Sunday, 7 February 2010

Israel Matzav: Say it isn't so: Ayalon meets with Kerry?

Say it isn't so: Ayalon meets with Kerry?

YNet reports that Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon has met with Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John F. Kerry and sought his help to restart 'negotiations' with the 'Palestinians.'

Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon met John Kerry, who chairs the US Senate's Foreign Relations Committee, in Munich. Ayalon asked Kerry to help restart negotiations with the Palestinians, as well as the imposing of new sanctions on Iran.

Kerry said he hoped to come to Israel soon in order to meet with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

I wonder if Kerry plans to bring some of his friends from Code Pink and their Hamas allies with him.

What could go wrong?

Israel Matzav: Say it isn't so: Ayalon meets with Kerry?

Love of the Land: Not all Euro-elites are anti-Israel

Not all Euro-elites are anti-Israel


Clarice Feldman
American Thinker
05 Februray '10

Catalonian journalist Pilar Rahola breaks with the European elites in offering up a strong defense of Israel.

In a speech too full of smart thinking to be summarized, she defends Israel against its foolish and unfair detractors in European governments and the press:

Orphan of a reasonable left, orphan of serious journalism, orphan of a decent UN, and orphan of a tolerant Islam, Israel suffers the paradigm of the 21st Century: the lack of a solid commitment with the values of liberty. Nothing seems strange. Jewish culture represents, as no other does, the metaphor of a concept of civilization which suffers today attacks on all flanks. You are the thermometer of the world's health. Whenever the World has had totalitarian fever, you have suffered. In the Spanish Middle Ages, in Christian persecutions, in Russian pogroms, in European Fascism, in Islamic fundamentalism. Always, the first enemy of totalitarianism has been the Jew. And, in these times of energy dependency and social uncertainty, Israel embodies, in its own flesh, the eternal Jew.

A pariah nation among nations, for a pariah people among peoples. That is why the antisemitism of the 21st Century has dressed itself with the efficient disguise of anti-Israelism, or its synonym, anti-Zionism. All criticism against Israel is antisemitism? NO. But all present-day antisemitism has turned into prejudice and the demonization of the Jewsih State. New clothes for an old hatred.



Full speech in translation on her website can be read here


Love of the Land: Not all Euro-elites are anti-Israel

Love of the Land: Undeserved Hosannas

Undeserved Hosannas


Jason Maoz
Contentions/Commentary
05 February '10

* “Kill the Jews wherever you find them. Kill them with your arms, with your hands, with your nails and teeth.”

* “After we perform our duty in liberating the West Bank and Jerusalem, our national duty is to liberate all the Arab territories.”

* “The removal of the Israeli occupation from our occupied land, Palestine, is the first and basic condition for just peace. … The Islamic nation and just believers in any religion or creed will not accept the situation of the … cradle of prophets and divine messages being captive of Zionist occupation.”

Quick — name the Jew hater or vicious enemy of Israel capable of spouting such venom. Arafat? Khadaffi? Ahmadinejad? Actually, the speaker in all three cases was everyone’s favorite Arab moderate, the late King Hussein of Jordan (on, respectively, Radio Amman, June 6, 1967; Radio Amman, Dec. 1, 1973; and Amman Domestic Service, July 11, 1988).

I have this little calendar that lists the names of prominent people who died or were born on each specific date. Seeing that the anniversary of Hussein’s death (Feb. 7, 1999) is upon us brought to mind both the decades of duplicity that defined the king’s life until almost the very end and the Hosannas that have been coming his way for the past 11 years. (The trend continued in two recent, largely positive, biographies.)

(Read full post)

Love of the Land: Undeserved Hosannas

Israel Matzav: 13-year old flees family of suicide bombers

13-year old flees family of suicide bombers

In a report that does not come from an Arab country, and therefore passed its editorial board, al-Beeb reports on how Muslim terrorists use their children as sacrificial lambs.

You can find the video here.

How can one fight this sort of thing under ordinary rules of war? The answer is that you can't. Unfortunately, there is no choice but to treat a child suicide bomber as a suicide bomber. Children like this 13-year old who have the courage to get up and walk away are rare.


Israel Matzav: 13-year old flees family of suicide bombers

Love of the Land: 'Post' stops Chazan column after threat

'Post' stops Chazan column after threat


Jerusalem Post Staff
07 February '10

(Even though New Israel Fund continues to fund numerous organizations who conduct lawfare against Israel, it's elected officials, it's soldiers and citizens, this week it failed in it's efforts to intimidate at least, one newspaper.)

The Jerusalem Post has canceled Naomi Chazan’s biweekly column, after she and the New Israel Fund of which she is president threatened legal action against the paper over a recent advertisement.

The decision was taken by Jerusalem Post management after a legal threat was received at the paper from the NIF and Chazan’s lawyers.

Along with other publications, the Post last Sunday carried an advertisement criticizing Chazan and the New Israel Fund in the context of the Goldstone Report on Operation Cast Lead.

In Friday’s paper, the Post carried an advertisement defending the NIF and Chazan against their critics.


Love of the Land: 'Post' stops Chazan column after threat

Love of the Land: The New Israel Fund and the next war

The New Israel Fund and the next war


Caroline Glick
carolineglick.com
05 February '10

A regional war may well be approaching. The actions and statements of Iran and its Syrian, Lebanese and Palestinian proxies over the past week or so indicate that this is what Israel's enemies are gunning for.

In preparing for this growing threat, Israel's leaders need to consider more than just the military challenges it faces. They must consider the political actors at home and abroad that limit the IDF's ability to fight to victory and develop strategies for neutralizing those actors.

The latest developments are menacing. Last Saturday, Iran's unelected president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad threatened to open up a new round of hostilities on February 11. Then Wednesday, Iran launched a new missile into space. Israeli and US missile experts claim that the missile launch signals that Iran is developing intercontinental ballistic missiles and building the capacity to launch nuclear warheads on ballistic missiles.

Following the missile launch, Syria's president and foreign minister issued incendiary comments threatening Israel with war. Notably, they did so the same day the US informed Syria of its intention to send an ambassador to Damascus for the first time in five years.

Hamas, for its part, sent barrels of explosives drifting to the Israeli coastline - exposing new ways it can kill us. And Fatah, for its part, decided to kiss Hamas's ring this week. Senior Fatah official Nabil Shaath's obsequious visit to Gaza Wednesday was a graphic demonstration of Hamas's preeminence in Palestinian society.

Then there is Hizbullah. In a speech on January 15, Hizbullah leader Hassan Nasrallah pledged that the next war will "change the face of the region."

(Read full article)

Love of the Land: The New Israel Fund and the next war

Israel Matzav: Muslims think little of their leaders and of terror groups

Muslims think little of their leaders and of terror groups

In a survey taken in May and June of 2009 - before Iran's elections - the Pew Global Attitudes Project find that most Muslims think poorly of their leadership, and particularly of the Hamas and Hezbullah terror organizations.

Four years after its victory in Palestinian parliamentary elections, Hamas receives relatively positive ratings in Jordan (56% favorable) and Egypt (52%). However, Palestinians are more likely to give the group a negative (52%) than a positive (44%) rating. And reservations about Hamas are particularly common in the portion of the Palestinian territories it controls – just 37% in Gaza express a favorable opinion, compared with 47% in the West Bank.

A survey conducted May 18 to June 16, 2009 by the Pew Research Center's Global Attitudes Project also finds limited support for the Lebanese Shia organization Hezbollah.1 While most Palestinians (61%) and about half of Jordanians (51%) have a favorable view of Hezbollah, elsewhere opinions are less positive, including Egypt (43%) and Lebanon (35%). As with many issues in Lebanon, views of Hezbollah are sharply divided along religious lines: nearly all of the country's Shia Muslims (97%) express a positive opinion of the organization, while only 18% of Christians and 2% of Sunni Muslims feel this way.

The most popular leader in the Muslim world is Saudi King Abdullah. The survey results also show a huge chasm between Shia and Sunni Muslims.

But here's the most curious thing in this survey:

In Arab nations, attitudes toward Jews remain extremely negative. More than 90% of Egyptians, Jordanians, Lebanese and Palestinians express unfavorable views toward Jews. Only 35% of Israeli Arabs, however, express a negative opinion.

I wish the Israeli Arabs would show that less negative opinion by sending more positive people to the Knesset.

On the other hand, given that there is little freedom in the Muslim world (particularly in Arab countries), one has to wonder how reliable these survey results really are except for the Israeli Arabs.

Read the whole thing.


Israel Matzav: Muslims think little of their leaders and of terror groups

Israel Matzav: What would come after Assad?

What would come after Assad?

After Syrian Foreign Minister Wallid Mualem threatened Israel this week that any future war would take place on the Israeli side of the border, Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman snapped back that not only would any war take place on the Syrian side, but Syrian President Bashar al-Assad would find himself out of power when it ended. That's the first time in a long time anyone has threatened the Assad family with regime change. Michael Totten takes a look at what Syrian regime change might look like.

There are good reasons to feel squeamish about the aftermath of regime change, whether it comes at the hands of Israelis or not. The same sectarian monster that stalks Lebanon and Iraq lives just under the floorboards in Syria. The majority of Syria’s people are Sunni Arabs, but 30 percent or so are Christians, Druze, Alawites, or Kurds. Assad himself is an Alawite, as are most of the elite in the ruling Baath Party, the secret police, and the military. Their very survival depends on keeping Syria’s sectarianism suppressed. The country could easily come apart without Assad’s government enforcing domestic peace at the point of a gun. This is a serious problem. It’s not Israel’s problem, but it’s a problem.

The Israelis have been worried about something else: that after Assad, Syria might be governed by the fundamentalist Muslim Brotherhood organization or something that looks a lot like it. There’s no guarantee, though, that the Muslim Brothers would take over. They aren’t in power anywhere else in the Arab world. Even if they do succeed Assad, they couldn’t ramp up the hostility much. Assad’s is already the most hostile Arab government in the world. A replacement regime, especially one dominated by Sunnis rather than by minorities who lack legitimacy and feel they have something to prove, would likely gravitate toward the regional mainstream.

Millions of Syrians sympathize with the Muslim Brotherhood. They’re tired of being lorded over by secularists from a faith they consider heretical. Still, fundamentalist Sunni Arabs who try to impose some kind of theocracy will meet automatic resistance from the country’s Christians, Alawites, Druze, Kurds, and secular and moderate Sunnis. Theocracy is hardly the norm in the Middle East anyway. Not a single Arab country — unless you consider Gaza a country — is governed by a religious regime like the one in Iran.

No dictatorship rules forever. The Alawite regime in Damascus will eventually be replaced, one way or another. Syria will have to reckon with its own demons sooner or later, and it will either hold together and muddle through, or it won’t. Just as every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way, unstable countries fall apart in their own way. Only a fool would dismiss as irrelevant the sectarian bloodletting Iraq has suffered during the last several years, but Syria’s problems are its own, and a few critical ingredients that made Iraq into a perfect storm are missing.

Totten goes on to agree with his colleague (and sometimes travel companion) at Contentions, Noah Pollak, who wrote on Friday that Lieberman was right to threaten Syria so that Assad knows that if he doesn't back off he's going to get hit. It's curious that much of the Israeli media feels otherwise. My own view is that Totten knows the Arab world as well as any Western writer, and certainly better than most Israelis who have never visited countries like Syria and Lebanon.

Read the whole thing.


Israel Matzav: What would come after Assad?

Israel Matzav: Guldimann's Stockholm syndrome

Guldimann's Stockholm syndrome

If any of you are not yet familiar with the concept of Stockholm syndrome, please go here to read about it. After reading JPost's Amir Mizroch's interview with former Swiss ambassador to Iran Tim Guldimann (pictured), I'm convinced that Guldimann picked up Stockholm syndrome during his term in Iran.

According to Guldimann, the position that unless the international community stops Iran’s nuclear program, Israel would have to do it alone is based on the unproven assumption that Iran will actually go down the road of having a nuclear weapon at its disposal.

“My understanding is that they will not go as far as that. If you say that there is [in Iran] a clear policy of achieving a nuclear capability, I would fully agree. You can define that as a breakout period. But will they make a political decision to produce a bomb? Such a breakout is an absolutely different question,” he says.

So what options does Israel have?

“The old stick-and-carrot approach hasn’t helped at all. You can speak about sanctions, but they have not changed Iran’s position. Sanctions often seem to have more the purpose of, in the West, an argument to Israel [that things are moving],” he notes. “The counter-argument is force. If Israel goes for a military option, I’m really, deeply concerned that there is this assumption that it will help.

“Let’s use the security of Israel as the only yardstick for assessing the situation. A military attack can damage [the Iranian nuclear program] but you can’t stop it. It is an industry with tens of thousands of people in it. You can damage and you can delay. You can even argue that you can bash it once, twice, maybe three times. And you can come back and do it again, if you think it’s like a little boy that keeps on coming out and you bash him every time. But the world might be a totally different place [after a first attack],” Guldimann says.

Guldimann – again in his personal opinion – contends that even in a situation of civil unrest and popular opposition to the regime in Iran, an outside attack would not bring down the regime.

“That’s not the Iranian way. It has to be kept in mind that if there is an outside attack on the regime, internal opposition within the regime, and opposition to the regime in general, will all fall in line with the regime. They will close ranks. On the nuclear issue, [opposition figure Mir Hossein] Mousavi is more hard-line than [President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad. If there is an outside attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities, the Iranian people would feel tremendously humiliated. And if Israel today has got a regime against it, it will then not only have a regime against it, but also a country against it. An attack on Iran would be very good for Ahmadinejad. He will get the foreign enemy he is always talking about.

From what I've seen, Guldimann is actually right about Moussavi, but I'm not convinced that Iran's Green movement is as hostile to Israel as the current regime or Moussavi.

Guldimann also discounts the notion that an attack that 'only' produces a delay in Iran's obtaining nuclear weapons is worthwhile. He's wrong about that. Once you get a delay, you never know what will happen before Iran can get back to where they are now. Look what happened after Israel's attack on Osirak in 1981 - Iraq never recovered.

But I also don't trust Guldimann. He believes that all of our problems will go away if only we pander to the 'Palestinians,' a notion that I wholeheartedly reject. And he says that we're better off living with a nuclear Iran than trying to stop them, which I find to be absurd.

Read the whole thing.

Israel Matzav: Guldimann's Stockholm syndrome

Israel Matzav: Even Gates says no deal likely with Iran

Even Gates says no deal likely with Iran

When even America's staid and calm Defense Secretary Robert Gates sees little chance of a deal with Iran on its nuclear capability, perhaps President Obumbler can be convinced to move wholeheartedly on the sanctions route.

U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said on Saturday he saw no sign a deal was close between Iran and Western powers on exchanging some of its low-enriched uranium (LEU) for higher-grade fuel, suggesting it was time to move forward with sanctions.

"I don't have the sense that we're close to an agreement," Gates told reporters in Ankara where he met Turkish leaders.

...

"But the reality is they have done nothing to reassure the international community that they are prepared to comply with the NPT (Non-Proliferation Treaty) or stop their progress towards a nuclear weapon, and therefore I think various nations need to think about whether the time has come for a different tack," Gates added, in an apparent reference to sanctions.

"The P5 plus one has always had a dual track approach - that engagement would be tried first, and if that didn't work, then pressure would be applied. The purpose of the pressure would be to bring Iran back to the negotiating table to negotiate seriously about constraining this program," he added.

Despite what I sad at the top of this post, I still doubt that Obama is going to abandon 'engagement.' But Gates is beginning to sound sensible, and maybe he can push Obama in the right direction.

What could go wrong?

Israel Matzav: Even Gates says no deal likely with Iran

Israel Matzav: Orthodox Jews never bought into Obama and never will

Orthodox Jews never bought into Obama and never will

Long Island's Jewish Star has some impressive statistics on how few Orthodox Jews in the United States voted for President Obumbler (Hat Tip: Jennifer Rubin).

Prior to the election in 2008 a poll conducted by the American Jewish Committee revealed that only 13 percent of Orthodox Jews said they would support Obama. After the election, the Orthodox Union compiled a short-list of precincts with “High concentration of Orthodox voters.”

Lakewood, NJ voters favored the McCain-Palin ticket by a margin of 69 percent to 31 percent for Obama-Biden. The Lawrence Middle School polling station in Lawrence, NY recorded 81 percent of people voting for McCain, the highest percentage on Long Island. While the numbers are not too shocking given the tendency of Orthodox voters to support Republican platforms, anecdotally it seems as if the president is faring even worse in the Orthodox community than might otherwise be expected.

As to why that's the case, the article mentions two possibilities: The Orthodox Jewish community's stronger support for Israel than that of other Jews, and racism in the Charedi (ultra-Orthodox) community. I believe the former explanation and not the latter. The article mentions that Obama had an 80% disapproval rating in Israel from the get-go, and it's only gotten higher. (You may recall that I wrote a number of posts on Israelis and American-Israelis support for McCain during the election campaign). That certainly has nothing to do with racism.

In any event, this ought to provide Obama with some food for thought.

“I think that it’s probably to the benefit of the Jewish community that we have two parties vying for the Jewish vote and they can’t take it for granted,” said Sarna. “When we had a Republican president who was advised to ‘Eff the Jews, they don’t vote for us,’ that was clearly a bad thing from the point of view of the Jews. “

“Most know that the two presidents in recent decades who were most disliked by the Jews, Carter and HW Bush, were one-term presidents. Mr. Obama, if he wants to be a two-term president, he will remember that.”



Israel Matzav: Orthodox Jews never bought into Obama and never will

Elder of Ziyon: Book review: Good Arabs

Elder of Ziyon: Book review: Good Arabs

Chester Chronicles - Buried Alive In Turkey—and Under the Burqa

Chester Chronicles - Buried Alive In Turkey—and Under the Burqa

Israel Matzav: Is the 'peace process' a goose?

Is the 'peace process' a goose?

Shmuel Rosner asks the rather bizarre question of whether the 'peace process' is a goose? You'll have to read his piece to understand why he's asking the question, but let's just say that I don't believe that Obama is dropping the 'peace process' because he is afraid of offending people whose votes he needs for Obamacare. I believe Obama is trying not to drop the 'peace process' at all, and if he does drop it, it will be because Abu Bluff refuses to come to the table.

Love of the Land: Hillary Tilts Talks Even Further Against Israel

Hillary Tilts Talks Even Further Against Israel


Jonathan Tobin
Contentions/Commentary
05 February '10

The New York Times noted today a curious use of wording by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to describe the United States approach to prospective peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians. Answering a question in a news conference about the possibility of more peace talks, Clinton stated explicitly what the basis of negotiations should be: “Of course, we believe that the 1967 borders, with swaps, should be the focus of the negotiations over borders.”

As the Times reported, this is not a new concept. This notion was at the heart of previous Israeli offers made first by Ehud Barak and then by Ehud Olmert. But what the Times fails to point out is that the Palestinians have always rejected every possible swap, insisting that every inch of the land illegally occupied by Jordan (in the West Bank and Jerusalem) and Egypt (in Gaza) should be part of a Palestinian state. But as the Times does correctly note:

Mrs. Clinton’s mention of them went farther than the Obama administration’s standard script on the Middle East: that the positions of Israel and the Palestinians can be reconciled. Analysts said it could augur a new American emphasis, after a frustrating year in which President Obama failed to jump-start the peace process by pressuring Israel to halt construction of settlements. In particular, Mrs. Clinton’s reference may appeal to the Palestinians, who have long declared that the 1967 borders should be the basis for negotiations.

So far, the Palestinians have refused to restart talks, despite Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s offer of negotiations without preconditions. What they want is for the United States to guarantee more Israeli concessions in advance of any talks that would mandate the Jewish state’s surrender of all of this territory, including Jerusalem, without giving up anything in exchange.

(Read full post)

Love of the Land: Hillary Tilts Talks Even Further Against Israel

Elder of Ziyon: Saudi prince shakes Israeli diplomat's hand

Elder of Ziyon: Saudi prince shakes Israeli diplomat's hand

Elder of Ziyon: The day that Hamas pretended to stop targeting civilians

Elder of Ziyon: The day that Hamas pretended to stop targeting civilians

Israel Matzav: Overnight music video

Overnight music video

We had company for the Sabbath - two yeshiva boys whose yeshiva sent them to us. It turns out that one of them was a regional president in NCSY. Funny, I was in NCSY a generation ago. Okay, a little more than a generation ago. This was our favorite song. Sung by Aryeh Kunstler.

Let's go to the videotape.



I have a friend here in Jerusalem who tells me that he still waits for the band to start playing when he finishes Havdalah (the concluding service) every Saturday night. I can relate....


Israel Matzav: Overnight music video

DoubleTapper: Winter in Israel

Winter in Israel



Pictures of Winter in Israel




More at Jameel's Place



DoubleTapper: Winter in Israel

Love of the Land: Israel Threatens Assad with Regime Change

Israel Threatens Assad with Regime Change




Michael J> Totten
Contentions/Commentary
05 February '10

The Israeli government may be moving beyond its fear and loathing of a Syria governed by somebody other than Bashar Assad. For years, Jerusalem has been careful to avoid doing anything or even saying anything that might destabilize Damascus. But after Syria’s foreign minister, Walid Moallem, threatened Israel this week with a war that would be fought “inside your cities,” Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman snapped. “Not only will you lose the war,” he said to Assad, “you and your family will no longer be in power.”

There are good reasons to feel squeamish about the aftermath of regime change, whether it comes at the hands of Israelis or not. The same sectarian monster that stalks Lebanon and Iraq lives just under the floorboards in Syria. The majority of Syria’s people are Sunni Arabs, but 30 percent or so are Christians, Druze, Alawites, or Kurds. Assad himself is an Alawite, as are most of the elite in the ruling Baath Party, the secret police, and the military. Their very survival depends on keeping Syria’s sectarianism suppressed. The country could easily come apart without Assad’s government enforcing domestic peace at the point of a gun. This is a serious problem. It’s not Israel’s problem, but it’s a problem.

The Israelis have been worried about something else: that after Assad, Syria might be governed by the fundamentalist Muslim Brotherhood organization or something that looks a lot like it. There’s no guarantee, though, that the Muslim Brothers would take over. They aren’t in power anywhere else in the Arab world. Even if they do succeed Assad, they couldn’t ramp up the hostility much. Assad’s is already the most hostile Arab government in the world. A replacement regime, especially one dominated by Sunnis rather than by minorities who lack legitimacy and feel they have something to prove, would likely gravitate toward the regional mainstream.

(Read full post)





Love of the Land: Israel Threatens Assad with Regime Change

Israel Matzav: Z Street stands down J Street

Z Street stands down J Street

On Friday, I published an email account by StandWithUs's Roz Rothsetein of Thursday night's J Street event at the University of Pennsylvania. Arutz Sheva has more details of the evening's events.

Z Street, a local pro-Israel organization initially attempted to pressure the University to withdraw its invitation to J Street’s Ben-Ami but when Hillel responded with claims that it was merely renting space to the powerful Washington lobby, Z Street settled for a room in the Hillel building to hold a simultaneous pro-Israel event. The group brought Mitchell Bard, who attracted most of the students concerned with events in the Middle East, and left J Street an audience comprised mainly of elderly Jews from the Philadelphia area.

...

During the period that the Z Street sponsored Mitchell Bard event attracted students away from Ben-Ami’s presentation, the ZFA distributed flyers explaining why the school’s pro-Israel students were opposed to – and ashamed of – J Street’s presence at their Hillel. The flyers included many anti-Israel statements made by J Street leaders and showcased how J Street seeks to undermine Israel’s sovereignty and security by imposing its political agenda on an independent state. Several members of J Street unsuccessfully attempted to prevent the distribution of the ZFA flyers. After handing out all of their material and speaking to the local media, the Zionist students entered the event but were prevented from asking questions.

ZFA told Israel National News that their protest was not only directed at J Street but also at the Hillel staff who, in their view, pushes an extremist political agenda. In recent years the Penn Hillel has brought fringe groups to campus such as Rabbis for Human Rights and Breaking the Silence, each of whom receive generous funding from European governments hostile to the Jewish state.

“Its time for us to take back our Hillel and give students a voice again,” Finkel said. “Hillel exists so that Jewish students can have a safe haven on campus. It is hard enough to advocate for Israel on campus without your own Hillel giving space to dangerous and manipulative anti-Israel groups like J Street. Israel is an independent state with its own government and leaders. The people of Israel can and do make their own choices. What right do American extremists like J Street have to impose their will on a foreign country?”


Israel Matzav: Z Street stands down J Street

Saturday, 6 February 2010

Israel Matzav: Who thinks Hezbullah is the IRA?

Who thinks Hezbullah is the IRA?

On the JPost blog page, Tony Badran does a masterful job of dismantling a Foreign Affairs article that claims that Hezbullah can be convinced to disarm just as the Irish Republican Army was. After Badran destroys the argument, he comes up with this:

Why is Simon and Stevenson's article riddled with so many errors and misconceptions? Because they assume an affirmative response to a key question that they never bother tackling: Does Hizbullah want to disarm? Without addressing this question convincingly, further misconceptions are inevitable, like the authors' proposition, unsupported by any evidence, that Hizbullah is trying to distance itself from Iran, whose Ruling Jurist (Wali al-Faqih), as Hizbullah itself declares, has final say over all important decisions. The proper answer of course is that Hizbullah does not want to disarm since it makes no sense for it to do so, neither from a pragmatic perspective nor an ideological one.

The issue here is not sloppiness, but a chronic ailment afflicting Western writing on the Middle East, as what appears to be analysis is often something else entirely. Simon (who was recently in Lebanon at the invitation of the New Opinion Group) and Stevenson are not writing about Hizbullah or Lebanon, but Washington.

In 2003 the two co-wrote an essay arguing that the example of Northern Ireland was "a strong argument" against adopting a "lenient" policy with Hamas, so why do they now argue that such treatment will work with Hizbullah? Perhaps it is because there are figures in the Obama administration who are sympathetic to a policy of engagement with Hizbullah, like the NSC staff's counterterrorism czar, John Brennan, who has publicly implied an acceptance of the "political vs. military wing" dichotomy in Hizbullah, claiming that the "political wing" allegedly denounces the violence of the "military wing."

Thankfully, when it comes to Hizbullah, as evident from the State Department's quick rejection of Brennan's views, there is more sobriety in Washington than in the poor Foreign Affairs article, or in the British Foreign Office for that matter.

Well, with respect to that last paragraph, I can only say "maybe." You see, the State Department currently has someone shuttling back and forth to this region who may be convinced that Hamas wants to disarm - and that Fatah already has. Those delusions are equally as harmful to the prospects for peace as the article about Hezbullah that Badran describes.


Israel Matzav: Who thinks Hezbullah is the IRA?

Love of the Land: Hey, NIF! Criticism is a democratic right

Hey, NIF! Criticism is a democratic right

It’s strange that groups claiming to be well-versed in human rights seem so unfamiliar with the concept of free speech.


Anne Herzberg
Op-Ed Contributor/JPost
03 February '10

Those who make a full-time pursuit of criticizing others probably should grow thicker skin. Yet the New Israel Fund (NIF) and its NGO grantees have launched a thin-skinned offensive against an Israeli student group that criticized them. And they have dragged NGO Monitor into the fray.

As soon as Im Tirtzu released its report detailing how Israeli human rights organizations contributed to the Goldstone Report, NIF backers unleashed ad hominem attacks against the student group and against NGO Monitor (though we were not involved in the report). NIF has threatened to sue Im Tirtzu and any newspaper that repeats its findings. It also sent a letter to Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu calling NGO Monitor “the rotten fruit of Israeli democracy.”

The record needs to be set straight regarding many troubling aspects of NIF’s combative reaction. To avert criticism of their activities, many of the non-governmental organizations highlighted in Im Tirtzu’s report – such as B’Tselem, the Association for Civil Rights in Israel and Physicians for Human Rights-Israel – are promoting the canard that if only Israel had cooperated with Richard Goldstone and his UN fact-finding mission on the Gaza war, his report would not have been as outrageously one-sided as it turned out to be.

In truth, there is no evidence that Israeli participation in the Goldstone mission would have changed the outcome of the widely panned report.

Goldstone’s mission was the product of a political war conducted against Israel in the UN Human Rights Council. Led by some of the world’s most abusive regimes – including China, Cuba and Saudi Arabia – this corrupt body has ignored mass atrocities such as the genocide in Darfur, the slaughter of more than 25,000 Sri Lankans and the forced starvation and enslavement of North Koreans. Indeed, the Goldstone mission was created by the Organization of the Islamic Conference to deflect attention from the horrific abuses of its member states and their supporters. In fact, according to the International Criminal Court prosecutor, Goldstone’s mission was financed by the Arab League.

(Read full article)


Love of the Land: Hey, NIF! Criticism is a democratic right

Israel Matzav: Netanyahu's son wins Jerusalem bible contest

Netanyahu's son wins Jerusalem bible contest

Maybe he can teach his father a thing or two....

15-year old Avner Netanyahu won the Jerusalem regional final of the International Bible Contest. He will be the city's sole representative at the national finals. The winners of the national finals appear in the International Bible Contest on Independence Day.

Avner Netanyahu, 15, overcame the other candidates Tuesday, scoring 98 out of a possible 100 points. He advances to the Israeli national competition, the final stage before the International Bible quiz for Youth.

The international competition is held in Jerusalem and is one of the highlights of Israel's annual Independence Day celebrations. It includes a question asked by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, so this year he may end up quizzing his own son.

Go for it Avner!

Israel Matzav: Netanyahu's son wins Jerusalem bible contest

Israel Matzav: A lethal obsession

A lethal obsession

Jeffrey Herf reviews Robert Wistrich's A Lethal Obsession, a massive, 1200-page tome about anti-Semitism, mostly the last seven decades' worth. Here are some highlights of the review and then I'll have some comments below.

Hitlerism, understood as hatred of the Jews and of liberal modernity, persisted beyond the destruction of Hitler, in Wistrich’s account, and acquired new political, cultural, religious, ideological, and geographical coordinates. The terminology of the new post-1945 Jew-hatred was no longer predominantly Christian, fascist, or racist. Instead it draws on neo-Marxist, Islamic, or anti-globalist ideologies. Unreconstructed neo-Nazi groups persisted, to be sure, but largely on the margins of European politics, and they ceased to be the most important source of radical anti-Semitism. Instead, the anti-Semitism after Hitler consisted of a mixture of the “old anti-Semitism” with “the new anti-Zionism.” It was expressed by the Soviet Union during the Cold War, by the radical left since the 1960s, and above all in the mix of secular and Islamist politics of the Middle East and Iran.While the rallying cry of the old anti-Semitism was the attack on “world Jewry,” the core of anti-Semitism has been the attack on “international Zionism” and on the state of Israel.

Wistrich is certainly aware that not all criticism of Israeli policy is inspired by hatred of the Jews and Judaism, but the “logic” and the structure of influential arguments attacking Israel have been ominously identical to the imputations of vast power and enormous evil attributed to “world Jewry” by European anti-Semites of old. The “lethal obsession” of the recent past, according to Wistrich, has been a melange of the old conspiracy theories of that infamous forgery, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion,with Marxism-Leninism, secular third worldism, and Islamism. In this period, the center of gravity of anti-Semitism has shifted from Europe to the Middle East and Iran. Although the cultural sources of the anti-Semitism of recent decades differ from those in Europe, the publicly articulated policies of the government of Iran and its proxies Hamas and Hezbollah, are no less “lethal.” Far from clearly recognizing the danger, too much of the political mainstream in Europe has failed to acknowledge the anti-Semitic resurgence. And in certain precincts of the Muslim diaspora in Europe, radical anti-Semitism has been re-exported back to Europe and on occasion enters the mainstream of political, journalistic, and intellectual life.

...

The concluding chapters of this important book examine the Nazi-Arab collaboration during World War II; the persistence of anti-Semitism and the “culture of hatred” in the Palestine Liberation Organization during the era of Arafat and after; Hamas and Hezbollah; the articulation of anti-Semitism by Muslim ideologues in the Arab world generally; the anti-Semitism of the Ayatollah Khomeini; and finally the threats to wipe out Israel coming from Mahmoud Ahmadinejad with the full support of the Ayatollah Khamenei. This material will be familiar to readers who are following these trends in the press and in recent scholarship. Yet Wistrich’s synthesis of these many studies is the most concentrated and comprehensive one-volume work we have.

In addition to presenting the well-documented anti-Semitism of Haj Amin el-Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem who was an ally of Hitler, Wistrich offers a devastating portrait of Yasser Arafat and the PLO. He stresses the continued importance of distinctly Islamist themes in its comparatively secular outlook, the hate speech in its media and its schools, and its still unmodified National Covenant that calls for the destruction of Israel as a Jewish state. His discussion of Hamas and its covenant explores the ideological lineages that stem from the Muslim Brotherhood, Hassan al-Banna, and Sayyid Qutb, so as to explain why it sees itself as “at war with the Jews and world Zionism, not just with Israel.” As for Hezbollah, its leaders in Lebanon teach that either Islam will destroy Israel or Israel will destroy Islam. With the relevant quotes from Hezbollah leaders and references to odious programs broadcast on its television station, Wistrich documents his argument that these organizations blend “traditional Islamic anti-Judaism with Western conspiracy myths, Third Worldist anti-Zionism” and in Hezbollah with “Iranian Shiite contempt for Jews as ‘ritually impure’ and corrupt infidels.” After citing speeches by Hassan Nasrallah that describe the Jews as evil conspirators against God and mankind, and possessed of characteristics that have been “unchanged since the time of Muhammed,” Wistrich sensibly concludes: “If this is not pure unadulterated anti-Semitism, then the term has no meaning at all.”

This brings us to Iran. Wistrich nicely defines Khomeini’s distinctive accomplishment as “mixing fragments of Third Worldist Marxism with Shiite messianism and hatred of Israel turned into an instrument” of Iran’s own “missionizing global ambitions.” Khomeini’s successors continued to view Jews as “impure.” They refer to Israel as a “rotten and dangerous tumor,” a “cancer,” a “festering sore.” Wistrich reminds us that it was Hashemi Rafsanjani, often described as a moderate, who said in 2001 that “one atomic bomb would wipe out Israel without a trace” while the Islamic world would only be damaged rather than destroyed by Israeli nuclear retaliation. With abundant references that illustrate the breadth of the sentiment, Wistrich concludes that “[f]or all of the [Iranian] ruling echelon, eradicating Israel has become a declared foreign policy aim, and acquiring nuclear weapons is central to its implementation.” A “suicidal outlook” intensified by “the Shia martyrdom syndrome differentiates the Iranian nuclear weapons program from that of all other countries and makes it uniquely threatening.”

The chapter on Ahmadinejad documents the religious eschatology that underscores his threats to destroy Israel. Wistrich argues that “the elimination of Israel is clearly a consensual goal for the regime, uniting radicals and moderates, ideologues and pragmatists, Persian imperial nationalists and Shia fanatics bent on domination of the Gulf and the Middle East as a whole.” Ahmadinejad’s assertions that an era of destruction, and a war between Muslims and the West, will trigger the long awaited return of the Mahdi “are not merely the ravings of an isolated, ‘saber-rattling lunatic,’ a political clown, or histrionic actor. They embody the core beliefs of fundamentalist Shiite theology translated into a modern revolutionary project.” The reality is that Iran has become “the first example of a modern state since Hitler’s Germany that has officially adopted an active policy of anti-Semitism as a means to promote its national interests.” And yet, Wistrich insists, “Iranian anti-Semitism...barely raises an eyebrow in the Western media.” He concludes his massive compilation with a warning and a plea. “The Jew-hatred of yesteryear has not only mutated but is actively fuelling [sic] the Middle East conflict and re-exporting its poisonous fruits to Europe and beyond. Unless it is checked in time, the lethal triad of anti-Semitism, terror and jihad is capable of unleashing [a] potentially universal conflagration. A deadly strain of genocidal anti-Semitism brings the nightmare of a nuclear Armageddon one step closer and with the need for more resolute preventive action.”

When Hitler made his famous threat to exterminate Europe’s Jews in 1939, many Western political observers did not believe he meant what he said. It was too incredible and without precedent. No political leader before had so bluntly and publicly announced his intention to engage in mass murder. And so the disgust that greeted Hitler was mixed with disbelief. But the leaders of our own time do not have the excuse of incredulity. As much as any historian can, Robert Wistrich has documented the fact that radical anti-Semitism is in earnest, that its geographic and cultural center of gravity has shifted, and that it has again become a factor in world politics. The advocates of this disgusting doctrine have the power from which to make good on their threats.

Read the whole thing and read the book.

This is what all the do-gooders just can't understand. The dispute isn't about a 'Palestinian state.' The dispute is because the 'Palestinians' are the ideological (and genealogical) heirs of Hitlerism. They want to do the same thing that Hitler wanted to do. A 'Palestinian state' (God forbid) will not resolve our dispute with them. It will just whet their appetite to continue to push for more.


Israel Matzav: A lethal obsession

Israel Matzav: The New Israel Fund and the next war

The New Israel Fund and the next war

Some of you may have noticed after the Sabbath that one of my New Israel Fund posts drew a comment from New Israel Fund itself (which apparently felt the need to damage control by responding - I doubt I'm the only one who drew a comment from them). In her weekend JPost column, Caroline Glick took aim at the traitors from New Israel Fund.

THE HARSH truth is that the main cause of Israel’s poor performance in Cast Lead and the Second Lebanon War was the Olmert government’s ideological dependence on the far left and its central contention that it is Israel’s presence in contested areas rather than our enemies’ commitment to Israel’s destruction that causes wars. Owing to their allegiance to this falsehood, Ehud Olmert and Tzipi Livni were unable to prosecute the wars to victory militarily, justify the limited steps they did take to defend Israel diplomatically, or discredit the rising chorus of Israeli NGOs arguing that Israel had no right to defend itself politically.

Since Cast Lead, however, two important things have happened. First Kadima was replaced by the Likud. Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu rightly recognized the Goldstone Report as a strategic attack against Israel. If Israel has no right to defend itself; if its moves to do constitute war crimes, then Israel cannot fight, cannot win and will be destroyed. Rather than give credence to the report, Netanyahu has made discrediting it one his primary aims in office. And to counteract its force, among other things, for the first time since the start of the Oslo peace process with the PLO, Israel’s government is asserting the Jewish people’s right to Judea and Samaria.

Beyond that, Kadima itself has changed its tune. Now in the opposition, Kadima no longer needs to defend its rejected plan to unilaterally withdraw from Judea and Samaria. Mahmoud Abbas’s refusal of Olmert’s offers to withdraw Israelis civilians and military personnel from nearly all of Judea and Samaria and to cede sovereignty in Jerusalem discredited the notion that it is possible to make peace with the Palestinians. Most importantly, the fact that Goldstone castigates Livni and Olmert as war criminals requires Kadima to fight all forces – including the far left it previously supported – that give credibility to Goldstone.

These developments clear the way for the Netanyahu government to take steps to neutralize the potency of these groups. The government should move swiftly to order the police and the IDF to enforce the law against these groups and their allies. It must also provide the political support to police and military commanders in the field to empower them fulfill their orders without fear that they will be persecuted for doing their jobs.

If the government seizes the opportunity to weaken these subversive groups, not only will it be making it clear that the political open season on Israel is over. It will be clearing the way for any future war to end not only in military victory, but in political victory for Israel as well.

Indeed.

Read the whole thing. She also lists some of the groups that are supported by the New Israel Fund and their seditious activities against the State of Israel.

The picture at the top is New Israel Fund President and former JPost columnist Naomi Chazan. I guess the Post doesn't want any more traitors in the house either.

Israel Matzav: The New Israel Fund and the next war

Israel Matzav: JPost fires New Israel Fund President

JPost fires New Israel Fund President

Haaretz reports that the Jerusalem Post has fired Naomi Chazan, the President of the controversial New Israel Fund.

Chazan was employed as a columnist at the Post, the country's largest circulation English-language daily. On Thursday, Chazan received an e-mail from Jerusalem Post editor-in-chief David Horovitz, informing her the newspaper would cease publishing her column.

Chazan had provided the daily with one of its few leftist voices in recent years. Horovitz declined to respond to questions from Haaretz on Thursday night.

One of the 'few' other than Larry Derfner, Anshel Pfeffer and Ray Hanania, among others. How many Right wing columnists does Haaretz have? One: Moshe Arens.

David Horovitz's weekend column doesn't mention Chazan. He has too much class for that.

Israel Matzav: JPost fires New Israel Fund President

Israel Matzav: Obama giving UNRWA $40 million

Obama giving UNRWA $40 million

Now that Canada has decided to stop supporting UNRWA, the Obama administration is stepping into the gap by giving $40 million to the terror-dominated organization.

The United States announced on Thursday that it will donate $40 million to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Arabs in the Palestinian Authority-assigned areas, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria who fled when Israel was established in 1948. About a quarter of the package is supposed to be designated for food and the creation of jobs. The rest is for maintaining basic services provided by the agency.

The American funding comes despite a report commissioned by the European parliament, which showed that Hamas terrorists have been chosen by the agency's labor union to oversee its Gaza facilities, which was part of a Canadian decision last month to stop its UNRWA funding.

What could go wrong?


Israel Matzav: Obama giving UNRWA $40 million

Israel Matzav: Ban (not?) satisfied with Israeli response to Goldstone?

Ban (not?) satisfied with Israeli response to Goldstone?

Two conflicting reports in Israeli media claim that UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon either is or is not satisfied with Israel's response to the Goldstone Report.

It won't matter. At the end of the day, the General Assembly will condemn Israel and refer the report to the Security Council, asking that Israel be brought up on charges before the International Criminal Court. Many Western countries will vote against, but the automatic majority for anything against Israel in the General Assembly will carry the day.

And Hamas will get off scot free.

Trust me on this.


Israel Matzav: Ban (not?) satisfied with Israeli response to Goldstone?

Israel Matzav: 'Peace Now' shows its true colors

'Peace Now' shows its true colors

Shavua tov, a good week to everyone.

I'll bet you thought J Street was the only 'pro-Israel' organization that was 'pro-peace' enough to demand that terrorists be allowed free passage between Gaza and Israel. Well, you're wrong. Here's another organization that is indifferent enough to Israelis' lives to make the same demand.

The leftist Peace Now organization in the United States sent a letter to President Barack Obama Thursday in which it demanded that he ask Israel for explanations about the siege around Gaza.

The letter called the humanitarian situation in the Hamas-controlled area "sad as a result of the unbearable closure which represents a threat on the security interests of the United States." The letter continued, "We therefore plead that your administration take advantage of its relations with Israel to remove the blockade from around the city [sic] of Gaza."

If these organizations are so desperate to help the 'Palestinians,' why don't they pressure Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh to use that $4 million to buy food for his 'people'? Just sayin'....

Israel Matzav: 'Peace Now' shows its true colors

The Gathering

The Gathering

Over the weekend I read Anne Enright's 2007 Booker Prize-winning The Gathering.

If you like very well written novels in which deeply troubled narrators slowly uncover the decision made 80 years ago which led to an ugly act 35 years ago which will negatively impact a dysfunctional family well into the second half of the 21st century, you'll enjoy this book greatly. It is very well written, and does do a fine job of unraveling the mystery while creating complex figures in a compelling story.

Me, I suppose I'm too philistine to be swept away by this sort of thing. This is either cause or effect of my not reading enough contemporary literature.

On the other hand, a few days ago I completed Tony Judt's magnificent Postwar: A History of Europe Since 1945. Judt is a strident enemy of Israel, but he has written a truly top-notch history of Europe, and I need to find the time to write my impressions; I even ought to do so soon, while they're still fresh. Alas (or not at all alas) I'm very pressed for time these days. Anyway, if anyone offers you to choose between these two books, now you know my recommendation.
Originally posted by Yaacov Lozowick's Ruminations

Love of the Land: Some more preachin'

Some more preachin'


Marc Prowisor
Yesha Views
05 February '10

Some more preaching to the Choir…

I attended a “talk” at UCLA, the last of a series regarding Israel. This talk was given by a resident of one of the larger communities in the Shomron, , no stranger to the effort and cause of resettling our homeland, and regarded with esteem in many circles, both in Israel and among the “Choir” outside. The audience was not large, but made varied in religion, religious observance and political views.

My heart was warmed by her talk regarding our world in Yehuda and Shomron, as I know and live in the same world as she does. The talk ended and it was time for questions - the honeymoon was over. Obviously there were the questions from the “choir” which were answered with love and caring, but then came the questions by those whose views had already been hijacked by the “haters” among us. This is where ignorance and arrogance reigned - on both sides.

Many of our “representatives” who speak outside of the country are simply residents, “machers”, activists - they speak with the zeal and love of a land and people that continues to be the flames in our hearts. They represent strength and dedication and they are responsible for having set in motion the wonderful path we are on today in our country.

What many of them do not know is the other side. How do the Arabs think? How does the Left think and why? And the problem which I immediately saw – what do the young non-observant or non-affiliated Jews of the US think?

Simple questions were raised regarding “Palestinian” rights to land, treatment at roadblocks, polarization in Israeli society (raised by an Israeli), and of course the “A” word- apartheid.

(Read full article)

Love of the Land: Some more preachin'

Love of the Land: Nessie and why Obama can’t

Nessie and why Obama can’t


Sarah Honig
Another Tack/JPost
05 February '10

Two extraordinary recent events seem entirely unrelated, but they are in actual fact no less than peas in the same proverbial pod. US President Barack Obama of “yes we can” fame confessed that he can’t (impose instant peace on us). A concurrent shock was delivered by reports of the possible (premature?) demise of lovable Nessie – the maybe monster that has made Loch Ness one of the UK’s top tourist attractions. Though ostensibly far-fetched, the connection between the two news bombshells is inexorable.

Obama owned up that his diktat (which he calls “peace” and which he superciliously supposed he could inflict upon us overnight) has so far failed to reinvent the Mideast. Obama, of course, blames Israelis and Arabs equally (for the sake of hallowed postmodernist evenhandedness).

It matters diddly that the most unlikely government in Israel offered concessions that likelier governments had earlier refused to contemplate. It equally matters diddly that the Palestinians under Mahmoud Abbas’s fictional leadership regressed to more intractable positions than they had ever held in all previous negotiation rounds with previous Israeli governments.

Staggeringly, the White House resident has handed out identical demerits regardless of Israel’s compromise of vital interests and Palestinian intransigence on what was beforehand never insisted upon. No differentiation between compliance and obstructionism.

But while Obama spent the past year discovering that “this is just really hard” (we told him so), he evinces remarkable never-say-die spirit. Ever-valiant Obama vows to press ahead with the apparently ever-viable (contrary to all empirical evidence) two-state solution. Despite all clinical indications, Obama maintains that his phantom peace yet lives.

(Read full article)


Love of the Land: Nessie and why Obama can’t

Love of the Land: BDS State of the Union

BDS State of the Union


Divest This!
03 February '10
Posted before Shabbat

An interesting comprehensive write up of what the BDSers themselves think about the state of their movement was published recently by Australians for Palestine. I’ll likely have more to say about their self analysis in the weeks that follow, although allow a few initial observations:

* Interestingly, outside of the US the BDSers seem to have no problem linking their project with the anti-Israel boycotts that began before the creation of the Jewish state (although they only go back as far as 1936, when Arab boycotts of Jewish businesses can be traced back to the 1920s). Since complying with the Arab boycott is illegal in the US, American boycott/divestment activists have never tried to make this connection, and while (for reasons outlined here) no one in the US has perused a legal strategy against BDS, it’s interesting to see that significant parts of the “movement” consider themselves the heirs of the dubious Arab-boycott legacy.

(Read full post)


Love of the Land: BDS State of the Union

Love of the Land: More Proof That "Pro-Palestinians" Aren't Really Pro-Palestinian

More Proof That "Pro-Palestinians" Aren't Really Pro-Palestinian


Proud Zionist
04 February '10
Posted before Shabbat

How does supporting Hamas help the Palestinians? Why does it appear to be only Zionists who try to expose Hamas' corruption, thereby benefitting the moderate Palestinians who don't want to be drawn into Hamas' war games?

In an op-ed in November, Khaled Abu Toameh wrote:

"If anyone is entitled to be called 'pro-Palestinian,' it is those who are publicly campaigning against financial corruption and abuse of human rights by Fatah and Hamas. Those who are trying to change the system from within belong to the real 'pro-Palestinian' camp.
These are the brave people who are standing up to both Fatah and Hamas and calling on them to stop killing each other and start doing something that would improve the living conditions of their constituents...
...The 'pro-Palestinian' activists in the West clearly do not care about reforms and good government in the Palestinian territories. As far as these activists are concerned, delegitimizing Israel and inciting against 'Zionists' are much more important that pushing for an end to financial corruption and violence in Palestinian society."


An incident that recently occurred at Toronto's York University is exactly the problem Toameh is citing.

(Read full post)

Love of the Land: More Proof That "Pro-Palestinians" Aren't Really Pro-Palestinian
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...