Love of the Land: (videos) "Solidarity With Palestine from Nakba To Intifada": George Galloway and Company#links#links#links#links#links#links

(videos) "Solidarity With Palestine from Nakba To Intifada": George Galloway and Company

Daphne Anson
17 May '11

http://daphneanson.blogspot.com/2011/05/solidarity-with-palestine-from-nakba-to.html

On 13 May a discussion on the above theme was held by the so-called Equality Movement. It starred George Galloway and others who are determined to effect the demise of the Jewish State.

The first speaker was Mavi Marmara alumna Sarah Colborne, campaigns and operations director of the Palestine Solidarity Movement, promoting the lie of a massacre at Jenin and the libel of "apartheid" (among other slurs), advocating "far more cultural boycotts of Israel", pimping Ben White's notorious book Israeli Apartheid, and assuring the faithful that ending the siege on Gaza will hasten the day when all the refugees return "to a free Palestine" (a telling phrase, that, eh?)

(Warning - she does drone on, for nearly fifteen minutes ...)




Israeli anti-Zionist dupe Yael Cohen and anti-Israel activist Jody McIntyre, who wrote that truly repellent piece in the Independent that I referred to in yesterday's blogpost, also spoke, as did Dr Karma Nabulsi, an Oxford academic and former PLO representative. From the floor a young Sri Lankan speaker declared that the Tamil community in Britain "are right behind you" (i.e. the Palestine Solidarity Movement) while in fiery style an Arab speaker cried "Cut off the supply lines to the Zionist entity!".

If you're a glutton for punishment you can see all the videos (seven in all ) courtesy of You Tube. Below are a couple featuring Galloway, who's in fervent rabble-rousing form, ranting and raving about Britain and Balfour, claiming triumphantly to his hearers' delight that the number of non-Jewish true supporters of Israel has diminished exponentially since the 1970s, declaring to wild acclaim that "Palestine is an Arab country, and the Arab Revolution will not be complete until Jerusalem is the capital of another Arab country", and wishing for the "renaissance of the PLO". Where Ms Colborne is soporifically controlled, George is increasingly fire and brimstone:







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.

Love of the Land: (videos) "Solidarity With Palestine from Nakba To Intifada": George Galloway and Company

Love of the Land: The ‘Nakba’ Day Protests and the Impossibility of Peace

The ‘Nakba’ Day Protests and the Impossibility of Peace

Eldad Tzioni
www.newsrealblog.com
16 May '11

The events of “Naqba Day” are just one, very small proof that real peace is impossible.

Not “difficult.” Not “painful.” Truly, 100% impossible.

What were the thousands of protesters from Syria, Lebanon and Gaza demanding? Their demands are simple: the “right to return.” They want Israel to allow millions of Arabs of Palestinian descent to flood the country and turn it into another Arab state.

This demand has been absolute and unyielding for 63 years. Never has any Arab leader publicly renounced this demand. Never have the Palestinian Arabs accepted any compromise on the matter. Today, right now, the PLO demands this so-called” right” in unambiguous terms.

There is no need here to mention that there is no such right enshrined in international law, or how easy it is to prove that Arab leaders have used this “demand” as a smokescreen to their real desire to destroy Israel, or the hypocrisy of Palestinian Arab leaders, today, who do not want even those who used to live on land they now control to “return.” All those points are true and can be proven at another time.

The point here is that this demand is completely at odds with Israel’s continued existence. One cannot have it both ways: either the Arabs come and destroy Israel, or Israel is allowed to exist and they never “return.” There is no possible compromise.

(Read full "The ‘Nakba’ Day Protests and the Impossibility of Peace")

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.

Love of the Land: The ‘Nakba’ Day Protests and the Impossibility of Peace

Love of the Land: Ettinger: No US pressure on Israel

Ettinger: No US pressure on Israel

Yoram Ettinger
Israel Opinion/Ynet
17 May '11



http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4069618,00.html

Op-ed: Despite Bin Laden success, Obama has no mandate to press Jewish State

President Obama intends to leverage the elimination of Bin Laden and intensify pressure on Israel. However, the ability of an American President to exert pressure in the international arena is a derivative of his domestic clout, especially when it comes to pressuring the Jewish State.

Most Americans consider the Jewish State not only an international issue, but also a domestic issue, related to the Judeo-Christian foundations of the US, enjoying an inherent bi-partisan high-level public and congressional support.

On May 20, 2011, Prime Minister Netanyahu will meet with President Obama, whose frail popularity constitutes a burden upon Democratic incumbents and candidates as we approach the November 2012 election. The president struggles to gain public support for his legislative agenda and for his reelection campaign, in spite of the overwhelming support of his authorization to eliminate Bin Laden (80%).

On May 20, Netanyahu will meet a president who seeks enhanced cooperation with Congress, lest he become a lame-duck president failing to be reelected in 2012. However, most legislators oppose pressure on the Jewish State, whose solid support is a rare bipartisan common denominator during an era of heated polarization on Capitol Hill.

Obama will try to pressure Netanyahu, but will not sacrifice his key goal – a second term – on the altar of the Palestinian issue. Obama is familiar with Tip O'Neal's assertion that "All politics is local." He has learned from his predecessors that external success usually does not rid presidents of domestic woes.

For instance, Bush 41st surged from 39% to 85% popularity following the 1991 Gulf War. Bush also benefitted from the dismantling of the USSR and the fall of the Berlin Wall – significantly more dramatic developments than the elimination of Bin Laden. Therefore, major Democratic candidates were deterred from challenging Bush in November 1992, which paved the road for the relatively unknown Governor of Arkansas, Bill Clinton.

Will Bibi leverage US public support?

In contrast to Bush, who was preoccupied with foreign and national security issues, Clinton adhered to the advice of James Carville and Paul Begala: "It's the economy, stupid!" As constituents turned their attention back to economic and health problems, Bush's Gulf War "bonus" gradually dissipated. On Election Day President Bush reverted to his real political popularity – 38% - and Clinton won.

Presidents Wilson and FDR were heroes of WW1and WW2 – dramatically more notable events than the slaying of Bin Laden – but they lost Democratic majorities in both congressional chambers in the 1918 and 1946 elections. Bush 43rd gained a 35% popularity bonus following 9/11 and the 2003 apprehension of Saddam Hussein, but he barely won in 2004 (51%:48%). His role in the economic meltdown triggered GOP election devastation in November 2008.

The killing of Bin Laden has accorded President Obama an extremely slim, soft and short-term bonus. The counter-terrorism global milestone is unrelated to the long-term issues haunting Obama at home: Unemployment, the price of gasoline, the deficit, the national debt, taxation, the mortgage and pension funds crises, declining housing values, the threat of inflation and recession, potential insolvency of states and municipalities, health reform, etc.

Ridding humanity of Bin Laden deserves much praise, but its impact on Obama's domestic clout is minimal, and it does not provide the president with a public or congressional mandate to pressure the Jewish State.

Will Prime Minister Netanyahu leverage public and Capitol Hill support and fend off pressure attempts by President Obama, who has been transformed from a coattail-president to an anchor-chained president? Will Netanyahu leverage the seismic developments in Arab lands – which have exposed the marginal role played by the Palestinian issue in shaping the Middle East agenda – and focus on the need to enhance strategic cooperation between the US and the Jewish State, in order to face the mounting threats in the Middle East?

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.

Love of the Land: Ettinger: No US pressure on Israel

Love of the Land: Abbas demands something for nothing

Abbas demands something for nothing

Fresnozionism.org
17 May '11

http://fresnozionism.org/2011/05/abbas-demands-something-for-nothing/


As we get closer to September and a unilateral declaration of Palestinian statehood, Mahmoud Abbas has taken the opportunity to explain why he thinks justice requires yet another slice to be taken from the only Jewish state and given to his amalgamation of two vicious terrorist organizations. After Hamas has told us that even total Israeli withdrawal to 1949 lines won’t bring peace, Abbas explains here that this is his position as well.

The Abbas piece is remarkable for its distortions of the historical record, including the heart-wrenching account of how a little boy who would grow up to be Palestinian President was ‘expelled’ from Tzfat (see also here for a version of the article with lies replaced by truth).

One of the biggest lies Abbas tells is that the Palestinian Arabs should have had a state in 1947, but implementation of the UN partition agreement was derailed by the Zionists. He writes,

In November 1947, the General Assembly made its recommendation and answered in the affirmative. Shortly thereafter, Zionist forces expelled Palestinian Arabs to ensure a decisive Jewish majority in the future state of Israel, and Arab armies intervened. War and further expulsions ensued…


Minutes after the State of Israel was established on May 14, 1948, the United States granted it recognition. Our Palestinian state, however, remains a promise unfulfilled.

Abbas does not tell us that both the Palestinian Arab leadership and the rest of the Arab world rejected partition on the grounds that all of Palestine should be under Arab sovereignty. He does not tell us that the Palestinian Arabs have rejected offers of a state no less than six times between 1937 and 2008 (and once in 1919).

So why, if they did not want a state until now, will this time be different? Because this time they think they will be able to gain control over a large, strategic territory without having to commit to recognition of Israel, and without having to give up their claim on the rest of the land, in particular, the right to settle millions of Arab ‘refugees’ in Israel.

Israel would never agree to cede territory in return for a promise of belligerency, and — at least so far — the US has not tried to force it to do so. As a result, negotiations between Israel and the PLO have always failed. Abbas may say that “negotiations remain our first option,” but the PLO has only been prepared to negotiate surrender, not compromise. And no matter what concessions Israel has offered, they have not included giving up its right to exist.

Abbas believes that after the world makes Israel leave the territories, it can make Israel sit still and accept the return of the so-called ‘refugees’ (95% of whom are not refugees in any normal sense), and — probably after a bloody war — become another Arab state:

Palestine’s admission to the United Nations would pave the way for the internationalization of the conflict as a legal matter, not only a political one. It would also pave the way for us to pursue claims against Israel at the United Nations, human rights treaty bodies and the International Court of Justice …


… Once admitted to the United Nations, our state stands ready to negotiate all core issues of the conflict with Israel. A key focus of negotiations will be reaching a just solution for Palestinian refugees based on Resolution 194, which the General Assembly passed in 1948.

The Arab interpretation of resolution 194 is that every descendant of the 600,000 Arabs that fled Israel in 1948 (about 4.5 million claim this status) is entitled to ‘return’ to Israel and take possession of his property, or be compensated. This wasn’t the intent of the resolution, which referred only to actual refugees and required that they be prepared to ‘live in peace’ with Jewish Israelis. And it would also cover the approximately 850,000 Jewish refugees from Arab countries, who most likely wouldn’t want to return but would be happy for compensation!

Since 1967 the presumption of the West has been that land will be exchanged for peace, recognition and an end of all claims against Israel. The Abbas plan finally makes explicit what some of us have been saying all along, that the PLO never intended to give up its dream of replacing Israel with an Arab state of ‘Palestine’.

It’s time for the White House to recognize this and firmly oppose the attempt to give the PLO something for nothing.

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.

Love of the Land: Abbas demands something for nothing

Love of the Land: Seven Years Later, and Nothing Has Changed

Seven Years Later, and Nothing Has Changed

West Bank Mama
17 May '11

http://westbankmama.wordpress.com/2011/05/17/seven-years-later-and-nothing-has-changed/

While this past Sunday’s events took most of the headlines, the day was marked in a different way by my neighbor. Sunday was the 11th day of the Hebrew month of Iyar, and was the day seven years ago that Arab terrorists killed Tali Hatuel, a woman eight months pregnant, and her four young daughters. They shot her and her children in cold blood as they were traveling in their station wagon. Tali was my neighbor’s sister. Five years ago I wrote about their yahrzheit here.

Seven years ago there were some in Israel that thought peace would be on its way. Arik Sharon was going to move all of the Jews out of Gush Katif, and the Arabs were going to get what they (supposedly) wanted – the “end of the occupation”. The Jews were kicked out of Gaza, and……..the Arabs burned the synagogues to the ground, looted and destroyed the greenhouses, and continued firing rockets, this time into Sderot and the kibbutzim near the border with Gaza. 10,000 Jews were displaced from their homes, and instead of bringing peace it just served as a reward for the terrorists.

Now the Arabs are again calling for a state of their own, in the pre-1967 Israeli borders. Supposedly, if they get that, then they will negotiate a peace agreement with the Israelis. There is only one catch though. On Sunday they rioted in many places in Israel, a terrorist killed one and injured 17 in Tel-Aviv, and other Arabs from the surrounding countries tried to storm our borders and in one case succeeded. This was all on the day they call the Nakba – which commemorates the creation of the State of Israel in 1948, before there were any Jews living in Judea and Samaria. If they still commemorate this date by trying to kill Jews in Tel-Aviv, then why would anyone think it will be different if we give them territory in Judea and Samaria?

Whatever happens in September in the UN will not change the reality here in Israel. The Arabs hate us and want to kill us and completely destroy the State of Israel. It is part of Islam, and Hamas states this openly. They are planning to attack us again, and we will fight back and win, again. The only question is when, and how many Arab countries will pile on.

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.

Love of the Land: Seven Years Later, and Nothing Has Changed

RubinReports: The West’s Foreign Policy Theme—Like Me Before You Kill Me—Applied to Israel

The West’s Foreign Policy Theme—Like Me Before You Kill Me—Applied to Israel

By Barry Rubin

Recently, it was revealed that President Barack Obama had consulted Tom Friedman in formulating his Middle East policy. Here’s an example of where disastrous policy comes from.

Friedman writes:

“Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu of Israel is always wondering why his nation is losing support and what the world expects of a tiny country surrounded by implacable foes. I can’t speak for the world, but I can speak for myself. I have no idea whether Israel has a Palestinian or Syrian partner for a secure peace that Israel can live with. But I know this: With a more democratic and populist Arab world in Israel’s future, and with Israel facing the prospect of having a minority of Jews permanently ruling over a majority of Arabs — between Israel and the West Bank, which could lead to Israel being equated with apartheid South Africa all over the world — Israel needs to use every ounce of its creativity to explore ways to securely cede the West Bank to a Palestinian state.”

By the way, the picture of “a minority of Jews permanently ruling over a majority of Arabs” has not been accurate since 1994, that’s 17 years ago. The Palestinian Authority rules over the West Bank Arabs. Hamas, which has now merged with the Palestinian Authority, rules in the Gaza Strip. The only non-citizen Arabs that “Jews” are ruling over are those in east Jerusalem, according to an agreement that Israel made with the PLO.

So a big part of Israel's difficulty is that people like Friedman are perpetuating anti-Israel lies instead of attacking them.

In other words, if your enemies lie about you does that mean that you must take huge risks? There’s a clever bumper sticker that says: Never apologize. Your enemies don’t care and your friends don’t need it.

But leaving all of that aside, let’s start with Friedman’s opening sentence. I certainly don’t speak for Netanyahu and didn’t vote for him, but I really doubt he’s wondering why these things are happening. He knows the reasons, as do most Israelis, even those critical of his policy:

The greater international weight of the Arab world; oil money; well-intentioned but ill-placed sympathy for an apparent underdog; aspects of Islam rejecting ever accepting a Jewish state; Arab nationalist rejection of a Jewish state; a clever anti-Israel propaganda campaign; Western leftist sympathy for its enemies; the rejection of Zionism by some Jews; the honest belief that if you resolve the Israel-Palestinian conflict by Israeli concessions the whole world will be stable and terrorism will disappear; antisemitism; and more.

There’s no mystery here.

But there is a problem. If you equate that hostility to one cause and one cause only: Israel is “permanently ruling” over a majority of Arabs. That’s it. Solve that problem and everything else will fall into place.

Yet what if you know that giving up the West Bank will not solve every problem—a viewpoint almost never aired in the Western mass media and universities nowadays? Then Friedman’s concept and that of most Western policies immediately collapses.

Israel has conducted extensive experiments with this concept, experiments that have cost about the same number of Israeli lives as September 11 took American lives. Since the population of the United States is approximately 40 times that of Israel you can calculate the impact of those costs.

After all, Israel already acted “to securely cede” (the split infinitive is Friedman’s) the Sinai to Egypt, with the result that this peace treaty is about to be abrogated. It tried to “securely cede” the Gaza Strip to the Palestinian Authority, getting rockets and mortars and cross-border attacks in return. It also sought “to securely cede” southern Lebanon and got rockets and cross-border attacks. To see what would happen it acted “to securely cede” much of the West Bank to the Palestinian Authority and then received in return incitement to violence, terrorist attacks, and intransigence.

Might there be a pattern here?

Yes, it would be better to have a stable, two-state solution that ended the conflict and made Israel’s neighbors friendly. But here’s where the gap is between Israel and much of the Western political elites today:

We tried it and it didn’t work.

That is not a “right-wing” statement. It is an Israeli consensus statement. And even if Israel tries and tries again, this doesn’t mean that people don’t know that.

Now, there are people in the Middle East—millions of people—who openly make my point every day. These include the governments of Iran, Syria, Turkey, and the Gaza Strip, as well as probably Egypt’s next government and those running Lebanon. Islamists openly proclaim that no matter how much territory Israel cedes they won’t be satisfied until it has ceded everything and gone out of existence altogether.

What Friedman calls “a more democratic and populist Arab world” means a more radical and Islamist Arab world. In fact, the radicals will remain radicals (Syria, Iran) while the formerly moderate become more extremist (Egypt). Why, then, should Israel make dangerous concessions when these will be taken advantage of to attack it more effectively? Why give things to people who want to kill you no matter what you do?

But there’s one point that is so overwhelming in Friedman’s piece, so symptomatic of everything wrong with the Western vision of Israel, the Middle East, and even the entire world (and especially with the Obama Administration’s policy), that it should resound with everyone who reads that article:

Friedman is telling us that a good public relations’ image is more important than material security. Israel will survive an infinite number of nasty articles or sneering professors without great difficulty. It would not survive concessions that make Israel weak and vulnerable, more than ever at a time when—let’s face it—American and European guarantees are worthless.

Golda Meir already dealt with Friedman’s idea decades ago: Better a bad press than a good epitaph.

That’s a principle which North America and European countries should think about adopting as their motto.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center, editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal, and a featured columnist at PajamasMedia http://pajamasmedia.com/barryrubin/ His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is http://www.gloria-center.org. His PajamaMedia columns are mirrored and other articles available at http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com/.

RubinReports: The West’s Foreign Policy Theme—Like Me Before You Kill Me—Applied to Israel

RubinReports: The Myth of President Obama's Middle East Speech

The Myth of President Obama's Middle East Speech

This article is published in PajamasMedia.

By Barry Rubin

I don’t want to speculate about President Barack Obama’s Middle East speech. I’ll wait to hear it. But the opening line in the New York Times story about the forthcoming presentation tells us all we need to know:

“Mr. Obama will have a chance to reshape the debate on Thursday, when he delivers a major speech on the region at the State Department.”

Which debate will he reshape? The debate in the Middle East? Absolutely not.

The struggle between revolutionary Islamists, on the one hand, and everyone else will continue. Iran will still be going full speed ahead not only on developing nuclear weapons but also in subverting lots of countries. Syria will continue to shoot demonstrators. Egypt will still be headed toward a radical and perhaps even Islamist regime. Israel will go on facing a Palestinian leadership that won’t make a compromise peace. The Saudis and other Gulf Arab states will still know that the United States isn’t protecting it properly from Iran. The Turkish regime will continue its quiet Islamization of the country and developing alliance with Iran. And so on.

Perhaps Obama thinks that by making a speech he will reshape that debate. But he won’t. It’s hubris.

Either the New York Times headline writer just took the lead to make the headline or has a sense of irony in titling the article: "As Uprisings Transform Mideast, Obama Aims to Reshape the Peace Debate."


Does Obama think that liberal Arabs will be encouraged by their struggle by a few words of encouragement from the president when he has done nothing to help them in Syria and Iran? Does he think that the “Facebook kids” in Egypt who now organize violent demonstrations against Israel will love America?

Perhaps it will reshape the debate within the United States? But that’s just talking about distant problems. Most likely he hopes to reshape the debate over the competence of his policy without actually affecting the events in the region.

What needs to happen instead is that U.S. policy must be reshaped in the face of the regional realities that it persists in ignoring.

No matter what he says remember that reality.


Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center, editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal, and a featured columnist at PajamasMedia http://pajamasmedia.com/barryrubin/ His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is http://www.gloria-center.org. His PajamaMedia columns are mirrored and other articles available at http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com/.

RubinReports: The Myth of President Obama's Middle East Speech

Israel Matzav: A word of caution about Obama's 'turnaround'

A word of caution about Obama's 'turnaround'

I have a sense of deja vu regarding President Obama's seeming turnaround. In the last couple of months, he has seemingly let up on pressuring Prime Minister Netanyahu and has lowered both the tone and the priority of the 'peace process.' Now, word is coming out of Washington claiming that Obama's speech on Thursday night will be conciliatory to Israel, and well it might be if he doesn't want to be booed out of the room when he speaks to the AIPAC convention on Sunday.

I feel like we're back in 2008. We're being told to ignore the fact that Obama sat in Reverend Wright's anti-Semitic church listening to his sermons for 20 years and listen only to what he is saying now. We're being told to ignore the fact that one of Obama's closest advisers called for sending US troops to Israel to enforce a 'Palestinian state' because he fired her anyway and she won't be part of his administration. We're being told that the 'new Obama' understands that Prime Minister Netanyahu has done all he can to bring about peace and that he realizes that we cannot even negotiate with an entity that includes an unrepentant Hamas. We're being told all these warm and fuzzy things. And they are all a lie.

When we look at Arab leaders, we are constantly warned - and rightfully so - to look at what they are saying in Arabic before accepting what they say in English at face value. In fact, an entire cottage industry (principally MEMRI and Palestinian Media Watch) has sprung up to translate the words of the Arab media into English. Similarly, we cannot just accept what Obama says to Israel supporters and ignore what he says to our opponents. So let's look at what Obama said to one of our opponents (whose word I have no reason to doubt on this), the insufferable MJ Rosenberg.

In 2007, the day after Obama declared his candidacy for president, I met with him in his office (I was then working for Israel Policy Forum).

Obama listened carefully while I explained why it was critical that he be an "honest broker" on Israel-Palestinian issues. Nothing I said, including my opinions of AIPAC's influence, would surprise anyone who reads my columns. My bottom line was that the occupation was terrible for the United States, for Israel and, most of all, for the Palestinians and that he should understand that the status quo lobbyists who defend everything Israel does are not representative of the Jewish community or anyone else.

Obama listened, cupped his ear, and said, "I can't hear you."

I didn't understand; I was sitting right next to him.

He then said: "No, not literally. I mean that I don't hear from people like you. But I hear from AIPAC {he then named the local AIPAC leader in Chicago} every week. I'm going to be President and, when I am, it is your job -- you and all the people who feel the way you do -- to make sure I hear that message. You cannot simply rely on t

he belief that you are right. You need to raise your voice so that I hear you and not just them."

So maybe, just maybe, the President wants us to shout and holler about, what appears to be, a sellout to AIPAC. After all, he is making no attempt to cover up what he's doing or why he's doing it. He only hears one voice.

Maybe Obama's latest actions are a cry for help.

Don't just read Yoram Ettinger's headline and assume that all is well for Israel in Washington. If Obama wins in 2012, all is not well. Every action Obama takes for the next 18 months has one goal and one goal only: To get himself re-elected. Once that happens (God forbid), the Obama who visited MJ Rosenberg, the Obama who sat in Reverend Wright's church, the Obama who was close friends with Rashid Khalidi and Ali Abunimah, is likely to come out of the closet.

What could go wrong?

Israel Matzav: A word of caution about Obama's 'turnaround'

Israel Matzav: What Obama's going to say on Thursday night

What Obama's going to say on Thursday night

I have seen discussions of a summary of President Obama's speech for Thursday night. The speech (apparently there is also a complete copy floating around) has not been authenticated. I know where it came from and I know who has been tasked with authenticating it, but I cannot tell you that it's authentic. But it's authentic enough that someone at Yediot apparently got a hold of it and this is the result.

Obama is expected to urge Israel to return to the 1967 lines while negating the Palestinian Authority's planned unilateral bid for statehood in September.

According to the draft – which may change again by Thursday – Obama will call on Jerusalem and Ramallah to reignite the stalled Israeli-Palestinian peace process, saying it is the only way to achieve viable peace.

Obama stands to demand the Palestinian Authority recognize Israel as the Jewish state, and that the Palestinians unequivocally abandon terror.

He is also likely to stress Israel must cease any settlement expansion in the West Bank and further avoid any act which could be construed as changing the status quo on the ground.

The subject of Jerusalem also stands to be included in the American president's speech: Washington sees the city as the capital of both Israel and the Palestinian state, with its east Jerusalem neighborhoods – which are largely populated by Palestinians – under the PA's sovereignty, and its Jewish neighborhoods under Israeli sovereignty.

Following Netanyahu's vehement speech before the Knesset plenum Sunday, it seems Washington has decided to lower its expectations of Netanyahu.

There's another version of the same article that was posted on ScribD, which was written by Shimon Shiffer and which I managed to get before it was apparently removed by the person who originally posted it. Here's the key passage:

According to one source exposed to talks among Netanyahu’s advisors ahead of the premier’s Friday meeting with the US president, Obama will define as illegal the settlements built in the territories after 1967. It is as yet unknown what will be Obama’s policy on the settlement blocs; in his speech on Monday Netanyahu noted he would demand that they remain under Israeli sovereignty.

Amidror and Arad tried to convince their interlocutors, headed by National Security Advisor Tom Donilon, to change some of the planned formulations in the speech. The Israeli side claimed that Obama’s outline will not enable true negotiations, and is in essence an endorsement of the Arab approach. A senior US administration official told the Israelis that they have no reason to act like a “surprised virgin.

There are at least four major changes in US policy here: First, the 'settlements' are defined as 'illegal.' Only Jimmy Carter has done that. Second, the 'Palestinians' are assumed to have the right to all areas that were beyond the 1949 armistice lines. That was never US policy. Third, that the areas outside the 1949 armistice lines for which Israel will now be expected to 'compensate' the 'Palestinians' will include areas in 'east' Jerusalem. Fourth, the US has never called on Israel to return to the 1967 borders 1949 armistice lines.

For the record, National Security Adviser Yaakov Amidror, who is mentioned in the passage above, denied that he attempted to get Obama to change the speech.

Amidror told Army Radio that he never "tried to convince anyone of anything" and that "only thing right about the report was mine and Uzi Arad's name. The issue of Obama's speech did not come up in the meeting with Danilone, and there was not even a hint about what the president [Obama] and the prime minister [Netanyahu] will say."

Recent reports in the media have claimed that Amidror's latest trip to Washington was designed to prepare officials for Netanyahu's speech to Congress, but Amidror said "This is a big mistake of the newspapers. The speeches are not a big issues for us. There are many issues which are important for the future of Israel and on these issues we focused."

The Yediot Ahronoth report claimed that from conversations between Amidror and his predecessor Uzi Arad, US President Barack Obama intends to call on Israel to return to 1967 borders in a speech he is expected to give Thursday.

Hmmm.

Israel Matzav: What Obama's going to say on Thursday night

Love of the Land: Entertainment for Abbas and PA leaders: All of Israel is "my land"

Entertainment for Abbas and PA leaders: All of Israel is "my land"

Itamar Marcus/Barbara Crook
Palestinian Media Watch
17 May '11

http://palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=157&doc_id=5030

Contrary to the PA leaders' claim that they recognize Israel's right to exist, their controlled TV and cultural events continue to reinforce the message of non-recognition of Israel by depicting all of Israel as "Palestine."

At a recent Fatah event in the presence of Mahmoud Abbas and many other senior PA officials, a Palestinian singer defined all of Israel as being Palestinian. He sings that "my land" and "our coast" span from Rosh Hanikra in Israel's north to Rafah in the Gaza Strip in the South, and from Haifa on Israel's Western coast to Beit Shean on Israel's Eastern border.




The Fatah members filling the large auditorium are shown clapping enthusiastically to the song. The event was rebroadcast on PA TV on May 12, 2011.

The following are the words of the song at the Fatah event:

"We commit and promise to stand behind you, oh Mahmoud Abbas, until Judgment Day. I am returning to you, the purest land, oh land of the free. No matter how long the nights of exile, I am returning to you, oh land. From Rafah to Rosh Hanikra (northern Israel) our coast, and Beit Shean (Israeli city). Above your soil, oh my land, is a picture of Garden of Eden. From Rafah to Rosh Hanikra our coast, and Beit Shean. Above your soil, oh my land, is a picture of Garden of Eden. From Rafah to Rosh Hanikra, north and south, are the picture's borders. From Haifa (Israeli city) and Tantura to the [Jordan] valley (i.e., all of Israel). I am returning to you, the purest land, oh land of the free."
[PA TV (Fatah), Feb. 27 and May 12, 2011]

On April 13, PA TV broadcast a different song presenting all Israeli cities as Palestinian.

Click to see more examples of PA non-recognition of Israel

Click to see more examples of Abbas's non-recognition of Israel

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.

Love of the Land: Entertainment for Abbas and PA leaders: All of Israel is "my land"

Israel Matzav: The truth about the Naqba

The truth about the Naqba

This ought to be daily required reading for every 'Palestinian.' You know, like Chinese water torture. This is the truth about the 'naqba' - the truth that they cannot face (Hat Tip: Cheryl H).

The Nakba commemorations are only possible in a culture with no sense of responsibility. A religion which has killed more people and wiped out more cultures than Stalin and Hitler combined, still remains convinced that it is the victim. A victim of their own failed genocidal war. The Nakba is really the Nakbacide. A dream of mass murder that was frustrated when their victims fought back

Had the Israeli War of Independence been fought between local Jews and Arabs, the Nakba circus might not be as bankrupt as it is. But it was actually a war fought between local Jews and the armies of seven Arab nations, including Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Iraq and Syria, overseen by two British commanders. Despite all this, the Arab Muslim invaders still failed to do more than seize half of Jerusalem, and Gaza, Judea and Samaria. And that's what really gnaws at them.

The ugly truth of the Nakba is that it blunted the nationalistic ambitions of Arab Muslims who were dreaming of replacing the Ottoman and British empires. Losing a war to a European world power wouldn't have hurt as much as losing a war to a despised regional minority. A people whose name is an insult in the mouth of every Arab. Yahood. Lower than a dog. Yahood. Transformed into apes and pigs in the Koran. Yahood. Second class citizens in every Muslim country. Who somehow beat back seven Muslim armies and took back their lands that had been conquered by the Caliphs.

But in Muslim culture time never passes. The words, "You Lost a War, Get Over It", have no meaning. Arab Muslims still think Spain is theirs. Every time they see a European army, they mutter about the Crusades. Jews are greeted with chants of "Khaybar ya Yahood" recalling Mohammed's massacre of the Jews, a historical event that is much closer to what the Nakba only claims to be. Nothing is ever forgotten. Old hatreds are nurtured into violent rages that cannot be calmed by any treaty. The purpose of hate is hate. The purpose of Nakba is Nakba.

History is a dead word. The Muslim world has no history. It has pervasive myths that feed the Arab Muslim need for self-glorification and victimization. Muslim history is one long cry of "Mine, Mine, Mine" and "Give it Back". Millions of Arab Muslims believe that they discovered America, that European science was stolen from them, that the entire world used to be Muslim, that the Holocaust was made up, that Neil Armstrong heard the Islamic call to prayer on the moon, that Jacques Cousteau converted to Islam and that the Koran invented light bulbs. The Nakba makes as much sense as any of these.

...

Their fictional Palestinian identity, with its imagined roots in a country they hardly ever lived in, has turned millions of people into the militias of the Arab world. Their flags and chants about statehood hiding the fact that they are nothing more than proxies of countries which deny them citizenship because it makes them into better weapons, not just against Israel, but against each other. When an Arab country wants some thugs to smash in the heads of protesters, some cheap labor or even cheaper reason to get their people all worked up, they bring in the faux Palestinians, with their keffiyahs, their Arab-Socialist tricolor flags and their chronic unemployment.

The historical irony, is that it is the very gullibility of these Arab-Muslims, their willingness to accept a Palestinian identity, that keeps them displaced in the countries they live in. Had they demanded the right to be citizens of Jordan, Syria or Lebanon-- international pressure would have given them a new life. Instead by embracing the dubious honor of continuing the Jihad against the Jews, they trapped themselves in a no man's land of their own making. As long as they remain willing to be killers, sacrificing their own children to the fiery moloch of the bomb vest, then they will be forever pariahs in their own countries.

Read it all.

Israel Matzav: The truth about the Naqba

Israel Matzav: Overnight music video

Overnight music video

During the period between Pesach and Shavuoth we count the omer each night. When we are done counting, we ask God to rebuild the Holy Temple and then we say Psalm 67.

This is Tor Marquis with Psalm 67.

Let's go to the videotape.

Love of the Land: Sinking the Gaza Flotilla

Sinking the Gaza Flotilla

Shurat HaDin
Israel Law Center
Press Release
16 May '11

May 16, 2011: It was almost one year ago that Islamic extremists from Turkey and anti-Israel NGOs joined forces to organize a naval flotilla seeking to violate Israel’s coastal blockade of the Hamas controlled Gaza Strip. The terrorists' mid-sea confrontation with the IDF resulted in the deaths of nine armed militants and serious injury to numerous Israeli soldiers. Now the same groups are once again planning to breach the Gaza blockade. On June 12th numerous boats loaded with contraband and up to a thousand passengers, including members of the EU Parliament, intend to set sail for Gaza from Greece, Turkey, France, Ireland and Cyprus. The organizers are hoping, once again, to provoke a massive public confrontation with the IDF and compel our soldiers to use force to detain them. They are hoping the IDF will kill some of the Flotilla participants and create another international condemnation of the IDF. In addition, there is a real concern that weapons, money and other contraband might be smuggled on the boats to the Hamas terrorists. Recall that in January 2002, the IDF seized Arafat's “Karine A” ship that was loaded with 50 tons of Iranian-supplied weaponry making its way to Gaza.

Instead of sitting passively by and waiting for another international diplomatic crisis to play out into the Islamic extremists' hands, Shurat HaDin is embarking on a campaign to try and legally block the extremist from setting sail. Every boat that travels from any country's seaports or marinas needs to have maritime insurance. Without insurance a ship is not permitted to set sail. Yet, the maritime insurance companies insuring the boats utilized by the Gaza Flotilla surely have no idea that the passenger boats that they are indemnifying are being used by the organizers to run the coastal blockade, violently challenge the IDF and smuggle weapons into Gaza. No legitimate insurance company nor its shareholders would reasonably agree to insure an expedition like that.

As such, we have begun to send letters placing the maritime insurance companies on notice concerning the Gaza Flotilla and warning them that if they provide insurance (a necessary component in the effort to smuggle contraband to the terrorists) that they themselves will be legally liable for any future terrorist attacks perpetrated by Hamas. The letters are being sent to all the maritime insurance firms in Europe and Turkey. We are cautioning them that if they knowingly insure one of the Flotilla boats providing material resources to Hamas, they will also be indemnifying the Hamas rocket crews for all future Qassam missile attacks as the terror victims will surely sue them! We are hoping that when their legal departments review our letters and inform the corporation's officials of the potential massive liability being risked they will act to ensure that none of their ships are being utilized by the terrorists.

The major Israeli daily newspaper ran an article in this past Weekend's Yediot Aharonot. The headline reads: "Israeli Legal Group Warns International Insurance Companies -- INSURE THE FLOTILLA TO GAZA? WE'LL SUE YOU."

The government and the IDF are extremely adept at adopting to new military threats and battlefield suprises. They do not seem to be able to get a handle on the new way the delegitimization game is being played globally. The escalating attacks on Israel from all directions requires new and innovative responses before its too late and we are simply overwhelmed. Its time for those who support the Jewish State to start to employ some ingenuity and passion and begin to fight back.

For an article in the London Times.

For a copy of the Yediot Aharonot article (in Hebrew).

For a copy of the letter to a Turkish insurance company.

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.

Love of the Land: Sinking the Gaza Flotilla

Sources: Raiders knew mission a one-shot deal - Navy News | News from Afghanistan & Iraq - Navy Times

Sources: Raiders knew mission a one-shot deal

By Kimberly Dozier - The Associated Press
Posted : Tuesday May 17, 2011 5:41:30 EDT

WASHINGTON — Those who planned the secret mission to get Osama bin Laden in Pakistan knew it was a one-shot deal, and it nearly went terribly wrong.

The U.S. deliberately hid the operation from Pakistan, and predicted that national outrage over the breach of Pakistani sovereignty would make it impossible to try again if the raid on bin Laden’s suspected redoubt came up dry.

Once the raiders reached their target, things started to go awry almost immediately, officials briefed on the operation said.

Adding exclusive new details to the account of the assault on bin Laden’s hideout, officials described just how the SEAL raiders loudly ditched a foundering helicopter right outside bin Laden’s door, ruining the plan for a surprise assault. That forced them to abandon plans to run a squeeze play on bin Laden — simultaneously entering the house stealthily from the roof and the ground floor.

Instead, they busted into the ground floor and began a floor-by-floor storming of the house, working up to the top level where they had assumed bin Laden — if he was in the house — would be.

They were right.

The raiders came face-to-face with bin Laden in a hallway outside his bedroom, and three of the Americans stormed in after him, U.S. officials briefed on the operation told The Associated Press. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity to describe a classified operation.

U.S. officials believe Pakistani intelligence continues to support militants who attack U.S. troops in Afghanistan, and actively undermine U.S. intelligence operations to go after al-Qaida inside Pakistan. The level of distrust is such that keeping Pakistan in the dark was a major factor in planning the raid, and led to using the high-tech but sometimes unpredictable helicopter technology that nearly unhinged the mission.

Pakistan’s government has since condemned the action, and threatened to open fire if U.S. forces enter again.

On Monday, the two partners attempted to patch up relations, agreeing to pursue high-value targets jointly.

The decision to launch on that particular moonless night in May came largely because too many American officials had been briefed on the plan. U.S. officials feared if it leaked to the press, bin Laden would disappear for another decade.

Discuss:

The one-shot deal

U.S. special operations forces have made approximately four forays into Pakistani territory since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, though this one, some 90 miles inside Pakistan, was unlike any other, the officials say.

The job was given to a SEAL Team 6 unit, just back from Afghanistan, one official said. This elite branch of SEALs had been hunting bin Laden in eastern Afghanistan since 2001.

Five aircraft flew from Jalalabad, Afghanistan, with three school-bus-size Chinook helicopters landing in a deserted area roughly two-thirds of the way to bin Laden’s compound in the Pakistani city of Abbottabad, two of the officials explained.

Aboard two Black Hawk helicopters were 23 SEALs, an interpreter and a tracking dog named Cairo. Nineteen SEALs would enter the compound, and three of them would find bin Laden, one official said, providing the exact numbers for the first time.

Aboard the Chinooks were two dozen more SEALs, as backup.

The Black Hawks were specially engineered to muffle the tail rotor and engine sound, two officials said. The added weight of the stealth technology meant cargo was calculated to the ounce, with weather factored in. The night of the mission, it was hotter than expected.

The Black Hawks were to drop the SEALs and depart in less than two minutes, in hopes locals would assume they were Pakistani aircraft visiting the nearby military academy.

One Black Hawk was to hover above the compound, with SEALs sliding down ropes into the open courtyard.

The second was to hover above the roof to drop SEALs there, then land more SEALs outside — plus an interpreter and the dog, who would track anyone who tried to escape and to alert SEALs to any approaching Pakistani security forces.

If troops appeared, the plan was to hunker down in the compound, avoiding armed confrontation with the Pakistanis while officials in Washington negotiated their passage out.

The two SEAL teams inside would work toward each other, in a simultaneous attack from above and below, their weapons silenced, guaranteeing surprise, one of the officials said. They would have stormed the building in a matter of minutes, as they’d done time and again in two training models of the compound.

The plan unraveled as the first helicopter tried to hover over the compound. The Black Hawk skittered around uncontrollably in the heat-thinned air, forcing the pilot to land. As he did, the tail and rotor got caught on one of the compound’s 12-foot walls. The pilot quickly buried the aircraft’s nose in the dirt to keep it from tipping over, and the SEALs clambered out into an outer courtyard.

The other aircraft did not even attempt hovering, landing its SEALs outside the compound.

Now, the raiders were outside, and they’d lost the element of surprise.

They had trained for this, and started blowing their way in with explosives, through walls and doors, working their way up the three-level house from the bottom.

They had to blow their way through barriers at each stair landing, firing back, as one of the men in the house fired at them.

They shot three men as well as one woman, whom U.S. officials have said lunged at the SEALs.

Small knots of children were on every level, including the balcony of bin Laden’s room.

As three of the SEALs reached the top of the steps on the third floor, they saw bin Laden standing at the end of the hall. The Americans recognized him instantly, the officials said.

Bin Laden also saw them, dimly outlined in the dark house, and ducked into his room.

The three SEALs assumed he was going for a weapon, and one by one they rushed after him through the door, one official described.

Two women were in front of bin Laden, yelling and trying to protect him, two officials said. The first SEAL grabbed the two women and shoved them away, fearing they might be wearing suicide bomb vests, they said.

The SEAL behind him opened fire at bin Laden, putting one bullet in his chest, and one in his head.

It was over in a matter of seconds.

Back at the White House Situation Room, word was relayed that bin Laden had been found, signaled by the code word “Geronimo.” That was not bin Laden’s code name, but rather a representation of the letter “G.” Each step of the mission was labeled alphabetically, and “Geronimo” meant that the raiders had reached step “G,” the killing or capture of bin Laden, two officials said.

As the SEALs began photographing the body for identification, the raiders found an AK-47 rifle and a Russian-made Makarov pistol on a shelf by the door they’d just run through. Bin Laden hadn’t touched them.

They were among a handful of weapons that were removed to be inventoried.

It took approximately 15 minutes to reach bin Laden, one official said. The next 23 or so were spent blowing up the broken chopper, after rounding up nine women and 18 children to get them out of range of the blast.

One of the waiting Chinooks flew in to pick up bin Laden’s body, the raiders from the broken aircraft and the weapons, documents and other materials seized at the site.

The helicopters flew back to Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan, and the body was flown to a waiting Navy ship for bin Laden’s burial at sea, ensuring no shrine would spring up around his grave.

When the SEAL team met President Obama, he did not ask who shot bin Laden. He simply thanked each member of the team, two officials said.

In a few weeks, the team that killed bin Laden will go back to training, and in a couple months, back to work overseas.

Sources: Raiders knew mission a one-shot deal - Navy News News from Afghanistan & Iraq - Navy Times

Israel Matzav: UN Watch's 2010-11 highlight video

UN Watch's 2010-11 highlight video

UN Watch recently held its annual dinner and presented this brief highlight film for 2010-11. It's worth taking the 15 minutes to watch it.

Let's go to the videotape.



Thanks for the memories guys, and keep up the good work.

Israel Matzav: UN Watch's 2010-11 highlight video

Israel Matzav: What would Abu Bluff do for peace?

What would Abu Bluff do for peace?

In an article that bears the obtuse title (yes, I know, op-ed writers don't always get to title the article) What would Netanyahu do for peace? David Makovsky urges Prime Minister Netanyahu to show up with a vision for renewed talks when he comes to Washington later this week.

Israel’s reaction to the Hamas-Fatah pact has been to hunker down, hoping that the unity government will collapse under the weight of the parties’ differences. Yet paralysis carries its own risks. The U.S. partners in “the Quartet” — the European Union, Russia and the United Nations, which joined Washington in 2006 to lay out steps by which Hamas must reform should it want to become a legitimate interlocutor in the peace process — have cautiously welcomed the new government with hopes, as opposed to demands, that Hamas will evolve, though some have championed the fact that cabinet ministers in the new body are affiliated with neither Hamas nor Fatah. A majority of countries is likely to recognize a Palestinian state at the U.N. General Assembly this September.

This should be of serious concern to Netanyahu, who needs to overcome suspicions about his desire for a breakthrough. Rather than slide to September, Netanyahu should take the opportunity of his May 24 address to a joint session of Congress to lay out a compelling political vision toward renewed peace talks. He could state that if — and only if — Abbas cuts ties with Hamas, Israeli and Palestinian leaders could cross historic thresholds meaningful to both sides.

Polls show that the majority of Israelis and Palestinians want a two-state solution but remain uncertain of whether the other side is willing to make the necessary concessions. Both Netanyahu and Abbas need to address the other side’s gut fears. And the only chance of one side crossing a threshold is if the other side takes a comparable step.

In theory, the United States should have engineered and synchronized this crossing of thresholds. It has, however, been preoccupied with the Arab Spring and has not focused on this issue, perhaps precipitating former senator George Mitchell’s departure as envoy. The new Palestinian configuration further hamstrings our position. A speech by President Obama this Thursday, focusing on the Mideast writ large, with a possible mention of U.S. principles to end the conflict, is far less preferable than substantive leadership by Netanyahu and Abbas; it would be perceived in the region as exhortation without follow-through.

So it is up to both parties to act. Netanyahu should spell out to Congress the major threshold he will cross, but only if Abbas is willing to respond publicly in kind. Since Palestinians’ major fear is that Israel will hold on to the West Bank, Netanyahu needs to clearly state that this will not be the case. Although Palestinians realize that Israel will not return to the pre-1967 borders and that enforced security arrangements are vital for any agreement, they want assurance that the 1967 line will be the baseline for calculations in configuring the final border. Thus, whatever land Israel keeps from within the West Bank — which is likely to be adjacent to the old pre-1967 boundary, where a significant majority of the settlers live — will yield an equivalent amount from within Israel proper. Such a deal is in line with Israeli offers to every other Arab state on its borders; a statement to this effect will go far in assuring Palestinians that Netanyahu is serious about peace.

Netanyahu set out a detailed vision of peace in his Bar Ilan speech in June 2009. We have never heard a vision of peace - detailed or otherwise - from Abu Mazen or any other 'Palestinian' leader.

Netanyahu has repeatedly called for negotiations without preconditions and that's how civilized people sit down to talk. There is no rhyme or reason for Israel to give assurances about the outcome of negotiations by making concessions before coming to the table, particularly when the 'Palestinians' have never given any such assurances. There is certainly no reason Israel should commit in advance to turn over the entire 'West Bank' or to give equivalent land to anything it retains from 'Israel proper.' The fact that Israel made the mistake of turning over every last grain of Sinai to Egypt and gave some land along the Dead Sea to Jordan does not mean that it is required to follow the same model in every peace agreement. The areas demanded by the 'Palestinians' are far more sensitive to Israel's security than the Sinai or the Dead Sea area.

The real question Makovsky ought to be asking is what Abu Mazen would do for peace. Sadly, the answer appears to be nothing, which may be why Makovsky doesn't even ask the question.

Oh, and George Mitchell quit because there have been no negotiations since September, and not because of anything that happened in the last week. I'm sure that decision was long in the making.

Israel Matzav: What would Abu Bluff do for peace?

Love of the Land: Ceren: Abbas Rewrites History, Including His Own

Ceren: Abbas Rewrites History, Including His Own

Omri Ceren
Commentary/Contentions
17 May '11

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/05/17/abbas-rewrites-history-including-his-own/


Mahmoud Abbas, Falastin a-Thaura (official PLO journal), March 1976:

The Arab armies entered Palestine to protect the Palestinians from Zionist tyranny but, instead, they abandoned them, forced them to emigrate and to leave their homeland, and threw them into prisons similar to the ghettos in which Jews used to live.

Mahmoud Abbas, New York Times, May 16 2011:

In November 1947, the General Assembly made its recommendation and answered in the affirmative [regarding partition]. Shortly thereafter, Zionist forces expelled Palestinian Arabs to ensure a decisive Jewish majority in the future state of Israel, and Arab armies intervened. War and further expulsions ensued. Indeed, it was the descendants of these expelled Palestinians who were shot and wounded by Israeli forces on Sunday as they tried to symbolically exercise their right to return to their families’ homes.

Abbas opens his New York Times op-ed by poignantly recalling how as a young boy he and his family were “forced to leave” their Galilean village of Safed during the tumult. That too, per a 2009 interview that he gave to Al-Palestinia TV, is a lie. According to a historical witness who is himself, Abbas and his “well-off” family left their village preemptively, based on feverish conspiracy theories predicting Jewish retribution for the anti-Jewish massacres committed by Arabs during the 1920s. He might have added that Safed’s Arabs very enthusiastically participated in those 1920s massacres, continuing to indulge in pogroms through the 1930s. Of course, those facts would not have made a retribution campaign in Safed any less a fantasy. Arabs weren’t “forced to leave” the village by Jews, except maybe by the Jews who had taken up residence in their minds.

Abbas tells these little fibs are in addition to laying out an eyeroll-inducing timeline, where “Zionist forces expelled Palestinian Arabs to ensure a decisive Jewish majority in the future state of Israel, and Arab armies intervened.” What a quick intervention that was. Some might almost say it was nearly instantaneous, in that it happened within a few hours of Israel’s creation.

Now, no one really expects the Palestinians not to peddle historical reveries in which they up and left in the face of a Jewish onslaught and not at the exhortation of invading Arab armies. In theory Jews had an incentive to keep their Arab neighbors from fleeing, in as far as they feared indiscriminate shelling of civilian areas by Arab forces. Arab forces had the opposite incentive, in as far as they intended to shell civilian areas indiscriminately. (By way of illustration, see this Jordanian Colonel’s gleeful account of how the Arab Legion shelled Jerusalem’s “densely populated” Jewish Quarter with mortars until it was ethnically cleansed.)

And so unsurprisingly there are accounts—this one by British Port Office H. C. Stebbens, for example—of how the Arab invasion “was preceded by extensive broadcasts from Cairo, Damascus, Amman, and Beirut to the effect that any Arabs who stayed would be hanged as collaborators with the Jews.” Why collaborators? Because they would have been serving as de-facto human shields.

But again, no amount of historical documentation is going to keep people honest about the Palestinians’ self-inflicted Nakba. Those are just the terms of the debate. Anti-Israel partisans lie casually, they lie consistently, and they lie even when they’re contradicting their own previous lies. Which is a problem, because when arguments are premised on falsehoods there can’t be any genuine debate.

As a small example, the real importance of his op-ed is that Abbas seems to set an entirely new precondition for peace talks, which is the unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state—a violation of all the Palestinians’ previous Oslo I and II commitments. But no one can get to that because it takes hours to untangle how, no, the Israelis haven’t been spending the last 60 years wiping out Arabs, and yes, until recently even Abbas was willing to admit that.

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.

Love of the Land: Ceren: Abbas Rewrites History, Including His Own

Israel Matzav: Tel Aviv lawyer arrested in effort to slander Right, religious Jews

Tel Aviv lawyer arrested in effort to slander Right, religious Jews

Israel Radio has been reporting all evening about the release for publication of the arrest of an Israeli lawyer named Gor Finkelstein. What it has not been mentioning is that many of the crimes in which Finkelstein and/or his cohorts were involved were intended to defame Right wing and religious Jews.

An alleged Arab Israeli Jaffa crime organization planned to detonate a bomb under the car of a Muslim sheikh last month over a business dispute and then spray paint 'price-tag' graffiti in the area in order to draw blame on the far right, police suspect.

A total of eight suspects have been under arrest since last month, including four brothers from one family and two brothers from another family. They had already assembled a powerful bomb, and were stopped by a police raid on a home in Jaffa in April hours before they planned on planting the device, a law enforcement source said. They had allegedly planned to detonate the device after evening prayers at a Jaffa mosque. Police believe a disastrous outcome was averted thanks to the raid.

...

In an unrelated plot, the suspects were allegedly hired by a lawyer, named as Gor Finkelstein, to harm Shota Hovel, head of the construction oversight department at Tel Aviv Municiaplity, over Hovel's decision to knock down a building in Jaffa owned by Scientologists due to building regulations.

Finkelstein allegedly had a financial interest in preventing the building from being demolished, and was behind a May 9 attempt to detonate a car bomb under Hovel's car in Bat Yam. Hovel escaped from the incident unharmed, but the vehicle was damaged.

In a subsequent assassination attempt, three suspects dressed as police officers stopped Hovel in his car, and attempted to attack him with an electric shocker. That attack failed too, and the suspects fled the scene. Hovel was lightly injured.

Finkelstein eventually concluded that it would be most profitable for him to arrange for the building to be rebuilt elsewhere, police suspect, as he received commission from contractors behind the construction.

He therefore repeatedly ordered the Jaffa suspects to attempt to damage the building, police allege. In one attempt, a truck carrying 300 liters of fuel and a gas balloon was allegedly used in a failed bid to bomb the building. In a second attempt, a suspect allegedly entered the building, poured gasoline inside, and set fire to the place.

The suspects allegedly were dressed up as Orthodox Jews, in the hope that the attack would be blamed on Jewish religious organizations who are opposed to the presence of Scientology in Israel.

Hmmm....

Israel Matzav: Tel Aviv lawyer arrested in effort to slander Right, religious Jews