To understand how ridiculous this claim is, consider two recent developments: last week’s Haaretz op-ed by chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat, and a decision by Al-Quds University’s academic union two weeks earlier.

Erekat’s op-ed consisted mainly of standard Palestinian lies and half-truths about the Nakba–like omitting any mention of the five Arab armies who invaded Israel in 1948, thereby starting the war that created the Palestinian refugees. Nevertheless, one sentence stood out: “In my own home town, Jericho, there are two refugee camps where thousands continue to live in miserable conditions.” That happens to be completely true. What Erekat neglected to mention, however, is that Jericho was the first city Israel turned over to Palestinian rule, way back in 1994. In other words, Jericho has been under Palestinian rule continuously for the last 20 years, during which time the PA has been the largest per capita recipient of foreign aid in the world. Yet not one cent of that money has been spent on improving conditions in Jericho’s refugee camps. Instead, 20 years later, Erekat is still blaming Israel for the “miserable conditions” in those camps.

This is not a trivial issue, because the entire peace process is predicated on the theory that Fatah actually wants a Palestinian state. Yet having a Palestinian state means taking responsibility for the Palestinians’ problems, including the refugees living in those camps, rather than continuing to blame Israel for them. And as Erekat’s statement shows, the Fatah-led PA has no interest in doing any such thing: It prefers leaving the refugees in their misery as a way to score points against Israel with international public opinion. In other words, it would rather pursue its war against Israel than actually exercise sovereignty by improving its people’s lives.

New Palestinian "Journalists" or Political Activists?

...In the good old days before the peace process began, 20 years ago, Israeli and Palestinian journalists used to cooperate, help and work with each other. But there is a new generation of Palestinian "journalists" who have been brainwashed to a point where they regard themselves as foot soldiers in a revolution. Many of them are political activists disguised as journalists, and full of hatred.

Khaled Abu Toameh..
Gatestone Institute..
20 May '14..

An Israeli journalist, Avi Issacharoff, who has been covering Palestinian affairs for over a decade, reported that he and his cameraman were nearly lynched by a Palestinian mob as they tried to cover a Palestinian demonstration in the town of Beitunia, near Ramallah, on May 16.

Issacharoff said the attack began when a Palestinian female journalist incited masked Palestinian men against him and his cameraman.

"One of the Palestinian journalists, a young woman, then called over to a group of masked men, who swiftly surrounded me and began attacking me," Issacharoff said.

He said that were it not for the intervention of two Palestinian Authority security agents, his friend and he would have been beaten to death by the masked men.

"They extradited me and my colleague, and got us to safety," he added. "I dread to think what would have happened if they hadn't been there."

The attack on Issacharoff and his friend did not come as a surprise to those who have been following the campaign waged by some Palestinian journalists against their Israeli colleagues during the past year.

The campaign began last year when some 200 Palestinian journalists signed a petition calling on the Palestinian Authority leadership to ban Israeli newsmen from entering Palestinian territories.

The Nakba, peace and perpetuating the lie

...The annual Nakba demonstrations are a clear indication that they still have a long way to go before they reach that point. Those who lend their support to the false Nakba narrative of history simply assist in laying obstacles on the path to peace in the Middle East. The Nakba is a lie and peace will not be built on a lie.

Moshe Arens..
Haaretz..
19 May '14..

The Nakba is a bald-faced lie. No matter how many demonstrations are held in Israel and other parts of the world, no matter how many PLO flags are hoisted, no matter how many Israel Defense Forces soldiers are assaulted by rioters, it still remains a lie. The proof for all to see is the date that the Nakba demonstrators have chosen to mark the day − May 15. That is the day on which the armies of Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq invaded Israel with the intention of destroying the nascent Jewish State.

More than the Arab rejection of the November 1947 United Nations resolution on the establishment of a Jewish and an Arab state in Palestine, more than the attack by Arab bands against Jews and Jewish settlements in Palestine that followed immediately upon the passage of the UN resolution, the combined attack of the regular Arab armies on that day − the day on which British rule in Palestine came to an end and Israeli independence was declared − proves beyond doubt that the Nakba, “the Catastrophe,” is a catastrophe that the Arabs brought upon themselves.

With all the sympathy that we can and should muster for the suffering of hundreds of thousands of Arabs in Palestine that resulted from the mistakes made by their leaders and the leaders of the Arab world, mistakes which the local Arab population supported without dissent, those who argue that we in Israel should recognize the Nakba, or even teach it in our schools, are lending a hand to perpetuating a lie and engage in Soviet-style manipulation of history.

George Orwell wrote in his dystopian novel 1984: “those who control the past control the future.” Make no mistake about it, those who perpetuate the Nakba lie are making an attempt to control the future by manipulating the past.

The Palestinian Arabs are not the only Arabs who have suffered as a result of their leaders’ mistakes. Just look at Syria, where the number of casualties and refugees by now exceeds by far the plight of the Palestinian Arabs. Recognition of these mistakes and their tragic consequences is an essential condition for turning a new page to a life of progress and peace.

Letting go of Abbas by Caroline Glick

Alarmists argue that without Abbas, Israel will go broke having to finance the Palestinian budget. But this is ridiculous. Once you subtract the hundreds of millions of dollars that go missing every year, and you take into account that Israel managed to govern the areas for 24 years, you realize that this is just one more empty threat – like the demographic threat — made by people who have no political existence without the façade of a peace process. Abbas is not an asset. He is a liability. It is time to move past him.

Caroline Glick..
Our World..
19 May '14..

What makes PLO chief and Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas tick?

In 2008, when Abbas rejected then prime minister Ehud Olmert’s expansive offer of Palestinian statehood, he did so for the same reason that Yassir Arafat rejected then prime minister Ehud Barak’s expansive offer of Palestinian statehood at Camp David in 2000.

In both cases, the PLO chiefs believed that if they waited, they could get everything they demanded from Israel – and more – without giving anything away.

As Abbas and Arafat both saw it, eventually either the Israeli Left would successfully erode Israel’s national will to exist, or the Europeans and the US would join forces to coerce Israel into giving up the store. Or both. So there was no reason for the PLO to give up anything.

To get everything in exchange for nothing all they had to do was continuously escalate the PLO’s political warfare against the legitimacy against Israel internationally, and escalate its subversion of Israeli society through political intrigue and terrorism.

Back then, Abbas and Arafat looked forward to the day when they could frame Israel’s unconditional surrender and nail it to their wall.

But things have changed.

The rise of the revolutionary forces in the Islamic world since December 2010 has transformed the political landscape.

The Syrian civil war, the overthrow of Hosni Mubarak in Egypt, the resurgence of al Qaeda franchises, the US’s abandonment of its traditional Arab allies in favor of the Muslim Brotherhood and President Barack Obama’s aspiration to reach a meeting of the minds with the Iranian regime have completely upended the political calculus of all regional actors, including the PLO and Abbas.

As Palestinian affairs expert Reuven Berko wrote in an article published by the Investigative Project on Terrorism last week, if in the past Abbas wouldn’t make a deal with Israel because he could get more by saying no, today Abbas cannot make a deal with Israel.

Any deal he concludes will lead to his overthrow.

Noting that Abbas was recently threatened by al Qaeda chief Ayman Zawahiri who called him, “a traitor who is selling Palestine,” Berko explained, “The threats, veiled or not, by radical Islamists… and a quick look at Arab-Muslim world, especially Syria, have made it clear to the Palestinians what the future has in store for them, and it now appears that in the meantime, they prefer the status quo to the establishment of an independent Palestinian state.”

As Berko sees it, Abbas’s primary problem is the residents of the UN refugee camps in Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and beyond. Israel’s unwillingness to accept a so-called “right of return,” which would enable millions of foreign Arabs residing in terrorist-controlled UN-run refugee camps to immigrate to a post-peace agreement Israel means that in an era of peace, they will move to the newly created state of Palestine.

Berko rightly notes that these immigrants will not regard Abbas as their savior, to the contrary.

They certainly can do so at the Temple Mount in Jerusalem as well.

Jews and Muslims both pray at the Tomb of Samuel the Prophet outside Jerusalem, and at the Cave of the Patriarchs in Hebron. There is no reason why they cannot do so at the Temple Mount.

Michael Freund..
Fundamentally Freund/JPost..
19 May '14..

After several exasperating decades, one of the thorniest and most painful issues on Israel’s public agenda may at last be heading toward a resolution. In a move underlining the national consensus regarding the Temple Mount, Likud MK Miri Regev and Labor MK Hilik Bar have reached across the aisle to prepare a joint bill that would allow Jews to pray at the nation’s holiest site.

The proposed law, which is slated to be submitted soon to the Knesset for approval, would right one of the most glaring wrongs on Israel’s human rights record. It would end discrimination against Jews who wish to commune with their Creator on the Mount without fear of arrest.

Don’t believe the media’s attempts to paint this bill as “controversial.” The only thing controversial about it is that there is a need for such a bill in the first place. Incredibly, despite Supreme Court rulings upholding the right of Jews to freedom of worship on the Temple Mount, the police have never – not once! – allowed this right to be exercised.

Instead, Jews who visit the Mount are subjected to humiliating restrictions designed to ensure that they do not pray. These include prohibitions on silently moving one’s lips, lest one clandestinely try to beseech God, or even bringing a Bible or prayer book to the site.

In recent months, several US congressmen visiting Israel under the auspices of the Yes to a Strong Israel! organization headed by the indefatigable Ruthie Lieberman have witnessed this discrimination firsthand.

Indeed, just last week, Rep. Andrew Harris (R-Maryland) and Ron DeSantis (R-Florida), toured the site accompanied by the Temple Institute’s Rabbi Chaim Richman. Speaking afterwards to reporters, Harris said, “I’m actually surprised that access is so limited and especially [by] the discrimination against Jews above any other religion in visits to the Temple Mount. It surprises me as an American, believing in religious freedom, that such conditions would exist.”

And yet they do, despite Israel’s ostensible commitment to freedom of worship.

In a scandalous act of submissiveness, the government has allowed the extremist Muslim Wakf to call the shots on the Temple Mount, where it thumbs its nose at Israel and its laws and denies Jews their basic rights.

But hopefully, that is about to change.

Tzipi, concessions and modern messianism at its finest

...Livni is correct. There are things that one does not do, but it is a great shame that she has not adopted this principle herself in her own personal behavior. I do not know of any well-run country in which a top diplomatic negotiator would hold a private meeting with the other side shortly after his or her government decided to suspend negotiations -- a complex decision with highly significant international components.

Dr. Haim Shine..
Israel Hayom..
19 May '14..

On numerous occasions, I have heard Justice Minister Tzipi Livni express in frustration and sadness that Israel has not recognized the principle that means so much in England -- that there are things that one does not do. This is a principle that expresses binding norms of behavior in the personal and public spheres, without a need for legislation or a court decree.

Livni is correct. There are things that one does not do, but it is a great shame that she has not adopted this principle herself in her own personal behavior. I do not know of any well-run country in which a top diplomatic negotiator would hold a private meeting with the other side shortly after his or her government decided to suspend negotiations -- a complex decision with highly significant international components.

Everyone knows that Livni and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas did not talk about his doctoral dissertation in which he denied the Holocaust. They certainly did not exchange jokes, as Abbas is not known for his sense of humor (the best joke I heard from him recently was when he said he would be able to convince Hamas to recognize Israel). It is perhaps reasonable to assume that Livni presented Abbas with creative proposals on how to get around the Israeli government's decision to not conduct negotiations with the PA-Hamas terror partnership. U.S. President Barack Obama, Secretary of State John Kerry and special envoy Martin Indyk undoubtedly saw the Livni-Abbas meeting as further evidence supporting their view that Israel was responsible for the failure of the negotiations, which Livni keeps trying to woo Abbas back to, a kind of fatal attraction.

Livni has become part of a long list of Israeli prime ministers, government ministers, Knesset members and academics who came to believe that they held in their hands the key to achieving peace with the Palestinians, the peace that they think is just around the corner.

This is modern messianism at its finest. Members of this list have searched, at almost every price, for ways to enshrine their names in history by accomplishing the unthinkable. They have competed with each other for how many concessions Israel could offer, including on Jerusalem and the Temple Mount. These knights of concessions have discovered that, at the moment of truth, the Palestinian partner changes direction and disappears. Livni needs to justify remaining in the coalition by trying to save her lost honor that was repeatedly trampled on by Palestinian obstinacy. But why should she do this at the expense of the government's integrity?