"Is It Terrorism When Israel Does It?"

Ever since MSNBC ran that story linking the Mossad to the Iranian dissident group Mujahadeen-e-Khalq (MEK) in targeting Iranian nuclear scientists and nuclear facilities, the usual suspects have come out of the woodwork, pointing the finger at Israel for 'participating in terrorism' and wondering with elephantine illogic why the US should be continuing to give aid to 'a supporter of terrorism'. Usually coupled with complaints about this supposed double standard are some of the usual fairy tales about how Israel was started by 'terrorists' who operated against the British .

It's high time to demolish this horse manure.

What's going on between Iran and Israel is a war between two sovereign states, plain and simple. Ever since the Iranian revolution in 1979, that regime has been quite open about being in a state of war against Israel and seeking its destruction. For that matter, they feel the same way about the United States.

Along with targeting the US military in operations like the Khobar Towers, the bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut and numerous operations either directly by Iran's military or its proxies against US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Iranians have also sponsored plenty of terrorism aimed explicitly against civilians and strictly civilian facilities, including sponsoring and training 'Palestinian' homicide bombers, attacking the Jewish Community Center in Buenos Aires and aiding and abetting the 9/11 hijackers.

If the Israelis are involved - and there's no direct proof they are, although it's likely - they have concentrated specifically on military installations and figures associated with Iran's quest for nuclear weapons, weapons they could very well use to commit genocide. Whomever is targeting Iranian nuclear facilities and these scientists isn't hitting schools, pizza parlors, restaurants, community centers or any other facilities designed for civilian use. And even if they were, the Iranian practice of locating these targets near civilian facilities amounts to the use of human shields, something totally contrary to the rules of war. And just like the 'Palestinians' and Hezbollah who use the same tactics, as far as I'm concerned it makes these civilian targets fair game in wartime even if they do happen to get hit as collateral damage in a strike on military targets.

The British and the US used exactly the same standards in WWII in fighting the Nazis and the Japanese, and are using the same standards in drone warfare in Afghanistan and Pakistan. War by its nature affects civilians on each side.

The difference between Israel and its enemies like Iran is that Israel's record on going out of its way to minimize civilian casualties while targeting its enemies is uniquely good among western nations, while Iran and it's proxies are deliberately targeting civilians as a war aim - the very definition of terrorism.

That definition also applies to the way Israel's Jewish underground conducted itself while trying to push the British out of a country that was supposed have been the Jewish State by international law of long standing. The usual example cited is the blowing up of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem by the Irgun.

There are certain facts always left out of these stories.

There was an unusually high percentage of Palestine's Jews - about one third of the entire population - in uniform fighting for the allies. In contrast, the Arabs were largely pro-Nazi and the 'Palestinian' Arab leader the British appointed, Grand Mufti Haj-Amin al-Husseini was an active enemy. Not only did he translate Hitler's 'Mein Kampf' into Arabic and do a great deal to bring the Arabs over to the Nazi cause, he recruited Bosnian Muslims in Europe for Hitler's SS and collaborated with his friend Adolf Eichmann in planning a Nazi death camp for Palestine's Jews, scheduled to be situated near what is now Nablus.

In spite of all that, the British were firmly pro-Arab, to the point of being actively anti-Semitic. They halted all Jewish immigration to Palestine on the eve of the Holocaust, thus dooming millions to death at the hands of the Nazis because few other countries were wiling to take them in, including Britain. At the same time, they allowed unlimited and unrestricted Arab in-migration, especially during the war because so many Jews were in uniform that there was an actual labor shortage in Palestine. This led to atrocities like the sinking of the refugee ship SS Struma in 1942, which was towed by Turkish authorities to the middle of the Black Sea and left there to founder with a disabled engine after the British refused to admit its refugee passengers to Palestine. 768 people were drowned, including more than one hundred children.

In 1946 when the King David Hotel was bombed, the British were still turning away every Jewish refugee they could apprehend. Aside from operating what amounted to concentration camps of their own on the nearby Island of Cyprus, the British also sent a number of refugees by ship back to some of the very camps they'd just been liberated from.

The British also did little to quell Arab violence against Jews, while at the same time taking active steps to disarm Jews attempting to defend themselves.

The King David Hotel was Britain's military headquarters and the site of the central offices of the British Mandatory Authority in Palestine. The southern wing of the hotel where the attack was concentrated also housed British Intelligence, including files used against the Jewish resistance groups.

Aside from the fact this was definitely a military target, it's a matter of historical record that several phone calls were made to the British a half hour before warning them of the imminent bombing by the Irgun which is a funny way for 'terrorists' to act. The phone calls were dismissed by the British as hoaxes and no evacuation was done, with the result that 91 people, some of them civilian employees of the Mandatory government were killed.

In view of what goes by nowadays without being labeled terrorism, labeling the Irgun's act against the King David Hotel with the 'T' word is obviously a sign of an extremely obvious agenda.

Israel And 'Palestine' - An End To An Error

As I predicted, the talks about talks in Amman between Israel and the PLO came to nothing, simply because there's nothing to negotiate...the 'Palestinians' are unwilling to do anything unless the Israelis agree to all their demands in advance. While Mahmoud Abbas played good cop and talked about seizing opportunities for peace, Fatah's negotiator Saeb Erekat made it very plain that the Amman talks were a mere formality and not a return to negotiations, saying, "Netanyahu needs to freeze the construction of settlements and accept the '67 outline for a two-state solution before we return to the negotiations table."

So the 'Palestinians' are continuing with their plans to get what they want by other means than negotiations. And they have a full agenda planned this year in their campaign against Israel.

While their efforts to unilaterally abrogate both Oslo and the Roadmap by having the UN declare 'Palestine' a state on the pre '67 lines and bypass any negotiations or concessions to Israel ultimately fell short last year, they plan to continue their efforts in 2012.

As of January 1st of this year, several countries that would have voted against the Palestinians or been swayed by a US threat of a veto rotated off the UN Security Council as their terms expired and were replaced by Guatemala, Pakistan, Azerbaijan, Morocco and Togo. At least four of those countries will vote in favor of admitting 'Palestine' as a full member with its borders on the pre '67 lines.

And a US veto against it by the Obama Administration is unlikely if the vote occurs after the November 2012 American presidential elections, regardless of whether President Obama is re-elected or not. Israel, just as a side note, is the only UN member officially prohibited from serving on the UN Security Council as a rotating member.

The 'Palestinians thus hope to have their demands for borders based on the pre '67 lines and half of Jerusalem backed up by a UNSC resolution for the first time.

And that's not all. The 'Palestinians' are planning international efforts to turn Israel into the world's pariah state.

Senior Fatah official Nabil Sha’ath, formerly the left fork of Yasser Arafat's tongue recently said on Palestinian radio that 2012 “will be the start of an unprecedented diplomatic campaign on the part of the Palestinian leadership, and it will be a year of pressure on Israel that will put it under a real international siege. The campaign will be similar to the one waged against apartheid in South Africa.”

The PLO thus plans to hit Israel from two directions. According to my sources, while Abbas and Fatah will concentrate on gathering support at the UN, eliciting international boycotts and orchestrating violent riots and protests in Judea and Samaria. Hamas will take on the task of a new wave of rocket attacks and terrorism directed at Israel's populace, thus giving Fatah plausible deniability. Besides, Abbas and the Fatah Old Guard are already on the way out with the money they stole, and they know full well that Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood are almost certainly going to take over all of the 'Palestinian' territories in fairly short order. So does Hamas.

It's a pretty straight forward strategy. If Israel actually were to go back to the pre '67 lines, the country would become indefensible with avowed enemies in control of the high ground in Judea and Samaria as well as an enclave right next door in Jerusalem. If the Israelis refuse to commit national suicide by doing so, they become a pariah nation in defiance of the UN and 'international law'. This is exactly why the two state solution envisioned by Oslo was always a myth..or more exactly, as Arafat's old political commissar in Jerusalem Faisal Husseini famously put it, "a Trojan Horse designed to trick the Jews."

There are definite ways for the Israelis to head this off and frustrate it.

At this point, I doubt that Israel talking about consequences for the PLO for this behavior really means much to Abbas and company. Since for the most part they're on their way out anyway there's no particular reason they should pay anymore than lip service to the well being of their people at this point than they have since the 1970's. And the truth of the matter is, the 'Palestinians' have never really suffered much in the way of real consequences for bad behavior, either from Israel or from their western donors. There isn't any reason for them to fear consequences now.

With that in mind, from a strategic viewpoint the best thing Israel could do would be to publicly offer the 'Palestinians' a final settlement that involves recognition of Israel as a Jewish State, takes the so-called right of return, Jerusalem and Area C, the part of Judea and Samaria under Israeli sovereignty off the table, offers a division on Area B that maintains an Israeli presence in the Jordan Valley and cedes Area C, which Fatah already controls, to the 'Palestinians'.

Abbas and the PLO would certainly reject this out of hand. As Abbas has said many times, he's not prepared to make even a single concession on 'Palestinian' demands.

Once the 'Palestinian' refusal is made public, I recommend that Israel do what I've been suggesting for literally years - call the 'Palestinian's' bluff by simply unilaterally imposing their proposition on the ground, annexing the areas in question and declaring all agreements null and void.

At the same time, the Israelis should announce an end to any contact with the 'Palestinians' based on prior agreements. No more free electricity and water, no more tax rebates, no more security cooperation, no more trade concessions, nothing. Any new agreements in these areas would need to be negotiated from scratch.

The Israelis would simply be formalizing something that's evident to any objective observer. The 'peace process' is over, if indeed it ever really existed.

The Israelis would need to accompany these declarations with certain concrete actions to underline their seriousness about this.

They would need to be prepared to repatriate any Israeli citizens now living in 'Palestine' back to Israeli territory, while at the same time repatriating all non-Israeli citizens of 'Palestinian' origin to the new, second Arab 'Palestinian' state.

Second, Israel also would need to publicly inform the 'Palestinians' and the world that any protests or violence directed at these areas or sovereign Israeli territory would be considered an act of war by a hostile entity and dealt with accordingly.

And third, the Israelis would need to arm the Jewish residents of Judea and Samaria appropriately and fortify any Jewish communities that need it to resist attacks and hold out until the IDF gets there.

There would undoubtedly be consequences for Israel from these actions, but the upside overwhelms them.

For the first couple of weeks, the usual suspects would go absolutely insane. Elements of the media that are consistently anti-Israel like NPR, Newsweek, the New York Times and the Guardian would run the sort of stories and commentary you would expect, but the news cycle moves on, and honestly, their coverage of the Middle East conflict has not been objective for years anyway.

The UN General Assembly might pass a motion or three condemning Israel - again, nothing new. It's highly doubtful the Security Council would and even if they did it would be unlikely to have much practical effect.

Elements of the EU would undoubtedly condemn the Israeli actions, but again with limited effect. Aside from the fact that the continued existence of the EU itself is in doubt, the EU countries have a healthy appetite for Israeli agricultural and high tech products, and a trade boycott gets even less likely when you consider that the Europeans are unlikely to alienate an up and coming major source of gas and oil capable of providing an alternative to dealing with the Russians. Again, the likely impact is a certain amount of rhetoric for awhile, followed by business as usual.

The same would likely be true of Australia, Canada, and the United States, even with a hostile Obama Administration in office.

Israel's relationships in the Middle East might likely undergo one major change, the severing of diplomatic relations with Egypt and Jordan. The Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafists whom now control Egypt are already talking openly about abrogating the treaty with the hated Jews anyway, the Israeli embassy in Cairo was recently sacked by a mob while Egyptian police looked on and even during the Mubarak regime outright anti-semitism was openly promulgated by the government controlled media as a tool of policy. There isn't much of a relationship to lose there.

The same is true of Jordan, a country where almost 80% of the population identifies themselves as 'Palestinians'. There is little if any trade, tourism or cultural exchanges with Israel and as the Muslim Brotherhood gets stronger there's a real likelihood of Jordan cancelling its treaties with Israel no matter what Israel does.

Neither country can afford the financial or social costs of a war with Israel, something that's also true of all of Israel's traditional Arab antagonists. And they're especially unlikely to go to war for 'Palestine'. Hamas and Hezbollah will remain hostile to Israel no matter what Israel does or doesn't do, but both have sufficient reasons for avoiding overt war Hamas because of it's relationship with the new Muslim Brotherhood ruled Egypt and Hezbollah because they have no desire to experience the kind of political fallout they got from their host country after the 2006 war...especially with Syria otherwise occupied.

The major upside for Israel, of course, is that while unilaterally staking out its borders and declaring an end to the Oslo Era won't put an end to the effort to delegitimize and destroy the country, it will put it on life support. Without the possibility that the Jews could be tricked into further strategic concessions existing, there's about as much energy expended in trying to get Jerusalem away from Israel as there is in trying to get Texas away from America. And it will decrease even more with time.

Oddly enough, there's also the possibility of an upside for the 'Palestinians' , believe it or not. After the initial shock and anger, they're going to be faced with two choices. Since the old dream of replacing Israel and driving the Jews into the Sea would no longer be a possibility, they can choose to either succumb to a preoccupation with revanchist dreams or they can look at the reality of having a country of their own to build and a destiny of their own to carve out. The first is far more likely, but only the second would lead to any kind of real future for themselves and their children, and there's just the chance they might finally realize it.

Proud 'Palestinians' Mahmoud Abbas And Most Of The Fatah Leadership Are Jordanian Citizens!

Some people in the past have criticized me because I continue to consider the 'Palestinians' a made up nationality and insist that Jordan is the actual Arab 'Palestinian' state.

They're not taking into account that Jordan as 'Palestine' was the intention of the British partition of the Palestine Mandate in 1923, as codified in international law by the San Remo Agreement.The majority of Jordan's population then were 'Palestinian' - Quraysh Arabs, who were town dwellers as opposed to the Bedouin, who were desert dwellers. 80% of the Palestine Mandate was given to Abdullah, the present King's grandfather who established a minority Bedouin Hashemite monarchy over the 'Palestinians' that continues to this day. Presently, even given the inevitable intermarriage, the split is roughly 75% 'Palestinian' and about 25% Bedouin, with many of the Bedouin Hashemite loyalists installed in key positions in government and the army.

Moreover, in 1967 when Israel took over Judea and Samaria (AKA the West Bank) after Jordan attacked them, every Arab there was a Jordanian citizen and remained one according to Jordan's own laws until the mid 1990's.

The laws were changed because the minority Bedouin Hashemite monarchy has always feared that someday the majority of non-Bedouins would try to take over. That almost happened once before during 'Black September' back in 1970 when Yasser Arafat tried to take over the country and the Jordanian Arab Legion killed and expelled thousands of 'Palestinians'.

As I've reported before, the Bedouin minority has upped the ante on 'de-Palestinizing' Jordan by arbitrarily taking away Jordanian citizenship from thousands of people who identify themselves as 'Palestinians' and have held Jordanian citizenship for decades.

Ah, but that's for the little people.

After Mahmoud Abbas' little screed at the UN, some people applauded what they saw as his brave championship of 'Palestinian' nationhood. Who would have imagined that Mahmoud Abbas and most of the Fatah leadership have applied for and been granted Jordanian citizenship for themselves and their families? You see, according to the October 9th 2011 Jerusalem Post reporting on an article in the London-based Al-Quds Al-Arabi newspaper, a significant number of PA leaders and their families are now full Jordanian citizens:

Atef Tarawneh, deputy speaker of the Jordanian parliament, denounced the decision to revoke the citizenship of thousands of Jordanians of Palestinian origin.

Tarawneh said that the decision was “harmful” to national unity and the constitution in Jordan.

He added that he recently met with King Abdullah II and warned him against the repercussions of revoking the citizenships. He said that the decision has harmed investment in the kingdom because dozens of Jordanian-Palestinian businessmen living abroad were afraid to return home out of fear that the authorities would confiscate their passports.

According to the London-based Al-Quds Al-Arabi newspaper, a significant number of PA leaders are registered as full Jordanian citizens.

The paper pointed out that the leaders applied for Jordanian citizenship at a time when they were urging the Jordanian authorities to stop giving Palestinians Jordanian citizenship, in order to “consolidate their Palestinian identity.” The Jordanian government had justified its decision to strip Palestinians of their citizenship by using the same argument.

However, the Jordanians have long seen the Palestinian majority in the kingdom as a demographic threat.

The decision to rescind the citizenship of tens of thousands of Palestinians is seen in the context of this fear.

Al-Quds Al-Arabi quoted sources in Amman as saying that Abbas and his entire family carry Jordanian passports.

Other PA leaders who carry Jordanian passports include former PA prime minister Ahmed Qurei, Abbas’s spokesman Nabil Abu Rudaineh and Fatah’s Muhammad Dahlan.

The paper did not say when the Palestinian officials were given Jordanian citizenship. PA spokesmen in Ramallah refused to comment on the report.

A Fatah official, however, said that he was not surprised to hear that Palestinian leaders were carrying Jordanian passports. He said he believed most of the PA leaders had applied for and received Jordanian passports in the past 15 years.

Tarawneh, by the way is of 'Palestinian' origin.

Al-Quds Al-Arabi also reported that it was the PA leaders who had asked for Jordanian citizenship, and not the Jordanians who had offered it.

Who would have ever guessed that I and the Fatah leadership would agree on something? Jordan is the 'Palestinian' state and the nonsense going on at the UN is simply an attempted land grab by the 'Palestinians' in an attempt to complete St. Arafat's mission of pushing the Jews into the sea bit by bit and grab a more strategic location to launch the final jihad.

(h/t Carl)

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

New Poll: 73% Of The Arabs in The West Bank Support The Hamas Charter

A new poll in Arabic done by the Beit Sahour-based Palestinian Center for Public Opinion and sponsored by the Israel Project a Left wing think tank, shows that a vast majority of 'Palestinians' in Judea and Samaria support the Hamas Charter, including its genocidal aspects.

In particular, 73% support the inclusion in the Hamas 'Martyr's Oath' of a part of Islamic scripture, the Hadith Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 177, a record of the deeds and words of Mohammed, which says: “The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. “O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him.”

Only 34 percent accept the idea of two states for two peoples according to the intensive, face-to-face survey in Arabic of 1,010 Palestinian adults in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.
When they were asked about US President Barack Obama’s statement that “there should be two states: Palestine as the homeland for the Palestinian people and Israel as the homeland for the Jewish people” only 34% said they accepted that concept, while 61% rejected it.

Sixty-six percent said the Palestinians’ real goal should be to start with a two-state solution as a start to taking all of it and making one Palestinian state, which essentially means one free of Jews.

An amazing 92% said all of Jerusalem should be the capital of Palestine, 1% said the capital of Israel, 3% the capital of both, and 4% a neutral international city.

72% percent agreed with deliberately denying the thousands of years of Jewish history in Jerusalem, 62% supported kidnapping IDF soldiers and holding them hostage, and 53% were in favor or teaching songs about hating Jews in Palestinian schools.

One finding the pollsters claim is 'positive' is that only 22% support firing rockets at Israeli cities and citizens and that two-thirds preferred diplomacy over violent “resistance.”

Actually, in view of the other results I see this reflecting more of a feeling that violence is counterproductive tactically at this particular time, with the 'Palestinians' attempting to push for statehood via the UN rather than any feeling that it's morally wrong.

In other words,diplomacy for now, to see what we can talk the stupid Jews into giving us without a struggle. The final result makes sense in no other context given the other results.

Interestingly enough, the margin of 'Palestinians' who support the genocidal Hamas Charter is almost exactly the percentage who voted for Hamas in the last elections that were held.

Nothing's changed.

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

'Palestinian' Concessions? Says Who?

The anti-Israel Left is all a-twitter over a document dump that supposedly shows magnanimous concessions by the 'Palestinians' on Jerusalem during their negotiations with disgraced Israeli PM Ehud Olmert.

Frankly, who cares what the likes of Mahmoud Abbas or Saeb Erekat claim they offered then on Jerusalem? Based on what they're saying now and how good their word has been in the past, why would the Israelis have any reason to trust them? And why should Israel trust any guarantees along those lines from the so-called International Community?

In 1948, the world stood by and watched as Jews were ethnically cleansed from Judea, Samaria and East Jerusalem as well as from the entire Arab world, almost a million of them...after everything but the clothes on their backs was stolen from them. Nobody in the 'international community' gave a damn about them. Most of them were settled in Israel without a penny's help from the UN.

No one in the International Community ever complained about Jordan's 19- year illegal occupation of East Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria or their attempt to colonize it.

And no one gave a damn what happened to the Jewish Holy sites in Jerusalem either. Jews were barred from them, over 28 historic synagogues were destroyed or used for public urinals and historic Jewish gravestones from the Mount of Olives were used to pave the streets.

Now that the Jews have recovered what was rightfully theirs, Jerusalem is one city open to all faiths and that's how it's going to stay. Depend on it.

And as an interesting aside, what Mahmoud Abbas is openly saying now is that what al-Jazeera and al-Guardian were representing as Palestinian concessions were actually the Israeli offer from Olmert! Which of course they rejected.

That's more in line with what Abbas and the 'Palestinians' have always said - no concessions or negotiations on any 'Palestinian' demands and no Jews at all allowed whatsoever in their little reichlet.

Fascinating how so many people on the Left support apartheid and segregation, provided it's confined to Jews.


UPDATE: Melanie Phillips offers her own perceptive analysis of this nonsense here.

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

How 'Palestinian Refugees' Think

This is a well written first hand account from the German magazine Cicero that gives you an excellent look at the psychosis - I can hardly use a different term - under which 'Palestinian refugees' operate under and call reality. It explains a great deal:

Ingo Way visited the Palestinian refugee camp of Aida and met the people who live there. Startlingly, he reports on their grim hope to "return" one day to a country in which many have never set foot.

The Aida refugee camp has been in Bethlehem since 1950. Today just over 3,000 people live there - descendants of those Arabs who fled during the war of 1948 from Israel. ... Aida consists of massive houses and is thus more like a neighborhood than a camp - not even a slum. The entrance to the refugee camp is decorated with a gigantic key, written in English and Arabic, which reads: "Not for Sale". What is not for sale is not difficult to guess: the Arabian soil from the Jordan to the Mediterranean, which must not be abandoned for any peace treaty with Israel. Is this an uncharitable interpretation on my part? Let's see.

I enter the Laje Center, a kind of community center for residents of Aida, with lounges, a kitchen, a cafe and an exhibition space, in which they are showing a photo exhibition with pictures from several other refugee camps. Upstairs I meet Khouloud Al Ajarma, who according to her business card is the "Arts & Media Center Coordinator of Laje Center." Khouloud was born 23 years ago in Aida; her grandmother came from a village in Israel that does not exist anymore. She studied in England, so she speaks with marked British accent. And she talks a lot - eloquent, fluent, confident. Khouloud does not wear a headscarf; instead she wears a pink knitted cap that covered her entire head of hair. Also above the pink sweater she is wearing a black jacket, a checkered skirt that covers her knees, but that allows a look at her black tights and fashionable boots. To me, Khouloud is sympathetic - she is educated and pretty with her British accent.

After her graduation, Khouloud returned back to Aida. She is aiming to "return" to Israel, although she has not been there before. "To remain a refugee is a political decision," she admits. Hence it is for her and for the other inhabitants of Aida out of the question to start a new life elsewhere, or to even become ordinary citizens of Bethlehem - because then they lose their refugee status conferred on them by the UNRWA. "We want no normalization," says Khouloud. "We want to remain refugees to exercise our right of return one day."

At this point something must be said about the UNRWA. The United Nations has two refugee relief organizations: the UNRWA for Palestinian refugees, and another, the UNHCR, for all other refugees in the world. And for all these UNHCR refugees their status will end after the first generation. The status of refugee is not inherited. And accordingly it is the responsibility of UNHCR to ensure that refugees get full civil rights in the countries in which they have fled. Life in refugee camps is a status that UNHCR resolves to end.

UNRWA has a completely different mandate. They regard it as their task to attend to the refugee camps in the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, Lebanon, in Jordan and Syria, and they extend the refugee status over generations. And there is no end in sight. Khouloud is also, according to UN definition, a refugee - she would be even if she had stayed in England - and her children will be too. Khouloud's sister lives in Jordan and is married to a Jordanian. Through this marriage she is able to choose whether they want to stay as Jordanian citizen or Palestinian refugees. She chose the latter. This inheritability of refugee status is an exception that has made the UNRWA [desirable] to the Palestinians.

Khouloud says, "Yes, it is a privilege. But this privilege is available to us. Why? It's about justice!" Tt is therefore not surprising that Khouloud that the negotiations between the Palestinian Authority and Israel has come to nothing at all. "Our people do not want a two-state solution. Our leadership is not acting in our name. And the Israelis know it....It's about the right of our country," she says. "To renounce this right would not only be a betrayal of the refugees, it would be a betrayal of Palestine. But our martyrs are not dead. "

I get a little queasy. Before me is not a screaming fanatic, but a young woman with a Western education that speaks with a quiet and serene voice of blood and soil as if she were discussing an upcoming business meeting. She speaks very clearly of what they wish for: a single state from the Jordan to the Mediterranean, in which all Palestinians, the descendants of refugees from 1948 and are now scattered all over the world return to live, can. To make clear the dimensions: In the wake of Israel's independence war of 1948 left about 700,000 Arabs left the territory of present-day Israel. Some were forced, some went voluntarily, hoping to come back for a victory of Arab armies. But the Arab states lost the war they had begun. Today there are between four and five million people who hold the status of "Palestine refugees". Khouloud even speaks of eight million. If it were up to her, they would all settle in Israel.

For Khouloud it seems to matter little that this will never happen by peaceful means. For the Israeli side, it is unacceptable - it would be the end of Israel as a Jewish state. "Why do we need a Jewish state?" Khouloud asks rhetorically. "Surely we can all live together in a democratic state of Palestine." This would, she says, of course, have a "Palestinian majority. " And what would happen to the Jewish minority in such a state? "Such small things," says Khouloud, "are not important...."

What I find so frightening about Khouloud Al Ajarma is not so much her complete lack of self-criticism. It's not so much her radicalism -in comparison, the settlers from Hebron like spokesman David Wilder comes across as a conciliatory pacifist (and they represent only a tiny minority of Israeli society). What really frightened me is this: No representative of the UN, who built the schools and community centers in Aida, nor the EU, who gives the refugee camps such as this financial support, nor the employees of all the Western aid agencies and NGOs that are active here- none of them would tell Khouloud straight out that her demands are not only inhuman - because of course they count on the expulsion and disenfranchisement of Jews in Israel, and this is still the most favorable interpretation - but also unrealistic. Not one says, "You will not get your demands. Work instead towards a peaceful compromise with the Israelis, you shall set up a two-state solution and waive your right to return. Finally take over responsibility for yourself and your own people, build an infrastructure and tear down the refugee camps." No one tells them this because none of them would believe it. No one is bothered by the graffiti, which is found on every other row of houses, showing an undivided Palestine and reaffirm the Palestinian explicit claim itself over Greater Tel Aviv. And that's the most depressing experience I have had in the Aida refugee camp.

I go back to the checkpoint, countless Christian tourists are with me in the queue, others approach me, little boys trying to sell us wooden recorders. Once on the other side, I take a deep breath. I have the feeling to return to something that the writer Michael Klonovsky - also during a trip to Jerusalem and also reluctantly - called my "own value system." And I enjoy that feeling.

A couple of things the writer doesn't mention - by choosing refugee status, these Arabs are opting in to a well funded welfare system paid for by the West, so there's a real cash value in calling oneself a 'refugee'.

Also, the 'Palestinian Authority' has a vested interest in keeping these people living in fantasyland, because it also gets aid based on a per capita amount of 'refugees'...so it constantly works on these people psychologically through the schools, media and mosques to make sure the artificial sense of grievance and the dram of killing and expelling every Jew in Israel remains fresh.

Translated from the German by The Elder of Ziyon

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

Why Israel Is Losing The Information War

Many people who are informed about what's actually happening in the Middle East constantly wonder why Israel fares so badly in the information wars. The following example gives us a pretty good idea why.

Jawaher Abu Rahmah, a 'Palestinian' activist, died on January 1st. Saeb Erekat, the right fork of Yasser Arafat's tongue, claimed that she died during a demonstration in the 'Palestinian' town of Bil'in, killed by "poison" contained in tear gas fired at the demonstration by Israeli soldiers after it deteriorated into what could best be termed a riot.

'Palestinian' President Mahmoud Abbas called Abu Rahmah's death a "new Israeli crime carried out by the occupation army against our helpless nation."

She was given a martyr's funeral as a victim an Israeli "war crime", with crowds of mourners and the usual Palestinian stringers who work for the dinosaur media in attendance.

The story was almost instantaneously reported around the world as fact by the AFP, the Guardian, The AP, The Independent, UPI, Voice of America, and even the Jewish Telegraphic Agency among others, while TIME's resident Israel basher Tony Karon got off a piece celebrating this as the occasion of an alliance between 'Palestinian' activists and Israeli Leftists.

The real story? According to the IDF, there's no evidence Abu Rahmah was even at the Bil'in demonstration, nor does she show up on any of the videos. There's no evidence that she died from inhaling tear gas ( if it was in fact 'poisonous' why weren't there other deaths?) and the death certificate shows the cause of death as "Inhaling gas of an Israeli soldier according to the family."

This is an indication that no doctor actually examined Abu Rahmah, but that the death certificate was simply filled out by a nurse or orderly. And the accounts of her actual health are contradictory.

Was Abu Ramah the victim of an honor killing exploited by the PA? It certainly wouldn't be the first Pallywood production we've seen.

And really, none of the facts matter at this point.

Run with me for a second.Let's say that evidence surfaces that Abu Ramah was never at the demo, and that this was an honor killing rather than death by teargas. What changes?

By the time the truth comes out, the Palestinian propaganda machine and their allies have already publicized their version, it's gone around the world and the media has already gone on to the next story. The Muslim world will certainly never hear the truth, Israel's enemies in the West will simply take the Pal version as factual and the media circus has moved on

And that's the core of the problem.

Jews culturally are geared toward parsing facts and evidence, which is one reason so many of them are attracted to the legal profession. Anyone studying the Talmud or Gemara (commentaries on Jewish Law as given in the Torah)essentially receives a legal education in miniature.

But what happens when you're up against people that care nothing for facts and everything about impact and propaganda? What happens when you fight an information war against people who care nothing for the truth and merely want to consume your flesh?

In today's media climate, you're left foundering trying to decipher the facts while the other side has already made its impact.

This is the sort of thing that happens when you play defense instead of offense..the other side controls the game and you're limited to reacting.

That's why Israel has been losing the information war.

Israel would be far better off going on offense by publicizing the Palestinian Authority's inherent corruption, the status of women and homosexuals, its official endorsements of terrorism against Israel's civilians, and its refusal to make a single concession in any negotiations

As for Abu Ramah, instead of reacting to the 'Palestinian' narrative with frantic attempts to dredge up facts, Israel would get a lot further by going for impact and simply calling out Erekat and Abbas for lying, challenging them to prove Abu Ramah was there and that the IDF killed her, and reminding the world of all the other fairy tales the Palestinians have spun over the years.

Cross posted at American Thinker and Big Journalism.

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

Standing Upright

One can hardly go a day without finding harsh judgment on Israel in the media and elsewhere of a kind not visited on any other nation. And along with these judgments come the most amazing suggestions on how Israel ought to behave, where their citizens may live, what and where they may build, how much of their small country they ought to give up and to whom, what risks they ought to take and how they should respond to violent aggression to protect themselves.

What is it about Israel that elicits this?

Aside from it being the Jew amongst the nations, I think a part of it is because Israel almost alone among the countries of the world seems willing to live in a permanent defensive crouch, simply for having the audacity to successfully exist these past 62 years.

Instead of the proper response to these presumptuous assertions, which should be a cold smile and a diplomatic variant along the lines of 'thank you for sharing, but we know best for ourselves and our country' Israel seems compelled to come up with explanations for any possible wrong doing in advance, to take these accusations seriously and bend into various unnatural pretzel shapes attempting to explain things no nation ought to have to explain.

And it is this constant, compulsive need to apologize, to rationalize, to explain that feeds the frenzy of judgment against Israel and by extension, the Jews. It clothes Israel in the guise of squatters caught trying to steal something not legitimately theirs who need to constantly come up with fresh alibis.

Every fresh libel, no matter how bizarre, gives way to an anguished back and forth among both Israelis and diaspora Jewry about how to defend themselves against things that ought to be self evident and need no defending. And the ironic thing is that the verdict is almost always known in advance, no matter how good the defense.

The way it works is insidious and it never changes.

For instance, back in 2002, a Jew hating UN functionary named Terje Roed-Larsen made headlines in the media worldwide accusing Israel of massacring thousands of 'Palestinians' in Jenin during Operation Defensive Shield when the IDF finally responded to Arafat's terrorist War Against the Jews. Anti-Israel media outlets like the BBC convicted Israel out of hand, citing academics' opinions from an anti-Israel NGO as 'growing evidence' of a massacre.

Instead of booting the UN, the BBC and the NGO unceremoniously out of Israel for this blatant libel, instead of openly calling Roed-Larsen a liar, declaring him persona non grata and deporting him, the Israelis did exactly the opposite and went into their typical defensive crouch. So did their allies, especially many Jews in the diaspora, who ought to have known better.

So Roed-Larsen and the UN stayed right where they were ,as did the BBC. The NGO in question, Amnesty International was allowed back into Jenin to investigate, while the IDF was charged by Israel to do its own investigation, giving the impression to the world that the charges actually held some credence.

The end result? Every independent investigation agreed that approximately 56 'Palestinians' died in Jenin, all but four were enemy combatants engaged in fighting with the IDF and those four were killed by booby traps set Arafat's forces. There were 23 IDF soldiers who lost their lives, largely because Israel deliberately used its ground troops to try and minimize civilian casualties instead of using its air and armor to its advantage.

The BBC, along with most of the rest of the European media retreated from their "massacre" language, but never backed down from or apologized for their wildly inflated coverage. Neither did Terje Roed-Larsen or the so-called academics from Amnesty International.

Thus the 'Jenin Massacre' is still accepted fact in the Muslim world and among many of Israel's accusers. And just like the many other ongoing myths, it continues to be hurled against Israel, over and over again...and taken seriously each time, with the same frantic efforts at refuting and defending what should need no refutation or defense.

It's like the old carny game of whack-a-mole. The Jenin myth gets hammered down, and up pops the old blood libel about the Israelis harvesting organs in Gaza. Refute that , and up comes the one about the IDF targeting and killing children. It never ends.

Contrast this, if you will, with the attitude of Israel's accusers, and that of the Palestinians. Here are people who openly glory and celebrate the brutal murder of innocents.

Are they embarrassed in the least about it? Do they have any hesitation about calling a sniper who deliberately targeted and murdered a 10-month baby in her stroller a 'hero of freedom' and insisting on his release, along with his fellow murderers? Not a bit. They hold these 'heroes of freedom' as models for their children to emulate and unashamedly bathe in the glow of what they see as victories in a tribal struggle.

Neither the 'Palestinians' or their allies ever bother over apologies or explanations. In fact, Israel's harshest critics never question the 'Palestinians' legitimacy, let alone their humanity. It is the height of hypocrisy and indecency that the 'Palestinian' national liberation movement with its long record of inherent savagery and inhumanity is glorified and funded by the so-called International Community while Zionism, the national liberation movement of the Jews is singled out alone for demonization.

There's a message in that for Israel.

In the end, the explanations, the investigations, the evidence, none of it matters to Israel's enemies and their enablers. No matter how humane the IDF is, they will always be pictured as murderers and war criminals simply for defending their countrymen. The truth changes nothing for Israel's accusers because it's Israel's existence itself that matters to them, and there is nothing Israel can do short of national suicide that would satisfy them.

It's about time Israel realized it.

Every country in the world, including America, was and is built by the plow held in one hand and rests peacefully on the sword held in the other. Israel is no different...nor should it be.

The Israelis are surrounded on three sides by genocidal enemies with their backs to the sea, and for all that, they have managed not only to exist but to prosper. They owe apologies to no one for their success or their survival...and especially not to themselves, let alone those who live in safety outside Israel and place every presumed flaw under a microscope.

With all their considerable accomplishments in a mere 62 years, the very young nation of Israel still needs to master one final task to come into its own as a nation like any other.Because a nation living on its knees is unnatural.

Israel must learn to stand upright. And to cease apologizing for doing it.

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

Breaking: Palestinians Say They Are No Longer Bound By Oslo Agreement

Al Quds al Arabi ( Arabic ) is reporting that the Palestinian Authority's unelected Prime Minister, Salam Fayyad announced on his radio show that the PA no longer will be bound by the Oslo Accords they and Israel signed in 1993:

Fayyad announced on Palestinian radio stations Wednesday that the Palestinian National Authority 'will not be a prisoner to the restrictions of Oslo'.

Fayyad added 'The National Authority recognizes the magnitude of the challenges and difficulties our people are living under on a daily basis, and it works to assume its full responsibilities.

All the possibilities are available to it to strengthen the resilience of its citizens, and adhere and stay on their land, in the various regions, particularly the Jordan Valley area, all areas classified Area C, which constitute about 60 percent of the West Bank, including the areas behind the wall'. He said,' These areas are not disputed areas, it is part and parcel of the occupied Palestinian territory, and the responsibility of the Palestinian National Authority is essential that work to the maximum of their capacities to provide services for all its citizens, it will not be a prisoner to the restrictions of Oslo."

This is a huge deal.

Not only does the 'Palestinian Authority' get its powers from Oslo, but Oslo is the sole basis of the 'Palestinian' claim to the Arab occupied land in Judea and Samaria.

It's why the Israelis did something no other country in the Middle East was willing to do..give the Palestinians some land to call their own.

The 'moderate' Fayyad's statements simply formalize what Yasser Arafat's former political commissar in Jerusalem, Feisal Husseini openly admitted years ago - that Oslo was simply a Trojan horse designed to deceive Israel.

The Israelis ought to make a huge deal out of this. Since the 'Palestinians' are no longer bound by Oslo, neither is Israel and Netanyahu should make that crystal clear immediately.

Since there's no longer a legal or practical basis for them, Israel should immediately break off the futile negotiations with the 'Palestinians and annex the Israeli controlled areas of Judea and Samaria, while moving the 'Palestinian' non-Israeli citizens to the 'Palestinian' occupied areas.

End game.

(hat tip the Elder)

Crossposted at American Thinker

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

Israel, the Racist Nation???

My pal Adam Levick over at CIF Watch has an absolutely superb article on the steps 'racist' Israel took to rescue Ethiopia's Jews and provides the answer to exactly why Israel must be recognized as a Jewish State.



Adam recounts how Israel rescued thousands of Ethiopian Jews and secretly airlifted them to Israel. No other country would have done so, and without Israel they would have perished, just as millions of Jews did in the Holocaust because so few places - including the United States - were willing to take them in. Nobel laureate and Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel once wrote that to him, the most sacred spot in Israel wasn't the Kotel but the small booth at Ben Gurion Airport that held a Jewish customs officer inside stamping entry visas.

Far from a racist nation, Israel is incredibly diverse as Jews from all over the world make their lives there. Anyone who's been there can tell you that.



Israel as a Jewish state is not only simple justice..it's a necessity. The kids above, by the way, live in Sderot.

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

When It Comes To Building In The Holy Land, Some Animals Are More Equal Than Others

You've all heard the typical narrative by now - that the Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria are the real obstacle to Middle East peace, and if those stubborn, evil Israelis would just stop building in 'disputed territories' there would be peace in nothing flat.

President Obama says it and the Leftist press says it, so it must be true,no?.

The Israelis stupidly fed this notion by allowing themselves to be pressured into a 10 month building freeze as a unilateral concession with the idea of getting the Palestinians to the table to talk peace. After 9 1/2 months, Palestinian capo d'Rammallah Mahmoud Abbas finally allowed himself to be pressured into direct talks,but let it be known that he was not going to make a single concession to Israel.

Not only that, but he and the Palestinians have let it be known that unless the freeze continues indefinitely - including in Jerusalem- they 're going to walk when the temporary freeze expires.

When the Israelis let it be known that they've already made a major concession for their small, crowded country in order to get Abbas to the table and have no intention of making a further one to keep him there just because it took the 'Palestinians' 9 1/2 months to agree to direct talks, the Israelis are accused of being obstructionist and not caring about 'peace.' And if Abbas and the Palestinians walk away the usual subjects are more than ready to lay the blame on Israel.

But by comparison, let's look at how the Palestinians are treated when they build in 'disputed territories'.

As I write this, the Palestinians are constructing a city from scratch near Ramallah called Rawabi, largely funded by the Arab country of Qatar and USAid. Rawabi already encroaches on the Israel town of Ateret. And no one is accusing the Arabs of wrecking a potential peace agreement by 'building in disputed territory.'

Not only are they building, but they had the nerve to demand extra land from Israel - in the absence of any peace agreement or even any concessions - for a new roads to Rawabi.

And the Palestinians actually got upset when the Israeli defense Ministry turned the Palestinian's attempted land grab down.

That's exactly how this version of Newspeak works. If Israel needs to build a security barrier or maintain checkpoints to protect itself from Palestinian attacks on its civilians, that's a 'land grab'. But if the Arabs attempt to encroach on an Israeli town's boundaries and appropriate land for roads only they will be able to use, that's perfectly OK.

If you live in Gush Etzion and the local kids need a new school or you simply want to add a room on to your home, you're an Enemy of Peace. But if you're an Arab building an illegal construction without any permits in East Jerusalem, or even an entire city, you're simply exercising your rights.

Orwell would be proud.

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

Obama's new 'Stimulus' - $400 M To The PA And Hamas

The cratering of the US economy be damned. Obama has more important things to do with your money:

President Obama on Wednesday pledged an additional $400 million in assistance for housing, school construction and business development in Gaza and the West Bank, telling Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas in a one-on-one meeting that the US is committed to improving the lives of those who live there.

"We think it is important to reaffirm our commitment to improving the day-to-day lives of ordinary Palestinians," Obama told reporters after the morning meeting.

The Oval Office meeting had been scheduled for weeks, well before the deadly Israeli raid of an aid flotilla bound for Gaza.

Obama had been planning to spend the time focused on the Middle East peace process and the US effort to promote talks between the Palestinians and Israelis.

But the May 31 confrontation between Israeli commandos and a flotilla of activists has affected perceptions in the international community about the parties to the talks, and thus the agenda for the Abbas visit to Washing today and Thursday.

Abbas called Obama's morning pledge a hopeful sign.

"This is a positive signal of the United States, that the United States cares about the suffering of the people in Gaza," Abbas said.

The "a$$ kickin' Marxist meets with one of his allies.

During their meeting at the White House on Wednesday, President Obama reportedly coordinated strategy with Abbas about direct talks with Israel. Abbas has refused to meet directly with Netanyahu so far without 'guaranteed' results, so I'm sure that a great dealof their converstaion - aside from settling the terms of the jirzya paid to th ePalestinians - involved a joint plan to squeeze Israel for more unilateral concessions. The way Obama has set things up, the US isn't even an honest broker anymore. We're working for the Palestinians. And paying them quite nicely for the privilege.



Abbas apparently had dinner last night with around 30 'American Jewish leaders' handpicked by Obama's chief shill for working the anti-israel part of th eJewish community, former Congressman Robert Wexler.

I have no illusions about the composition of the guest list or the sort of one way fellatio that likely went on at the event

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

Are The Palestinians Educating Their Children for Peace? Nope!

Still crazy after all these years...

The original Oslo agreements were based on the 'land for peace' formula and in exchange for the land given to them by Israel, Arafat and the Palestinians agreed to renounce violence and terrorism, recognize Israel's right to exist and refrain from incitement, which specifically included educating the Palestinian people for peace.The Roadmap supposedly reaffirmed these commitments.

Obviously Arafat and Fatah never seriously intended abiding by any of this, and certainly Hamas has no intention of doing so after taking over Gaza. But what about the new, improved Palestinian Authority? Is the PA now educating its children to coexist peacefully with Israel?

Surely you joke, saddiq!

In the Jerusalem Post of Feb 2, 2010 Ben Hartman reported that the British taxpayer watchdog group Taxpayer Alliance published two detailed examinations of how EU foreign aid was being used by the PA to promulgate anti-Israel and anti-Semitic narratives in Palestinian Authority schools.

The reports, “Palestinian Hate Education Since Annapolis” and “Funding Hate Education,” show how the PA is sponsoring what the Taxpayers’ Alliance refers to as a campaign of “demonizing Israel” with the aid of EU funds.

Here are a few details on what they found:

Israel does not appear on any maps of the world in the new PA textbooks, while maps of Israel replace the name Israel with Palestine in all of the new Palestinian Authority school books.

The new Palestinian school books “annex” sites in Israel to Palestine...“Haifa is a Palestinian seaport,” (p. 7) (Lughatuna al-Jamila (Our Beautiful Language) Vol. 2, 5th grade textbook, p. 86). “Galilee, Nazareth and Beit She’an are regions in Palestine,” (p. 7) (Al-Iqtisad al-Manzili (Home Economy), 10th grade textbook, pp. 36-37).

The new Palestinian school books mention Israel only as an enemy, in reference to “occupation of lands” in 1948 and 1967: “There is no doubt that the Israeli occupation has a negative impact on [Palestinian] agriculture and its export,” (p. 8) (Lughatuna al-Jamila (Our Beautiful Language) Vol. 1, 10th grade textbook, p. 102).

The new Palestinian school books present Zionism only as an enemy movement: “The Palestinian people are under an oppressive siege, limiting their movement and way of life,” (p. 9) (Al-Tarbiyah al-Islamiyyah (Islamic Education), Vol. 1, 5th grade textbook, p. 49). Accusation against settlements [from 1948!] of damaging water sources “the influence of settlement on sources of water in Palestine,” (p. 9) (Ulum al-Sihha wal-B’ia (Health and Environmental Sciences), 10th grade textbook, p. 122)....“The Palestinian family has problems … stemming from the occupation … it loses father, mother or son to death or imprisonment … endures the difficulties of life …,” (p. 11) (Al-Tarbiyah al-Wataniyya (National Education), 5th grade textbook, p. 23).

The new Palestinian school books teach that the only ancient inhabitants of Israel were Arabs, ignoring any ancient Jewish presence:“Concentrated … in the land of Al-Sham [Greater Syria] … was the culture of the Canaanite and Aramaic peoples who migrated there from the Arab peninsula,” (p.14-15) (Tarikh al-Hadarat al-Qadima (History of Ancient Civilizations), 5th grade textbook, Foreword).

The new Palestinian school books teach that Palestinians must use war and violence — especially martyrdom — to accomplish their goals: The heroic mother, “who incessantly presents one sacrifice [fida'] after another.” (Lughatuna al-Jamila (Our Beautiful Language), Vol 2, 5th grade textbook, p. 31).

“The warrior goes to war faced with one of the good options: victory or martyrdom in battle for the sake of Allah.” (Ibid. Vol. 1, 5th grade textbook, p. 70).

“Allah gave the people of this land (Al-Sham and Palestine) an important task: they must stand on the forefront of the Muslim campaign against their enemies, and only if they fulfill their duty to their religion, nation, and land will they be rewarded as stated in the scriptures.” (Al-Tarbiya al-Islamiyyah (Islamic Education), Vol 2, 10th grade textbook, p. 50).

Of course the EU doesn't bear total responsibility. Last October, USAID ponied up almost $65 million in aid for the Palestinian occupied areas in Judea and Samaria (AKA the West Bank), on top of another $200 million last June. That money included funds to construct four new schools, as well as a number of 'public works' projects...most of whom were named to honor PLO terrorists.

And none of this takes into consideration what's being taught to Palestinian youth in their mosques, media and those famous PLO 'summer camps'.

Or by their leadership's example.

On Christmas Eve, December 24, Rabbi Meir Chai (HY"D), who left a wife and seven children including a two-month-old was brutally murdered by Palestinian terrorists as he driving along Route 57, between the Samaria communities of Shavei Shomron and Einav.The killing came a scant week after the IDF removed a security checkpoint in the area at the request of the Obama Administration as a gesture to Palestinian Authority president Mahmoud Abbas, even though the residents begged them not to.

Fatah's al-Aksa Martyr's Brigade took credit for murdering this unarmed Rabbi.

Three days later, the IDF found out who the actual killers were, and when the Palestinian security forces refused to arrest them the IDF went in and ended up killing all three of the murderers when they refused to surrender.

As it turned out, all three of the killers were long-time members of the Al-Aksa Martyr's Brigade and thus on the Fatah payroll.

The Palestinian response to what happened was not even a pro-forma condemnation of the murder of Rabbi Chai, but to portray the killers as Palestinian heroes and Shahids- holy Martyrs - while describing Israel's response as "murder in cold blood" and "assassination."

Want to know the real problem with Middle East peace? It's the refusal of the Arabs to live next to Jews in peace and equality. And that attitude starts with the sort of 'education' they receive.

Change that, and there might be a decent chance for peace. Just maybe.

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

Obama Tells Israel They Have No Right To Their Religious Shrines

If anyone still had any doubts about how innately hostile the Obama Administration actually is to Israel and the Jewish people, this little item should convince them.

The Israelis decided that in view of things, they should designate a number of their Holy sites in Judea and Samaria as part of a list of Jewish heritage sites marked for renovation and preservation. Included among them were Rachel's tomb and The Me'arat HaMachpela, the Cave of the Patriarchs in Hebron.

The idea of preservation and renovation is especially important, since it is due entirely to Palestinian violence and vandalism that these shrines need to be protected and renovated in the first place. There's a long history here.

It was the Palestinians who burnt the synagogues in Gaza to the ground after the Jews left,who destroyed 28 historic Synagogues in Jerusalem and used the tombstones of the historic Jewish cometary as pavement during the Jordanian Arab occupation, who desecrated the tomb of Joshua, Joseph's tomb, the Yeshiva in Homesh, just as the Iraqis are now 'de-Judaizing' Ezekiel's tomb.

And these are only the most prominent examples of historic synagogues and Jewish Holy sites destroyed by the Arabs over the last sixty odd years.

As for the Cave of the Patriarchs in Hebron,the Israelis actually attempted to share that with the Muslims. Their reward for this open-mindedness was to find anti-Semitic graffiti scrawled all over the shrine and to discover that the Palestinians had actually urinated and defecated in the area used to store the Torah scrolls.

As for Rachel's Tomb, situated in Bethlehem, the Palestinian attempted to firebomb it a couple of years back.

Nor is it just Jewish Holy sites. It was the Palestinians who invaded and trashed the Church of the Holy Sepulcher and are disinterring Christian bodies wholesale in Gaza as well.

In view of this history, Israel's decision to make a commitment to preserve these Holy sites is not only understandable but entirely justified.

There's even a clear basis for this under international law.

So what do you think the response was from the Obama Administration and the UN was when Israel made the announcement that they were making preserving these shrines official policy?

You guessed it. Outright condemnation:

The Obama administration sharply criticized Israel on Wednesday for designating the Cave of the Patriarchs and Rachel's Tomb, both in West Bank cities, to the list of Jewish heritage sites marked for renovation and preservation.

The government's decision, announced Sunday, sparked Palestinian protests and has drawn criticism from other quarters, including the United Nations. {...}

US State Department spokesman Mark Toner said the administration viewed the move as provocative and unhelpful to the goal of getting the two sides back to the table.

Toner said US displeasure with the designations of the Cave of the Patriarchs in the flash point town of Hebron and the traditional tomb of the biblical matriarch Rachel in Bethlehem had been conveyed to senior Israeli officials by American diplomats.

Israel is frequently accused by its critics of 'ignoring international law.' In fact, it's just the opposite - international law ignores Israel, the Jew among nations.

As for Barack Obama, given given whom he is, none of this surprising.

Some people have speculated over whether the current occupant of the White House is an anti-Semite. Frankly it doesn't matter, since he continues to act like one at every opportunity.

Obama may very well end up acheiving his goal of destroying the relationship between America and its ally Israel, but it will not be without significant cost to the United States.

-selah-

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

J Street - A Particularly Nasty Dead End To Be Avoided

In the past few months, a brand new organization has come to light called J Street that bills itself as 'pro-Israel, pro Peace.'

Later on this month, they're holding their first national conference and the event has attracted some controversy. Who is J Street? And are they really pro-Israel and pro-peace?

J Street bills itself as 'an alternative to AIPAC' founded to 'support a new direction for American policy in the Middle East and a broad public and policy debate about the U.S. role in the region.' It claims to support 'two states living side-by-side in peace and security'( meaning Israel and a second Arab Palestinian state) and to support 'diplomatic solutions over military ones, including in Iran; multilateral over unilateral approaches to conflict resolution; and dialogue over confrontation with a wide range of countries and actors when conflicts do arise.'

When you get beyond the kumbaya language and actually click on the links to their policy positions,you find the real truth.Not only is J Street ant-Israel, but borderline anti-Semitic.Considering that George Soros is a major funder and they have a number of Arab, pro-Arab and Iranian donors, that's to be expected.

In essence, J Street supports the Saudi 'peace' ultimatum, including the creation of thousands of Jewish refugees by uprooting them from their homes in Judea and Samaria(AKA the West Bank), the redividing of Jerusalem and the admission of Arab 'refugees' into Israel. There's not a single word or mention I could find concerning any compensation or recognition for the almost 1 million Jewish refugees of the 1948 conflict.

J Street is fully on board with the Obama Administration's extreme positions, including the racist attitude of telling Jews where they may live and build simply because they're Jews. That's known as a 'complete settlement freeze' in their lingo.

In fact, while J Street supports Arab apartheid in Judea, Samaria and East Jerusalem, there's not a single word about Israel as a Jewish State, merely as a 'democratic home.'

They also demand what they term 'a new peace treaty' between Israel and Syria, without mentioning that Syria's dictator Bashir Assad has stated repeatedly that Israel would need to give up the strategic Golan Heights to Syria and Hezbollah before any negotiations even commence.

And on Iran, J Street applauds the Obama Administration's diplomatic engagement with the Mullahs and opposes harsh sanctions, let alone any military response to Iran's growing nuclear capacity.

In fact, that's what J Street is ultimately about. It was created simply as a fig leaf for the Obama Administration's questionable positions on Israel. As they put it, "Providing President Obama with support as he pursues the two-state solution will be J Street’s number one priority in 2009 and 2010."

That message becomes even more clear when you look at who's on the advisory board and who supports the organization.

Let's start with J Street’s director, Jeremy Ben-Ami.

Lenny Ben-David at Pajamas media has a few interesting questions for him:

You served as Fenton Communications’ senior vice president until you established J Street, launched in 2008. In early 2009, Fenton signed contracts with a Qatari foundation to lead an 18-month long anti-Israel campaign in the United States with a special focus on campuses. The actual text of the contract called for: “An international public opinion awareness campaign that advocates for the accountability of those who participated in attacks against schools in Gaza.”

Did you sever your ties with Fenton when you began J Street? Do you retain any role or holdings in Fenton today? Did you play any role in introducing Fenton to the Qatari agents or play any role in facilitating the contract? Were you aware of the negotiations or the contract signed on March 12, 2009?

These questions are relevant because it’s important to know if J Street’s refusal to support Israel’s anti-Hamas military campaign was influenced by your ties with Fenton, whose promotional material claims: “We only represent people and projects we believe in.”

Were there discussions with Fenton prior to J Street’s refusal to condemn the Goldstone Report on Gaza, a report that certainly serves the Fenton/Qatari interests? Were there communications with Fenton surrounding J Street’s support for Rep. Donna Edwards who refused to sign a congressional resolution supporting Israeli actions in Gaza?

And about anti-Israel financing:

You were recently asked in an interview about funds J Street received from Palestinians, Arab-Americans, and Iranian-Americans, to which you answered: “J Street does have some Arab and Muslim donors — about five. These are individuals, not organizations, corporations or foreign countries. Well over 90 percent of our money comes from Jewish Americans and Christians.”

Did you really say J Street has only five Arab and Muslim donors? A partial listing quickly extracted from the U.S. Federal Election Commission shows more than 30 contributors, many with ties to Arab-American organizations.

So far, only J Street’s Political Action Committee has disclosed its contributors, as mandated by federal law. But who are the donors to the main J Street organization? Make that list public, and these pesky inquiries will probably go away.

When asked about J Street’s funding by the Jerusalem Post — the newspaper that ran the original exposé — you responded “at most 3 percent” of contributors were Muslim or Arab. Now you state that the figure may be closer to 10 percent. One tenth of J Street’s budget of $3 million, or $300,000, is a substantial sum. Why do so many Arabs contribute to an organization that purports to be “pro-Israel?”

And it's not just Arabs. For instance, one member of the organization's finance committee, Genevieve Lynch, was a participant of the National Iranian American Council. Judith Barnett, a former registered agent for Saudi Arabia, is a donor and is prominent on the J Street Advisory Council. while Nancy Dutton, who until 2008 represented the Saudis as an attorney against her fellow Americans donates to J Street's political action committee which has been financing anti-Israeli congressional candidates.

The advisory council itself is littered with Rabbis for Obama, prominent Leftists like Eli Pariser, the Board President of MoveOn.org, ex-Senator Lincoln Chafee, Markos Kounalakis who publishes The Washington Monthly and Stanley Sheinbaum, and anti-Israel former diplomats like Rob Malley and Nicholas Veliotes.

A look at the upcoming conference is also revealing. The scheduled keynote speakers include Obama's staunchly anti-Israel NSA General James Jones, and two US senators not exactly noted for their pro-Israel bonifides ( John Kerry and Chuck Hagel, who's rumored to be Obama's next SecDef).

Also speaking will be Rabbi Eric Yoffie, head of the US Reform movement, who once described J Street's positions as "deeply distressing, morally deficient and profoundly out of touch with Jewish sentiment and appallingly naïve." Apparently his pro-Obama comrades convinced him to take one for the Cause.

And J-Street's scheduled featured bloggers panel? Soccer Dad ferreted this one out:

This panel will be attended by the likes of Helena Cobban, Richard Silverstein, Phil Weiss, and Max Blumenthal, among others. Silverstein claims that J-Street is only providing them a platform but not endorsing their views. Really, a platform is more than enough. These people are by no means pro-Israel - they are unapologetically anti-Israel - the false label that J-Street insists on attaching to itself.

In fact Helena Cobban has just been named the executive director of the Council for the National Interest (CNI). CNI is one of those organizations run by former Middle East diplomats (in this case Eugene Bird) with strong ties to Saudi Arabia. So while they agitate against the so-called "Israel Lobby" they are part of what Steven Emerson once referred to the American House of Saud. Cobban believes that Hamas is a legitimate organization - she goes beyond saying Israel must negotiate with Hamas - and therefore can accurately be called a terror supporter.

Sponsors include the remnants of the EU funded Israeli far Left - people like the Meretz party, Ameinu, and Brit Tzedek among others, taking time off from their efforts to impede Jews building homes and the IDF's efforts to protect Israelis.

The American sponsors include the usual suspects, including Peace Now, The Israel Policy Forum, The Foundation For Middle East Peace and the New Israel Fund.

The bottom line was best summed up by Stephen Walt, co-author of the The Israel Lobby, who recently said in Mother Jones magazine, “This is a key moment in the debate. It will be important whether Obama gets enough cover from J Street and the Israel Policy Forum so Obama can say, ‘AIPAC is not representative of the American Jewish community.’”

Make no mistake about it. J Street has a right to their poisonous views, and if George Soros wants to use his money to fund an anti-Israel lobby and can get Jews to participate, he has that right.

But let's not mistake J Street for anything but what it is - an anti-Israel, self hating dead end.

Fortunately, a lot of people seem to be getting the message.

-selah-

UPDATE: Apparently J-Street's campus organization has officially dropped the 'pro-Israel' part of its "pro-Israel, pro-peace" slogan.

"We don't want to isolate people because they don't feel quite so comfortable with 'pro-Israel,' so we say 'pro-peace,'" said American University junior Lauren Barr of the "J Street U" slogan, "but behind that is 'pro-Israel.'"

Barr, secretary of the J Street U student board that decided the slogan's terminology, explained that on campus, "people feel alienated when the conversation revolves around a connection to Israel only, because people feel connected to Palestine, people feel connected to social justice, people feel connected to the Middle East."

She noted that the individual student chapters would be free to add "pro-Israel," "pro-Israel, pro-Palestine," or other wording that they felt would be effective on this issue, since "it's up to the individuals on campus to know their audience."

Indeed...treasonous,cowardly self-hating little scumbags worthy of Dante's lowest circle of Hell. But at least one can give them points for honesty and truth in labeling.