How do Jordanians view the efforts to bring the Sbarro bomber to justice? - by Arnold Roth

Our comment: From the outset let it be clear. While the focus here is a woman who confesses publicly and repeatedly to bombing a restaurant filled with children, and who faces the likelihood of a lifetime sentence if she is ever put on trial in Washington DC, the author of this op ed is concerned with what this says about the view the United States has of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. The fugitive killer and what she did raises not a single word of criticism in what follows. There is a victim in this narrative according to the pundit who write this. That victim is Jordan. 

Arnold/Frimet Roth.. 

This Ongoing War.. 

28 July '20.. 

It doesn't matter which Arab publication carried the article below. Or the identity or credentials of the person who wrote it. Or that person's religious, ideological or political alignment. 

Those are among the lesser aspects that ought to be on people's minds as they consider its contents. 

We have read tens of such articles emanating mostly from Jordan but also from other parts of the Arab world since May 2020. (Some of them are here: "14-May-20: In Jordan, they stand with confessed bomber Tamimi. And they're worried...") 

That's when the Arab world awoke to the reality that the US government has Jordan-centric sanctions on its mind and is serious about them. (See "05-May-20: From Congress, concern about how Jordanians deal with the fugitive terrorist in their midst") 

Some years ago, we started scanning online Arabic-language news media daily with the help of online translation tools like Bing and Google Translate. In all that time, we have not uncovered even a single published article dealing with the cold-blooded 2001 bombing of a Jerusalem pizzeria because of the children inside that criticizes the bomber. And if we're wrong and such articles exist, please send us a link or a copy. Trust us, we will be glad to give it all the prominence it deserves. 

Ahlam Tamimi is the central figure in the pizzeria bombing horror. A Jordanian student who was 21 when she selected the crowded fast food shop as her target for her Hamas superiors, she personally planted the bomb - a human being with an explosives-laden guitar case on his back that included a large quantity of nails for their flesh-ripping feature - at the central Jerusalem site, a pizzeria of the US-based Sbarro chain. 

(Continue to Full Post)

Is Israel really a European colonial transplant? or... - by Bernard Lev

...or is it the Middle East’s most diverse nation

Bernard Lev..
Facts and Logic About the Middle East (FLAME..
28 July '20..
Link: https://www.factsandlogic.org/is-israel-a-european-colonial-transplant_or-is-it-the-middle-easts-most-diverse-nation/

We hear all too frequently the accusation that Israel is a white, European colonial transplant to the Middle East, pushing local indigenous Arabs from their territory.

In fact, Israel is itself a triumph of indigenous self-determination and national liberation, which today embraces the widest diversity of peoples in the Middle East—welcoming multiple ethnic origins, skin colors, religions and sexual identities.

Those who attempt to tar Israel with accusations of race- or even religious-based colonialism do so out of ignorance or malicious intent.

The Land of Israel has been for two thousand years the ancestral homeland of the Jewish people. Since the destruction of Jewish sovereignty in 70 CE until 1948, the Jewish people were forced into a long, difficult Diaspora—rife with expulsion, persecution and even enslavement. Many Jews remained in the Holy Land, however, forming an unbroken chain of Jewish presence in their national homeland.

Throughout the centuries, when the Land of Israel was occupied and colonized by foreign powers, large groups of Jews continued to return from all over the world when they had the opportunity, forming distinct, diverse and thriving communities throughout the country.

Surprising to some, today the majority of Jews in Israel do not have roots in Europe, but rather hail from the Middle East, Asia and North Africa. These are the descendants of Jews who never left the region and never stepped foot in Europe. There were Jews in Arabia before the advent of Islam, and Jews in Babylon before the Arab conquest and colonization beginning in the 7th century.

After the Arabs occupied the Middle East and North Africa around 639 BCE, Jews were forced into dhimmi status, forced to pay special taxes and had severe restrictions placed on them by their Muslim rulers.

Finally, during the 20th century, particularly upon the founding of Israel, these millennia-old Jewish communities were ethnically cleansed by Arab rulers.

Over 850,000 Jews from Arab countries were forced to flee their homes and communities rapidly, frequently with nothing but the clothes on their backs.

These exiles—mostly people of color—were welcomed home by the Jewish State, which was under increased military and economic pressure from the same Arab League nations that had emptied their nations of its Jews.

These Jews joined others who hailed from a diverse number of cultures and nations like India, Ethiopia, Azerbaijan, Afghanistan, China, and another 100 others.

(Excellent) Note to the EU and UN: The Palestinian leopard does not change its spots - by Charles Abelsohn

The time has come for the UN and the EU to recognize that the only parameter and framework relevant to Israel are that the Palestinian leopard has not, and apparently cannot and will not, change its spots. Both pre-1967 and post 1967, the Palestinian policy is for violence and terrorism against Israel`s very existence. The policies of the EU and UN strongly promote the Palestinians needing to be rewarded for their anti-Israel terrorism and violence since 1949.

Charles Abelsohn..
TOI Blog..
27 July '20

In 1948 the independent state of Israel was declared. The armies of several Arab armies invaded what was mandatory Palestine, intended to be the Jewish homeland under the San Remo Agreement. Much of Samaria and Judea was captured by the British officered, trained and supplied Trans-Jordanian forces. In 1949 cease fires were declared and armistice agreements entered into between Israel and several Arab states.

Trans-Jordan itself changed its name to Jordan and then renamed the captured area of Samaria and Judea as the West Bank. For the first time in its history, Jerusalem was divided. The Jordanians expelled the ancient Jewish community from the Jewish quarter of the Old City. The Holy Places, being the Western Wall, Rachel`s Tomb and the Temple Mount, were all held by Jordan and Jews and Israelis were not permitted access to their Holy Places despite provisions explicitly permitting access in the armistice agreement. In the Old City, now held by Jordan, 58 synagogues were destroyed and the ancient Jewish cemetery on the Mount of Olives desecrated. Egypt controlled and administered Gaza. The lines (not borders) between Jordan, Egypt and Syria and Israel were set out with a green pen in Armistice Agreements – hence the term “green lines” – without prejudice to the rights, claims and positions of either Israel or Jordan.

In 1967, the above areas were retaken by Israeli forces and Jews were again able to live in areas populated by Jews before their expulsion by Jordan in 1948 and Jews again had access to their Holy Places.

It is the return of Jews to the 6.4 km2 of the Old City of Jerusalem, the re-establishment of Jewish populations in Area C of the West Bank and the unification of Jerusalem (some may add Areas A & B as well; this aspect is not the subject of this article) which is generally referred to, as the “Israeli occupation”.

Since 1967, there has been considerable violence between the Palestinians and Israel. Most critics of Israel take the view “The cycle of violence between Israel and the Palestinians is triggered by the dynamics of the Israeli occupation”.

As shown above, there was no “Israeli occupation” between 1948 and 1967. Thus, according to this theme and outlook, since there was no “Israeli occupation”, these were the years of tranquility and Paradise Regained. The EU and the UN demand of Israel to return to the 1949 armistice lines so that peace and calm in the Middle East would be restored and the Israel – Arab conflict be deemed resolved. After all, the atmosphere in the Middle East before 5 June 1967 was idyllic. For the EU and UN, there was actually no good reason in 1967 for the UN to withdraw troops, for the Egyptians to impose a blockade on Eilat and for Egypt and Syria, subsequently joined by Jordan, to threaten Israel. Let`s just restore 4 June 1967 lines and all the “problems” will be resolved. It is really so simple.

Except that it is not.

(Continue to Full Post)

The time has come to call Nasrallah's bluff - by Prof. Eyal Zisser

Israel should reinstitute the same ironclad rule it applies to the Syrian arena, whereby any violation of Israeli sovereignty or attack on its soldiers is a red line that will be reinforced.

Prof. Eyal Zisser..
Israel Hayom..
27 July '20..
Link: https://www.israelhayom.com/opinions/514493/

From a position of unprecedented weakness and distress, Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah is back to his old gambling habits. Similar to the summer of 2006, he is now threatening to perpetrate a terrorist attack against Israel in response to the death of one of his operatives in Syria. At the time, Nasrallah's failed gambit triggered an all-out war, which exacted a terrible price from Lebanon and mainly the Shiite ethnic group he purports to represent. Nasrallah himself was forced to pay a heavy price: personal freedom. The man has been shuttered in his bunker ever since and doesn't see the light of day, and ever since Iranian general Qassem Soleimani was assassinated in January, Nasrallah, too, doesn't know if today will be his last day.

Nasrallah, however, is shackled to his equations, and because he feels he has no other option and fears Israel will interpret his moves as weakness, he feels obligated to retaliate and is willing risk a head-on clash with it. He hopes, of course, that he'll be able to control the flames and hopes the attack "ends without a hitch," with minimum casualties on the Israeli side – which will allow Israel to absorb the event and temper its own counter-response, as it has done in the past.

For this reason alone Israel should not play into Nasrallah's hands. Rather, it should nullify the equations he is seeking to dictate and present him with a clear red line he cannot cross.

During the Second Lebanon War, Israel was strung along by poor leadership that failed to bring the IDF's massive military advantage to bear. Instead of bringing Hezbollah to its knees, Israel was needlessly drawn into a 33-day war of attrition.

And yet, the results of that war sent a clear and decisive message to Hezbollah that Israel will no longer allow the terrorist group to violate its sovereignty and continue attacking it from Lebanese soil. The quiet that prevailed along the border with Lebanon was therefore an important achievement, and it's a fact that Hezbollah, battered and deterred, recognized that preserving this quiet was just as much in its own interest.

Another Day. Today’s Peter Beinart lie: “Palestinians have been excluded from mainstream US media” - by Elder of Ziyon

The truth is the exact opposite of his claim. But when someone is seeking attention for his immoral ideas, making things up is not unexpected.

Elder of Ziyon..
26 July '20..

Peter Beinart continues with his push to destroy Israel with another whopper of a lie.

“For decades, Palestinians have been largely excluded from the mainstream US media conversation about Israel-Palestine. That exclusion continues today, and represents one more form of Palestinian dispossession,” he tweeted.

Really?

Judging from the New York Times op-ed page since Arafat rejected Oslo, I see articles by

Marwan Barghouti
Saeb Erekat
Diana Buttu
Ahmed Abu Artema
Mahmoud Abbas
Hanan Ashrawi
Ali Abunimah
Ayman Odeh
Raja Shehadeh
Zena Agha
Daoud Kuttab
Yasir Arafat
Ali Jarbawi
Yousef Munayyer
Rashid Khalidi
Khalil Shikaki
Linda Sarsour
Zahi Khoury

I’m probably missing some. Most of these were in the past decade. Many of these have written articles more than once. (If you include the years before 2000, there are even more, like Edward Said and Mamdouh Aker. )

Not to mention that Rashida Tlaib has been all over the media since her election. Hanan Ashrawi and Saeb Erekat have been staples on TV news shows for decades.

Now, how many countries can claim to have had more citizens writing in US media?

(Continue to Full Post)

What Might We Expect From ‘Palestine’ - by Mitchell Bard

Since the UN Human Rights Council, along with other advocates of the two-state “solution,” say nothing about the current abuses, no one should expect them to care when they continue in Palestine. Instead of suddenly being scrutinized, Palestine will be treated with the same kid gloves as other serial human rights abusers such as Cuba, Saudi Arabia, and China.

Mitchell Bard..
Algemeiner..
23 July '20..

The love affair that so many politicians, peace processors, and pundits have with the creation of a Palestinian state never ceases to astonish. Advocates constantly justify support with solemn intonations about human rights, and yet they show no interest in how Palestinians are treated by Palestinians, independent of the “occupation.” It is folly to expect anything will improve in “Palestine,” which is more likely to follow the model of neighboring authoritarian regimes than Israeli democracy; nevertheless, two-staters envision a Shangri-La that must be created at all costs.

For a preview of life in Palestine, let’s look at what the State Department Human Rights report says about the Palestinian Authority (PA).

Start with the Palestinian idea of democracy. There have been no national elections in the West Bank and Gaza since 2006. President Mahmoud Abbas has remained in office despite the expiration of his four-year term in 2009, and has refused to hold an election, knowing he would lose (by some polls, more than 60% of Palestinians want him to resign). The Palestinian Legislative Council (PLC) has not functioned since 2007, and the PA Constitutional Court dissolved it in 2018. Gaza is controlled by Hamas, following a coup in 2007.

Here are some of the other low-lights from the report, with respect to the actions of PA authorities:

- Unlawful or arbitrary killings, torture, and arbitrary detention.
- Holding political prisoners and detainees, including as reprisal for participation in foreign investment conferences.
- Significant problems with the independence of the judiciary.
- Arbitrary or unlawful interference with privacy.
- Restrictions on free expression, the press, and the Internet, including violence, threats of violence, unjustified arrests and prosecutions
against journalists, censorship, and site blocking.
- Substantial interference with the rights of peaceful assembly and freedom of association, including harassment of non-governmental
organizations.
- Restrictions on political participation.
- Acts of corruption, violence, and threats of violence motivated by antisemitism.
- Violence and threats of violence targeting lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and intersex (LGBTI) persons.
- Forced child labor and child abuse.
- There are no laws against sexual harassment; and honor killings, though unlawful, continue.
- There is no law against human trafficking.

Sound good so far? Here’s what the report says about the situation in Gaza under Hamas:

(Continue to Full Column)

Mitchell Bard is a foreign policy analyst and authority on US-Israel relations.

Surprise? PA falsely blames Israel for Coronavirus spike while inventing an alternate reality - by Maurice Hirsch, Adv

One thing is clear: For the PA, the Coronavirus crisis is just another excuse to promote hatred of Israel, even to the detriment of the international fight against the virus.

Maurice Hirsch, Adv..
Palestinian Media Watch..
21 July '20..

Since the beginning of the Covid-19 pandemic, the PA has inverted reality. The PA has repeatedly blamed Israel for the spread of the Coronavirus, never telling its people that Israel has given hundreds of tons of equipment as well as ongoing medical training to the PA to prevent the spread of the virus, as reported by Palestinian Media Watch.

As the PA is experiencing a second wave of the virus, the PA has initiated a second wave of libels coming from different PA leaders.

One example is the libel of Chairman of the PA-funded Prisoners’ Club Qadura Fares, who accused Israel of deliberately trying to spread the virus within the PA:

“[Israel] is striving to spread the Coronavirus via the invasion of soldiers who are likely to be sick into Palestinian homes and mixing with the civilians and prisoners.” 

 [Official PA daily Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, July 17, 2020]

Another example was delivered by Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Muhammad Shtayyeh, who gave two different explanations for the rise in the number of infected with the virus. On the one hand, Shtayyeh resorted to the PA’s standard excuse – blame Israel. On the other, he attributed the blame to Palestinian weddings and mourners’ tents.

Israel is to blame, according to Shtayyeh, due to the movement of people and goods from Israel and Jordan across the 1949 armistice lines:

“The [PA] government will send a request to the UNTSO (UN Truce Supervision Organization) UN forces to supervise the movement at the crossings located on the June 4, 1967 borders (i.e., 1949 armistice lines) in order to control the entry and exit to and from the State of Palestine… The main reason for the severe trend of increase of the Coronavirus… is the fact that the Palestinian [PA] Security Forces are being prevented [by Israel] from fulfilling their role and supervising the movement at these crossings… The fact that we do not control the crossings and borders – in addition to the occupation’s measures – is the main reason for the increase in the number of those infected with the Coronavirus.” 

[Official PA daily Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, July 7, 2020]

These statements are a product of the PA’s desire to promote hatred of Israel and inventing an alternative reality, in which the 1949 armistice lines are “borders” of the “State of Palestine,” that the PA must control.

Firstly, the 1949 armistice line between Israel and Jordan was never a “border”, as the website of the UNTSO clearly states:

(Continue to Full Post)

Question: As Racial Tensions Boil Over, Are Car Rammings In Israel Covered Differently? - by Gidon Ben Zvi

Car ramming is no longer a distant Israeli story. Today, people around the world are increasingly being exposed to this brand of terrorism. They deserve to know the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Ignoring, glossing over, or misrepresenting car ramming attacks in Israel makes it difficult for people in other democratic societies to get a proper perspective as to the severity and scope of the problem.

Gidon Ben Zvi..
Honest Reporting..
20 July '20..

Over the past months, as renewed anti-police violence protests have spread across the US, dozens of drivers have accelerated into the crowds. Vehicle rammings first gained popularity in the United States as a violent anti-protest tactic during the early waves of Black Lives Matter street-blocking protests in 2015. In Europe as well, terror-ramming attacks have increased over the last five years. And since 2015, there have been over 80 vehicular ramming attacks in Israel.

But if the amount of vehicular attacks being perpetrated around the world is increasing, why are rammings that take place in Israel either not covered by the international media, or grossly misrepresented?

Car rammings: A growing first-world problem

Most other types of terrorist attacks occur in conflict zones in the developing world. However, most vehicle ramming attacks occur in developed countries. Europe and the United States account for more than half of the recent attacks. But it was Israel that was the canary in the coal mine. Ramming attacks did not become a terrorist tactic until the 1990s, when Palestinians started carrying out vehicular assaults in Israel.

According to counter-terrorism expert Daveed Gartenstein-Ross, terrorists began using vehicles as weapons in Israel partly because, “the security barrier is fairly effective, which makes it hard to get bombs into the country.” By 2016, vehicle ramming attacks had evolved from a statistically rare event to become the second most-common form of terror attack in Israel and the second-deadliest form of attack carried out by Palestinian assailants.

As for individual countries, Israel and the Palestinian Territories lead with 41 attacks, followed by the United States with 39 attacks, China with 28, France with 14, and the United Kingdom with 10.

Vehicular attacks in Israel: Wherefore art thou media?

Even though the international press is well aware of the car ramming phenomenon, and has reported on it extensively, it tends to go MIA when it comes to coverage of vehicular attacks inside Israel. In this case, a lack of reporting is as much of a breach in journalistic ethics as biased coverage. By choosing to report certain events over others, or withholding key details, the media controls access to information. When news organizations neglect to report on a car ramming in Israel, it’s engaging in a subtle yet highly effective form of media bias, selective omission.

(Continue to Full Post)

Erdoğan latest threats illustrate anew the danger of allowing divided sovereignty in Jerusalem.- by Jonathan S. Tobin

The point here is not only to bring attention to the revanchist Islamist spirit that Erdoğan’s boasts represent. Nor is it to highlight the fact that even Muslim liberals like Akyol are unable to be honest about the way Judaism’s holiest site was converted into a Muslim shrine that is inviolable in the view of world opinion. Rather, it is to point out the only way Jewish access to holy sites in Jerusalem, as well as that of other faiths, will be preserved is by ensuring that the city is not redivided as advocates of a two-state solution with the Palestinians insist must happen.

Jonathan S. Tobin..
JNS.org..
20 July '20..

To understand just how dishonest the discussion about Jerusalem is conducted in venues where Israel is regarded with hostility like The New York Times, you need to start by discussing events in Istanbul, Turkey.

Last week, the regime of Turkish authoritarian President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan moved to turn the clock back to 1453, when the Muslim Ottomans besieged the city then known as Constantinople. It was all that was left of the once-mighty Byzantine Empire that ruled much of the region as the successor to ancient Rome in the eastern Mediterranean. When the city fell after a 53-day siege, the attacking forces engaged in an orgy of murder, rape and destruction. But in the aftermath of the battle, the Ottoman Turks not only made the city their capital over which their empire would rule until the end of World War I. They also converted the city’s largest cathedral—the Hagia Sophia, which was the center of Eastern Orthodox Christian worship—into a mosque.

The action was typical of conquerors in that era, as well as in ancient times, in which the symbolism of triumphant imperialistic Islam was obvious. But in the 20th century when Turkey became a secular republic after the fall of the Ottomans, the Hagia Sophia was turned into a museum as part of secularist-leaning Kemal Atatürk and his efforts to put Islamic extremism in the past.

A century later, Erdoğan is determined to consign such enlightened attitudes to the dustbin of history. The Turkish leader’s ambition to be the leader of the Islamic world is also motivating him to engage in the sort of gestures that will prop up notions about maintaining Islam’s domination of the region.

In the same statement, he added that the reimposition of Muslim worship on the Hagia Sophia is “the harbinger of the liberation of Masjid al-Aqsa [the Al-Aqsa Mosque on Jerusalem’s Temple Mount].” That’s a call for throwing Israel out of Jerusalem and the spot holiest in Judaism. That this incendiary comment came during the period when religious Jews begin the period of mourning for the destruction of the ancient Temple culminating on Tisha B’Av is probably coincidental but still chilling.

(Continue to Full Column)

(Fascinating) Twenty years ago today, I participated as a member of the Israeli delegation to the Camp David Summit - Danny Ayalon

...By that moment we knew it was all over. There would be no deal. Barak was silent, contemplating the end of his political career. But Clinton was up in arms. He became angry and raised his voice: "Never a Jewish Temple? Mr. Chairman, do you mean to tell me that my Bible is wrong?"

Danny Ayalon @DannyAyalon..
17 July '20..
Link: https://twitter.com/DannyAyalon/status/1284112311033233415

A fascinating Twitter thread from Danny Ayalon, 17 July '20

20 years ago today, I participated as a member of the Israeli delegation to the Camp David Summit. Holding the foreign policy portfolio in the Prime Minister's Office, I arrived in advance to meet with Sandy Berger and other key officials to prepare for this trilateral gathering.

A few days later, President Clinton arrived with Prime Minister Barak and Chairman Arafat. I warned Barak this maybe nothing more than a photo-op. Despite entering into negotiations, Palestinians still took anti-Israel resolutions to the UN and incited violence against Israelis.

Clinton sat in his armchair, wearing eyeglasses, taking notes in a yellow notepad. Barak began making concessions. Another day, another concession. Yet Arafat didn't move. He sat like a sphinx. Clinton got angry: "Mr. Chairman, this isn't how you negotiate. Give a counter-offer."

But Arafat didn't give a counter-offer. He either sat still or rejected what was offered. Meanwhile, back home in Israel, Barak faced enormous political pressure. Barak knew if he returned to Israel without a deal, his political career would be over. He was desperate for a deal.

Late one night, Barak summoned the Israeli delegation to his cabin. He informed us that he would be putting Jerusalem on the table. You could see the tears in his eyes. This was clearly something he didn't want to. Nearly all of us advised him against this. But he insisted on it.

The next morning, Barak went ahead and put Jerusalem on the table. Clinton was shocked - the Israelis, including his chaver Yitzhak Rabin, had always spoken of a united Jerusalem. Barak offered East Jerusalem as well as 3/4 of the Old City, minus the Kotel and the Jewish Quarter.

"What about Al-Aqsa and Haram al-Sharif?" Arafat asked, referring to the Temple Mount. Thinking to myself, I was certain Barak would surely keep it under Israeli sovereignty. Clinton clearly also expected the same. It's the holiest site in Judaism. But Barak surprised us again.

Barak, a mathematician by training, offered Arafat "split-sovereignty" over the Temple Mount. Israel would be sovereign underground, where there are archaeological remnants of two Jewish Temples. The Palestinians would be sovereign above ground, with Dome of the Rock and Al Aqsa.

Clinton was excited. For him, this was an amazing offer. Better than he had ever hoped for. He would surely win a Nobel Prize. But Arafat sat still for nearly a minute. Clinton's excitement ceased. He had a stern look on his face. He turned to Arafat: "Mr. Chairman, your answer?"

Aside from the zero chance that the Palestinians would accept Beinart’s binational Disneyland - by Steve Frank

Although the reaction to Beinart’s latest vision has been mixed, most reasonable people agree on one thing: it will never happen. That is because, for different reasons, it is totally unacceptable to both parties to the conflict. It might be a diverting thought experiment for Beinart and his fellow academicians on the Upper West Side, but it is totally divorced from reality to those who have skin in the game, i.e., the Palestinians and Israelis.

Steve Frank..
JNS.org..
16 July '20..

Peter Beinart, the enfant terrible of Zionism, is at it again.

The darling of the progressive left has long been an ardent advocate of the “two-state solution” to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but in a jaw-dropping recent op-ed in The New York Times, with the click-bait title “I No Longer Believe in a Jewish State,” calls for abandoning it in favor of the more extreme “one state solution.” As JNS editor-in-chief Jonathan Tobin acutely observes, “that state is not Israel.”

Instead, Beinart proposes dismantling the 72-year-old State of Israel and replacing it with a hypothetical “Jewish-Palestinian binational state” in which he concedes Jews would be a minority. But he nevertheless insists, with a straight face, that the Jews would fare well in a democratic regime under their Muslim rulers.

Even Beinart realizes he has crossed a “red line” with his latest epiphany. In the longer version of his proposal (“Yavne: A Jewish Case for Equality in Israel-Palestine,” published in Jewish Currents), he acknowledges that:

“Questioning Israel’s existence as a Jewish state is … akin to spitting in the face of people I love and betraying institutions that give my life meaning and joy. Besides, Jewish statehood has long been precious to me, too. So I’ve respected certain red lines.”

No more. Beinart now has irrevocably crossed that line. His latest—and likely final—solution to the conflict has been greeted with glee by some and denounced by others as beyond the pale.

Although the reaction to Beinart’s latest vision has been mixed, most reasonable people agree on one thing: it will never happen. That is because, for different reasons, it is totally unacceptable to both parties to the conflict. It might be a diverting thought experiment for Beinart and his fellow academicians on the Upper West Side, but it is totally divorced from reality to those who have skin in the game, i.e., the Palestinians and Israelis.

(Continue to Full Column)

A reply to the honorable PM Boris Johnson - by Julio Messer

In closing, Honorable Prime Minister, there are many factors that Israel should weigh when considering whether to apply sovereignty to parts of Judea and Samaria, as contemplated by the “Peace to Prosperity” plan. The notion that “the U.K. has always stood by Israel and its right to live as any nation should be able to, in peace and security,” unfortunately, is not one of them.

Julio Messer..
JNS.org..
14 July '20..

Dear Prime Minister:

Your friendship and “profound attachment to the State of Israel” are undoubted and highly appreciated. It is a sad fact of life, however, that great prime ministers like you come and go and, as one of your predecessors put it with brutal frankness, “[n]ations do not have permanent friends or enemies, only interests.” A brief review of the ebb and flow of the United Kingdom’s support for the Jewish state over the past century proves his point.

Thus, while the U.K. “favour[ed] the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people” in the Balfour Declaration (1917), less than four years later, Colonial Secretary Winston Churchill detached from Palestine the territory east of the Jordan River and bestowed it to Emir Abdullah—in violation of the San Remo Resolution, to which the U.K. was a signatory.

Shortly thereafter, the U.K. accepted from the League of Nations the “Mandate for [the remainder of] Palestine” and undertook to “facilitate … close settlement by Jews on the land.” But instead of implementing this mandate, the U.K. issued White Papers in 1930 and 1939 that severely limited Jewish immigration to Palestine with tragic consequences for millions of Jews forced to remain in Europe.

In 1956, after Egypt blockaded Israel’s port of Eilat (an act of war), the U.K. rallied to Israel’s side. But in 1973, after Egypt (and Syria) attacked Israel on Yom Kippur, the U.K. not only imposed an embargo on arms transfers to Israel, it refused to provide landing rights for U.S. aircraft to refuel on their way to supplying the Israeli military with much-needed supplies.

(Continue to Full Column)

(From Ima) To my captain, as he leaves the army - by HaDassah Sabo Milner

You have served your army and your country so well – now it is time for you to serve in a different capacity. You will do your reserve army duty, sure, but you will now start living a civilian life that is good and wholesome. I am so excited for your future. With love from your biggest fan, Ima xoxo

HaDassah Sabo Milner..
TOI Blog..
12 July '20..

Twelve years ago, in September of 2008, I stood with you at the Kotel in Jerusalem, your first time there. You turned to me with tears in your 13-year-old eyes and told me that you belonged here, in Israel, and that when you were 18 you would make aliyah and join the army.

Five years later you made aliyah, keeping your promise to yourself, and setting out to live your own life on your own terms. The whole country of Israel saw your aliyah flight on the TV news that night, and watched your mother bawl her eyes out as you took your leave.

Six years, two months and 19 days. That has been the length of your army service. All that time ago when you enlisted, and became a private in the IDF – who would have imagined that you’d be in the army for so long, and end your army career ranked a Captain?

Who knew that you would see two of your younger brothers make aliyah and join the army after you and finish before you? Who knew that all three of you would become experts in blowing things up? All of you became combat engineers…. The Dergel boys, blowing sh!t up legally since 2014…

Soon you will be cutting your choger / army ID card (I will cut mine too. After being a card-carrying army mama for over six years I totally get to do it as well) signifying the end of your service, and the beginning of civilian life. You can be relieved that you no longer have to answer to higher ranks, nor do you have to be responsible for a group of soldiers in your care. Your mama can be relieved that now she can sleep at night, not having to worry about you in the army. (She won’t because she now has other newer worries…. But that’s her deal)

Being a soldier has defined you and your life for the last few years. Civilian life, while so free of certain kinds of responsibility that you are used to, has other responsibilities, ones which I know you will live up to. You learned so much about yourself as a soldier, and then as an officer. You matured, you grew up, you evolved.

I have many memories of your army service — most I cannot share in a public forum and I really do not want to have to get the army censors involved. One thing that sticks out is from when you were a newbie soldier dealing with the way the army was run. “Ima,” you said, “we need you to come out here and organize the army. You could run this so much better.”

(Continue to Full Post)

The World of One-Stater Israel-Haters: Attacking Jewish Human Rights in the Name of Morality - by Elder of Ziyon

Sometimes, though, the one-stater Israel-haters are forced to answer the question about Jewish human rights directly. And their response is simply, yeah, that might be a problem, but we hope it won’t be that bad, and anyway it is a small price to pay for their vision of a world without Israel.

Elder of Ziyon..
10 July '20..

The Israel-haters, a category that we must now add Peter Beinart to, use the argument that the imperative of Palestinian human rights demands a one-state solution with a natural Arab majority and Jewish minority.

The basic problem with the thesis that a one-state solution is the only way to give Palestinians the human rights they deserve is that this same “solution” would ensure that Jews lose the human rights they deserve.

The issue isn’t human rights. Everyone supports human rights. The issue is how to balance competing human rights of two different groups. But the Israel haters don’t want you to think about that problem – they want to emphasize the Palestinian human rights issue and they do everything possible to avoid the obvious fact that Jews would not do well under any Arab majority government. They also avoid the equally obvious fact that Palestinians under “occupation” are in far better shape than Jews would be under Arab rule.

Why is this obvious? Just look at how Christians are doing in the Arab world. They are oppressed and fleeing as fast as they can.

Arab Muslims hate Jews much more than they hate Christians.

Sometimes, though, the one-stater Israel-haters are forced to answer the question about Jewish human rights directly. And their response is simply, yeah, that might be a problem, but we hope it won’t be that bad, and anyway it is a small price to pay for their vision of a world without Israel.

(Continue to Full Post)

Does Beinart seriously believe that Hamas and Islamic Jihad would be disarmed in his fantasy state? Does he care? - by Elder of Ziyon

Peter Beinart is supremely concerned over what he sees as Jewish mistreatment of Palestinians yet shows literally zero concern over the certainty – not probability, but certainty - that his plan will result in massive Arab abuse of Jews.

The New York Times published
a similar op-ed in 2009 for a
one-state solution

Elder of Ziyon..
09 July '20..

Peter Beinart has gotten a lot of press this week over his essays in the far-Left Jewish Currents and the increasingly far-Left New York Times opinion pages for his proposal that instead of a two-state solution, the preferred outcome is a Jewish “homeland” in a single state that would presumably be called “Palestine.”

This is of course not a new idea. In 1947, when Arabs faced the possibility that the UN would vote for partitioning the land and creating a Jewish state, they suddenly declared that they were interested in a “bi-national” state with the Jews – predicated on the idea that Jewish immigration must end first, which would ensure an Arab majority in any election.

The more modern version of the idea espoused by many English-speaking Arabs also emphasizes to their Western audiences that a one state solution with equal rights is wonderful, as long as millions of Arabs with Palestinian ancestry are first allowed to flood the area and ensure that there is an Arab majority in any election.

Another version of the plan is Iran’s, where only the Jews whose families were in Palestine before 1917 would be allowed to vote.

The New York Times published a similar op-ed in 2009 for a one-state solution. It’s author was that famous peacemaker, Libyan dictator Muammar Qaddafi, where he actually pretended to be proposing this plan for Jews’ security:

A two-state solution will create an unacceptable security threat to Israel. An armed Arab state, presumably in the West Bank, would give Israel less than 10 miles of strategic depth at its narrowest point.

Obviously Jews should live next to Arabs who want to kill them rather than across a border. See how much he cared?

(Continue to Full Post)

Maybe Thirteen Years of Hamas Rule is Why Gazans are Committing Suicide - by Khaled Abu Toameh

Hamas, after 13 years of criminal negligence, rejects responsibility for the wellbeing of its people. Astoundingly, it continues to succeed in convincing the world that Israel is to blame for the misery of its own people. This convenient and toxic lie enables it to continue receiving money and weapons from its friends in Iran and Hezbollah to tighten its death grip on the Gaza Strip. For Hamas, jihad (holy war), not a decent life for its people, is what matters. Tragically, it seems that young Palestinians in Gaza are getting the message -- loud and clear.

Khaled Abu Toameh..
Gatestone Institute..
08 July '20..

The Palestinian terror group Hamas is making a serious effort to prevent journalists from reporting about a surge in suicide rates in the Gaza Strip. Hamas does not want the world to know that young men and women living under its rule in the Gaza Strip, have, as a result of economic hardship and oppression, been taking their own lives.

In the past week alone, four Palestinians from the Gaza Strip reportedly committed suicide in separate incidents -- by gunfire, pills, self-immolation, and jumping from a tall building. The suicides have embarrassed Hamas, whose leaders decided to take strict measures to stop the news from leaking to the media.

Thirteen years after its violent takeover of the Gaza Strip, Hamas is still seeking to present a rosy picture of the situation there. Hamas wants to show the world that life for many Palestinians under its Islamic rule and repressive measures is wonderful.

The reality, however, is a bit different. Under Hamas control, the Gaza Strip has suffered from rising unemployment, elevated poverty rates, and a sharp contraction of the private sector.

Since 2017, the Palestinian Authority government in the West Bank has reduced payments for electricity supplied by Israel to the Gaza Strip and cut salaries for its employees, exacerbating the local economic crisis. Since 2014, Egypt's crackdown on the Gaza Strip's extensive tunnel smuggling network has exacerbated fuel, construction material, and consumer goods shortages.

Last year, Palestinian activists took to the streets of the Gaza Strip to protest economic hardship and demand that Hamas provide solutions for soaring unemployment and poverty rates. The protests, held under the banner "We want to live!," were brutally suppressed by Hamas's security forces and militiamen. Hundreds of activists were detained by Hamas, which saw the economic protests as part of a "conspiracy" to "create instability and anarchy" and undermine its dictatorial regime in the Gaza Strip.

One of the organizers of the protests was Sleman Alajoury, a 24-year-old activist and unemployed university graduate from the northern Gaza Strip. Alajoury was detained several times by Hamas for his role in the widespread protests, described as the worst since Hamas seized control of the Gaza Strip after toppling the government of PA President Mahmoud Abbas in 2007.

On July 4, one year after the protests were crushed by Hamas, Alajoury's body was discovered inside his home in the Sheikh Zayed suburb in the northern Gaza Strip. His friends and family members said that the young man had committed suicide with a single shot to the head.

(Continue to Full Post)

Massive Illegal Construction as an Outcome of Israel’s Self-Imposed “White Paper” - by Maj. Gen. (res.) Gershon Hacohen

Israel’s National Outline Plan (NOP 35) has effectively frozen Jewish settlement in the Galilee and the Negev and spurred massive illegal building and land occupancy by the Negev’s Bedouin community. Without renewed Jewish settlement momentum in the land that is still available, the police and law enforcement agencies will be unable to alter this unlawful reality.

Maj. Gen. (res.) Gershon Hacohen..
BESA Center Perspectives Paper No. 1,630..
07 July '20..
Link: https://besacenter.org/perspectives-papers/israel-white-paper/

It is a historical irony that nearly a century after a string of British White Papers (in 1922, 1930, and 1939) sought to thwart the Jewish national rebirth by imposing draconian restrictions on Jewish land purchase and settlement—in flagrant violation of Britain’s obligation under a 1922 League of Nations mandate to facilitate the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine—an official Israeli national development plan is effectively having exactly the same effect.

Approved by the government in 2005, the National Outline Plan (NOP 35) seeks to guide Israel’s spatial development in the first two decades of the 21st century while taking into account demographic forecasts, spatial infrastructure, and trends in land and site preservation. In reality, the plan has effectively frozen Jewish settlement in the Galilee and the Negev, leading in turn to massive illegal building and land occupancy by Bedouin in the Negev.

The police, the military, and the other law enforcement agencies suffer from a perennial shortage of manpower and resources, and from the lack of a regular presence in these lands. What is required is the constant, active presence of Jewish farmers and residents as well as an ongoing momentum of legal expansion.

The approval and implementation of the National Outline Plan as a long-term master plan was an under-the-radar revolution. Who doesn’t want to preserve green spaces and protect them from development and construction? Under the cover of a seemingly irreproachable idea, a quiet revolution was conducted.

When it comes to Israel, the Washington Post swings and misses (again) - by Michael Berenhaus

When will the Post give up their fear-mongering and prognostication about something that they have been so consistently wrong about? You’d think they would know better—and leave their crystal ball at home.

Michael Berenhaus..
JNS.org..
06 July '20..

In the June 30 article “Jericho fears its vision for peace could soon be lost,” The Washington Post airs its latest speculation about what “could” result from an Israeli action. In so doing, the daily newspaper stokes fear about something that will most likely not occur at all or not cause nearly as much damage as the Post alarmingly predicts.

In its latest apparition, the newspaper once again quotes a Palestinian (or simply declares), saying that the Israeli action du jour will foil the chance for peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians as if it were a fait accompli. In this article, the Post predictably quotes the widely cited Palestinian negotiator and propagandist Saeb Erekat, who said that the declaration of Israeli sovereignty over parts of the West Bank, including his birthplace Jericho, will be “the lowest point of Palestinian-Israeli relations in the past few decades.”

The Washington Post reported that Erekat, now “secretary general of the Palestine Liberation Organization,” was born in Jericho and “can trace his family’s history in the biblical town back many generations.” To The Post’s credit, the very next day, on July 1, the editors did publish a correction stating that Erekat was not, in fact, born in Jericho, but in Abu Dis. So Erekat’s continuous sympathy crusade for the Palestinian movement is once again rife with non-truths.

The Post also had the temerity to quote another Palestinian, Bassam Abu Sharif, who also claimed a connection to Jericho. Abu Sharif, according to the report, is “a one-time militant known for a string of airplane hijackings in the 1970s.” A “string” sounds like more than a “one-time” occurrence and wouldn’t “terrorist” be a better description of a professional airplane hijacker than “militant”?

(Continue to Full Column)

(Excellent) With or without sovereignty - by Liat Collins

According to common wisdom, if Israel extends sovereignty to include the nearly half a million Jews living in communities in Judea and Samaria, while leaving the majority of the territory and the Palestinians in the PA’s control, this will be considered as an illegal and discriminatory act. That the Palestinian Authority won’t agree to having Jewish communities in its midst somehow is not perceived as problematic. The Palestinian demand that nearly 500,000 Jews be removed is not considered a call for ethnic cleansing. The Palestinians definitely don’t want to feel any Jewish presence. They want to be and feel judenrein.

Liat Collins..
My Word/JPost..
03 July '20..
Link: https://www.jpost.com/opinion/my-word-with-or-without-sovereignty-633663

A particularly useful Hebrew phrase keeps coming to mind lately: “Lalechet im u’lahargish bli,” “To go with and feel without.” It entered the Hebrew lexicon as an advertising slogan for a bra. As a marketing tool, however, it fell flat. Not many corporations can get away with a slogan that doesn’t mention the company name. Over time, most Israelis forgot what company and then what product it originally referred to. Meanwhile, the phrase took on a life of its own – like Nike’s “Just do it!” became a trademark that left its mark way beyond the world of footwear.

Over the years, the popular Hebrew catchphrase even became reversible and “To go without and feel with” – lalechet bli u’lahargish im – is equally part of the local lingo. The advertising copywriter who first came up with the concept could rightly say: “If I had a shekel for every time I heard the phrase, I’d be rich.”

Over the last few weeks, “Lalechet im u’lahargish bli” could have served as the succinct title of many news stories. Take the so-called unity government, which is anything but united – and seems more dedicated to infighting than fighting the coronavirus pandemic, which was the ostensible reason for its creation.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reluctantly agreed to join with Blue and White leader Benny Gantz, but clearly he prefers to go with him while trying to ignore him. Alternate Prime Minister Gantz – a “to feel with and go without” mirror title if ever there was one – evidently feels the same.
But it was with the intensifying discussions of the extension of Israeli law to areas of Judea and Samaria that the catchphrase really came into its own. The July 1 date from which sovereignty could begin to be enacted has come and gone, but no one really knows what the full plan entails. Nonetheless, the title “To go with and feel without” suits the diplomatic effort almost as much as the better known “Deal of the Century” or “Peace to Prosperity” vision.

The Palestinian Authority has rejected the plan outright. The Palestinian leadership is not even willing to discuss it. Theirs is a classic case of going with and feeling without. Actually, it’s a classic case of chutzpah. The PA has both declared itself a state – one recognized by more than 130 UN member states – and yet, with UN support, the “State of Palestine” continues to declare that its subjects are perpetual refugees. If Israel goes ahead with the sovereignty/annexation plan, which affects 30% of the disputed territory, the PA warns that it won’t be responsible for the results: not for any violence against Israelis and not for the well-being and welfare of the Palestinians in the other 70%. In effect, the Palestinians are saying we have a state; we don’t have a state; we want a state; but if we don’t get a state – without preconditions – then we want Israel to be responsible for us instead. (Regular readers know that I favor some form of Jordanian option, linking the Palestinians to their Sunni, Arabic-speaking brethren in the Hashemite Kingdom, which has a Palestinian majority but wants to feel without.) Either way – with or without annexation – sadly, the Palestinians don’t seem likely to give up the threat and use of violence to get their way (which is the main reason Jordan doesn’t want to link its fate to them).

The unwritten constitution of the State of Israel, the one that begins with "Go from your country … to the land that I will show you" - by Nadav Shragai

Future sovereignty in Judea and Samaria, like areas of the country that are already under Israeli sovereignty, is part of our national security in its broadest sense, because the question isn't only how we defend our existence, but also why we exist.

Nadav Shragai..
Israel Hayom..
03 July '20..
Link; https://www.israelhayom.com/opinions/because-it-is-our-right/

A now-forgotten media debate that took place over 30 years ago is still relevant today. A group of highly decorated generals, retired career military, argued authoritatively that the settlements were of no value from a security and defense standpoint. The next day, Devar, the daily mouthpiece of the Histadrut Labor Federation, published a response from Cpl. (res.) Naomi Sapir. Sapir, better known as Naomi Shemer, threw cold water on the generals' opinion, as well as calm on the outraged settlers.

"Kibbutz Kinneret [Shemer's birthplace] has no security value, only Zionist value," the poet wrote.

"When Benzion Israeli went up there with two friends one pale morning, he didn't do so for reasons of security, only for Zionist reasons. It's lucky that no retired general was running after him with a security yardstick. The general would certainly kick all three out of there, and it's doubtful we'd have an IDF at all, or retired generals who issue security 'declarations,'" she wrote.

The fundamental principle in which Shemer believed, which is so lacking in the current discourse about sovereignty, was that "the Land of Israel belongs to the Jewish people … regardless of conditions or temporary ownership of territory, regardless of the essence of a passing rule or a question such as how many Jews are living in the Land of Israel at any given moment," as she wrote in Ma'ariv in December 1975.

That, if you will, is the unwritten constitution of the State of Israel, the one that begins with "Go from your country … to the land that I will show you" (Genesis 12:1) and continues on to "the hope that is 2,000 years old" and the genetic code of "If I forget thee, O Jerusalem." Even the League of Nations recognized that genome 100 years ago as "the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine" and "the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country" and the Jewish right to "settle in any place in the west of Palestine, between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea."

The fuss over sovereignty now lacks these foundations. We are tossed around morning and night by floods of information about the economic and security damage that will be visited upon us when sovereignty is applied. We are busy with simulations and assessments in attempts to gauge the responses of Europe, the Arabs, the Palestinians, and Hamas, but we are ignoring one thing: our right.

The Palestinians, on the other hand, are focused on rights – their own. They aren't afraid to kiss the furrows of "their land," to lie endlessly about their past here, falsify history, and wave keys to the homes where their forefathers lived. Our language, however, has become poor and diluted. Security is important but doesn't come before everything else. We cannot stake a claim for international legitimacy to Hebron and the Jordan Valley or even Beersheba without the Bible, the patriarchs and matriarchs, and the Temple Mount and the City of David; without Rachel's Tomb on the road to Efrata, and Eli and Shilo and the field of the patriarchs in Hebron and the angels who go up and down a ladder in Jacob's dream in Beit El.

North Jersey Record Aims at Israel — and Misses - by Sean Durns

But as history tells us, Palestinian leaders define “justice” as lands that are Judenrein. And there is nothing just about denying Jewish people the right to self-determination in their ancestral homeland — the goal of Palestinian leaders, groups like AMP, and their apologists in the media.

Sean Durns..
Algemeiner..
02 July '20..

“Get your facts first,” Mark Twain once intoned, “and then you can distort them as you please.” Yet, when it comes to the Israel-Islamist conflict, the North Jersey Record isn’t even bothering with facts. The newspaper’s recent report, “‘We need to pursue systemic change’: Palestinian Americans in NJ brace for annexation,” offers a masterclass in both distortions and omissions.

Indeed, the report is so problematic and biased that it’s hard to know where to begin.

NJ Record correspondent Hannan Adely reported that on June 28, “about 200 people gathered outside Paterson City Hall” in New Jersey where they raised the Palestinian flag and protested “Israel’s plan to annex large swaths of the West Bank starting Wednesday, July 1 — a move they said would suffocate Palestinians and scuttle any remaining chance for peace.”

“Annexation,” the NJ Record claims, “happens when a country declares that land outside its borders is part of its own state.” The plan “would leave Palestinians with 15% of their historic homeland” and “allow Israel to encircle all Palestinian land and cut it off from the border with Jordan.”

Nearly every word in this paragraph is inaccurate.

(Continue to Full Column)

Sean Durns is a Senior Research Analyst for the Washington DC office of CAMERA, the 65,000-member, Boston-based Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting and Analysis

Clear Enough? Israelis Must Make Decisions for Israel - by Mitchell Bard

Israel’s leaders will make a decision that is in Israel’s best interest regardless of what Americans think, because they have learned over the years that no concessions they make to the Palestinians will be applauded or bring peace. And Israel is ultimately alone in defending itself.

Mitchell Bard..
Algemeiner..
01 July '20..

As the Israeli government nears a decision on whether to apply sovereignty over parts of the West Bank, some American Jews, pundits, politicians, and Middle East experts are saying that doing so will harm Israel’s interests. Many apparently believe that Israelis are unable to comprehend the consequences, but they do.

The concerns include:

- Provoking a Palestinian uprising.
- Damaging relations with Jordan and Egypt.
- Jeopardizing the normalization of relations with the Gulf Arab states.
- Aggravating relations with the European Union and facing sanctions.
- Attracting condemnation from the United Nations.
- Exacerbating tensions between Israeli and American Jews.
- Giving ammunition to demonizers of Israel and supporters of the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement.
- Strengthening critics and angering friends within the Democratic Party.
- Gaining recognition from Trump that might be reversed by a President Biden.

All of these are legitimate worries for Israel’s leaders. In the past, it was primarily Arabists in the US government who took the position that Israelis must be saved from themselves. Now some of Israel’s closest friends, including Democratic allies in Congress and their nominee for president, are speaking out against Israel taking unilateral action. The Trump administration, meanwhile, says that any Israeli action must be consistent with its peace proposal. Many Jews who traditionally defer to the Israeli government on matters of war and peace have joined the critics. And it is not just far-left Jews who are speaking out; moderate and even some conservative Jews have joined the chorus.

Meanwhile, none of the critics know yet what the government is going to do.

(Continue to Full Column)

Mitchell Bard is a foreign policy analyst and authority on US-Israel relations who has written and edited 22 books.

Want to Prevent an Arab State of Palestine? Embrace the Idea - by Yisrael Medad

Will Israel embrace a future with sovereignty, or will it slowly but surely make the decision more difficult, if not impossible, in the very near future? Will it trust the P.A. to perform as it has historically (admittedly a gamble), or will it face a gamble on the results of the upcoming American presidential elections?

Yisrael Medad..
JNS.org..
30 June '20..

There are multiple rational, cogent and persuasive grounds why no one should be touting the idea of establishing an independent Arab “State of Palestine” in the area of Judea and Samaria, while there are good arguments for extending Israel’s law and administration to parts, or all, of Judea and Samaria.

Firstly, besides the very obvious security threat such a state proposes due to the topography involved, but also the sure probability that Hezbollah and radical Islamic forces and Iranian units would move in, as well as the subsequent erosion of Jordan (Black September will not be repeated), it would become a second such Arab state in Palestine—and that is patently unfair. The Arab Palestinian state of Jordan already exists, as stipulated in Article 25 of the Mandate for Palestine, “in the territories lying between the Jordan and the eastern boundary of Palestine as ultimately determined.”

That came about because Great Britain desired that its Mandate for Palestine to reconstitute the Jewish National Home would be geographically restricted to the area west of the Jordan River; it viewed the Zionist provisions as “inapplicable to the existing local conditions” in the Transjordan region, and so they would be postponed or their application withheld there.

England’s policy was a result of the Emir Abdullah’s incursion into Maan in November 1920—a prelude to a march on Damascus as part of a campaign to recover Syria for his brother, Emir Faisal. There he remained for three months awaiting the British reaction. They were worried that Abdullah might complicate Britain’s relations with France, not about any fictional and non-existent Arab Palestinian people.

After all, from the Balfour Declaration to the San Remo decision to the British Mandate, the people living in the area of Palestine were “non-Jews” and “Jews.” Arabs did not exist there as a people. To convince Faisal’s champion to abandon his bluffed intent to foment strife in Syria, Abdullah was offered to head a British-sponsored Transjordanian administration. On March 28, 1921, Abdullah, who had proceeded to Amman, met Winston Churchill, the Colonial Secretary, in Jerusalem and the deal to create a fictional Emirate was finalized.

It should be stressed that in his talks at the time with local Arab leaders, Churchill made his opinion clear that:

it is manifestly right that the Jews, who are scattered all over the world, should have a national centre and a National Home where some of them may be reunited. And where else could that be but in this land of Palestine, with which for more than 3,000 years they have been intimately and profoundly associated? We think it will be good for the world, good for the Jews and good for the British Empire. But we also think it will be good for the Arabs who dwell in Palestine, and we intend that it shall be good for them, and that they shall not be sufferers …

Abdullah, however, never ceased to seek control also over territories west of the River Jordan.

(Continue to Full Column)

Yisrael Medad is an American-born Israeli journalist and commentator.