To my Dearest Love of the Land/An Eye That Gazed Towards Zion Readers, Subscribers and Friends,

To my Dearest Love of the Land/An Eye That Gazed Towards Zion Readers, Subscribers and Friends,

First of all, wishing one and all, a Shana Tova, an amazing year ahead, a year of health and growth, a year where more and more light shines forth in the world, where love becomes the significant driving force for our fulfilling our purpose in this world. May G-d's blessings rest upon our efforts to make this happen.

After 10 years, almost 18,000 posts and a little over 4 million reads, I am going to be putting aside my blogs, Love of the Land as well as An Eye That Gazed Towards Zion as there are now many others doing an excellent job out there, more proficient with the changes in social media and general audience. The blogs themselves will remain available to read, so much material still relevant and new to many future readers.

Thank you once again for all your encouragement over the years, and of course I will still be staying active on Facebook and Twitter both as an admin and poster.

Last but not least, in the world of who to follow, I have never ceased being amazed by Elder of Ziyon.(http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/)  Both in quality and quantity, first in my world as the #1 go to.

                                                                             All My Love   Shana Tova

                                                                                          Yosef

They see the Arab world turn against them - and don't learn a damned thing - by Elder of Ziyon

It sounds like Mr. Ramini might be close to getting it. But, no, the antisemitism that he grew up with is more powerful than actual self-assessment.

Elder of Ziyon..
11 September '20..

Countercurrents has an opinion piece by Jafar Ramini, a Palestinian who lives in London:

I believe that for us Arabs to survive and progress we must have in common more than religion, language and rhetoric. We need unity, transparency and honesty.
We Palestinians are teetering on the edge of a precipice. Until very recently, every Arab leader, politician, cleric and pundit, given half a chance, would mount the platform and raise the Palestinian flag promising to do what is necessary to liberate the land and restore what is rightfully ours. Not any more.
The language has changed totally from support of the Palestinian cause to condemnation of us Palestinians, accusing us of being ungrateful architects of our own demise. The schism between some Arab regimes, especially in the Gulf and the Palestinians has been widening ever since the two Mohammads – Bin Zayid in the UAE and Bin Salman in Saudi Arabia took control.

...This schism became even more apparent during yet another meeting, this time in Cairo two days ago. The Foreign Ministers of the Arab League opposed a proposal put forward by the Palestinian side to condemn the UAE/Israel peace treaty. So, where is the unity? Where is the transparency? Where is the honesty.?
There is none.
You might think that this recent betrayal and open rejection should serve to bring the Palestinian leaders of all persuasions to a realisation that Palestine is not the core subject of most of the Arab regimes.

It sounds like Mr. Ramini might be close to getting it. But, no, the antisemitism that he grew up with is more powerful than actual self-assessment.

(Continue to Full Post)

The NY Times uneasily admits that the "West Bank" is Judea - by Elder of Ziyon

No one had ever heard of the "West Bank" before the 1950s, yet that Jordanian name is now considered the most accurate for media like the New York Times while "Judea" is considered a right-wing Israeli term created to supplant it. Articles like this are awkward precisely because they highlight that the land has always been associated with Jews, not "Palestinian" Arabs.

Elder of Ziyon..

09 September '20..

The New York Times has an interesting article about Israelis managing to harvest dates from the famous Judean date palm, planted with seeds that are over 2000 years old: 

The plump, golden-brown dates hanging in a bunch just above the sandy soil were finally ready to pick. 

They had been slowly ripening in the desert heat for months. But the young tree on which they grew had a much more ancient history — sprouting from a 2,000-year-old seed retrieved from an archaeological site in the Judean wilderness. 

“They are beautiful!” exclaimed Dr. Sarah Sallon with the elation of a new mother, as each date, its skin slightly wrinkled, was plucked gently off its stem at a sunbaked kibbutz in southern Israel. 

They were tasty, too, with a fresh flavor that gave no hint of their two-millenium incubation period. The honey-blonde, semi-dry flesh had a fibrous, chewy texture and a subtle sweetness. 

These were the much-extolled but long-lost Judean dates, and the harvest this month was hailed as a modern miracle of science. 

  Where was the seed found again? 

Hannah’s seed, which came from an ancient burial cave in Wadi el-Makkukh near Jericho, now in the West Bank, was carbon dated to between the first and fourth centuries B.C.E., becoming one of the oldest known seeds to have ever been germinated. 

The phrase "now in the West Bank" is awkward - did the cave somehow move from Judea to the "West Bank"? But for the Times to more accurately say "now called the West Bank" would be problematic for a paper that chose to embrace that term only in the 1970s.

(Continue to Full Post)

The media fiddles while Israel burns - by Sean Durns

The press is failing to provide readers with coverage of a developing and dangerous situation in a country that is frequently the subject of disproportionate, and sometimes trivial, news coverage.

Sean Durns..
JNS.org/CAMERA..
09 September '20..

For weeks while communities in Israel burned, many major U.S. news outlets kept silent. Hamas, the U.S.-designated terror group that rules the Gaza Strip, has been intermittently launching firebombs into the south of Israel for years. Yet Hamas’s terrorism by fire was largely ignored during the summer of 2020.

By repeatedly launching incendiary devices into Israel, Hamas and other Gaza-based terror groups have violated numerous ceasefires. The damage has been extensive.

According to an Aug. 28 press release by Jewish National Fund-USA, almost “600 fires caused by incendiary and explosive-laden balloons sent by terrorists in the Gaza Strip have plagued Israel’s Gaza Envelope region over the past 19 days as thousands of acres have been destroyed.” On Aug. 23 alone, more than 28 fires were started by devices launched from Gaza. Nor is it merely balloons; as the Times of Israel reported “rockets have also been fired on multiple occasions at Israeli cities and towns, including over a dozen projectiles” on Aug. 20.

JNF-USA has helped to combat the fires by investing in firetrucks and firewagons. The threat to many communities in Israel’s south has been so pervasive that JNF-USA has helped develop “new, often fortified playgrounds, schools, parks and other amenity-enhancing projects.” Keith Isaacson, the head of security for Israel’s Eshkol region, lamented: “You can see that the forests are suffering. The wildlife is suffering. Instead of green behind our houses, we have black.”

As Ynet news previously reported, in February 2020 explosives-laden balloons landed in a preschool in the southern Israeli Kibbutz Sa’ad. More recently, others have landed near playgrounds. On several occasions, terrorists have attached the balloons with Disney characters—a tactic meant to entice unsuspecting children.

Israel, meanwhile, has responded with targeted strikes aimed at the terror network and its infrastructure.

Terrorist groups targeting children with balloon bombs and causing massive ecological damage is certainly newsworthy. Yet many major Western news outlets have completely ignored the story.

(Continue to Full Column)

Realizing the dream of friendly coexistence between the Jews and their Middle Eastern neighbors - by Yonatan Green

The UAE agreement constitutes the first such voluntary peace not achieved directly by military success. It marks a true and fundamental divergence from past Israeli relations with Arab-Muslims countries. And it may be said to be the first-ever such agreement that truly reflects Herzlian Political Zionism, fulfilling a dream of friendly coexistence between the Jews and their Middle Eastern neighbors. One can also be certain that the UAE did not decide to do so unilaterally; such a radical shift requires coordination with other Muslim-Arab powers and approval in advance.

Yonatan Green..
JNS.org..
08 September '20..

The recent agreement between Israel and the United Arab Emirates, along with the Trump “Peace to Prosperity” vision that many consider to have been the catalyst for the normalization of relations between the two countries, together mark the most significant and resounding achievements of “Political Zionism” since the 1947 U.N. Partition Plan vote, and perhaps since the 1920 San Remo conference.

Since 1947, Israel has been in a continuous diplomatic limbo with regard to her borders and territory, and in her relations with her Arab-Muslim neighbors in the Middle East. Since that time, there have been no purely diplomatic breakthroughs of consequence that can be said to have altered this fundamental reality—until now. The Trump administration “Peace to Prosperity” plan marks the first serious acknowledgment of Israel’s territorial claims by a global power since 1947; while the UAE peace deal marks the first voluntary commencement of friendly relations with an Arab state, not in the immediate aftermath and shadow of defeat in armed conflict. These developments ought to be considered in the context of the different strategic attitudes that characterized Zionism from its inception as a modern national movement.

Since its very beginning, the Zionist movement diverged into multiple approaches towards achieving the common goal of establishing a homeland for the Jewish people. Perhaps the two most dominant of these were Practical Zionism and Political Zionism. While Practical Zionism focused on the physical immigration of Jews to the Land of Israel and other direct measures, Political Zionism (initially lead and inspired by Theodor Herzl) stressed the importance of obtaining international recognition and sanction of the Zionist objectives and working within a framework of international and legal cooperation. This is manifest in the Basel Program set out in the 1897 First Zionist Congress, which aimed for a “publicly and legally assured” home for the Jews, as well as the attainment of “government grants” to enable Zionist activity.

One can argue that until recently, Political Zionism can boast of (only) three major milestones.

The first is the 1917 Balfour Declaration, in which the British government stated that they “view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavors to facilitate the achievement of this object ….” This was the first time a world Power publicly endorsed and supported the Zionist project, a policy coordinated with other Allied Powers and pre-approved by the international community.

The second was the post-World War I 1920 San Remo conference and the ensuing 1922 Mandate for Palestine assigned to Britain, both of which explicitly endorsed and incorporated the 1917 Balfour Declaration. If the declaration was merely a letter between the British Foreign Minister and the Jewish Lord Rothschild, the San Remo Resolution and League of Nations Mandate were the unambiguous and formal commitments of the international community to further the Zionist cause. The Mandate went a step further in the preamble by recognizing “the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine” and by referring to “the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country.”

Both of the above were enormous victories for Zionism at a time when its success was far from certain. There is no doubt these diplomatic coups significantly affected the course of history for the Zionist project.

The third achievement of Political Zionism was the 1947 U.N. General Assembly vote on the partition plan. This vote by the international community constituted a clear reaffirmation of the Zionist cause of establishing a Jewish state, in the new post-World War II global order. One may rightly consider this as a lesser achievement—at that point, an independent Jewish state was an almost final and irrevocable reality that could have been challenged only by its violent annihilation (which was, of course, duly attempted). As such, the U.N. vote may be seen as a result of the success of Practical Zionism, and the acceptance of “facts on the ground,” at least as much as that of Political Zionism.

Since that time, the State of Israel and the Zionist movement have not secured significant diplomatic achievements of any magnitude approaching those listed above.

(Continue to Full Post)

Yonatan Green is the executive director of the Israel Law & Liberty Forum.

The continuing distortion of Western discourse on Israel - by Amb. Alan Baker

Distorting and presenting Israel’s creation as a “catastrophe” serves to falsify and overturn the historical narrative from one of inherent denial of the right of existence of a Jewish state through aggression and rejectionism, to one of victimhood and denial of rights.

Amb. Alan Baker..
JNS/JCPA..
07 September '20..

Regrettably and increasingly, Western intellectual discourse regarding anything connected to Israel has been taken hostage by pseudo-intellectual, radical leftist extremists who, using distorted information, flawed facts, “progressive” language and accepted buzzwords, seek to enhance and expand existing efforts to deny and undermine Israel’s legitimacy as a Jewish and democratic nation-state.

This ideological goal of dismantling Israel is particularly evident in a curious July 9, 2020, article published in radical leftist Australian literary journal Overland, titled, “Fighting against a Racist’s Peace: What It Means to Oppose Annexation.” The author is the child of Palestinians, Tasnim Mahmoud Sammak, whose doctoral research project at Melbourne’s Monash University seeks to explore what she describes as the “emergence of radical political subjectivities and imaginaries.”

Her ultra-radical language indicates a thought process based on misconceptions and flawed assumptions. The abundant use of extreme, radical leftist buzzwords indicates an inherent lack of seriousness and intellectual honesty.

What is perhaps even worse is an apparent linkage that emerges in this article between pseudo-intellectual leftist modes of thinking and extreme, fanatical Palestinian terror and incitement to Israel’s destruction.

The following are some examples of such exaggerated, illogical and inciting terminology used in the article.

“Zionism is a settler-colonial, ethno-nationalist project”

This is an often repeated and meaningless cliché using pseudo-intellectual terminology intended to appeal to extreme ultra-liberal, leftist elements that are opposed to the very existence of Israel as a state and deny, as a matter of principle, the claims and rights of the Jewish people.

Israel has valid historical, legal and political claims to its sovereign territory and land, as well as to the land it presently administers.

In addition to the long-term historical evidence of Jewish presence, as set out in the writings of Persian, Greek, Roman and other historians who visited the area in the early centuries, and in biblical sources, extensive archeological evidence, publicly available, affirms the existence and presence of a Jewish national population in the area for over 3,000 years. The “return to Zion” has been a central theme of Jewish prayers for two millennia.

These Jewish claims have been acknowledged legally and internationally by the 1917 Balfour Declaration affirming the right of the Jews to reestablish their national homeland, the 1921 San Remo Declaration, which transposed the Balfour Declaration into an internationally recognized document and reaffirmed in the subsequent League of Nations Palestine Mandate and the United Nations Charter.

This land has never been part of any sovereign entity since the termination of the Ottoman Empire more than 100 years ago, and as such, Israel has not colonized and is not colonizing the land of any other state or entity.

For more than 120 years, the Zionist movement has been universally recognized as the national liberation movement of the Jewish people and is no different from other ethno-national movements.

To single out and condemn Zionism in such a manner is tantamount to singling out the Jewish people and denying them a fundamental right that is possessed by all other national peoples.

(Continue to Full Article)

Why is the Media Mum on Israeli Special Needs Captives? - by Gidon Ben-Zvi

One of the media’s primary functions is to identify and report injustices being perpetrated around the world. This, in turn, keeps the pressure on serial human rights violators while ensuring that the victims are not forgotten. As such, news outlets should be shining a bright spotlight on Avera Mengistu and Hisham al-Sayed.

Gidon Ben-Zvi..
Honest Reporting..
03 September '20..

September 7, 2020 marks the sixth anniversary of when Avera Mengistu was taken captive by the Hamas terrorist group. The then-32-year-old, who had immigrated to Israel with his family from Ethiopia, developed severe schizophrenia following the death of his older brother and crossed into the Gaza Strip on his own volition.

Since then, he has not had access to treatment for his mental illness and has not been afforded the privileges guaranteed by international law. Kidnapping an innocent civilian is an egregious human rights violation; yet, even with all the recent media coverage about the weeks-long confrontation between the IDF and Hamas, there has been little, if any, attention paid to Mengistu’s plight.

Civilian Hostages: The Media’s Selective Coverage

From a media standpoint, securing the release of hostages has over the past few years been big news. According to the White House, more than 50 Americans have been released from 22 countries during President Donald Trump’s tenure. Peter Bergen, a vice-president of the Washington, D.C.-based New America think tank who has written extensively on terrorism, has described the Trump Administration’s efforts to rescue hostages as “an area of significant foreign policy success.”

Meanwhile, the US Department of State recently announced that it would intensify its campaign to bring home three citizens being held in Iran.

Much of the public has been following these stories closely, with media organizations generally providing information about any relevant developments. However, when it comes to Mengistu, these same outlets focus almost exclusively on the recurring tit-for-tat military exchanges between Israel and Hamas without raising the latter’s gross disregard for international norms.

Hisham al-Sayed: Another Mentally Ill Civilian Hostage

Hamas is also holding hostage Hisham al-Sayed, an Israeli Bedouin from the southern town of Hura who entered Gaza in 2015. He also has a history of mental illness. To date, Hamas has refused to release any information about Mengistu or al-Sayed, nor has the terrorist organization granted permission to rights groups to visit them in order to determine their respective conditions.

(Continue to Full Post)

Is the true tragedy when an Arab expresses willingness to make peace with Israel? - by Khaled Abu Toameh

By extreme contrast [to Syria and Iraq], the UAE and other Gulf states have long opened their doors to Palestinians and provided them with jobs and high living standards. Puzzlingly, Palestinian leaders have plenty of time to castigate the UAE, but no time at all to comment on the systematic abuse and killing of Palestinians in Syria and Iraq.

Khaled Abu Toameh..
Gatestone Institute..
04 September '20..

Palestinian leaders are so committed to condemning the United Arab Emirates (UAE) for its normalization agreement with Israel that they have no time left to notice the horrific suffering of their people in some Arab countries, particularly Syria and Iraq. Specifically, these leaders seem unperturbed that in some in Arab countries, Palestinians are mysteriously disappearing.

Unlike their leaders, however, Palestinians living in Syria and Iraq do not appear to be worried about the Israel-UAE accord. These Palestinians have more existential concerns -- such as providing shelter for their children and safe drinking water for their families. They are disturbed about the homes they have lost, and they are in a state of anguish about fate of their missing sons.

In the past two weeks, leaders of the Palestinian Authority (PA) and Hamas have focused their attention mainly on the Israel-UAE deal and how to persuade other Arab states from following in the UAE's footsteps.

Peace between Israel and the UAE, nevertheless, seems to be the last thing on the mind of the Palestinians residing in Syria.

In Syria, since the beginning of the civil war there in 2011, 4,048 Palestinians have been killed and thousands wounded. Tens of thousands of others have fled their homes, some to other areas in Syria and others to neighboring Arab countries and Europe.

In addition, 1,797 Palestinians have been detained by the Syrian authorities and are being held in harsh conditions, while another 333 have gone missing and their families know nothing about their fate.

(Continue to Full Post)

Highlighting the Israel-UAE Agreement’s Greatest Achievement: Little Arab Protest - by Prof. Hillel Frisch

To the surprise of Iranian and Palestinian leaders, the Arab public did not protest the Israel-UAE peace agreement—but they continue to protest Iranian meddling in Iraqi and Lebanese affairs. The lack of protest against the Israel-UAE breakthrough is a sign of political maturity as Arab and Muslim populations clamor for reform at home rather than destructive ideological visions.

Prof. Hillel Frisch..
BESA Center Perspectives Paper No. 1,729..
03 September '20..
Link: https://besacenter.org/perspectives-papers/israel-uae-peace-protest/

Lively analysis has taken place over the possible ramifications of the Israel-UAE peace agreement. Some have rightly noted that while this is the third peace treaty Israel has signed with an Arab state, it is the first to contain the promise of a warm peace. This is in sharp contrast to Israel’s relations with prior accord partners Egypt and Jordan, which are limited to very narrow personal, diplomatic, and security relations. With Egypt, the peace treaty has rarely reached even that threshold.

Hosni Mubarak, throughout his 30 years of ruling Egypt, never made an official visit to Israel, which is less than an hour’s flight away. Nor has King Abdullah of Jordan. In over a decade of rule, Abdullah has abstained from visiting Israel despite meeting several times with PA head Mahmoud Abbas in nearby Ramallah.

Israel has been at peace with Egypt for nearly a half a century, but not one Egyptian soccer team has ever played against an Israeli team either in Israel or anywhere else. Not one delegation from an Egyptian university has ever visited an Israeli counterpart, let alone engaged in a joint program. Not one Egyptian cultural ensemble or group has ever visited Israel. On the rare occasions when individual Egyptian artists have come to Israel, they did so primarily to appear before Israel’s Arab citizens. For that gesture they were met with opprobrium and threats. Such was the power of the Arab world’s boycott against “normalization.”

Many have noted that the UAE peace treaty, unlike the treaties with Egypt and Jordan, was signed under quite different conditions. There is a wide expectation that it will be followed by one or more similar pacts with other states, especially other Gulf States and Saudi Arabia. No such expectations accompanied Israel’s peace agreements with Egypt and Jordan.

One major accomplishment has already been achieved by the UAE-Israel agreement. It has been largely overlooked, perhaps because it is a case of what did not happen rather than what did. Even as an El Al plane flew over Saudi Arabian territory carrying a bevy of Israeli officials, businessmen, and investors to the Emirates with the aim of promoting a warm piece, there were no demonstrations of consequence in the Arab world. Amman, Beirut, Tunis, Algiers, and Rabat, where demonstrations against the Israeli “occupation,” the “desecration” of al-Aqsa, and other charges against Israel are generally well-attended, were silent, at least on the street level.

There was, of course, a din of voices castigating the UAE for normalizing ties with Israel, but they emanated mostly from dinosaur institutions that dominate the landscape of the Arab world and against which there are frequent popular demonstrations. These include organizations linked with the Arab League, official professional unions, and various political movements whose common characteristic is a fossilized leadership that has been in place for 25 years or more.

Even among ordinary Palestinians, protests were miniscule. In photos taken in both the PA and Hamas-dominated Gaza, only a dozen or so demonstrators are shown burning effigies of Netanyahu, Trump, and UAE head Sheikh bin Zayed. The demonstrators were not only paltry in number but mostly members of the older generation.

Truth be told, the Israel/UAE accord proves Europe's absolute irrelevance to the Israel-Arab conflict - by Elder of Ziyon

Europe, pretending to be relevant, is happy to fund organizations that actually hurt any chances for peace. This massive funding has perverted the Palestinian economy itself - the best paying jobs outside Israel come from these anti-Israel NGOs, which contribute nothing towards actual productivity and make it unappealing for Palestinians to become productive and independent citizens, creating and exporting useful goods and services.

Elder of Ziyon..
02 September '20..

Gerald Steinberg of NGO Monitor makes some excellent points about the irrelevance of Europe to the Israel/Arab conflict and how their outdated views of the region are actually anti-peace.

The EU was notably absent on the El Al plane from Tel Aviv to Abu Dhabi. There were no EU officials and no EU flags, either on the plane or on the face masks of the Arabs who greeted the Israelis. Why not?

As Steinberg writes,

Almost all EU diplomats, foreign policy officials and 'experts', operate through simplistic misguided prisms based on post-1945 images of normative (soft) power, rules-based international order, and other thinking that is .totally inapplicable to the Middle East. As a result, Europe has little credibility.

The Israel-UAE agreement is based on realpolitik and national interests -- security (the Iran threat), economic, cyber threats and others. European diplomacy in 21st century has no capacity for contributing in these dimensions.

Europe's foreign policy on Israel offers nothing positive and tangible. Their main tools are threats of sanctions (aimed at Israel only), ritual anti-Israel UN votes, and massive funding to fringe anti-Israel NGOs under the facade of aid and human rights. This is in total contrast to the US.

For Palestinians, Europe is a very reliable cash cow and amplifier of slogans, including their supposed powerlessness and victimhood. No matter what Palestinians do - terror, incitement, ICC lawfare - European money keeps flowing. But for substance, Palestinian leaders have (until very recently - EoZ) turned to the US.

Europe is narrowly focused on the Palestinian issue (and stuck in the 1970s); they treat Israel condescendingly, and their "peace proposals" and frequent declarations consist entirely of empty slogans. Systematically stuck in the 1970s (or 1950s), Europe is blind to Israel's role as a major regional actor, interacting with other countries on the basis of significant capabilities and shared interests.

Opposition to the Iranian strategic threat is a major catalyst for Israel-Gulf cooperation. In contrast, Europe's policy on Iran is based on slogans and reviving the ill-conceived JCPOA, allowing the regime to acquire nuclear weapons. These policies are non-starters.

To play any useful role in the region, Europe needs an entirely new approach to Israel, Iran, the UAE and other Gulf states. The people and myths that have dominated Europe's approach for decades need to retired and replaced by diplomats and experts with both feet on the ground.

Steinberg is correct. It is no coincidence that each one of Israel's peace agreements with Arab countries have been facilitated by the US with no European involvement. The Europeans treat the Palestinians as spoiled children with no responsibility for their actions, and one cannot make peace with irresponsible toddlers.

Gulf countries have, in recent years, given the Palestinians the message that they are not the center of the universe and they can no longer assume reflexive support and unlimited cash from their fellow Arabs.

(Continue to Full Post)

The Old: "Nothing in the Middle East can be solved without Israel/Palestinian peace." The New: "How dare.... !" by Elder of Ziyon

This is a new Middle East, and the people who preferred the old Middle East are having a bad day.

Elder of Ziyon..
01 September '20..

Remember "linkage"?

It was the opinion of supposed Middle East experts that all problems in the region could only be solved if Israel gave in to Palestinian demands for "peace."

Jimmy Carter said in 2006, "I don’t think it’s about a linkage policy, but a linkage fact. There is no doubt: The heart and mind of every Muslim is affected by whether or not the Israel-Palestine issue is dealt with fairly. ...Without doubt, the path to peace in the Middle East goes through Jerusalem."

Carter's National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski similarly said, “The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the single most combustible and galvanizing issue in the Arab world.”

The idea lasted even into the 2010s, even as the Arab Spring and ISIS and the Syrian civil war erupted, with the New York Times keeping the flame alive: "While resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not the magic bullet for the region that some once thought, it still resonates widely, whether among the crowds in Tahrir Square or the militants of Hezbollah, who cite Israel in rallying around President Bashar al-Assad of Syria."

The Palestinian leaders quickly realized that this false theory works to their advantage, as they would routinely say that if Israel doesn't give in to their demands, the entire Middle East would erupt into chaos and terrorism against the West would return. Mahmoud Abbas' spokesperson ludicrously claimed that ISIS would cease to exist if Israel just did what Palestinians demanded.

The Israel/UAE agreement has proven all of these theories wrong.

(Continue to Full Post)

Excellent question. Does the UAE/Israel agreement allow Jewish worship on the Temple Mount? - by Elder of Ziyon

Of course, to normal people, the idea of Jews praying on their holiest site while not disrupting the prayers of any Muslims should be considered quite fair and uncontroversial, even desirable.

Elder of Ziyon..
31 August '20..

In Palestine reports:

Normalisation of relations between Israel and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) could have significant impacts on the sensitive status of Al-Aqsa Mosque, a report by Israeli NGO Terrestrial Jerusalem has warned.

The report challenged the wording in reference to Al-Aqsa in a joint statement by US President Donald Trump, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed, the crown prince of Abu Dhabi, on 13 August.

The statement, which has been condemned by Palestinians across the political spectrum, says that “all Muslims who come in peace may visit and pray at the Al Aqsa Mosque, and Jerusalem’s other holy sites should remain open for peaceful worshippers of all faiths”.

After the 1967 war, Israel and Jordan, the custodian of Al-Haram al-Sharif compound, agreed that while Jews are allowed access to the site, they are not allowed to pray there.

That status quo has withstood many challenges since.

However, Terrestrial Jerusalem, an organisation that tracks developments in Jerusalem that could impact political processes or spark violence, argues that the terminology used in the joint statement is an intentional attempt to open up the Temple Mount for Jewish prayer and ultimately change the status quo.

“It is not too late to insist that this wording be removed and that there be a renewed commitment, unambiguous in its clarity, by both Israel and the United States to the traditional interpretation of the status quo, and specifically regarding Jewish prayer on the Mount,” the report said.

Al-Aqsa, the third-holiest site in Islam, is housed in the 14-hectare Al-Haram al-Sharif compound (Noble Sanctuary), known to Jews as the Temple Mount.

The joint statement, the report said, speaks of access to “Al-Aqsa Mosque,” rather than Al-Haram al-Sharif, and while Israel defines Al-Aqsa as the structure of the mosque, Muslims define it as the entire esplanade of Al-Haram al-Sharif.

“Consequently, according to Israel (and apparently to the United States), anything on the Mount that is not the structure of the mosque is defined as ‘one of Jerusalem’s other holy sites’, and open to prayer by all and open to prayer by all – including Jews.”

The NGO might be right - but for different reasons than they say.

(Continue to Full Post)

The Question of Israeli Settlements: Calamity or Fulfillment? - by Jerold Auerbach

...Kerstein’s “messianic fanatics” turned out to be passionate Israelis who — like secular Zionists — were determined to return to the Biblical homeland of the Jewish people. They neither rejected Israeli democracy, as he writes, nor did they advocate “a theocratic state.” Their “apocalyptic messianism,” in translation, was devotion to the restoration of Jewish national sovereignty — also known as Zionism.

Jerold Auerbach..
Algemeiner..
30 August '20..

Benjamin Kerstein has been commended as “one of the finest American-Israeli authors of his generation.” But his recent Algemeiner critique — “Zionism, Messianism and the Question of the Settlements” — is unpersuasive.

Kerstein understands that Israeli settlers are not monolithic: they “represent a diverse and complex society-within-a-society.” They range from ordinary Israelis who, like generations of Zionists before them, have built communities in the Biblical Land of Israel, to “true believers” who are “often terrifyingly sure of themselves.” Their “remarkable success story” might best be understood as the fulfillment of the Zionist dream. Yet he identifies with those “who view the movement with skepticism at best and open hostility at worst.”

Kerstein knows that Judea and Samaria (Jordan’s “West Bank” until the Six-Day War) comprised “the heartland of the ancient Jewish kingdoms; it is integral to the Jewish people’s biblical inheritance … and our presence there is as indigenous as one could possibly imagine.” He recognizes settlers as “people of considerable integrity” who “are willing to put their lives in danger for what they believe in.” That seems like a compelling argument for an embrace of the historic Land of Israel and its bold and courageous Jewish residents.

Yet for Kerstein there are “very legitimate reasons to be skeptical of and even hostile toward the settlement movement.” Least persuasive is his discomfort that “essentially the entire world considers the settlements illegal.” (Who cares?) But “the most troubling aspect of the settlement movement” is its “ferociously messianic passion” of the kind that has sprinkled Jewish history with “horrifically destructive” consequences. Among the “terrible horrors,” he rightly identifies “Baruch Goldstein’s slaughter of 29 innocent Muslims” in the Machpelah shrine (1994), reinforced by “the Kahanist ideologues of Hebron” who “reject Israeli democracy.”

But Kerstein ignores the reality that the overwhelming majority of the nearly 450,000 settlers are normal Israelis who, as Zionists have always done, built communities in the Biblical homeland of the Jewish people. The settlement blocs with the largest number of Israeli residents feature universities, yeshivas, scientific laboratories, high-rise apartments and shopping centers. It is inconceivable that they would be ever be abandoned by their residents or evicted by the Israeli government.

That leaves Kerstein’s primary targets: the “messianic fanatics” of Hebron and neighboring Kiryat Arba (Biblical Hebron) who reject democracy and advocate “a theocratic state.” But Baruch Goldstein’s horrific massacre of Muslims at prayer in Me’arat ha’Machpelah — the ancient burial site of Jewish patriarchs and matriarchs — remains the tragic exception. Hebron Jews, numbering fewer than 1,000, have far more often been the targets of Palestinian terrorism than perpetrators of violence.

(Continue to Full Column)

Jerold S. Auerbach is the author of Hebron Jews: Memory and Conflict in the Land of Israel (2009).

Taking the necessary steps to surmount Palestinian rejectionism - by David M. Weinberg

For European and other diplomats to continue to scurry about the region without pressing inevitable truths on the Palestinians is mischievous, at best. To be overly solicitous of the Palestinians, a long-time mistake of professional peace processors, is similarly unhelpful. Dishing out some tough love and dialing down Palestinian expectations would be much more constructive.

David M. Weinberg..
A Citadel Defending Zion..
28 August '20..
Link: https://davidmweinberg.com/2020/08/28/surmounting-palestinian-rejectionism/

British Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab showed up in Jerusalem this week to pressure Israel and the Palestinians (“both sides”) to renew negotiations towards a two-state solution “based on international parameters.”

Translation: Raab was here to pressure Israel to yield to a stale formula based on maximal Palestinian demands alongside minimal regard for Israeli security needs and national-historic claims; a discredited formula involving the uprooting of settlements, withdrawals from most of Judea and Samaria, and a division of Jerusalem.

Raab’s mission was blast from the irrelevant past. As if Palestinian rejectionism and Iranian-backed jihadism of the past decade had not made such proposals passé. As if the Trump administration’s wiser peace initiative had not been launched. As if the UAE had not recently announced its intention to develop full diplomatic relations with Israel; an obvious dismissal of the Palestinian Authority’s strategy of boycotting and criminalizing Israel. As if Israel needed to be prodded to engage in serious and realistic negotiations with the Palestinians.

Raab showed no inclination to take advantage of recent developments to put pressure where it belongs: on the side that began the conflict and that can end it. On the Palestinians.

Remember: It was Palestinian Authority dictator Mahmoud Abbas walked away from negotiations with Prime Minister Olmert in 2008; Abbas who refused peace talks with Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu even after Netanyahu froze settlement construction in 2009; and Abbas who left US Secretary of State John Kerry out in the cold in 2014. Earlier this year, Abbas declared “one thousand no’s” to the new American peace plan.

Now the PA ferociously has rejected the historic agreement between Israel and the UAE, which Abbas and his spokesman have called “a knife in the back of Palestine and treason against Jerusalem.” The PA’s Grand Mufti issued a fatwa forbidding Muslims who come via the UAE to pray at the Al-Aqsa Mosque.

Abbas has called for popular resistance, a code word for violence, in coordination with the Iranian-backed Hamas movement, which does not hide its genocidal plans for Israel. Other senior Palestinian leaders talk about “a return to armed struggle,” meaning orchestrated suicide bombings and other naked terrorism. (Israel must act determinedly to deter Abbas from making such a gargantuan mistake).

Abbas and his associates have no problem acting against the interests of their own people - by Khaled Abu Toameh

By arresting and threatening Palestinians who dare publicly to promote the Israel-UAE deal, the Palestinian leaders are again demonstrating that they, like all other Arab dictators, evidently consider basic human rights a privilege they reserve for themselves alone.

Khaled Abu Toameh..
Gatestone Institute..
27 August '20..

As Palestinian leaders continue to wage a massive campaign of incitement against the United Arab Emirates (UAE) because of its normalization agreement with Israel, some Palestinians have come out in support of the deal and accused the Palestinian leadership of harming Palestinians' relations with the Arab states.

In the past two weeks, Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas and leaders of his ruling Fatah faction have repeatedly accused the UAE and its de facto leader, Crown Prince Mohammed Ben Zayed, of "stabbing the Palestinians in the back with a poisonous dagger" and betraying Al-Aqsa Mosque, Jerusalem, and the Palestinian cause.

They have also accused the Gulf state of acting in violation of the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative, which states that the Arab countries would normalize their relations with Israel only after a full Israeli withdrawal to the pre-1967 armistice lines and the establishment of an independent Palestinian state with east Jerusalem as its capital.

The accusations have prompted Palestinians to stage protests in Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza Strip, during which they burned UAE flags and pictures of Ben Zayed.

Some Palestinians, however, do not share their leaders' rage toward the UAE. These Palestinians say they are worried that the Palestinian leadership's overreaction to the UAE-Israel deal is counterproductive and will cause further harm to the Palestinian cause.

The Palestinian leadership, nonetheless, does not seem to care about the voices expressing concern over the damage caused to Palestinian-Arab relations as a result of the incitement against the UAE and its leader.

By ignoring these voices, Abbas and his associates are again showing that they have no problem acting against the interests of their own people. Worse, by condemning the Israel-UAE deal on a daily basis, the leaders of the Palestinians have made it clear that they prefer to side with Iran and its Palestinian and Lebanese proxies -- Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah -- in rejecting any compromise with Israel.

(Continue to Full Post)

Anyone Surprised at Erdoğan’s Schoolboy Response to the Israel-UAE Deal? - by Burak Bekdil

Turkey is protesting the UAE for establishing diplomatic relations with Israel—even though Ankara has had diplomatic relations with Israel for the past 71 years. If the UAE, as Ankara argues, has betrayed the “Palestinian cause” just by having diplomatic relations with Israel, then Turkey has been betraying the “Palestinian cause” since 1949.

Burak Bekdil..
BESA Center Perspectives Paper No. 1,712..
27 August '20..
Link: https://besacenter.org/perspectives-papers/erdogan-israel-uae-turkey/

These days, Turkey’s foreign policy calculus, especially when it involves matters surrounding Israel, appears to reflect the thinking of a fifth-grade schoolboy. I don’t like David anymore and you, Bassam, want to play with him. So I don’t like you anymore either.

That is exactly how the 97-year-old Turkish republic behaved when Israel and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) announced they are normalizing diplomatic relations. Not a word has been uttered to explain how a country that has had diplomatic relations with Israel for 71 years could logically protest another country’s decision to establish diplomatic relations with the Jewish state.

Turkey remained neutral during the Arab-Israeli war of 1948. At its conclusion, the then young Turkish republic became the first Muslim country to recognize the infant state of Israel on March 28, 1949.

In January 1950, Ankara sent a career diplomat, Seyfullah Esin, to Tel Aviv as the first Turkish chargé d’affaires in Israel. In 1951, Turkey joined the Western bloc of countries that protested Cairo’s decision to deny Israeli ships passage through the Suez Canal. The Mossad opened a station on Turkish soil in the early 1950s. In 1954, Turkish PM Adnan Menderes, while on a visit to the US, called on Arab states to recognize Israel.

In 1958, an El Al airliner requested an emergency landing at Istanbul’s Yeşilköy Airport due to mechanical problems. As it transpired, the passengers aboard were David Ben-Gurion, Golda Meir, and the IDF Chief of Staff, who were on a secret mission. The purpose of the visit, which was welcomed by the Turkish government, was to establish and enhance cultural and intelligence cooperation.

From 1949 until the 1979 Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty, Turkey remained the only Muslim country to have diplomatic ties with Israel. After the Oslo Accords in 1993, Jordan joined the club of Muslim nations recognizing the Jewish state. And on August 13 of this year, the UAE agreed to establish diplomatic relations with Israel. Other Muslim-majority states are making signs that they would like to follow suit.

What’s wrong with Arab nations making peace with Israel? A lot, according to Iran, Hamas, and Turkey, a trio that is offended by steps toward peace in the Middle East. Among these three peace-haters, however, Turkey is unique.

Inexcusable Palestinian Terror: A Philosophy of Articulated Hate - by R. Uri Pilichowski

...I have written a great deal of my empathy for the Palestinian situation. But my empathy doesn’t excuse the deep-seated hate found in Palestinian communities, its schools, and the general support for terror found among the people.

R. Uri Pilichowski..
TOI Blog..
25 August '20..

Israeli reporter Carmel Dangor tweeted that the past 365 days is the first time since 1964 where no civilians in Israel were killed by a terrorist.

This is an incredible statistic that should make us all breathe a sigh of relief. Yet, there are two important caveats to this statistic that should give us pause; First, this statistic speaks to zero Israeli deaths, but does not speak to Israeli injuries, of which there were too many due to Palestinian terrorism. Second, this statistic doesn’t address the amount of Palestinian terrorist attacks. One might be misled and think that Palestinians have stopped their attacks. Palestinians attempt more than three terrorist attacks a day against Israelis.

This statistic merely speaks to how many Israelis have died. If the amount of Palestinian terror attacks haven’t decreased, what has caused fewer Jewish deaths?

I’d suggest two causes have led to less Jewish deaths this past year than any year since 1964. First, God’s protection. When a Palestinian terrorist aims his car at Israelis and hits the gas pedal and the car malfunctions or a group of Palestinians working on a bomb trigger it too early and blow themselves up (as happened yesterday to four intelligence challenged Palestinian terrorists) that’s God’s Providence defending His people. Second, Israeli security forces have gotten better and better every year. From the horrible years of the second Palestinian intifada when over 1,000 Israelis were dying each year to this year with zero deaths, the security forces have done a better and better job each year.

It is important to note that there is never any excuse for Palestinian Arab terror. Often excused by Palestinian sympathizers as “resistance,” terrorism isn’t political activism, it is hate based violence. 67% of Palestinian Arabs support violence against Israelis. That is a nauseatingly high number of people who support violence.

Where does Palestinian hate come from? Many will argue it doesn’t matter. They maintain that we should call terror wrong and leave it at that. I maintain that the only way to stop hate is to understand it. Hate isn’t just a terrorist attack. Violence is hate put into action, but hate is a philosophy. When you hear West Bank Palestinians call for an end to the state of Israel, and when Gazan Palestinians call for the death of Jews, you’re witnessing a philosophy of hate being articulated.

(Continue to Full Post)

Almost humorous - PCHR tries to counter “Terrorists in Suits”–and can’t - by Elder of Ziyon

PCHR’s response is meant to give the impression that “Terrorists in Suits” is filled with inaccuracies, but in the end they cannot find anything specific that was incorrect! The entire purpose of the PCHR report is to make it look like they have a substantive response, knowing that most people will not actually read it and hoping that EU funders of these NGOs – who often look for any excuse to continue to fund these organizations to pretend they care about human rights - -will feel better about funding terrorist-infested organizations since they seemingly responded.

Elder of Ziyon..
25 August '20..

Last year Israeli’s Ministry of Strategic Affairs released “Terrorists in Suits,” which showed how many top members of anti-Israel NGOs were linked to terror groups, most often the PFLP but also Hamas.

Now, PCHR – one of the organizations targeted – has written a rebuttal report.

However, it doesn’t point out any inaccuracies!

For example, PCHR writes:

On February 2019, the Israeli Ministry of Strategic Affairs released a report titled “Terrorists in Suits”, accusing several Palestinian NGO’s, especially the human rights organizations, that attempting to eradicate the State of Israel. And they also posted about the directors of these institutions as they have relations with Palestinian organizations as “terrorists”, so they published Photoshopped pictures for some of them such as the Lawyer Raji al-Sourani, the director of PCHR, and Sha’wan Jabarin, general director of al-Haq.

The report alleges that it exhibits the connections between dozens of the human rights organizations and the so-called “terrorists” groups. It also attempted to create a connection between human rights organizations, BDS, Hamas Movement, and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP). The report is based on fake information in a misrepresented context regarding the former and decades old activities of human rights activists with Palestinian political parties. The report also claims that BDS and human rights organizations are attempting to deceive the world and hide behind a humanitarian and human rights facade to destroy the State of Israel, as it alleges that those organizations do not recognize “Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state”, and they aim to eradicate the State of Israel. The report used the membership of the Palestinian National and Islamic Forces, a political coalition of 15 Palestinian factions, in the BDS National Committee (BNC), which includes the Palestinian NGO Network (PNGO) , to paint its allegations as truths.

Note that PCHR doesn’t say that the report isn’t true. Because they can’t. Here is the Terrorists in Suits page they are referring to:

(Continue to Full Post)

Why does Israel's leader savoring a milestone achievement unhinge the Times? - by Andrea Levin

Notably, no other Middle East leader, however brutal to his own people or menacing to the region, is subjected to this kind of personal assault by the Times.

Andrea Levin..
CAMERA..
21 August '20..

Good news for Israel seems to prompt teeth-gnashing for some at the New York Times. The announced intention of the United Arab Emirates to normalize peaceful relations with the Jewish state was a diplomatic breakthrough cheered far and wide. But it triggered Jerusalem bureau chief David Halbfinger to let loose a fusillade of ad hominem smears of Israeli leader Benjamin Netanyahu. (August 13, 2020, “Netanyahu Drops Troubled Plan for Economic Gain”)

The reporter’s coverage notes, reasonably enough, the switch in national priorities from extending Israeli sovereignty in areas of the West Bank to, instead, suspending that effort in favor of opening relations with an Arab nation that had been an adversary. But the thrust of the story is not just that Netanyahu made a politically expedient shift or, less cynically, that he seeks a positive outcome for Israel and the region. Halbfinger attacks the leader’s demeanor, conduct and even his alleged inner feelings.

He insists to readers that Netanyahu is focused on himself and his legacy, saying the leader “craved a historic achievement to cap his tenure,” that he “exulted in a potential legacy,” and that he “saw as securing his legacy” the “annexing [of] West Bank territory.”

Undisclosed is how the reporter reads the mind and heart of the leader and distinguishes between exhilaration over this important breakthrough making Israel stronger and safer and the narcissistic, narrow motives Halbfinger discerns.

(Continue to Full Post)

EUBAM - Europe’s failed (and forgotten) Gaza monitors - by Gerald M. Steinberg

Forgotten in this historical reckoning is the European Union’s role in this process, and the failure of the EU to provide the guarantees they had pledged to fulfill in 2005.

Gerald M. Steinberg..
JPost/Opinion..
20 August '20..
Link: https://www.jpost.com/opinion/europes-failed-and-forgotten-gaza-monitors-opinion-639383

The 15-year anniversary of Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza has been accompanied by a wave of painful personal and political memoirs, amid a difficult debate on the wisdom of Ariel Sharon’s sudden policy shift.

The latest round of “balloon terrorism” from Gaza that is torching the fields and trees of southern Israel, and the periodic rocket attacks, sending thousands of Israelis into shelters in the middle of the night, are reminders that the hoped-for quiet was an illusion.

Instead of using the withdrawal as an opportunity for economic development to lift the people of Gaza out of poverty, the Palestinian leaders have diverted international aid into cross-border attack tunnels and rocket brigades.

Largely forgotten in this historical reckoning is the European Union’s role in this process, and the failure of the EU to provide the guarantees they had pledged to fulfill in 2005.

After Israel’s withdrawal, the EUBAM (European Union Border Assistance Mission) was deployed at the Rafah crossing point between Gaza and Egypt. The mission consisted of some 60 police and customs officials “to help bring peace to the area,” ostensibly by monitoring traffic in order to deter smuggling of weapons into Gaza.

According to the agreement between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, EUBAM would monitor the performance of the PA in operating the crossing and had the authority to order the re-examination of persons and goods that passed through the crossing if PA examinations proved unsatisfactory.
From the beginning, this EU monitoring presence was a failure, and far from demonstrating Europe’s potential contribution to peace, it demonstrated the chasm between high-minded talk and the reality of conflict and terrorism on the ground.

Weapons smuggling continued, and on December 30, 2005, a few weeks after their initial deployment, EUBAM monitors fled Rafah to the safety of an Israeli military base when Palestinian police officers stormed the crossing, in what was described for media and diplomatic consumption as a “protest demonstration”.

Three months later, the monitors fled once again following a wave of foreigner kidnappings in Gaza.

Fourth Estate Privilege: The Washington Post and Vox award land to the Palestinians - by Sean Durns

The media actively works to erase the Jewish people's historical and legal claims to the land of Israel. Recent articles by The Washington Post and Vox offer examples as to how. CAMERA takes a look at why.


Sean Durns..
CAMERA..
20 August '20..

“Who can challenge the rights of the Jews in Palestine?” Yusuf al-Khalidi wrote to the chief rabbi of France on March 1, 1899. “Good Lord, historically it really is your country.” Yet, more than a century after Khalidi’s admission, the Jewish people’s connection to their ancestral homeland is often forgotten. Indeed, many news outlets and analysts not only ignore it—they often attempt to erase it.

Take, for example, the Washington Post. The newspaper’s Aug. 13, 2020 report, “Trump announces historic peace agreement between Israel and the United Arab Emirates,” asserted that “Arab leaders had privately warned Trump that they could not agree to future economic or diplomatic ties with Israel if Israel took over land now considered Palestinian.” But the article, by reporter Anne Gearan and Jerusalem bureau chief Steve Hendrix, doesn’t say why the land is “now considered Palestinian.”

In fact, a sovereign Palestinian Arab state has never existed.

(Continue to Full Post)

A long time coming, but the center of gravity has shifted under the Palestinians’ feet - by Sarah N. Stern

My Muslim and Arab dissident friends tell me that the deep-seated preoccupation with the Palestinian cause that has united the Arab world until this day is being examined internally as an obsession that has held its own people back in their development as individuals and as nations. This obsession was best described by Egyptian Gen. Gamal Abdel Nasser when he called Arab children “bullets in the war machine.”

Sarah N. Stern..
JNS.org..
19 August '20..

The deal between Israel and the United Arab Emirates radically shook the ground in the Middle East and begrudgingly awakened the stale, tired, conventional wisdom of the policy establishment. For far too long, the Palestinian Authority has seen itself as the center of gravity and the final arbitrator of independent Arab governments who have wanted to open up to the public their “under the table,” warm relations with the Jewish state but have been held back by the stubborn, maximalist demands of the Palestinian Authority.

This has given far too much power over the years to the Palestinians to reject overtures of peace between Israel and its Arab neighbors, and has stood in the way of a great deal of progress that this region could have benefited from by partaking in what Israel has to offer.

Far too many in the Washington political establishment and the European Union have bought into the mistaken notion that the Palestinian issue is the lynchpin upon which peace between Israel and their Arab neighbors rests. This is surprising considering our long history of involvement in various wars in the Middle East, as well as our education about the myriad, tribal, internecine conflicts in the region.

Even prior to Israel’s birth in 1948, the Arab League rejected any presence of a Jewish state in the Middle East. After the Six-Day War in June 1967, when Israel was victorious in its defensive war on all sides, it had attempted to trade the land it conquered for peace. It brought that notion to a meeting with the Arab League in Khartoum, Sudan, several months later in August, and its response was the famous “Three No’s”: “No peace, no recognition and no negotiations with Israel.”

Meanwhile, the Palestinians have consistently proven that they have not negotiated in good faith.

I was in the audience of a Washington think tank on July 25, 2000—the day the Camp David talks between U.S. President Bill Clinton, Israel Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat broke up. Elyakim Rubenstein, who had been the Attorney General of the State of Israel, came to address the group. His words were: “There are people crying on the way to Ronald Reagan Airport right now because they felt if we just offered Arafat everything that he wanted, he simply could not refuse it. I can tell you that what we offered was as far as any responsible government could possibly go. In fact, some would argue that we were not being responsible. What we offered was: shared sovereignty over Jerusalem, with the Palestinian control of the Harem al Sharif (the “Temple Mount”), and Israel of the Western Wall; a land mass equal to 95 percent of the West Bank, plus Gaza, (which was still in Israel’s hands); and a ‘right of return’ for thousands of Palestinian refugees, with a monetary package to compensate for those Palestinians that did not want to return. Arafat did not say yes, and he did not say no. He simply walked away from the table.”

His response came a few months later in the form of a renewed intifada, in which more than 1,000 Israeli civilians lost their lives.

(Continue to Full Column)

Sarah N. Stern is founder and president of the Endowment for Middle East Truth (EMET), a pro-Israel and pro-American think tank and policy institute in Washington, D.C.

Who would've thought? Palestinians Join Iran-led Anti-Peace Camp - by Khaled Abu Toameh

By holding a political protest at the compound of the Al-Aqsa Mosque, Palestinians are not only desecrating the sanctity of the site, but also sending a warning to citizens of UAE not to visit Jerusalem or the mosque, as many apparently hoped to do....This warning shows that the Palestinians believe they have exclusive control over Islam's third-holiest site and are free to decide who can visit the site and who cannot. It is therefore the right time for Arabs and Muslims to step in to demand an end to Palestinian hegemony over the Al-Aqsa Mosque and other holy sites in Jerusalem.

Khaled Abu Toameh..
Gatestone Institute..
18 August '20..

The Palestinians have spent the past few months trying to persuade the international community, including Arab countries, to help prevent Israel from applying its sovereignty to portions of the West Bank.

Now that one of these countries – the United Arab Emirates – succeeded in striking a deal with Israel, according to which the Israeli plan to extend Israeli law to more land would be suspended, the Palestinians are waging an unprecedented campaign of defamation against the UAE and its de facto leader, Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Zayed.

Instead of thanking the UAE for managing to suspend the Israeli plan, Palestinians are protesting against the UAE because of its decision to normalize its relations with Israel. Palestinians have been burning UAE flags and photos of Bin Zayed and denouncing him as a "traitor," as well as accusing him of "stabbing the Palestinians and Arabs in the back" and "betraying Al-Aqsa Mosque, Jerusalem and the Palestinian cause."

The anti-UAE campaign, spearheaded by the Palestinian Authority (PA) and its president, Mahmoud Abbas, is being waged under the banner "Normalization [with Israel] is Treason."

This is the same Palestinian Authority whose leaders signed the Oslo Accord with Israel in 1993, engaged in peace talks with Israelis for nearly 20 years, ostensibly recognized Israel's right to exist and, until recently, even conducted security coordination with the Israeli security forces in the West Bank.

(Continue to Full Post)

While Palestinians reject every overture for peace, they are still the darlings of the international system - by Jonathan Schachter and Jonathan Schanzer

Countless Zoom calls will undoubtedly focus on ways to pressure Israel, even with annexation tabled. It's a safe bet that few, if any, will propose putting pressure where it belongs, on the side that began the conflict and that can end it.

Jonathan Schachter/Jonathan Schanzer..
Pundicity/JPost..
16 August '20..
Link: http://schanzer.pundicity.com/24470/palestinians-part-of-intl-system-despite

Last week's announcement about the normalization of relations between Israel and the UAE appears to have put annexation plans on ice. But the debate was revealing. The hand-wringing in America about annexation struck a stark contrast to Israelis and Palestinians, who have been more concerned about the second wave of COVID-19. When they do discuss the conflict, few if any believe renewed negotiations right now would bear fruit. The two sides are simply too far apart.

Most Israelis, including the prime minister, seek a negotiated end to the conflict, with an end to all claims. This is the outcome to which both sides committed in the Oslo Accords.

Yet, nearly 27 years after the iconic handshake on the White House lawn, many Palestinian leaders still dream of Israel's demise. Official clergy, Palestinian Authority media, government-issued textbooks, and diplomats all speak of Israel's destruction. The Palestinian Authority's strategy over the last decade has been to try imposing a solution on Israel without negotiating, compromising, or ending historic claims, which extend beyond the vaunted 1967 lines. Even the Palestinians' repeated calls for international conferences and the establishment of a state through UN resolutions are intended to perpetuate the conflict, not end it.

Of course, it would be poor form to adopt such a belligerent position explicitly. In English (and French), the Palestinians' spokespeople speak primarily and passionately of ending Israel's "occupation" of the West Bank. Sympathetic Western audiences have earnestly adopted and parroted this message to the point that it now holds little meaning.

Weaponizing Lies Like ‘Apartheid’ Against Israel Won’t Get You Peace - by Cade Spivey

To be clear, matters of Israeli-Palestinian sovereignty are not beyond debate. There are political, religious, and human rights issues that should be debated and considered very deliberately. But reducing one side or the other to terms that are the very embodiment of evil through ad hominem labels or inappropriately applied legal definitions is not helpful, and does not produce meaningful outcomes for people living these truths daily.

Cade Spivey..
Algemeiner..
17 August '20..

On a long drive from my native Indiana to to the state of Virginia, I listened to a podcast wherein the interview subject began with a fairly benign truism: “Words matter.”

The program, produced by Americans For Peace Now, began by stating that not every murder is a genocide and not all discrimination is apartheid. The interview then continued for another 30 minutes laying out a “legal” framework of apartheid, in order to shoehorn Israel into that definition, vis-à-vis Palestinian Arabs living in the West Bank.

I agree that words matter. The words we use to describe an issue directly influence the substance of a debate.

I further contend that facts matter, and that merely using legal terms to describe a legal framework does not establish facts independently. Law was not meant to be argued in the abstract.

The arguments made to establish Israel as an “apartheid state” on the podcast were irresponsible and unwarranted, and promoted key assertions that have become commonplace in the misinformed effort to establish Israel as an apartheid state.

The UN defines apartheid as “inhuman acts committed for the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them.”

The term was derived from the system of racial segregation imposed in South Africa from the late 1940s until 1994. Separation of the races was strictly enforced in public accommodation, trade, education, marriage, and even sexual acts. The purpose was to cement the power structures that existed at the end of the British colonization of the region.

The cynical invocation of the term is used in the hopes of eliciting a sympathetic response to the alleged victims — in this case, the Palestinian Arabs. When the term is used to describe Israel, it is as inappropriate an analogy as comparing apples to hand grenades.

(Continue to Full Column)

BTW, Remember the Arab boycott of Israel? It is still the official policy of the Arab League - by Elder of Ziyon

The Arab League is a living example of the Arab honor/shame mentality. It cannot officially accept that the world has changed since the days of the Arab oil embargo. Dismantling the Boycott Office would be an admission of “defeat.” And no one wants to show any cracks in Arab unity which would undermine the entire purpose of the Arab League. Since Syria prioritizes the BDS agenda, and no one opposes a paper committee that does nothing in reality, they continue to meet, twice a year, unwilling to say out loud that they are wasting their time.

Elder of Ziyon..
14 August '20..

This week was the 94th conference for the liaison officers of the regional offices of the Arab boycott of Israel that started before Israel was reborn.

The Arab League boycott of Israel has been in place since 1945, when the brand new organization said, “Products of Palestinian Jews are to be considered undesirable in Arab countries. They should be prohibited and refused as long as their production in Palestine might lead to the realization of Zionist political aims.”

Even though most Arab countries have stopped enforcing the boycott – the only exceptions now being Syria and Lebanon – the Central Boycott Office remains.

(Continue to Full Post)