On Israel’s first day (15 May '48) by Sarah Honig

Because its ragtag army stood its ground, despite the worst of odds, Israel is today accused of the crime of surviving and is portrayed as a menacing ogre for having dared to come into the world rather than surrender.

Sarah Honig..
Another Tack..
First posted 27 April '12..

‘It is with great joy that I hereby close the Mandatory Police record book,” wrote an anonymous duty officer at Tel Aviv’s central precinct precisely as David Ben-Gurion recited the renascent Jewish state’s Declaration of Independence.

Just below that spontaneous hand-inscribed historic annotation, appears the first criminal entry ever in sovereign Israel’s annals. It documents the capture of a thief. He stole a book, perchance pointing to preferences peculiar to the People of the Book.

Several hours later, the first ship docked in the new state. It began its journey furtively five days earlier in Marseilles when Israel was still under British rule. Its 300 young passengers were outfitted with fake IDs, forged at the Hagana “laboratory” in France.

But the Teti would claim special distinction – it became simultaneously the last “illegal” aliya boat and the first legal one. The counterfeit visas proved superfluous. The vessel proudly hoisted the Israeli flag as the new day dawned. Because it was the Sabbath, the newcomers were issued their new country’s entry permits only at sundown.

With such seemingly ordinary bureaucratic yet emotionally charged tasks, the Jewish state adeptly began the business of self-determination. In time that would be presented to world opinion as inherently sinful. By its very brazen determination to be born, it would be asserted, Israel had displaced the Palestinians, condemning them to miserable refugee subsistence.

According to the Arab narrative, Jewish independence, in and of itself, constitutes aggressive belligerence. Incredibly, this perception sank sinister roots. It takes stronger hold abroad now than it did 64 years ago. We may speculate why. We may point to two millennia of merciless anti-Jewish hate-mongering on religious and other mundanely lucrative grounds. But whatever the motive, our legitimacy, alone among the nations, is undermined assiduously.

Expediently forgotten is the fact that never, not for a single solitary day, were Israelis allowed to savor the elation of their newfound freedom. Behind the aforementioned two matter-of-fact exemplars of sovereignty, a frightening reality festered malevolently.

Israel’s birth was legally ordained via the UN Partition Resolution of November 29, 1947. Two states – Jewish and Arab – were to be established between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean. Jews cheered the patchy territorial crazy-quilt they were accorded, existentially untenable though it was, and proceeded to meet all UN prerequisites for independence. The Arabs vehemently rejected the offer of a Palestinian state and, in vituperative defiance of the UN, set out to destroy the embryonic Jewish state rather than construct one of their own.

On Israel’s first day, Arab League secretary-general Abdul-Rahman Azzam Pasha, articulated Arab priorities. Sending forth seven Arab armies to slay the newborn “Zionist entity,” he declared: “This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades.” The Arab agenda and intentions were unmistakable. New Israel’s citizens harbored no misconceptions.

The miracle that is the modern state of Israel

Michael Freund..
Pundicity/Jewish Press..
First Published 17 April '13..

The state of Israel this week turned 67 (65), defying history and the odds to celebrate its continued existence in a very dangerous part of the world.

Countless flags fluttered from cars and homes throughout the country, and numerous families took advantage of the weather to barbeque meat and enjoy a well-earned day of celebration.

Frankly, there is plenty to rejoice about. The Jewish population of Israel has reached 6 million+, and the country has become a leading force in fields such as computer science and medical technologies. The Land of Israel is steadily being built, and Israel's economy has proven remarkably resilient.

And yet, despite all this, one cannot help but feel a gnawing sense of concern about the future. Indeed, all around us it seems that the country is facing a mounting series of perilous threats.

To the north, the terrorist Hizbullah movement in Lebanon has been rebuilding its arsenal, with tens of thousands of rockets aimed at the Jewish state. And then there is Syria, where many of the opposition fighters trying to topple the brutal regime of Bashar al-Assad have themselves sworn allegiance to Al Qaeda. To the south is Gaza, whose Hamas leadership remains intent on Israel's demise, while to our east is Iran, whose president speaks openly of finishing off what Hitler began.

So which is it, then, on Israel's 67th Independence Day? Doom or delight, glee or gloom? Or perhaps some mixture of the two? The very question, I think, is remarkable, if only because it betrays an utter lack of appreciation for historical context and perspective.

After all, in the life of an individual, a span of sixty-seven years may represent the bulk of his productive days on this earth. But for a nation, it is an infinitesimal period, a mere episode or interlude in the great sweep of history.

Nonetheless, look at what we the Jewish people have managed to achieve here since 1948.

When, exactly, does it matter? Who decides? Apparently not Israel.

...Amb. Power's comments appear to be a full and faithful rendering of the policies of her boss at the State Department and his boss in the White House: when they find something that "matters" to them, they will do what they think is appropriate. What matters to Israel, however, seems to be a different issue altogether.

Samantha Power, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations,
(Image source: Center for Strategic & International Studies)

Shoshana Bryen..
Gatestone Institute..
22 April '15..

Samantha Power, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, says the U.S. will no longer automatically exercise its veto in the UN Security Council to protect Israel.

In testimony before the Foreign Operations Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee, Power specifically declined to rule out support for resolutions on Palestinian statehood or the "peace process." "We will look to see what will advance Israel's security and what will advance peace in the region... Our objective as an administration is what can we do to defuse tensions, what will it take to get those negotiations back on track."

When Committee members expressed skepticism, she replied, "We will continue to work extremely closely with Israel in New York. As you know well we have a record of standing when it matters with Israel."

When, exactly, does it matter? Who decides? Apparently not Israel.

From the ashes of the Etzion bloc a state arose

...Moshe ("Mush") Zilberschmidt, the commander of the Etzion bloc who was killed in a battle for the Russian Monastery, coined the phrase that would guide the Etzion fighters throughout their ordeals -- "Netzach Yerushalayim" (Eternal of Jerusalem). One of his subordinates, who was also killed in the fighting, wrote the following last words to his loved ones: "I don't know if we will prevail, regardless our dear children will be free citizens in a free homeland, and for this we are prepared to fight ... this is Jerusalem's forward position. We are defending its walls."

Nadav Shragai..
Israel Hayom..
First published 04 May '14..

"Queen has fallen," was the radio transmission from Aliza Feuchtwanger from the burning bunker at Kfar Etzion on May 13, 1948. "Queen" was the code name for the Etzion bloc. For about half a year, its defenders sacrificed their lives to hold their positions against larger and better-armed Arab forces, and on the verge of the war's end and the country's independence they could hold out no longer. "A desperate Masada-like battle is taking place in the village," Feuchtwanger told headquarters in Jerusalem in her final transmission. "The Arabs are everywhere. There are thousands of them." A few minutes later, she climbed onto the roof of the bunker and placed a white, blood-drenched sheet on the bunker's antenna to signal surrender.

The dozens of fighters who were still alive gathered in an empty lot adjacent to the school and old German monastery in order to surrender themselves and their weapons to the enemy, but their captors instead chose to slaughter them. Most were killed in a hail of bullets. A few managed to escape and survive. On that day, 127 fighters, men and women, some of them survivors of the Nazi death camps and ghettos, gave their lives. Only four, among them Feuchtwanger, lived to tell the story.

In total, 240 residents and fighters died in the battles for the Etzion bloc, of which Kfar Etzion was one of four communities at the time. Many of the fighters were taken captive by the Jordanians. The Knesset would subsequently make the fall of the Etzion bloc the date for Memorial Day for Fallen Soldiers. Few remember this fact today. The State of Israel rose amid the flames of the burning Etzion bloc. "Queen" fell, and a state rose.

Even fewer people remember that during the siege on the Etzion bloc, its defenders were not only busy protecting the communities, but also disrupting enemy movements toward Jerusalem. The Etzion fighters attacked enemy forces along the Jerusalem-Hebron road, the main artery connecting the Arab Legion and the armed gangs in Hebron to Jerusalem. Yohanan Ben-Yaakov, a researcher of the Etzion bloc's history, notes that at the beginning of May 1948, an Arab Legion officer fighting in the area said the Arab Legion had concluded that reaching and conquering Jerusalem would be impossible as long as the Etzion bloc remained in the way. The Etzion bloc, therefore, became the de facto forward position for the defense of Jerusalem, and essentially sacrificed itself so that Jerusalem could remain in Jewish hands.

David Ben-Gurion recognized this and would later write: "I can think of no battle in the annals of the Israel Defense Forces which was more magnificent, more tragic or more heroic than the struggle for [the Etzion bloc] …If there exists a Jewish Jerusalem, our foremost thanks go to the defenders of [the Etzion bloc]."

An Israel That Stood Alone

....That was an Israel that was prepared to take strategic gambles because it knew it couldn’t afford to wait on events. It did not consider “international legitimacy” to be a prerequisite for action because it also knew how little such legitimacy was worth. It understood the value of territory and terrain, not least because it had so little of it. It built its deterrent power by constantly taking the military initiative, not constructing defensive wonder-weapons such as Iron Dome. It didn’t mind acting as a foreign policy freelancer, and sometimes even a rogue, as circumstances demanded. “Plucky little Israel” earned the world’s respect and didn’t care, much less beg, for its moral approval.

Bret Stephens..
Wall Street Journal..
20 April '15..

Recent conversations with senior Israeli officials are shot through with a sense of incredulity. They can’t understand what’s become of U.S. foreign policy.

They don’t know how to square Barack Obama’s promises with his policies. They fail to grasp how a president who pledged to work toward the abolition of nuclear weapons is pushing an accord with Tehran that guarantees their proliferation. They are astonished by the nonchalance with which the administration acquiesces in Iran’s regional power plays, or in al Qaeda’s gains in Yemen, or in the Assad regime’s continued use of chemical weapons, or in the battlefield successes of ISIS, or in Russia’s decision to sell advanced missiles to Tehran. They wonder why the president has so much solicitude for Ali Khamenei’s political needs, and so little for Benjamin Netanyahu’s.

In a word, the Israelis haven’t yet figured out that what America is isn’t what America was. They need to start thinking about what comes next.

The most tempting approach is to wait Mr. Obama out and hope for better days with his successor. Israel and the U.S. have gone through bad patches before—under Ford in the 1970s, Reagan in the early ’80s, Bush in the early ’90s, Clinton in the late ’90s. The partnership always survived the officeholders.

So why should it be different this time? Seventy percent of Americans see Israel in a favorable light, according to a February Gallup poll. The presidential candidates from both parties all profess unswerving friendship with the Jewish state, and the Republican candidates actually believe it. Mr. Obama’s foreign policy is broadly unpopular and likely to become more so as the fiascoes continue to roll in.

Yet it’s different this time. For two reasons, mainly.

First, the administration’s Mideast abdications are creating a set of irreversible realities for which there are no ready U.S. answers. Maybe there were things an American president could have done to help rescue Libya in 2011, Syria in 2013, and Yemen last year. That was before it was too late. But what exactly can any president do about the chaos unfolding now?

Shakespeare wrote that there was a tide in the affairs of men “which taken at the flood, leads men on to fortune.” Barack Obama always missed the flood.

Now the president is marching us past the point of no return on a nuclear Iran and thence a nuclear Middle East. When that happens, how many Americans will be eager to have their president intervene in somebody else’s nuclear duel? Americans may love Israel, but partly that’s because not a single U.S. soldier has ever died fighting on its behalf.

In other words, Mr. Obama is bequeathing not just a more dangerous Middle East but also one the next president will want to touch only with a barge pole. That leaves Israel alone to deal as best as it can with a broadening array of threats: thousands more missiles for Hezbollah, paid for by sanctions relief for Tehran; ISIS on the Golan Heights; an Iran safe, thanks to Russian missiles, from any conceivable Israeli strike.

Lying on a huge scale, with the problem being, people believe them.

...doesn’t quite add up to tens of thousands of arrests a year. Addameer is lying, and lying on a huge scale. It is simply making up these numbers out of thin air. The problem is, people believe them. Not only “people”, but putatively ‘credible’ British journalists.

Adam Levick..
UK Media Watch..
21 April '15..

An April 17th Daily Mail article about violence in the West Bank town of Bilin during demonstrations to mark Palestinian Prisoners Day focused on sensational photos of a five-year old Palestinian boy throwing stones at Israeli police during the demo, but also attempted to provide some context on the larger issue of Palestinians in Israeli jails.

Prisoners Day is marked every year in solidarity with the more than 6,000 Palestinians in Israeli jails.

‘We will not leave our prisoners in jail alone,’ rally organiser Abdullah Abu Rahma said.

‘We will defend their right to be released, because the majority of them have been arrested illegally by Israeli forces.’

With Israel having arrested some 800,000 Palestinians in the occupied territories since 1967 – equivalent to 40 percent of the male population – almost every Palestinian family has been affected.

The Daily Mail’s completely unsubstantiated claim – parroted also in a December New York Times article – that 800,000 Palestinians have been arrested since 1967 (a number alternately placed at 750,000 or 900,000) is not new. Popular blogger Elder of Ziyon fisked the story back in 2009, and traces it back to Goldstone Commission testimony from the director of the Addameer Prisoner Support and Human Rights Association.

Such numbers would mean that there were, on the average, “over 23,000 new prisoners a year since 1967, or 500 a week”.

(Continue Reading)

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 as well as a big vote to follow our good friend Kay Wilson on Twitter, 
.

Great Question, Yes? Can You Capture Your Home?

...But in 1948, that connection was disrupted. The city fell during Israel’s War of Independence to the Jordanian Legion. All the Jewish homes were destroyed, the synagogues burned down, and the surviving Jews were exiled....Only after the city was liberated by the Israeli Defense Forces 19 years later was the Jewish quarter rebuilt, and Jews allowed to once again live in their historical and spiritual capital. This is history. It is the key context, without which there can be no understanding of the “issue” of Jerusalem. Yet in almost every case when the media report on events in Jerusalem, this context is left out.

Yarden Frankl..
Honest Reporting..
21 April '15..

The historical connection between the Jewish people and Jerusalem is a well-established fact. Jews have lived in that small area for thousands of years. It is the site of the ancient Jewish Temples as well as dozens of more modern places of worship. For most of recorded history, Jews have lived inside its walls.

But in 1948, that connection was disrupted. The city fell during Israel’s War of Independence to the Jordanian Legion. All the Jewish homes were destroyed, the synagogues burned down, and the surviving Jews were exiled. Watch our video where eyewitnesses tell what it was like for the Jewish refugees of Jerusalem to have to flee their homes. The military attack was an unprovoked assault, part of a wider campaign to destroy the nascent Jewish State.



Only after the city was liberated by the Israeli Defense Forces 19 years later was the Jewish quarter rebuilt, and Jews allowed to once again live in their historical and spiritual capital.

They followed their hearts, feeling that it was up to their dreams to shape reality

...The reality at the time was harsh, almost unbearable: disease, swamps, scarce livelihood and dwindling security. But the hands of the few who believed created miracles. They followed their hearts, feeling that it was up to their dreams to shape reality, and not, God forbid, to withdraw from it. It was up to them to let their faith lead while acting wisely, to move forward with feeling and not to listen to the experts. As the first prime minister of Israel, David Ben-Gurion, said: "There are no experts on the future, only experts on the past."

Nadav Shragai..
Israel Hayom..
20 April '15..

I never thanked my grandfather for packing up his meager belongings and coming to Israel in 1924, not to find a place safe from persecution, but simply because he knew that the Jewish people belonged in Israel.

It was not the obvious choice then, and it is not the obvious choice now. He and his ilk were part of the minority of the last few generations who came to the historic homeland not because of persecution and pogroms, but simply because they felt committed to their Jewish genes, to the historical, religious and national baggage that ties them to this place.

Their courage was perhaps different from that of the warriors on the battlefields, but it was no less magnificent. They deserve this belated thanks. Not, God forbid, as a way to diminish those who did come here out of distress and fear. We owe them thanks for our continued existence, for my parents' generation, my own generation and that of my children, as it is doubtful that we would have survived the horrors of the Holocaust in Europe had they stayed.

They deserve our gratitude for the understanding that they instilled in us that, even before this land became a safe haven for the refugees of the pogroms and the Holocaust, it was our destination; that while we might be here today thanks to our strength, we were here before thanks to the strength of our right; that security, which is today the central subject of discussion when it comes to Israel, is meant to allow us to realize our right to live here (in security, of course).

Many years ago, a member of the British House of Lords asked then-President Chaim Weizmann why the Jews were so insistent upon Israel when there were so many other places for them to settle. Weizmann responded: "That is like my asking you why you drove 20 miles to visit your mother last Sunday when there are so many old ladies living on your street."

And indeed, the land we came to, the land in which we re-established Jewish sovereignty, is above all our motherland. Unfortunately, all we speak about nowadays is security, while the conversation about our rights remains marginalized. Security is not everything. You cannot base domestic or international legitimacy on Jerusalem, Hebron or Beersheba, while ignoring the Bible, the patriarchs and the matriarchs, the Temple Mount, the City of David and the millennia-long story of a people yearning to return to their homeland. After all, we could have had security this past century in Brooklyn, London, or maybe even Uganda.

The students of the Vilna Gaon, who moved to Israel at the beginning of the 19th century, and the Jews of Yemen who came to the transit camps at the end of that century, did not come here because it was safe. They came despite the fact that it was less safe.

The State of Israel was not established because of the Holocaust, but in spite of the Holocaust that tried to destroy us.

Another Guardian essay falsely charging Israel with ethnically cleansing Jerusalem Palestinians

...Finally, the charge that Palestinians are being ethnically cleansed from east Jerusalem is easily contradicted by population statistics. Whereas in 2007 there were 208,000 Palestinians in east Jerusalem, today there are roughly 293,000. So, over the course of merely seven years, the Palestinian population of east Jerusalem has increased by over 40%.

Adam Levick..
ukmediawatch.org..
19 April '15..

There are multiple distortions, errors and misrepresentations of fact throughout an 1800 word essay published by Teju Cole at The Guardian on April 17th, titled ‘Slow violence, cold violence – Teju Cole on East Jerusalem‘. However, the most egregiously false charge leveled at Israel by Cole – a writer and literary critic who has contributed to the New York Times, New Yorker, Financial Times, and The Atlantic – is that Palestinians are being ethnically cleansed from Jerusalem.

Here are the relevant passages.

As in other neighbourhoods in East Jerusalem – Har Homa, the Old City, Mount Scopus, Jaffa Gate – there is a policy at work in Sheikh Jarrah. This policy is two-fold. The first is the systematic removal of Palestinian Arabs, either by banishing individuals on the basis of paperwork, or by taking over or destroying their homes by court order.

…

The second aspect of the policy is the systematic increase of the Jewish populations of these neighbourhoods

This two-fold policy, of pushing out Palestinian Arabs and filling the land with Israeli Jews, is recognised by all the parties involved. And for such a policy, the term “ethnic cleansing” is not too strong: it is in fact the only accurate description.

First, it’s important to note that Jews were the ones ethnically cleansed from east Jerusalem following the Jordanian occupation of that section of the city in the aftermath the 1948 war. That’s the only reason why east Jerusalem was – for the first time in the city’s history – Jew-free between 1949 and 1967, thus giving rise to the media misnomer of a “historically Arab east Jerusalem”.

(Continue Reading)

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 as well as a big vote to follow our good friend Kay Wilson on Twitter, 
.

Dear Headline Writers: The Target is Real People — Not Bus Stops

...No matter how quickly news breaks, there is no excuse for editors to publish misleading headlines that soften the reality of cold-blooded terrorism.

Yarden Frankl..
HonestReporting.com..
19 April '15..






Here’s the headline that ran in the New York Times on Friday, April 16:

However, Khaled Koutineh, a 37 year old Palestinian, is not suspected of targeting an empty, Jerusalem bus stop. He is accused of deliberately driving his car into two people, who happened to be waiting at a bus stop. There have been no accusations that the driver had some sort of vendetta against the bus stop itself. The suspicion is of terrorism, and now that one of the victims has succumbed to his wounds, of murder.

While the article written underneath the bizarre headline makes clear what happened, one has to wonder if whomever wrote the misleading headline even took the time to read the story. Unfortunately, the headline is perhaps the most important part of an article since many news readers simply skim through the paper, whether online or in print. Based on the headline, how could anyone understand that this was an act of terrorism against two innocent people rather than a crash at an inanimate bus stop?

This is not the first time that headline writers have gotten it wrong when it comes to acts of terrorism against Israelis. After a similar attack in 2011, we reported on headlines at the BBC, the Associated Press, and Sky News — all of who described the target of an attack as a bus stop, rather than the real people who were victims of the terrorist.

(Video) Caroline Glick on the Holocaust: Competing Visions of 'Never Again'

CarolineGlick.com..
17 April '15..

(Caroline Glick Update)  I gave the speech below four years ago before Young Israel in Hillcrest, Queens. I posted it on my Facebook page this week ahead of Yom Hashaoah and a viewer reposted it with Hebrew subtitles yesterday. Amazingly, it went viral within moments and several hours later had received more than 50,000 views. Given the level of interest the speech generated in Israel, I have decided to post it here as well.



May we never be helpless again.

Youtube link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPdqzFK6-KQ

CarolineGlick.com

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 as well as a big vote to follow our good friend Kay Wilson on Twitter, 
.

The spurious sincerity of pro-Palestinian commentators

...Politicians, professors and journalists alike carry on mindlessly suggesting untenable immoral prescriptions that ostensibly help the Palestinians but which in fact brings about their demise.

Chloe Valdary..
Opinion/JPost..
18 April '15..

Cognitive dissonance can be a funny, curious thing. Like a high school jock who wears shorts while lobbying the principal to ban all summer wear, those who play the “I’m-apathetic-but-I-like-to-call- myself-an-activist” game are the best at what they (don’t) do. Their exercises in self-imposed make-believe produce comical scenes in which these individuals are at variance with their own objectives and undermine the very positions they claim to represent.

Yet, such intellectual inconsistencies often provoke more than light chuckles. In the case of the Arab-Israeli conflict, they lead to the wholesale disenfranchisement and destruction of Palestinians – all in the name of Palestinian welfare.

This process usually occurs when the acolytes of armchair social justice mistake colloquy in echo chambers for sincere concern for the wellbeing of others. Politicians, professors and journalists alike carry on mindlessly suggesting untenable and, worse, immoral prescriptions that ostensibly help Arabs living in Gaza and the West Bank but which in fact bring about their demise. The logic of these academics, when put to practical use, reads more like a satirical pamphlet than advice intended to be taken seriously:

Without the bold red line, a very tough call.

...Should the outline of the framework agreement mature into a final deal, Israel will be faced with only a handful of options: making do with the deal, meaning preparing for the day when Iran becomes nuclear while trying to generate deterrence, or trying to forcibly stop Tehran, contrary to world powers' wishes. Neither option is a good one, making for a very tough call.

Maj. Gen. (ret.) Yaakov Amidror..
Israel Hayom..
17 April '15..

The nuclear framework agreement signed between Iran and world powers, namely the United States, Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany, on April 2, was defined by U.S. President Barack Obama as a "historic understanding," while Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu defined the deal as "bad."

I believe both leaders are right: The deal has radically changed Iran's position in the global theater, in exchange for it temporarily slowing down its pursuit of nuclear weapons, and in this respect it is indeed historic. The agreement affords Iran the status of a regional power and legitimizes it as a nuclear threshold state. However, it is up to Iran to decide when to cross this threshold, and in this respect it is a bad deal.

The U.S. changed its policy mid-negotiations, going from demanding that Iran be stripped of its nuclear weapons production capabilities, to discussing the nature of the limitations and supervision placed on these capabilities.

The framework deal clearly indicates that the U.S. has come to accept that Iran will one day possess military nuclear capabilities, and that at the end of the supervision period there would be nothing stopping the Islamic republic from realizing this potential.

Obama told the American people as much in a radio interview, before his spokesmen rushed to say he was misunderstood. But even if that was the case, Obama's statements reflected the reality which may arise from any final agreement with Iran.

This reality entails three scenarios. The first may see the Iranians relinquish their nuclear efforts, willingly or otherwise. Some in the U.S. administration believe this is a viable option, and that bolstering the moderate forces within Iran will eventually effect change.

The second scenario may see the Iranians diligently follow the agreement, while stabilizing their economy, reinforcing their regional status, strengthening their allies such as Hezbollah, and enhancing their nuclear expertise. Then, once the agreement's sunset clause comes into effect, the Iranians will resume the military aspects of their program with renewed zeal.

Throughout the negotiations, that U.S. has attempted to prolong the period during which Iran would be unable to pursue nuclear capabilities, saying that if Tehran complies with the agreement, it would buy the West more time, at least a decade. The administration's excuse was that a deferral of the matter was preferable to the alternative, a military operation, which may not buy the West the same amount of time, making the deal a better option.

The third scenario may see the Iranians bide their time and wait for the right moment to violate the deal. This will probably happen only after all the sanctions are lifted, and after enough countries have vested financial interests in Iran, which would deter them from targeting its economy.

The U.S., for its part, has pledged to put in place rigorous inspection practices, which would guarantee the West at least a year to detect any violation of the agreement.

A new, violent Middle East

Would such an agreement guarantee, to any extent, a change in Iran's nuclear aspirations? It seems the opposite is true. In the near future, the agreement will only fuel Iran's desire to realize the potential outlined and legitimized by the deal. The hope that the agreement will somehow breed a positive process in Iran has no hold in reality.

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani appears eager for his country to obtain nuclear weapons. In fact, there is no debate within the Iranian leadership on whether or not such capabilities are necessary, only about the best way to go about achieving them.

Only a profound misunderstanding of the nature of the Iranian regime could lead anyone to believe that any deal will somehow satisfy the ayatollahs' nuclear ambitions, to the point of becoming a game changer.

New York Times Covers Palestinian Harassment of Jews, Blames Jews for Tensions

...the story leaves room for hope that The New York Times might move away from habit of subjecting Israel to severe scrutiny while shielding the Palestinian Authority and its subjects from the same. It provides an encouraging example of a rectification made to slanted language. But it also shows that old, bad habits are not so easy to break.

Gilead Ini..
CAMERA Media Analyses..
17 April '15..

There are pluses and minuses to today's New York Times article, "Muslim Women Join Feud Over a Holy Site" by Diaa Hadid, about Palestinian harassment of Jews visiting the Temple Mount. Let's start with the pluses, since we don't often have the occasion to use that word when discussing Times coverage of Israel.

The first plus is that the story was covered at all by a newspaper that tends to shy away from exploring the uglier sides of Palestinian society and reserve hard-hitting reporting for Israel.



It is certainly newsworthy that visibly Jewish groups are met by shrieking, shouting, chanting and hostile gestures, which all are aimed at making the Temple Mount, the holiest site in Judaism, a Jew-free zone. And it is refreshing that the newspaper, which CAMERA has frequently criticized for ignoring or downplaying Palestinian incitement and hate speech aimed at Jews, is letting readers know about important, if uncomfortable, activities at an epicenter of the Arab-Israeli conflict.

The second plus is that a problematic passage in the piece was amended after CAMERA brought the issue to the attention of the newspaper.

The piece as originally published downplayed the importance of the Temple Mount to Jews relative to its importance to Muslims, which is, if nothing else, unhelpful to readers seeking to understand tensions on the Mount. Although an early paragraph did note in passing that the area "is held sacred by both" Jews and Muslims, a more focused follow-up later in the piece stated only that the compound is "revered by Muslims," while failing to note that it is revered by Jews:

The 37-acre compound in Jerusalem's walled Old City is revered by Muslims, who believe that the Prophet Muhammad's mystical journey took him from Mecca to Al Aqsa, and from there to the heavens. And it is for Jews the site of the First and Second Temples.

It is inexplicable that Muslim "reverence" would be juxtaposed with no-such Jewish feelings. To the newspaper's credit, it modified the language before the piece went to print, so that the more balanced final version stated:

The 37-acre compound in Jerusalem's walled Old City is the holiest site in Judaism and the third holiest place in Islam. Muslims believe that the Prophet Muhammad's mystical journey took him from Mecca to Al Aqsa, and from there to the heavens. And it is for Jews the site of the First and Second Temples.

Unfortunately, although the newspaper took these positive steps related to its reluctance to cover Palestinian misbehavior and to the slanted language it tends to use when reporting on Israelis and Palestinians, the article also made clear there's still ground to cover in both regards.

The Plan - A Hamas State of Palestine in Gaza (For Now)

...If and when Hamas carries out its plan and establishes its own sovereign state in the Gaza Strip, the international community, primarily the U.S. and EU, will have to come to terms with the fact that the two-state solution has finally been realized; the Palestinians ended up with two states of their own -- an Islamist emirate in the Gaza Strip and a PLO-controlled state in the West Bank. The Americans and Europeans will also have to listen very carefully to what Hamas is saying: namely, that a Palestinian state in the West Bank or Gaza Strip, or any part of the Palestinian territories, would not end its struggle to destroy Israel and replace it with the State of Greater Palestine.

Khaled Abu Toameh..
Gatestone Institute..
16 April '15..

As the U.S. Administration and the international community continue to push for a two-state solution between Israel and the Palestinians, Hamas seems to be working toward establishing an independent state of its own in the Gaza Strip.

In recent weeks, reports have surfaced in a number of Arab and Western media outlets to the effect that Hamas leaders have decided to establish a "higher committee" for managing the affairs of the Gaza Strip.

Although Hamas spokesmen have denied the reports, sources close to the Islamist movement said that discussions were underway with representatives of other Palestinian groups in the Gaza Strip to set up the "higher committee."

The sources said that the decision came after Hamas gave up on the idea of achieving "national reconciliation" with Mahmoud Abbas's rival Fatah faction.

Abbas and Fatah see the talk about a "higher committee" as a sign of Hamas's intention to proceed with its scheme to establish a Palestinian state in the Gaza Strip. They consider the purported plan a "severe blow" to the two-state solution and unity among Palestinians.

Mahmoud Zahar, a senior Hamas leader, last week confirmed that his movement was working toward turning the Gaza Strip into an independent state. "There is nothing wrong or shameful about labeling the current situation in the Gaza Strip an authority or administration," Zahar said. "If we establish an emirate or state in the Gaza Strip or in any part of Palestine, this would not mean that we are prepared to give up one inch of Palestine."

He later went on to explain that Abbas's Fatah faction, which controls the West Bank, would be excluded from the proposed administration in the Gaza Strip "because of its collusion with the Israeli occupation."

Zahar's statements came amid mounting tensions between Hamas and the Fatah-dominated Palestinian Authority.

In the past few weeks, Hamas leaders stepped up their criticism of Abbas, who recently celebrated his 80th birthday, and called for his removal from the political scene. Hamas leaders also do not miss an opportunity to remind everyone that Abbas is no longer a legitimate president, because his term in office expired back in January 2009.

The cost to American political life of legitimizing exterminationist anti-Semitism

...Roosevelt never lifted a finger to save European Jews, but he did defeat the Nazis. Obama writes letters to the man who threatens to exterminate Jews and promises him peace. American Jewish leaders have plenty to worry about. The cost to American political life of legitimizing exterminationist anti-Semitism may turn out to be one of the worst parts of a bad deal.

Lee Smith..
TabletMag.com..
16 April '15..

Imagine if at the height of Apartheid madness in South Africa, the president of the United States had decided to partner with the racist white regime in Pretoria, lift sanctions, and put that country’s illegal nuclear program on a glide path toward obtaining a nuclear bomb. Would South Africa have free and open democratic elections? Would the African continent be a better, safer place today? And what would America look like at home? Would we be a more equal country with an African-American president, or would we be something meaner and uglier? Who knows. But it seems safe to say that instead of honoring Nelson Mandela, Americans would probably be hearing a lot more of David Duke, or worse.

For 36 years now, Iranian officials have threatened to annihilate Israel. As Basij commander Mohammad Reza Naqdi said recently, “Destroying Israel is non-negotiable.” There may be different centers of power throughout the regime, as Iran experts posit, but everyone agrees with the Supreme Leader that Israel—the “Zionist cancer”—has got to go. Middle East experts and experienced Iran watchers in the West typically dismiss such threats as instrumental rhetoric intended to thrill local bigots and separate the Arab and Persian masses from their rulers. So why take such rhetoric seriously? The Iranians wouldn’t ever really use the bomb. In fact, they’re very clever, rational people.

Of course, if you’re a leader in the American Jewish community, you can’t help but hear Iran’s exterminationist rhetoric in a different frame. So maybe the legacy of Rabbi Stephen Wise was on the mind of American Jewish leaders Monday when President Barack Obama called them to a meeting at the White House. It being Holocaust Remembrance Week, who wants to be remembered as the contemporary version of Wise, who chose to protect his relationship with Roosevelt rather than criticize a president who did nothing to save European Jews from extermination?

“It was one of the tensest meetings I can ever remember,” said one participant who has been invited to many White House sit-downs over the years and requested anonymity. “The president spoke for 25 minutes, without notes,” he told me. “It was very impressive. Some people said very nice things, others expressed concerns, and talked about the role of Congress, and he talked about presidential prerogative, and cited other precedents for it. Lots of people challenged him very strongly, like about taking the threats of dictators seriously when Khamenei says death to America, death to Israel, death to the Jews. The president said he knows what the regime is, which is why he is trying to take away their weapons. He didn’t dismiss what the Iranians say, he just didn’t really address it.”

Rabbi Marvin Hier, dean and founder of the Simon Wiesenthal center, who also attended the meeting, was willing to speak on the record to Tablet. “Speaking for myself,” said Hier, “I was not satisfied.” Hier declined to describe the president’s comments but told me the point he made in the meeting. “Mr. President,” he said, “in a few weeks, you and others will be going to Germany to commemorate the 70th anniversary of the liberation of the concentration camps. What meaning does that have when while negotiating over the nuclear treaty with Iran, none of the six powers said a word when the ayatollah Tweeted about annihilating the state of Israel, or a leading general in the IRGC said this is the regime’s raison d’etre? What meaning does the 70th anniversary have? Hitler said he was going to murder all the Jews in a letter from 1919, and he wound up doing it. If you hear the ayatollah saying that, every world leader should repudiate it immediately.”

Spreading His Anti-Israel Poison Abroad. Any Guesses?

Haaretz journalist Gideon Levy is a fringe radical who justifies terrorism, dismisses Palestinian genocidal rhetoric, promotes BDS and dreams of a one-state solution rather than a Jewish state. Having recently completed a cross-Canada speaking tour sponsored by a Canadian BDS organization and interviews on Canadian radio, Levy is an example of how Haaretz and its radical ideologues poison the public discourse by demonizing Israel.

Ricki Hollander..
CAMERA Media Analyses..
17 April '15..

The Israeli daily newspaper Haaretz has a minimal following in Israel. According to a recent Target Group Index (TGI) survey, Haaretz‘s readership amounted to only 5.8% of the news market. And even this minimal share is higher than it was last summer during the IDF's Operation Protective Edge to stop Hamas rocket fire. At that time, numbers were even lower due to a slew of cancellations that were prompted by columnist Gideon Levy's Op-Ed demonizing Israeli pilots for carrying out their military orders. The fact is, most Israelis recognize Haaretz for what it is, namely, an ideological newspaper with a far-left editorial policy that often appears more interested in advocacy than in objective news gathering.

Gideon Levy serves on Haaretz's editorial board, penning a weekly column, "Twilight Zone," as well as political editorials for the newspaper. He is known in Israel as an acrimonious, anti-Israel ideologue and activist, recently arrested for spitting and cursing at IDF soldiers, and who often invents his own facts to support his radical agenda. His fan base consists primarily of fellow Israel haters and activists, while mainstream Israelis and journalists dismiss him as a dishonest propagandist. (See, for example, "Colleague Takes Gideon Levy to Task" and "Former Editor Marmari Speaks Out On ‘Apartheid' Poll Scandal", as well as here .)

(Continue Reading)

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 as well as a big vote to follow our good friend Kay Wilson on Twitter, 
.

Those who witness a miracle often do not recognize it, nevertheless...

...Those who witness a miracle often do not recognize it, the sages taught us. We have become accustomed to a natural reality of being a free people in our own land. The sacred time period in which we mark Holocaust Remembrance Day, Memorial Day for the Fallen Soldiers of Israel and Victims of Terrorism and Independence Day is meant to remind us that our current reality did not come about easily and that we must be grateful for the miracle of our resurrection from the ashes.

Dror Eydar..
Israel Hayom..
16 April '15..

The State of Israel was not founded due to the Holocaust and its right to exist does not depend on the horrors the Jewish people suffered two generations ago. President Reuven Rivlin was right to emphasize this in his speech at the Holocaust Remembrance Day ceremony at Yad Vashem on Wednesday night.

The connection between the Jewish people and the Land of Israel was never severed. There was always a Jewish presence here and several centuries ago the great return of the Jewish people to their homeland began. Israel embodies a promise -- both to past and future generations of Jews. I once asked grandmother Leah whether, during her time in the valley of death at Auschwitz, there was ever a moment when she believed there would be a good ending -- that within five years there would be an independent Jewish state where she could establish a family with children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren. She did not answer me. Rather, she wiped away a tear and went to the kitchen. There, she took from a drawer a package in which there were a large spoon and fork. "These belonged to grandfather Moshe," she said. These were what grandfather ate his meager meals at Mauthausen with. "Pass them on," she commanded us.

Those who witness a miracle often do not recognize it, the sages taught us. We have become accustomed to a natural reality of being a free people in our own land. The sacred time period in which we mark Holocaust Remembrance Day, Memorial Day for the Fallen Soldiers of Israel and Victims of Terrorism and Independence Day is meant to remind us that our current reality did not come about easily and that we must be grateful for the miracle of our resurrection from the ashes.

"And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children" (Deuteronomy 6:7). There are two main lessons from the Holocaust. The first, which is frequently cited, is, "Never again!" This lesson covers the horror and terror of the Holocaust and its evil executioners, as well as the heroism of the Jewish fighters and the sanctity of the victims.

The second lesson is no less important. The Holocaust marked the Jewish people's divorce from exile. We were called on to return home from endless wandering in foreign lands among peoples who did not want us there.

(Video) Ayaan Hirsi Ali Speaks after Viewing "Crossing The Line 2"

In this video Ayaan Hirsi Ali speaks at a recent screening of our film, Crossing the Line 2, a new documentary from Jerusalem U that reveals the rise of anti-Israel activity and anti-Semitic rhetoric on North American university campuses, and demonstrates when reasonable criticism of Israel ‘Crosses the Line’ into anti-Semitism.

Jerusalem U..
12 April '15..

Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a human rights activist, champion of free speech, and best-selling author. Time Magazine has listed her as one of the 100 most influential people in the world.

In this video she speaks at a recent screening of our film "Crossing The Line 2", and she talks about about anti-Semitism on college campuses and discusses how criticism of Israel is often fueled by hatred of Jews.



Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pl41t5Fn2HI

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 as well as a big vote to follow our good friend Kay Wilson on Twitter, 
.

When BDS Drops Its Veil: Campus Anti-Semitism

...but the problem won’t be dealt with by ignoring the clear connection between the worldwide BDS—boycott, divest, sanction—movement and anti-Semitism. That’s a stand that many supporters of Israel have refused to take believing that crying anti-Semitism will cloud the issue and make it harder to advocate for Israel. But divestment advocates are making it increasingly obvious they have no scruples about the link between Jew hatred and treating Israel as a pariah state. BDS isn’t about a political dispute within Israel, its borders, or sympathy for the Palestinians. It’s a war on Jews.

Molly Horwitz, a Stanford
student council candidate, 
Jim Wilson/The New York Times 

Jonathan S. Tobin..
Commentary Magazine..
15 April '15..

The most telling comment about the story of a Stanford University student who was quizzed about her Jewish faith when she tried to run for office came from her friend and campaign manager. Molly Horwitz, a Stanford junior, was running for the Student Senate and her campaign manager and friend Miriam Pollock told her what she had to do. According to the New York Times, Pollack advised Horwitz to “scrub” her personal Facebook page and remove anything that related to Israel or her support for the Jewish state. But that didn’t stop the Students of Color Coalition from demanding to know whether Horwitz’s “Jewish identity” impacted her stand on divestment—the economic war being waged against Israel. The episode in which some black and Latino students now think it is acceptable to treat Judaism as a disqualifying characteristic is a horrifying example of the way anti-Semitism—thinly disguised as anti-Zionism—has established a secure foothold on American college campuses.

Horwitz may have removed Israel from her Facebook persona but couldn’t escape being classified as a Jew and was therefore suspect in the eyes of those who have come to treat support for the war on Zionism as a litmus test of liberal bona fides. But the significance of the incident lies not so much in the snub of a Hispanic student (she was adopted from Paraguay and considers herself both a South American and a Jew) by a coalition that is supposed to exist to support such persons simply because she is also Jewish and unwilling to disavow Israel under questioning. Rather, it is the insouciance with which the members of the student group—including the chapter president of the NAACP—regarded the inquisition of a Jewish student about her faith as being not only acceptable but something that should be expected.

Horwitz has demanded a public apology, but she shouldn’t hold her breath waiting for it. Nor should she expect much comfort from the university that has also been asked to investigate what happened. The reason is that so long as support for a movement that singles out the one Jewish state in the world and its supporters for discriminatory treatment and opprobrium is not merely tolerated as an opinion but treated as a reasonable point of view about which decent people may differ, we can’t be surprised that Jew hatred is being normalized.

Had the coalition merely asked Horwitz about her stand about divestment without connecting it to her faith, that might pass the anti-Semitism smell test even if it would still be troubling that blacks and Hispanics have adopted the attack on Zionism as their own cause. But by linking this issue to Judaism they have acknowledged the fact that the divestment cause is not merely a political criticism of Israel’s government or its policies but primarily focused on singling out Jews for biased treatment.