Love of the Land: What About The Arab Apartheid? Part II

What About The Arab Apartheid? Part II

Khaled Abu Toameh
Hudson New York
23 March '10

The Palestinian Authority and most of the Arab governments have not missed a chance since US Vice President Joe Biden’s visit to Israel to remind us that construction of 1,600 new apartments in the Jewish neighborhood of Ramat Shlomo, as well as the renovation of an ancient synagogue in the Old City of Jerusalem, would trigger a "third intifada" or, even worse, an all-out war in the Middle East -- and is the biggest threat to stability in the Middle East.

It is funny to see countries such as Saudi Arabia, Sudan and Egypt condemn Israel for being an "apartheid" state and for restricting freedom of religion. These countries, along with the Palestinian Authority and predominantly Islamic countries, should be the last to talk about "apartheid," freedom of religion bad persecution of minorities.

Of all Arab and Islamic countries, Saudi Arabia is often described as a "glaring example of religious apartheid."

Although Saudi authorities allow Christians to enter the country as temporary workers, they don’t permit them to practice their faith. Items and articles belonging to religions other than Islam are prohibited. Conversion by a Muslim to another religion is considered apostasy, a crime punishable by death. Saudi Arabia does not allow non-Muslim clergy to enter the kingdom country for the purpose of conducting religious services. Christians, and other non-Muslims, are prohibited from entering the cities of Mecca and Medina.

In Riyadh, the death sentence against a Lebanese charged with "sorcery" has just been re-confirmed. The man, Ali Hussein Sibat, a father of five, is a former host of a popular call-in-show that aired on a Lebanese satellite TV channel. H was arrested by Saudi Arabia’s religious police and charged with sorcery while visiting the country in May 2008. According to his lawyer, Sibat’s only crime was the he used to predict the future on his show and give out advice to his audience.

The real threat to peace in the Middle East is the absence of freedom, democracy and transparency in the Arab and Islamic world.

(Read full article)

Related: What about the Arab apartheid? Part 1

Love of the Land: What About The Arab Apartheid? Part II

Love of the Land: The White House War Against Israel

The White House War Against Israel

Edward Alexander
Frontpagemag.com
23 March '10

The decision of the Obama White House to pick a public fight with Israel over its interior ministry’s fairly routine announcement of progress towards approval of the construction (some years from now) of apartments in northeast Jerusalem has by now been subjected to sharp and justified criticism for its disproportionality; its bad faith in reneging on signed agreements with Israel; its mean-spirited spitefulness; its dogged attachment to the exploded assumption that “settlements” are the cause of Arab intransigence; its desire to keep intact the possibility of an apartheid state of Palestine that would not accommodate a single Jew; and its entire indifference to the violence that its reckless statements could (and did) incite in Jerusalem.

But there is a more sinister aspect to the relentless expressions of “insult” and “offense” coming from Vice-President Joe Biden, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and White House advisor David Axelrod. It is the invocation, undoubtedly originating in the Oval Office itself, of a long-recognized trope of anti-Semitism, a lethal mixture of the ancient blood libel and the modern conspiracy libel.

Already in July 2009, long before the current ruckus, President Obama told Jewish leaders at a White House meeting that he wanted to “change the way the Arabs see us” by putting “space” between the U. S. and Israel. More recently Biden, according to several reports, told Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that

“What you’re doing here [i.e., building houses for Jews in “settlements”] undermines the security of our troops who are fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. That endangers us and it endangers regional peace.”

(Read full article)

Love of the Land: The White House War Against Israel

Love of the Land: The "galaxy quest" president

The "galaxy quest" president

Soccer Dad
22 March '10

Why did the administration escalate a political mistake into a diplomatic crisis?

According to Secretary of State Clinton it helped move talks forward. A less kind way of putting it, would be that she boasted of putting PM Netanyahu in his place.

But Elder of Ziyon in an op-ed quality post makes a fascinating observation:

Obama believes that a president, the leader of the free world, must act strong. But the problem is he cannot act that way when he cannot predict how the other parties will react to his show of strength. As in the movie Galaxy Quest, he may be acting but the other side is dead serious, and in such circumstances he is over his head. Upsetting a billion people or another nuclear power is something to be avoided at all costs.

So he acts like a parody of a strong leader - against his friends. He knows they won't start a war or a terror spree against American interests. He calculates that by acting tough with his friends, there is little downside while he builds up his street cred as a resolute but fair leader. He hopes that Iran and Syria (and Russia and China) will interpret his actions as a message for them, avoiding actually making decisions that could set a course from which the US cannot go back.

But what he cannot do is actually make any real foreign policy decisions. If he did, he would be burning a bridge and opening himself up to the chance that he is making a mistake. Worse yet, he would be revealing to the world that he doesn't have a clue.

(Read full post)

Love of the Land: The "galaxy quest" president

Love of the Land: PM Netanyahu corrects Secretary of State Clinton at AIPAC

PM Netanyahu corrects Secretary of State Clinton at AIPAC

Dr. Aaron Lerner
IMRA
23 March '10

Secretary of State Clinton sent a clear message to Israel in her AIPAC address that she and the Obama administration intend to continue with the "automatic pass" policy vis-a-vis official Palestinian compliance. That's "official" Palestinian compliance, since the verbiage can flow about "Palestinians" in general - while taking great care never to associate the criticism with the ruling Palestinian Fatah/PA leadership, this keeping Mahmoud Abbas and the rest of his team squeaky clean.

This dangerously destructive policy, that encourages Palestinian noncompliance, has a profound impact on the efficacy of third party supervision.

Simply put, since we already know that the United States has a "automatic pass" policy when it comes to official Palestinian compliance, it would be reckless and irresponsible to agree to an arrangement that hinged on the compliance assessment of the United States rather than leaving this ultimately up to the sovereign State of Israel itself.

So here is the line in Secretary of State Clinton's address to AIPAC, in which she bent over backwards to avoid criticizing the PA for an incident that the PA postponed during VP Biden's recent visit to avoid a PR fiasco. That's PA-Fatah postponed - not Hamas. But Mrs. Clinton's heavy blinders shield her from this truth:

"When a Hamas-controlled municipality glorifies violence and renames a square after a terrorist who murdered innocent Israelis, it insults the families on both sides who have lost loves ones over the years in this conflict."

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton
AIPAC Conference March 22, 2010
www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2010/03/138722.htm
==================================================

And here is how Prime Minister Netanyahu responded:

"Regrettably, the Palestinian Authority has also continued incitement against Israel.

A few days ago, a public square near Ramallah was named after a terrorist who murdered 37 Israeli civilians, including 13 children. The Palestinian Authority did nothing to prevent it."

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu
AIPAC Conference March 22, 2010
www.pmo.gov.il/PMOEng/Communication/PMSpeaks/speechaipac220310.htm
==============================================================

If anything, Mr. Netanyahu was generous in understating the involvement of Fatah-PA. Its not that they did nothing to prevent it, they promoted it and were intimately involved in it.

So now we come to an interesting challenge for friends of Israel - and organizations that are friends of Israel.

Do they accept Mrs. Clinton's heavy blinders wording - and in turn the "see no evil hear no evil speak no evil" approach towards the PA.

Or do they reject such obfuscation and call for Washington to put an end to its "automatic pass" approach with the PA.

Love of the Land: PM Netanyahu corrects Secretary of State Clinton at AIPAC

Love of the Land: Guardian and Independent play down Turkey threat to deport resident Armenians

Guardian and Independent play down Turkey threat to deport resident Armenians

Just Journalism
22 March "10

(By now, we should all know the punchline.Y.)

Last week’s announcement by Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan that he might deport 100,000 Armenians from his country provides an interesting test for media responsiveness. It had – potentially – all the necessary ingredients for an explosive story: strong regional power responds to accusations of genocide against minority by threatening to deport said minority.

However, the comments made in an interview with the BBC following resolutions passed in the U.S. and Sweden acknowledging the mass killings of Armenians by Turkey between 1915 and 1923 as an act of genocide, failed to attract much attention. Only the right-of centre broadsheets covering the story in their print editions. ‘Turkey threatens mass expulsions to punish Armenians for genocide rulings’ led The Times’ international section on Thursday 18th March, detailing Erdogan’s threat:

‘In my country there are 170,000 Armenians; 70,000 of them are citizens. We tolerate 100,000 more. So what am I going to do tomorrow? If necessary I will tell the 100,000: OK, time to go back to your country.’

(Read full article)

Love of the Land: Guardian and Independent play down Turkey threat to deport resident Armenians

Love of the Land: [Includes barefaced lie covering up PA] Secretary of State Clinton's Remarks at the 2010 AIPAC Policy Conference

[Includes barefaced lie covering up PA] Secretary of State Clinton's Remarks at the 2010 AIPAC Policy Conference

Dr. Aaron Lerner
IMRA
23 March '10

[Dr. Aaron Lerner - IMRA:

"When a Hamas-controlled municipality glorifies violence and renames a square after a terrorist who murdered innocent Israelis, it insults the families on both sides who have lost loves ones over the years in this conflict."

Pop quiz.

What square was recently renamed after a terrorist who murdered innocent Israelis?

Answer: A square in Ramallah was named after the terrorist Dalal Mughrabi.

And who controls the Ramallah municipality?

Answer: Fatah.

Bonus question: Why does Clinton attribute the incident to Hamas?

Answer:: How do you spell cognitive dissonance?]

==============================

(Applause.)

Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State
Washington Convention Center

Washington, DC

March 22, 2010
www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2010/03/138722.htm

Thank you. Thank you for that welcome. And it is wonderful to be back at AIPAC with so many good friends. I saw a number of them backstage before coming out, and I can assure you that I received a lot of advice.(Laughter.) I know I always do when I see my friends from AIPAC. And I want to thank Lee Rosenberg for that introduction. And congratulations, Rosy; you're going to be a terrific president. (Applause.

(Read full speech)

Love of the Land: [Includes barefaced lie covering up PA] Secretary of State Clinton's Remarks at the 2010 AIPAC Policy Conference

Love of the Land: Palestinians Glorify a Terrorist

Palestinians Glorify a Terrorist

Daniel Mandel
Frontpagemag.com
23 March '10

Does building homes threaten peace? Or does holding a ceremony honoring as a hero and role model a terrorist who murdered dozens of civilians? Last week, Israel announced it would be doing the former. Palestinians did the latter. The Obama Administration condemned the Israeli words; it ignored the Palestinian deeds.

What could be wrong with building 1,600 homes for Jews in eastern Jerusalem? Nothing, except for Palestinians who do not accept Israel’s existence and intend as a first step towards ending it to set up their own Jew-free state and divide Israel’s capital in the process.

What could be wrong with the Mahmoud Abbas’ Palestinian Authority (PA) publicly honoring Dalal Mughrabi, who led the 1978 coastal road terror attack that killed 37 Israeli civilians? Everything, where peace is concerned but, apparently, nothing where the Obama Administration is concerned.

Visiting Vice-President Joseph Biden condemned the Israeli building project. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called it “an insult to the United States.” Senior Obama adviser David Axelrod described it as “destructive” and an “affront.” But no such words – in fact, no words at all – issued from this Administration over the PA publicly glorifying Mughrabi, which also occurred during Biden’s visit.

The Obama Administration has noisily opposed Jewish construction in the West Bank and eastern Jerusalem. But last year even it accepted Israel’s unilateral concession (unreciprocated by the PA) of a ten-month building freeze in the West Bank, excluding Jerusalem. Indeed, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton welcomed this concession and called it “unprecedented” – which it was.

After all, throughout the Oslo process, Israel built homes for existing Jewish communities without Palestinians breaking off talks, and little wonder: an Israeli commitment to cease building such homes does not feature in the Oslo agreements. The use of such a pretext for walking out of talks could only have gone so far.
However, last year, the Obama Administration arrived on the scene.

(Read full article)

Love of the Land: Palestinians Glorify a Terrorist

Love of the Land: Obama's Victimization of Jewish Refugees from Muslim Countries

Obama's Victimization of Jewish Refugees from Muslim Countries

Daniel Greenfield
Sultan Knish
23 March '10

One of the unreported aspects of Obama's manufactured insult over an Israeli housing project in Jerusalem is the way in which the administration has targeted Jewish refugees from Muslim countries.

While media reports frequently denounced Interior Minister Eli Yishai, as a "Right Wing Extremist", for approving one stage of the planned housing project-- what they did not report was the larger story. Eli Yishai is the head of the Shas party, one of Israel's largest political parties, which represents the interests of Sefardi and Mizrahi Jews from Muslim countries. And the housing project would have benefited Jerusalem's sizable population of Jews from Muslim countries.

In the 20th century a vast exodus took place in which as many as a million Jews from Muslim countries fled or otherwise departed, often leaving behind homes and valuables. Some came to America and Europe. Many more came to Israel instead. Today three million Mizrahi Jews live in Israel, indeed the majority of Israeli Jews are not the "immigrants from Brooklyn" derisively referred to by Israel-bashing pundits, but Jews whose families came to Israel from Muslim countries, or who spent many centuries living in Jerusalem under Muslim dominion.

They came from Yemen, Turkey, Libya, Syria, Morocco, Iran, Egypt, Iraq and Algeria. Some were driven out by enraged Muslim mobs. Others had their children stolen and their property seized by the government. Others remained behind "sand curtains", unable to leave. The ways in which some of these Jews were smuggled out of the country through a virtual "Underground Railroad" is unknown to most. And this is a story that continues today.

Consider the story of one woman who successfully helped smuggle out thousands of Syrian Jews by bribing Syrian government officials. And though she describes the work in terms of the Holocaust, "How do you negotiate the price of human lives? I was breaking up children from their parents. It was like the 1940s – they were desperate to get their children out", in fact the last family she saved was in 2001.

This is what a million Jews from Muslim countries escaped to begin their lives again in Israel. They left behind life in Muslim countries where they were Dhimmis, legally treated as second class citizens under Islamic law. They thought that they had turned their backs on a state of affairs where Muslims could dictate that synagogues should be built no taller than mosques, where their lives were worth less than a Muslim's and were paid for with blood money and forced to live in ghettos. That is until Obama decided to be gravely insulted because they had decided to live in a place that he thought they had no right to live.

(Read full article)

Love of the Land: Obama's Victimization of Jewish Refugees from Muslim Countries

Love of the Land: [Democracy innaction] What the J Street NYT Ad doesn't say

[Democracy innaction] What the J Street NYT Ad doesn't say

Dr. Aaron Lerner
IMRA
22 March '10

Here is the score:

Last year Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu made a major policy speach in which he spoke of a two state solution. And instead of putting him to the test as to what he meant by this the Arabs decided that there was no rush to enter negotiations.

They did this because the Obama team, encouraged by folks like J Street, were so busy salivating over the possiblity of deposing Netayahu and enjoying the sheer pleasure of trying to screw him against the wall that actually engaging in negotiations was of secondary or even tertiary importance. So we had demands on Israel as preconditions for talks that we never had before.

J Street plunks down money for an ad in The New York Times (see below)

They warn that "time is running out". But they don't call on the parties to cut to the chase and enter direct talks.

In fact, J Street doesn't want negotiations at all.

They want an American imposed "solution,"

(Read full post)

Love of the Land: [Democracy innaction] What the J Street NYT Ad doesn't say

Yaacov Lozowick's Ruminations: Those Pesky Zionists

Those Pesky Zionists

Before traveling to Italy I did a spot of reading. The usual guide books are fine if you wish to know that museums are closed on Mondays in Florence, or that the taxis in Venice are as expensive as a college education at Harvard (and they only go on water anyway). If you wish to know anything significant about the places you're about to visit, however, guide books are a poor bet.

For Venice I found an old book, published 50 years ago by an Englishman who lived there for a while and wrote a mildly eccentric book about the place. James Morris, Venice. It was lots of fun. A bit dated, true, but all the important parts of the story happened long ago anyway, and the last 50 years haven't added anything of significance and for the updated part I had those guide books.

So far so fine. Being a professional navel-gazer, I couldn't help but noticing the (very few) parts of the plot that deal with... us, of course. So how's this:

In Venice you can enjoy the pleasures of the Orient without suffering its torments. Flies are few, mosquitoes are decreasing, beggars are unpersistent, water is wholesome, nationalism is restrained, nobody is going to knife you, or talk about Zionism, or blame you for Kashmir.... (p.196)

1960, I remind you. There were no illegal Jewish settlements upsetting American presidents back in 1960. Osama B. was three years old. Why, even Arafat hadn't invented the PLO yet. Englishmen in the "Orient", however, were being blamed for Zionism and Kashmir. Then and now.

Yaacov Lozowick's Ruminations: Those Pesky Zionists

Yaacov Lozowick's Ruminations: Passover?

Passover?

I know what the Hebrew says. I don't know what the Arabic says (I'd ask Ibrahim, but being a fake, he's unlikely to know). To be honest, I don't know what the English says, either.

(Thanks for the gags, P)

Yaacov Lozowick's Ruminations: Passover?

The Torah Revolution: Pax

Pax

B"H

G-d's peace plan is different. It gives the Land of Israel to the Children of Israel. If we accept G-d's plan as Good, anything that goes against it is Evil

- This is a talkback on "The American vision"

The Torah Revolution: Pax

Elder of Ziyon: Palestinian Arab researcher: BBC biased - towards Israel

Palestinian Arab researcher: BBC biased - towards Israel

This is too funny: A researcher at Birzeit University submitted findings Saturday outlining what she found to be un-objective coverage around "the question of Palestine" on BBC Arabic's broadcast news. The study, focusing on the daily news program World News This Evening's broadcasts between 8 November and 8 December 2008, found external political motivations swayed coverage of Palestine only weeks before Israel launched its Operation Cast Lead on 26 December 2008. Sound like cherry-picking? Masters student Buthayna Hamdan, who pioneered the study, explained that she measured the objectivity of the reports by BBC's own standards, and basic precepts of news coverage. Benchmarks for measurement included: Omission of facts, clear differentiation of facts and opinions, and avoiding prioritization of accounts. The research found that the news coverage employed Israeli terminology, describing the military as "defense forces" when its actions were offensive, labeling locations with Israeli place names like the illegal settlement Har Homa, built on appropriated land known as Jabal Abu Ghnaim. Because the settlement and the expropriation of land is illegal under international law, the study argued, the area where the settlement is located should retain its Arabic name. So, according to this unbiased Palestinian Arab researcher, the BBC should call the Israel Defense Forces the "Israel Offense Forces" because, in her weird world, that wouldn't be biased. And a place that houses thousands of people who call it one name should be given another name by the BBC - when it was empty space beforehand. I guess that Hamdan would agree that the Al Aqsa courtyard should be called the "Har HaBayit" as that was its name before it was illegally expropriated. It also noted the use of the term "military arsenal" to describe home made projectiles fired toward Israel by militant factions in Gaza. And this is biased, how, exactly? Especially since most of the rockets were manufactured in small metal workshops, not in homes - the term "home-made" would be incorrect as well as biased. Also, mortars aren't home-made, and mortars make up more than half the attacks. During the study period, the research found 25 news events in Palestine, including the death, injury and detention of Palestinians including children, that went unreported by the news program. The same period saw the full coverage of every home made projectile launched from Gaza into Israeli territory, a total of 14. Wow - the BBC covered every one of the 14 projectiles shot at Israel, according to this researcher, a master's degree candidate for a prestigious university. Only one problem - there were at least 92 Qassams shot at Israel in that time period, not to mention well over 100 mortars. The BBC covered less than 8% of them, according to this report. So which direction is the bias now? And what accounts for these non-existent cases of bias? Take a wild guess: Following the analysis, and citing works by British journalist Robert Fisk, the report suggested that BBC Arabic's news coverage was influenced by an Israeli lobby, and a mass supply of Israeli government-produced news and information. See? The famous British Israel Lobby influences BBC's Arabic coverage. Here is a description of one of the BBC reports during that time period that was supposedly so biased towards Israel: It's a rare week that passes without the BBC providing a welcome bully pulpit for those who like to bash Israel. And so it was this morning that Oxfam was afforded the opportunity to attack those bad Jews for having the temerity to stop the free movement of goods (and weapons!) in and out of that land running with milk and honey which is Gaza. When it was mildly suggested to the Oxfam spokesman by the BBC interviewer that "militants" (Love that word, so much nicer than depraved Hamas terrorists) were firing off rockets into Israel (even one was launched during the interview!) the Oxfam response was to dismiss that aspect of things entirely and focus instead on the "humanitarian" plight of those who live in the moral sewer of Gaza. The BBC interviewer did not pursue this line of enquiry as it was obvious where his sympathies lay. The only opinion expressed was the venomous anti-Israel take from Oxfam - the utterly discredited Hamas-apologists. Yeah, that's real pro-Israel bias right there.

Elder of Ziyon: Palestinian Arab researcher: BBC biased - towards Israel

Elder of Ziyon: Hamas plans to name three areas after female "martyrs" - including Corrie

Hamas plans to name three areas after female "martyrs" - including Corrie

Hamas, seeing how much the naming of Dala Mughrabi Square near Ramallah upset Israelis, has announced that it will name three public areas after famous female martyrs in Gaza City. The first will be named after Dalal Mughrabi as well. The second will be named after Reem Riyashi, who exploded herself in 2004 at the entrance to the Erez Industrial Zone by claiming to be crippled and insisting on a body search, killing four. Hamas claimed credit for the attack. And the third will be named after Rachel Corrie, whose parents must be enormously proud that their daughter is in such esteemed company.

Elder of Ziyon: Hamas plans to name three areas after female "martyrs" - including Corrie

Elder of Ziyon: "Arab summit will not help Palestinians at all"

"Arab summit will not help Palestinians at all"

Palestine Today reports that Hani al-Masri, a political analyst, says that he expects zero help for Palestinian Arabs at the Arab summit to be held later this week in Libya. al-Masri said that from the experience of previous such summits, the Arab nations will talk a good game and, in the end, do nothing. He was especially harsh with Egypt, saying that they were more interested in maintaining their peace agreement with Israel than in helping Palestinian Arabs. Since "al-Masri" means "the Egyptian," perhaps he is upset at his ancestors who moved to Palestine and turned him into a stateless person who is not welcome back to his homeland.

Elder of Ziyon: "Arab summit will not help Palestinians at all"

Elder of Ziyon: Arabs reject Israeli shipments of clothes and shoes to Gaza!

Arabs reject Israeli shipments of clothes and shoes to Gaza!

More news from that awful "siege" of Gaza: Israel has trucks full of clothing and shoes ready to be shipped to Gaza, but the Gaza economic minister rejected the shipments altogether. He said that they were not adequate and he demanded much more. Apparently, it is too difficult to coordinate the sales of such items among the many shopkeepers who want to sell them, so the government would rather not have that headache. The clothing was donated by Egypt and the PA. Palestine Today says that they are ready to send five truckfuls a day, but the Hamas government is demanding 30-50 trucks a day.

Elder of Ziyon: Arabs reject Israeli shipments of clothes and shoes to Gaza!

Elder of Ziyon: A very brave Saudi woman

A very brave Saudi woman

From AP: It was a startling voice of protest at a startling venue. Covered head-to-toe in black, a Saudi woman lashed out at hard-line Muslim clerics' harsh religious edicts in verse on live TV at a popular Arabic version of "American Idol." Well, not quite "American Idol": Contestants compete not in singing but in traditional Arabic poetry. Over the past episodes, poets sitting on an elaborate stage before a live audience have recited odes to the beauty of Bedouin life and the glories of their rulers or mourning the gap between rich and poor. Then last week, Hissa Hilal, only her eyes visible through her black veil, delivered a blistering poem against Muslim preachers "who sit in the position of power" but are "frightening" people with their fatwas, or religious edicts, and "preying like a wolf" on those seeking peace. Her poem got loud cheers from the audience and won her a place in the competition's finals, to be aired on Wednesday. It also brought her death threats, posted on several Islamic militant Web sites. Hilal shrugs off the controversy. "My poetry has always been provocative," she told The Associated Press in an interview. "It's a way to express myself and give voice to Arab women, silenced by those who have hijacked our culture and our religion." Her poem was seen as a response to Sheik Abdul-Rahman al-Barrak, a prominent cleric in Saudi Arabia who recently issued a fatwa saying those who call for the mingling of men and women should be considered infidels, punishable by death. But more broadly, it was seen as addressing any of many hard-line clerics in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere in the region who hold a wide influence through television programs, university positions or Web sites. "Killing a human being is so easy for them, it is always an option," she told the AP. Poetry holds a prominent place in Arab culture, and some poets in the Middle East have a fan base akin to those of rock stars. "I have seen evil in the eyes of fatwas, at a time when the permitted is being twisted into the forbidden," she said in the poem. She called such edicts "a monster that emerged from its hiding place" whenever "the veil is lifted from the face of truth." She described hard-line clerics as "vicious in voice, barbaric, angry and blind, wearing death as a robe cinched with a belt," in an apparent reference to suicide bombers' explosives belts. The three judges gave her the highest marks for her performance, praising her for addressing a controversial topic. That, plus voting from the 2,000 people in the audience and text messages from viewers, put her through to the final round.

Elder of Ziyon: A very brave Saudi woman

Elder of Ziyon: New Al Azhar head refuses to visit "Islam's third holiest site"

New Al Azhar head refuses to visit "Islam's third holiest site"

The new head of Al Azhar University, Sheikh Ahmed Al-Tayeb, has stated that he refuses to visit Jerusalem while it is under "occupation" and he called on Muslims not to visit Jerusalem. It is a little funny, because Muslims had no problem visiting Jerusalem when it was under British occupation. Apparently, as holy as Jerusalem is purported to be, hate for Israel trumps the holiness of Islam's supposedly third holiest site. I wonder if they would refuse to visit Mecca and Medina should they ever be occupied? Religious Jews jump through hoops to visit Jewish shrines under Arab control, in Shechem as well as in Egypt and Jordan. The idea that politics is more important than religion is usually not something that religious figures espouse. al-Tayeb also said he would refuse to meet with any Zionist officials, and would not participate in any conferences where Zionist officials are invited.

Elder of Ziyon: New Al Azhar head refuses to visit "Islam's third holiest site"

Elder of Ziyon: The horrors of "occupation" (guest post)

The horrors of "occupation" (guest post)

From Zvi: To see how the WB and Gaza grew under Egypt/Jordan and under Israel, and to see how catastrophic was Arafat's decision to launch his intifadah, go to http://www.gapminder.org/world Check the box for West Bank & Gaza You can see that 1967 was an inflection point in WB/Gaza prosperity. The data points become more widely spaced, as both GDP/capita and lifespan increased more rapidly than prior to 1967. Let's look at lifespan first. In 1966, the average Palestinian lived to the ripe old age of 51, 2 years ahead of the average Egyptian. 10 years later, the average Palestinian lifespan was 60 years, vs. 53 for Egyptians. By 1993 (Oslo), the Palestinian average was 70 (on par with eastern Europe, and having surpassed countries like Turkey, Iran and Brazil that had been ahead in 1966). At this level, rates of increases typically decrease. The Palestinian average lifespan continued to rise monotonically and was 73 in 2007. In fact, this figure has increased monotonically - never dropping - throughout the Israeli occupation of the WB and Gaza. Now let's look at GDP per capita. As with lifespan, GDP per capita shows distinct improvement (wider spacing) after 1967, [Not in the GDP-only chart here - EoZ] and while the economies of Jordan and Egypt crash and incomes fall, the economy of the WB and Gaza forges ahead. In 1966, per capita income in Jordan was $2812; that of Egypt was $1879 and that of WB/G was $2500. Syria, Morocco and other non-oil Arab countries were peers. By 1976, after 10 years under Israeli control, WB/Gaza per capita income was $3565, vs. $2775 for Jordan and $2532 for Egypt. Jordan caught up for a while, but its performance (unlike that of the WB/Gaza under Israel) was extremely erratic, and it crashed again before 1993. By 1993, the WB/G figure was $6219, vs. $3524 for Jordan and $3774 for Egypt. The Oslo accords increased the growth rate significantly, so by 1999, the WB figure was $7865, vs. $4483 for Egypt and $3626 for Jordan. It had passed Turkey and Russia, left Syria and Tunisia convincingly behind and was closing in on Iran, Libya and Brazil. Most of its peers at this point were eastern European and Latin American emerging markets. At this point, Arafat, observing the Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon, decided that a peace through negotiation wasn't sexy enough. He had to be a war hero and drive the Israelis out. Boy, that sure worked out well. When alumni of the intifadah say they don't want to see a return of the bad old days, they mean that they don't want to go back to hiding in basements. When the businessmen of the West Bank say that they don't want a return of the bad old days, they're thinking of the economic free-fall that occurred when due to Hamas suicide bombings, Israel stopped allowing Palestinian workers into the country, and criminal/terror gangs - often thinly disguised as "resistance" groups - took over the streets of WB cities and used them as terrorist staging areas. Per capita income crashed to $3124 by 2007 (but as lifespan continued to increase, there was no starvation). The tool's data ends in 2007. In 2007, the PA appointed Salaam Fayyad and started to restore law and order, although the process took time. As this progress became evident, Israel began to reduce measures, such as roadblocks, that had been necessitated by the PA's prior lack of interest in preventing terror attacks. Businessmen began to feel confident in the WB and began to invest in their businesses. Today, the growth rate is 5.5%. If the PA's crazed, politically-motivated decision not to allow workers to work in "settlements" - including east Jerusalem - or do business with them does not cause the WB economy to crash again, and if Abbas and his cronies don't lose control of the intimidation tactics (riots) that they're currently using, there's a chance that the WB will continue to recover. But under the best of circumstances, with a peace treaty miraculously signed and honored, it will still take decades to undo the damage done by the Arafat Intifailure. Prior to the Intifailure, many Palestinians benefitted directly from proximity to Israel, as Israelis came to the WB to shop and WB Arabs came to Israel to work and sometimes to study. Those days are, as they say, history.

Elder of Ziyon: The horrors of "occupation" (guest post)

Israeli Diplomat Expelled from Britain - Defense/Middle East - Israel News - Israel National News

Israeli Diplomat Expelled from Britain - Defense/Middle East - Israel News - Israel National News

Netanyahu: Jerusalem is not a Settlement; It's Our Capital - Politics & Gov't - Israel News - Israel National News

Netanyahu: Jerusalem is not a Settlement; It's Our Capital - Politics & Gov't - Israel News - Israel National News

Polls: Israelis View Obama as Pro-Arab - Inside Israel - Israel News - Israel National News

Polls: Israelis View Obama as Pro-Arab - Inside Israel - Israel News - Israel National News

Jerusalem Mayor: Build 50,000, not 1,600, New Jerusalem Homes - Politics & Gov't - Israel News - Israel National News

Jerusalem Mayor: Build 50,000, not 1,600, New Jerusalem Homes - Politics & Gov't - Israel News - Israel National News

Rabbi Algaze: Jerusalem is Not the City of 3 Religions - Politics & Gov't - Israel News - Israel National News

Rabbi Algaze: Jerusalem is Not the City of 3 Religions - Politics & Gov't - Israel News - Israel National News

Abbas the "Peacemaker" Hints at Intifada - Defense/Middle East - Israel News - Israel National News

Abbas the "Peacemaker" Hints at Intifada - Defense/Middle East - Israel News - Israel National News

Ketzaleh Warns US: Surrendering Land brings Rocket Attacks - Politics & Gov't - Israel News - Israel National News

Ketzaleh Warns US: Surrendering Land brings Rocket Attacks - Politics & Gov't - Israel News - Israel National News

Israel Matzav: Obama, Clinton need a reminder

Obama, Clinton need a reminder

I will never understand how America can go to bat for the 'Palestinians' after this.

September 11, 2001.

Let's go to the videotape.



Never forget. Never forgive. Never.

Israel Matzav: Obama, Clinton need a reminder

Israel Matzav: Americans and Israelis reject land for peace premise

Americans and Israelis reject land for peace premise

A poll of Israelis I ran in an earlier post had the following result:

Some claim that if Israel were to withdraw to the '67 lines - including leave the Golan - it would enjoy peace for generations since the Arabs would no longer have any claims against Israel. Do you think that this is a naive or simplistic view or a reasonable and correct assessment?

82% Naive and simplistic
08% Reasonable and correct
10% Don't know/Other replies

Well, it seems that the Americans have figured out the same thing. Well, the Americans who aren't part of the Obama administration anyway.

And, thinking again about the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians...which statement do you agree with MOST?

18.7% THE CONFLICT BETWEEN ISRAEL AND THE PALESTINIANS IS REALLY ABOUT LAND. ONCE AGREEMENTS ARE REACHED ON DIVIDING JERUSALEM AND ESTABLISHING BORDERS, THE TWO SIDES WILL LIVE SIDE-BY-SIDE IN PEACE.

72.8% THE CONFLICT BETWEEN ISRAEL AND THE PALESTINIANS IS ABOUT IDEOLOGY AND RELIGION. THE TWO SIDES WILL LIVE IN PEACE ONLY WHEN THEY ACKNOWLEDGE EACH OTHER'S RIGHT TO EXIST.

08.5% KNOW/REFUSED (DO NOT READ)

Telephone poll conducted by Frank Luntz, Ph.D. of The Word Doctors, March 19-20, 2010 with 811 registered American voters (margin of error: +/- 3.5 percent) for The Israel Project

So how come all those 'smart' people in the Obama administration can't figure this out?

Israel Matzav: Americans and Israelis reject land for peace premise

Love of the Land: EU justice for refugees

EU justice for refugees

Petra Marquardt-Bigman
The Warped Mirror/JPost
21 March '10

There's no reason to blame yourself if you missed the media coverage of last week's Middle East visit by the EU's new foreign policy chief, Baroness Ashton of Upholland, England. To be sure, the media dutifully reported on the visit, but it didn't exactly dominate the headlines. Many people may therefore be unaware that Lady Ashton followed President Obama's example and tried to win Muslim "hearts and minds" with a speech in Cairo.

Since there is already an excellent analysis of this speech by Emanuele Ottolenghi at Commentary's Contentions blog, I would like to focus here just on one of the issues raised by Ashton, namely her declaration that "we need a just solution of the refugee issue."

The context of this remark indicates that Lady Ashton only had Palestinian refugees in mind when she raised this point. As usual, there was no mention of the inconvenient fact that the number of Jewish refugees systematically driven from their ancient communities and dispossessed by Arab states is actually higher than the number of Palestinians who fled their homes during the war waged by the Arabs to prevent or undo the establishment of Israel.

We can obviously only speculate as to what Lady Ashton and the EU would consider a "just solution of the refugee issue", but we know by now that in the negotiations between Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and former Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert, the Palestinians demanded that 150,000 refugees should be allowed to "return" to Israel as part of a peace agreement. Interestingly enough, this number is only stated in the English translation of a relevant document, authored by Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat, while the original Arabic version does not specify any number.

The long-standing Arab demand that, different from all the world's other refugees, the Palestinians should be allowed hereditary refugee status and should be able to claim a "right of return" for several generations has often been refuted.

A recent ruling by the European Court of Human Rights has once again illustrated that there is little basis for Palestinian claims of a "right of return". The court rejected the "right of return" claimed by Greek refugees from Northern Cyprus who had fled to the southern half of the island during the Turkish occupation in the 1970s. A majority of the court's judges accepted the Turkish argument that developments in the following decades had created a new reality that should not be undone, and that the refugees therefore could only claim financial compensation for their lost property.

(Read full article)

Love of the Land: EU justice for refugees

Israel Matzav: Overnight music video

Overnight music video

Here's Lipa Shmeltzer singing Ani Maamin (I believe with pure faith in the coming of the Messiah, and even though he tarries, I will still wait for him whenever he comes) at a circus for Chai Lifeline (a group that takes sick - mostly cancer-stricken - kids on activities).

Let's go to the videotape.

Israel Matzav: Overnight music video

Love of the Land: Revelation for Gideon Levy

Revelation for Gideon Levy

TS
CAMERA/Snapshots
22 March '10

In his column yesterday, Gideon Levy misleads:

And we must not forget that this huge building project in Jerusalem [Ramat Shlomo] is for Jews only; not one Palestinian neighborhood has been built in 43 years of occupation. Should that not be called apartheid?

Who need new neighborhoods when Palestinian building -- the expansion of pre-existing neighborhoods -- continues at an impressive pace? Consider this map from the Jerusalem Institute for Israel Studies ("Jerusalem: Facts and Trends 2005-2006," page 60):



Should it not be called apartheid to prohibit Jews from building in certain neighborhoods, as Levy would like?

Love of the Land: Revelation for Gideon Levy

Israel Matzav: Poll: Keep building in J'lem despite US pressure, Obama anti-Israel, hurting peace process

Poll: Keep building in J'lem despite US pressure, Obama anti-Israel, hurting peace process

Here are the results of a Maagar Mochot poll commissioned by IMRA.

Do you support Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's decision to continue construction in Jerusalem?
Yes, 62% No 26% Don't know/Other replies 12%

Do you think that Prime Minister Netanyahu's decision will lead to more or less pressure from the United States?
More 61%, Less 9%, Same 21% Don't know/Other replies 9%

Did the American Government take the crisis regarding the construction decision in the Ramat Shlomo neighborhood out of proportion?
Yes 60%, No 20% Don't know/Other replies 20%

Has the American Government's strong vocal criticism of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu helped or hurt the peace process? Helped 5%, Hurt 59%, No impact 29%
Don't know/Other replies 7%

Do you think that the American President Obama is pro-Arab, pro Israel or a neutral president?
Pro-Arab 42%, Pro-Israel 9% Neutral 34% Don't know/Other replies 15%

To what extent are you satisfied with what the American Government has done to date to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons?
Very unsatisfied 26%
Unsatisfied 34%
So-so 21%
Satisfied 7%
Very satisfied 1%
Don't know/Other replies 11%

Some claim that if Israel were to withdraw to the '67 lines - including leave the Golan - it would enjoy peace for generations since the Arabs would no longer have any claims against Israel. Do you think that this is a naive or simplistic view or a reasonable and correct assessment?

Naive and simplistic 82% Reasonable and correct 8% Don't know/Other replies 10%

Does the decision of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu to continue the
construction in Jerusalem prove he has or doesn't have a backbone?
Yes 55%, No 22% Don't know/Other replies 23%

Hmmm. The most stunning result is the first two results taken together. 62% want to keep building in Jerusalem even though 61% understand that could ruin what is left of our relationship with the Obama administration.

Israel Matzav: Poll: Keep building in J'lem despite US pressure, Obama anti-Israel, hurting peace process

Elder of Ziyon: Hillary: Worse than clueless?

Hillary: Worse than clueless?

I spent three posts talking about the cluelessness of Lady Ashton and other well-meaning but ignorant Westerners who have been led to believe Arab lies over the years. In some ways, Hillary Clinton made a statement today which is even worse. Israel Matzav points out that Hillary Clinton said this at the AIPAC conference: When a Hamas-controlled municipality glorifies violence and renames a square after a terrorist who murdered innocent Israelis, it insults the families on both sides who have lost loves ones in this conflict. In a very, very narrow sense, she is right. El Bireh, the suburb of Ramallah that named a public square after Dalal Mughrabi, has a Hamas-majority city council. (So does Nablus and many other West Bank towns.) But the naming of the square was purely a Fatah initiative and a Fatah celebration. Mughrabi was a Fatah terrorist. The entire episode was a damning indictment of Fatah - the party whose leader happens to be so-called "moderate" Mahmoud Abbas. Hamas has nothing to do with it. Which means that the US government is knowingly misinterpreting and downplaying the glorification of terrorism by Fatah. The reason is presumably because the US government has already put itself on the line for a farce of a "peace" process that is utterly dependent on Fatah acting like mature, responsible human beings. For Hillary to admit the truth in front of a pro-Israel organization would open up the Obama administration to charges of hypocrisy and double-standards. It is impossible to build real negotiations on a facade, and the idea that Fatah is any better or less terrorist that Hamas is exactly that. The US is so heavily invested in Fatah as a "peace partner" that it is willfully ignoring Fatah's own excesses and support for terror, instead pretending that Hamas is the only "bad guy." This is not cluelessness. This is deception. And it is really, really ugly.

Elder of Ziyon: Hillary: Worse than clueless?

Israel Matzav: What was missing in Hillary's AIPAC speech

What was missing in Hillary's AIPAC speech

Rick Richman points out what was missing in Hillary Clinton's AIPAC speech on Monday.

At yesterday’s Roundtable on Foreign Policy, there was the following exchange between moderator Dan Senor, Dr. Robert Kagan, and Senator Evan Bayh:

Dan Senor: Rob, there has been an attempt at engagement for — with Iran now for a year. The results speak for themselves. What are President Obama’s policy options for Iran?

Dr. Robert Kagan: Dan, the president came to office, in my estimation, believing that the key problem with Iran was Iran’s isolation, and you solve the isolation problem through engagement. Well, we figured out pretty early on that that was a mis-analysis, that the key problem was that Iran really wants to have a nuclear bomb. And if that’s the problem, then you need a different strategy, and there are three necessary elements to that strategy. One is diplomacy, second is economic sanctions, and third is a credible threat of force that’s — hovers in the background to compel the Iranians to take seriously the sanctions and the diplomacy. (Applause.)

Now — now, to — to the credit of the president, he has moved from a reliance solely on engagement to endorsing significant, although not yet crippling, sanctions. We’re slow. It’s taking too long. They won’t be comprehensive enough, but most importantly, they’re unlikely to be effective without the third part. ….

Dan Senor: Senator Bayh, is — is that credible threat of force there? The — at — at least the — the projection of it.

Sen. Evan Bayh: I’m not sure it’s there in the minds of the Iranians right now, but it needs to be there. …

So I — I agree entirely with what Rob said, and if you want to just be clear-eyed and realistic about this, we need to go with aggressive sanctions that are likely to hurt the regime, particularly the revolutionary guards. But you — you want to be honest about it, that’s unlikely to work.

The absence in Secretary Clinton’s speech of any sense of urgency, or of a possible Plan C, will be noted by those looking for something more significant than a rhetorical expression of “determination.”

Yes, and that's no change either. That's been the problem with the Obama approach to Iran since Day One.

Israel Matzav: What was missing in Hillary's AIPAC speech

Love of the Land: NGO “Apartheid State” Campaign: Deliberately Immoral or Intellectually Lazy?

NGO “Apartheid State” Campaign: Deliberately Immoral or Intellectually Lazy?

NGO Monitor
22 March '10

-Labeling Israel an apartheid state is part of a larger strategy of political warfare that includes NGO boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) campaigns and “lawfare” cases against Israelis. It is the latest manifestation of the 1975 UN “Zionism is racism” resolution and the 2001 Durban Conference NGO Forum declaration.

-The only internationally recognized case of apartheid was in South Africa. Customary law is based therefore on those practices that were unique in apartheid South Africa. Since Israel does not share these practices, it cannot be defined as an apartheid state under international law.

-Many NGO claims and legal arguments equating Israel with apartheid South Africa originate with the PLO’s Negotiations Affairs Department and were developed for propaganda purposes.

-Many NGOs falsely portray the Arab-Israeli conflict as a dispute motivated by alleged Jewish race-hatred of Arabs, rather than one based on competing national and territorial claims.

-A significant portion of the organizations involved in apartheid based demonization receive substantial funds from the European Union, European governments, New Israel Fund (NIF), Ford Foundation, and George Soros’ Open Society Institute.

-NIF’s funding of such organizations is entirely inconsistent with a March 2010 statement by CEO Daniel Sokatch, that “apartheid” is “a historically inaccurate and inflammatory term that serves only to demonize Israel and alienate a majority of Jews around the world.”

(Read full report)

Love of the Land: NGO “Apartheid State” Campaign: Deliberately Immoral or Intellectually Lazy?

Love of the Land: Third Act for the Jerusalem Crisis this Week

Third Act for the Jerusalem Crisis this Week

Leo Rennert
American Thinker
22 March '10

Relations between the United States and Israel hit crisis level last week. The drama has played out in two acts so far. The third act comes this week, and it determines whether this whole situation will be a tragedy or farce.

According to the New York Times, the acrimonious ten-day confrontation between President Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu is over -- with each side claiming victory. American officials say that they got important concessions from Israel, while Israeli officials say that Netanyahu didn't give away anything of real importance -- certainly not on Jerusalem, which, after all, was the casus belli for this U.S.-precipitated oratorical row.

Upon review of what actually transpired during these tense ten days, there's a lingering question that should nevertheless haunt Obama for a long time: Did he and his subordinates really need to huff and puff so vociferously against Israel and end up with so little?

The sudden crisis in U.S.-Israel relations can be divided into two parts -- the first involving a major Israeli screw-up, the second involving a much bigger Obama screw-up. In fact, what was barely a mini-crisis in the first act turned into a full-blown set-to when Obama raised the stakes for both sides big time.

The fuse was lit when visiting Vice President Biden was blindsided by an announcement from Israel's Interior Ministry that an interim approval was given to proposed plans for the addition of 1,600 apartment units in Ramat Shlomo -- an ultra-orthodox Jewish neighborhood in northeast Jerusalem. With the U.S. trying to get indirect peace talks underway, Biden was furious and criticized the Israeli move as an unnecessary and provocative obstacle to the peace process. He kept Netanyahu waiting for ninety minutes at a dinner hosted by the Israeli leader to draft a fairly sharp response.

(Read full article)

Love of the Land: Third Act for the Jerusalem Crisis this Week

RubinReports: Life in the Fourth Grade: The indoctrination never ends

Life in the Fourth Grade: The indoctrination never ends

Today: Discussion in class on why limits on immigration were historically racist. My son, who had been briefed, pointed out that the restrictions followed a huge wave of immigration which needed to be absorbed and that there was fear of massive unemployment. But the teacher said that it was racist because the figures for Africa and Asia were low. It's quite true that in the 1920s there was a racialist aspect to the restrictions but of course there had never been much immigration from Africa. As for Asia, there was a major issue with the fear of cheap labor. Trade unions were major supporters of immigration restriction.

At any rate, what's at issue here is not a historical argument but the message being given constantly to the kids that any restrictions on immigration today would be racist, the basic idea that countries have no right to restrict immigration or to preserve a national ethos.

That's not the main item, though. Each student was assigned to draw a picture. My son told me that his assignment was to draw something on the "mistreatment of the Chinese."

You should know that given the teacher's constant emphasis on the internment of Japanese by the US during World War Two, he had constantly pointed out that this was not racist since the US did not intern any other Asians and was very pro-Chinese and pro-Filipino. He then talked about how the Japanese government had been far more oppressive than the US, killing millions of Chinese civilians and looking on the Chinese as racially inferior.

I thought: OK he talked so much about it, he was assigned (I only later found out he pulled a slip from the pile) to draw a picture of Japanese soldiers killing Chinese civilians. And I was going to help him research things like the "rape of Nanking," one of the worst such atrocities.

So I said to him: "Ah, you are assigned to draw a picture of the Chinese being oppressed by the Japanese?"

"No," he answered, "of the Chinese being oppressed by the Americans."

When given this assignment, he told the teacher: "I don't believe in this."

She replied, "It isn't a matter of believing in it. These are straight historic facts."

Now of course it is true that, for example, Chinese workers on railroad construction in the late nineteenth century were paid less than American-born workers. There was also at one time a Chinese Exclusion Act. But there are also the stories of Chinese immigrants coming to America, being far better treated than they were at home (by their own ruling class, landlords, and governments not to mention their fellow-Asians from Japan), and doing very well. None of this, of course, will be mentioned.

The point is not to cover up the past problems of American society but to:

--Point out how they were corrected voluntarily.
--The scope a free system gave for organization and efforts by immigrant groups to improve their lot.
--The oppression in their home countries that made people want to immigrate in the first place.
--How others treated people far worse.
--How such immigrants and their children have become the greatest believers in the American dream and patriots precisely because they know what they have gained.

You can add to the list. But these kids will never hear about any of this.

RubinReports: Life in the Fourth Grade: The indoctrination never ends

Israel Matzav: Eric Cantor's AIPAC speech

Eric Cantor's AIPAC speech

House Minority Whip Eric Cantor's (R-Va.) speech to AIPAC can be found here. Here are some highlights.

We are in a critical time. Now is not the time to be picking fights with Israel in what seems to be an attempt to curry favor with the Arab world. Now is the time when the U.S. must stand with Israel in the global struggle against the threats posed by radical Islam.

It is times like these when we must remember what happens when Americans and decent-minded people everywhere fail to stand up to evil. Seventy years ago, after the violence of Kristallnacht, newspapers across America screamed Hitler’s warning that the Jews would be wiped out unless other countries took them in. Hitler correctly predicted that the world would be shocked, but do nothing. The U.S. Congress refused to raise quotas on refugees. The State Department erected a barricade of paperwork to keep the Jews out.

In 1938, two members of Congress sponsored a bill to admit 20,000 German-Jewish children into the United States. It was a priority for many Americans, including the first lady Eleanor Roosevelt. But isolationist forces sabotaged the effort, and even the president failed to offer his full backing. The result? The bill died. And 20,000 Jewish children, who could have been saved, joined the 1.5 million children who would die in the Holocaust. Another instructive moment can be found in the tragic journey of the ship St. Louis.

Exactly 9 years to the day before the birth of the State of Israel, some 900 German Jews fleeing the Nazis set sail from Hamburg en route to Havana, Cuba – where they thought they had permission to land. But when the St. Louis pulled into Havana Harbor two weeks later, virtually all of the passengers were denied entry. Efforts to pay Cuban officials to accept the Jews broke down, and the ship was soon ordered out of Havana. On its way back to the cauldron of Europe, the St. Louis sailed so close to America’s shores that the passengers could see the lights of Miami. So near, yet so far. The German boat captain pleaded with U.S. officials for permission to dock. But instead of helping them come ashore, the U.S. Coast Guard patrolled the waters to make certain no one tried to jump ship. Passengers aboard the St. Louis frantically cabled President Roosevelt begging for refuge, but their pleas fell on deaf ears. The State Department’s reply: Get in line and wait your turn.

American Jews and other well meaning Americans were powerless to move our government to save countless lives. There was no State of Israel to take the Jews in. In fact, British-run Palestine was off-limits to Jewish refugees. At that moment, the tragic fate of the passengers was sealed. The majority were destined for the death camps. The takeaway for us? We must do all we can to ensure the survival of the state of Israel.

...

Let’s face it. Israel is not the problem. From Yemen to Afghanistan to Pakistan, terrorists are not going to lay down their arms against America if we abandon Israel. We must do everything possible to hold the media accountable and empower our communities at home with an understanding of the true nature of our shared struggle with Israel. We must begin with Iran. To those growing voices that say we shouldn’t take seriously the threats of a “madman”, we must ask: “Have we not been down this road before?”

We cannot take cover under the notion that we can actually deter a nuclear Iran. That would merely be lulling ourselves into a false sense of security. Iran must be dealt with firmly, with real sanctions that have real teeth. The message should be clear: If you deal with Iran, you are not welcome to deal with the U.S. Stopping the regime in Iran will involve empowering the domestic opposition and delivering Tehran the message that our willingness to use force is on the table.

Read the whole thing.

Israel Matzav: Eric Cantor's AIPAC speech

Israel Matzav: Mother's Day, Fatah style

Mother's Day, Fatah style

It's here. Note that this is Fatah - not Hamas.

Israel Matzav: Mother's Day, Fatah style

Israel Matzav: Israel condemned again

Israel condemned again

Hmmm (Hat Tip: Edward F.)

Paris 03-21-10 (AFP) Israel was condemned for allowing use of umbrellas at the Western Wall. Secretary of State Clinton said that U.S. "strongly condemns erection of temporary structures in disputed areas." Israeli P.M Netanyahu apologized for the incident but noted that all umbrellas were destroyed by rocks thrown from an adjacent Mosque. Ms. Clinton praised Palestinian restraint in not using guns or bombs.

Heh.

(Yes, it's a parody).

Israel Matzav: Israel condemned again

Israel Matzav: How to conduct negotiations between Israel and the 'Palestinians'

How to conduct negotiations between Israel and the 'Palestinians'

While I would never suggest offering anything even remotely close to what Ehud Olmert offered the 'Palestinians,' Jackson Diehl has a good point about how 'negotiations' should be conducted.

As Rice might have told the current White House, lesson No. 1 from history is that there will always be a provocation that threatens to derail peace talks -- before they start, when they start and regularly thereafter. Israeli settlement announcements are among the most common, along with the orchestration by West Bank Palestinians of violent demonstrations and attacks from Gaza by Hamas. The Obama administration saw all three in the past 10 days: It went ballistic over one and barely registered the other two.

The trick is not to let the provocation become the center of attention but instead to insist on proceeding with the negotiations. That is what Rice did when news of the Jerusalem settlement of Har Homa broke. In public, she delivered a clear but relatively mild statement saying the United States had opposed the settlement "from the very beginning." In private, she told Olmert: Don't let that happen again. For Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, the message was equally blunt: You can come to the table and negotiate a border for a Palestinian state, making settlements irrelevant. Or you can boycott and let the building continue.

Not surprisingly, Abbas -- who has taken Obama's public assault on Israel as a cue to boycott -- showed up for Rice's negotiations. The Bush administration privately offered him an assurance: Any Israeli settlement construction that took place during the talks would not be accepted by the United States when it came time to draw a final Israeli border. On settlements, Rice adopted a pragmatic guideline she called the "Google Earth test": A settlement that visibly expanded was a problem; one that remained within its existing territorial boundary was not.

The virtue of all this is that Rice got the Israelis and Palestinians talking not about settlements but what they really needed to be discussing -- the future Palestine. Olmert and Abbas went over everything: the border, the future of Jerusalem and its holy sites, security arrangements, how to handle the millions of Palestinian refugees still living in camps. Privately, they agreed on a lot. Eventually, Olmert presented Abbas with a detailed plan for a final settlement -- one that, in its concessions to Palestinian demands, went beyond anything either Israel or the United States had ever put forward. Among other things it mandated a Palestinian state with a capital in Jerusalem and would have allowed 10,000 refugees to return to Israel.

That's when Rice learned another lesson the new administration seems not to have picked up: This Palestinian leadership has trouble saying "yes." Confronted with a draft deal that would have been cheered by most of the world, Abbas balked. He refused to sign on; he refused to present a counteroffer. Rice and Bush implored him to join Olmert at the White House for a summit. Olmert would present his plan to Bush, and Abbas would say only that he found it worth discussing. The Palestinian president refused.

I wonder what would have happened in late 2008 had Abu Mazen not been so confident that Obama would force the Israelis to give him what he wants. Hmmm.

Israel Matzav: How to conduct negotiations between Israel and the 'Palestinians'