The Palestine Post had this to say at the 25th anniversary, during the depths of the Holocaust:

Notice how even then, as Jews argued that the immediate establishment of a state would save countless lives from the Nazis, they still bent over backwards to point out that Jewish immigration to Palestine helped the Arab community and did not displace a single person. Notice also that even then it was assumed that the Palestine spoken of in 1917 included Transjordan. (See also my posting on Eastern Palestine.)

In 1947, on the eve of the UN Partition vote, the Arabs decided to strike on this anniversary, As usual, the strike ended up helping the Jews more than it hurt them:

But while the real Palestinian Arab people took advantage of a nice day off by visiting Jewish shops, their self-declared thought-leaders looked at things a little more violently, figuratively bashing Balfour’s head with Arab hammers:

The Jewish claim on Palestine does not depend on the Balfour Declaration, of course, but it was an important moment in modern Zionist history that illuminates much about the conflict.

cross-posted on Elder of Ziyon 

Zunes’ argument is that America’s policies are so reprehensible in total that blaming the Israel Lobby alone absolves the US for its supposed awful foreign policy. So this is an argument that US policy is uniformly awful and not only in the Middle East, which proves that the “Lobby” has nothing to do with it:

The overbearing power and McCarthyite tactics wielded by the American Jewish establishment against critics of Israeli government policies—particularly against prominent Jewish progressives like Michael Lerner—has made critical discourse about U.S. support for the Israeli government extremely difficult. As a result, it is all too easy to buy into the arguments put forward by John Mearsheimer and Steve Walt in their newly-released book The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy (Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, 2007) that the ‘Israel Lobby†is primarily responsible for the tragic course taken in U.S. Middle East policy. The Tikkun Community has recently sponsored a series of public events with the authors, and Rabbi Lerner wrote a lengthy piece in the September/October issue of this magazine largely defending their perspective.

As a political scientist and international relations scholar specializing in the United States†role in the Middle East, I must disagree. I am in no way denying that the Israel Lobby can be quite influential, particularly on Capitol Hill and in its role in limiting the broader public debate. However, it would be naíve to assume that U.S. policy in the Middle East would be significantly different without AIPAC and like–minded pro–Zionist organizations…

…
Any serious review of U.S. foreign policy in virtually any corner of the globe demonstrates how the United States props up dictatorships, imposes blatant double-standards regarding human rights and international law, supports foreign military occupations (witness East Timor and Western Sahara), undermines the authority of the United Nations, pushes for military solutions to political problems, transfers massive quantities of armaments, imposes draconian austerity programs on debt–ridden countries through international financial institutions, and periodically imposes sanctions, bombs, stages coups, and invades countries that donâ€t accept U.S. hegemony. If U.S. policy toward the Middle East was fundamentally different than it is toward the rest of the world, Mearsheimer and Walt would have every right to look for some other sinister force leading the United States astray from its otherwise benign foreign policy agenda. Unfortunately, however, U.S. policy toward the Middle East is remarkably similarly to U.S. foreign policy elsewhere in the world.

…
In 2006, ‘pro–Israel†PACs and individuals are estimated to have contributed more than $9 million to party coffers and congressional campaigns. While that is a significant amount, it ranks significantly below that of PACs and individuals supporting the interests of lawyers ($58 million), retirees ($36 million), real estate interests ($33 million), health professionals ($32 million), securities and investment interests ($29 million), the insurance industry ($21 million), commercial banks ($16 million), the pharmaceutical industry ($14 million), the defense industry ($13 million), electrical utilities ($12 million), the oil and gas industry ($11 million), and the computer industry ($10 million), among others. If campaign contributions had such a direct impact on policy as Walt and Mearsheimer claim, Congress should therefore have a strong and consistent pro-labor agenda since contributions given in support of unions representing public sector workers, the building trades, and transportation workers each were significantly higher than the total contributions given in support for the Israeli government. Furthermore, with rare exceptions, PACs allied with the Israel Lobby do not contribute more than 10 percent of the total amount raised by a given campaign.

The vast majority of the (admittedly few) House members who refuse to follow AIPACâ€s line are easily reelected. For example, every Democratic member of Congress who refused to support the July 2006 House resolution supporting Israelâ€s attacks on Lebanon, a resolution subjected to vigorous lobbying by AIPAC, was reelected by a larger margin than they were two years earlier.

…Perhaps the most misleading argument put forward by Walt and Mearsheimer is their claim that the 2003 invasion of Iraq “was motivated in good part by a desire to make Israel more secure.” This is ludicrous on several grounds. First of all, Israel is far less secure as a result of the rise of Islamist extremism, terrorist groups, and Iranian influence in post–invasion Iraq than it was during the final years of Saddam Husseinâ€s rule, when Iraq was no longer a strategic threat to Israel or actively involved in anti–Israeli terrorism. Indeed, it had been more than a decade since Iraq had posed any significant threat to Israel and both Israelâ€s chief of intelligence and the Israeli Defense Forces chief of staff made public statements in October 2002 emphasizing how Israelâ€s military strength had grown over the previous decade as Iraqâ€s had grown weaker.

…While a disproportionate number of Jews could be found among the top policy makers in Washington who pushed for a U.S. invasion of Iraq, it is also true that a disproportionate number of Jews could be found among liberal Democrats in Congress and leftist intellectuals in universities who opposed the invasion of Iraq. Furthermore, it is absurd to imply that those who were most responsible for the decision to invade Iraq—Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Vice President Dick Cheney, and President George W. Bush—would place the perceived interests of Israel ahead of that of the United States. And they were perfectly capable of making such a stupid and tragic miscalculation on their own.

By adhering to his radical Left agenda, Zunes manages to see America’s supposed crimes as far superceding Israel’s.

Zunes gets much of his argument from Joseph Massad, the infamous Columbia associate professor who is effectively anti-semitic.

It is instructive to look at the argument a little closer, seeing that it is from an intellectual Arab perspective that is being parroted by gullible or malicious left-wing useful idiots like Zunes.

Massad wrote his critique of the “Israel Lobby” paper last year for Al-Ahram:

The underlying argument has been simple and has been told time and again by Washington’s regime allies in the Arab world, pro-US liberal and Arab intellectuals, conservative and liberal US intellectuals and former politicians, and even leftist Arab and American activists who support Palestinian rights, namely, that absent the pro- Israel lobby, America would at worst no longer contribute to the oppression of Arabs and Palestinians and at best it would be the Arabs’ and the Palestinians’ best ally and friend. What makes this argument persuasive and effective to Arabs? Indeed, why are its claims constantly brandished by Washington’s Arab friends to Arab and American audiences as a persuasive argument? I contend that the attraction of this argument is that it exonerates the United States’ government from all the responsibility and guilt that it deserves for its policies in the Arab world and gives false hope to many Arabs and Palestinians who wish America would be on their side instead of on the side of their enemies.

From the funhouse mirror perspective he is essentially right – the US policies towards the Arab world would hardly be different without the Israel lobby. His problem is not primarily with Israel but with America.

The record of the United States is one of being the implacable enemy of all Third World national liberation groups, including European ones, from Greece to Latin America to Africa and Asia, except in the celebrated cases of the Afghan fundamentalists’ war against the USSR and supporting apartheid South Africa’s main terrorist allies in Angola and Mozambique (UNITA and RENAMO) against their respective anti-colonial national governments. Why then would the US support national liberation in the Arab world absent the pro-Israel lobby is something these studies never explain.

Massad is where leftist intellectualism and Muslim fundamentalism meet. The “national liberation” movements that he refers to must mean the Muslim Brotherhood and its offshoots, as they are the only real threat to the corrupt leadership of most Arab countries. There is no doubt that Egypt, Syria and the rest of the Arab countries are autocratic dictatorships with little regard to human rights, but there is equally no doubt that the alternatives would be worse from anyone who is not a Muslim terrorist or sympathizer.

The US supported the independence of Jordan, Syria, Egypt and all the others who emerged from the Ottoman Empire and colonial rule. Massad doesn’t seem interested in maintaining Arab independence – he is interested in replacing these independent states with fundamentalist ones, all in the name of “liberation.” He skillfully uses leftist talking points to help build an Arab world that is fully aligned with terror (and, in all probability, which would combine into a single Muslim fundamentalist Arabia.)

This following paragraph is particularly enlightening in more ways than one:

Finally we come to the financial argument, namely that the US gives an inordinate amount of money to Israel — too exorbitant a cost that is out of proportion to what the US gets in return. In fact, the United States spends much more on its military bases in the Arab world, not to mention on those in Europe or Asia, than it does on Israel. Israel has indeed been very effective in rendering services to its US master for a good price, whether in channelling illegal arms to central American dictatorships in the 1970s and 1980s, helping pariah regimes like Taiwan and apartheid South Africa in the same period, supporting pro-US, including Fascist, groups inside the Arab world to undermine nationalist Arab regimes, from Lebanon to Iraq to Sudan, coming to the aid of conservative pro- US Arab regimes when threatened as it did in Jordan in 1970, and attacking Arab nationalist regimes outright as it did in 1967 with Egypt and Syria and in 1981 with Iraq when it destroyed that country’s nuclear reactor. While the US had been able to overthrow Sukarno and Nkrumah in bloody coups, Nasser remained entrenched until Israel effectively neutralised him in the 1967 War. It is thanks to this major service that the United States increased its support to Israel exponentially. Moreover, Israel neutralised the PLO in 1982, no small service to many Arab regimes and their US patron who could not fully control the organisation until then. None of the American military bases on which many more billions are spent can claim such a stellar record. Critics argue that when the US had to intervene in the Gulf, it could not rely on Israel to do the job because of the sensitivity of including it in such a coalition which would embarrass Arab allies, hence the need for direct US intervention and the uselessness of Israel as a strategic ally. While this may be true, the US also could not rely on any of its military bases to launch the invasions on their own and had to ship in its army. American bases in the Gulf did provide important and needed support but so did Israel.

Massad now accidentally gives a powerful argument for Israel as an effective ally of the US. He even ignores Israel’s ability to do anything unilaterally, making the assumption that both the Six Day War and the Osirak raid were really American initiatives carried out willingly by their Israeli puppets.

Ultimately, his hatred of America is far greater than his hatred of Israel (which is legendary.) Although it appears that he was born in the US he clearly considers the United States to be the real source of evil on the planet, with Israel just an appendage.

This is not particular to Massad – the entire Arab world looks to the United States as the “big Satan” even as they are happy to keep taking money and weapons from us. Israel is a lightning rod for their hate, and the fact that dhimmi Jews control what they consider Arab land is certainly a contributing factor for their misoziony, but if Israel didn’t exist their hatred for America would not be abated at all.

It is interesting that leftists have adopted this anti-American, pro-terrorist line of thinking at the same time that the Arab intellectuals have started framing their arguments in leftist terms. It is also ironic that if the “liberation movements” that Massad champions would win control of their countries, Massad and his fellow Christian Arabs would be at the mercy of the jihadists.

(adapted from two posts at Elder of Ziyon)

President Bush has proposed a sixfold increase in aid to the Palestinians, including $150 million in direct cash transfers to the Palestinian Authority, in an effort to bolster the government in advance of a Middle East peace conference planned for later this month in Annapolis.

The $435 million in additional aid, on top of $77 million requested earlier this year, has attracted little notice in the president’s $45.9 billion supplemental request last week to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. But, if approved, it would constitute the administration’s largest amount of direct aid to the Palestinian Authority. Previously, the administration had limited cash transfers to $50 million at a time.

Let’s get a quick timeline together:

* US gives some $70 million annually to the moderate terrorists of the PA, including weapons and training for their security forces to keep out the extremist terrorists.
* The extremist terrorists win an election and take over the government.
* The US and EU balk at this new Hamas government so Abbas is installed as a figurehead president to receive more money.
* Hamas goes to war with the moderate terrorists, with all their US-supplied weapons and training. Fatah runs away from Gaza with barely a skirmish.
* The US and EU decide to reward the moderate terrorists by allowing them to form an undemocratic government and ignoring Gaza – and they pressure Israel to give this government a couple of hundred million dollars.
* Moderate terrorists continue terrorizing, with suicide attacks thwarted by Israel, with press restrictions, with continued incitement against Israel on moderate terrorist TV.
* Now the US decides that the reason that the moderate terrorists lost the the extremists is not because they have no motivation, not because they have no desire for peace with Israel, not because Fatah in reality only controls a small area around Ramallah while Hamas is more popular everywhere else – the real reason is because the US didn’t give Fatah enough money to begin with.

As the expression goes, if the only tool you have is a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail. The US has zero influence on Palestinian Arabs in any meaningful way – in fact, all evidence points to the fact that they hate the US with a passion. Whomever the US supports will actually automatically lose prestige in the Arab world. The only thing the US has is money, and it therefore thinks that money can solve all problems.

For thirty years the US has singlehandedly propped up the Egyptian government with tens of billions of dollars to influence Egypt to adhere to its peace treaty with Israel. This may have brought a temporary end to war but it has hardly brought peace – Egyptians remain the most anti-semitic and misozionistic people on the planet. The idea of normalizing relations with Egypt, so sought after by Israel in the 1970s, is laughable today. Egypt is a single bullet away from being taken over by the Muslim Brotherhood. Three decades of “peace” has not moderated the Egyptian people one bit. The only reason there is not a state of war now is because a series of autocratic rulers have worked to ensure that the money pipeline remains open.

This is hardly a model for Israel-Palestinian Arab peace. Gaza, Al Aqsa Brigades, a weak non-democratic government – all these show that any money the US gives to Mahmoud Abbas will end up going to the terrorists, one way or another, and will impede peace rather than promote it.

Last September, CAMERA came out with a report showing an amazing correlation between the amount that Palestinian Arabs receive and the number of murders they do the following year:

The idea that the US can solve this problem with money is not only wrong, it is exactly the opposite – if the US wants to increase terror, the surest way is by increasing “aid”.

“We donâ€t want concessions. We are people with rights and we demand our rights,” the king told the BBC when asked whether he expected any Israeli concessions in order to reach a Middle East peace settlement….

Speaking about the US-sponsored Middle East peace conference, the king said he believed that the conference would fail unless the Palestinians†needs were taken more seriously. He emphasized the return of Palestinian refugees to their country. “This is a humanitarian condition for peace.”

Too bad the interviewer was too ignorant to point out that it is a wee bit hypocritical for Abdullah to whine about Palestinian Arab rights when the Kingdom itself refuses to give citizenship to Palestinian Arabs, even as hundreds of thousands have helped build his country. It is truly bigotry.

And even so, he pretends to identify with them saying not that Palestinian Arabs have rights, but “we are people with rights.” For all the incessant whining that the US and Europe aren’t “evenhanded” when it comes to the Middle East, this basic standard is completely thrown out the window by his own words as he sheds even the pretext of objectivity on this issue.

Not to mention that to hear the Saudi king talk about “rights” from one of the most repressive regimes on Earth should cause anyone overhearing to vomit on the spot.

His insulting words didn’t end here, though:

In the BBC interview, King Abdullah said it would take 20 to 30 years to defeat terrorism. “My advice to all countries including Britain is that they should not show any leniency in fighting terrorism,” he said. The king also revealed the recent arrest of some terror financiers in the Kingdom and said Al-Qaeda continued to be a big problem for Saudi Arabia.
…The BBC also reported that King Abdullah is annoyed that the rest of the world has largely failed to act on his proposal to establish an international counterterrorism center. “Everybody has accepted the proposal but then did nothing to implement it,” the king said.

“This center, under the umbrella of the United Nations, will collect information related to terrorism. We have learned from our experience that the speedy dispatch of information is the main factor in combating terrorism,” he explained.

…King Abdullah also said that Saudi Arabia had provided intelligence information to British authorities about a possible terrorist attack in the UK. “We sent information to Great Britain before the terrorist attacks in Britain, but unfortunately no action was taken and you know what happened,” the king said about the deadly July 7, 2005 bombings.

One British newspaper, Bits of News, described the reaction to this last statement as “Whitehall officials have been almost as quick to offer embarrassed, low-key denials as government ministers have been to placate the King with sycophantic, simpering, clichéd words promising friendship and cooperation.”

Notice also the outlines of Abdullah’s proposal for a “counterterrorism” center. Under UN auspices, it would ensure that Islamic terror would be downplayed and nothing would be able to impede the spread of Saudi Wahhabi Islam that has inspired so many jihadists.

Then, with a straight face, Abdullah continued:

“Islam has given the most rights to women in the world and they are strong and important participants in our society,” he said when asked about the condition of women in Saudi Arabia.

Coming from a country where women are not allowed to drive, where they cannot testify in court, where they cannot vote and where they make up a tiny percentage of the workforce, this is a statement that an ordinary journalist would have demolished.

But the obnoxious King can say such absurd things with impunity, because his wealth and control over worldwide energy resources burnish the fiction that he is an ally in the war on terror, rather than the enemy.

Abdullah came to the UK with an entourage of 400 people, on four planes, taking 84 limousines from the airport. He personally gets rich off of Western petrodollars and uses his wealth skillfully to keep the West in permanent submission to his will. Saudi influence in First World governments far outweighs the fabled “Israel lobby”.

This rush to placate the Kingdom in its most wretched hypocritical glory is disgusting. But it will continue as long as we keep having to buy oil.

The top negotiator for the Palestinian Authority, Ahmed Qureia (Abu Ala), warned on Sunday that the region would suffer greatly in the event that the upcoming Annapolis peace conference failed.

“If the summit fails – frustration will win out over everything else and it will have a negative affect on the region. I cannot predict exactly what will happen, but it may lead to more wars.

“I warn now against failure there, which will open the door for extremists and extremism – and that door will be very difficult to close,” said Qureia at a conference held by Meretz activists.

Oh, he can predict precisely what will happen all right – if past history is any guide, Fatah is planning the newest intifada phase right now in anticipation of a summit that doesn’t accede to all of their demands, just as they did in 2000.

Notice also the usual Arab subtext that they cannot control their “street.” This excuse has been used for decades, but for some reason they manage to control their people quite fine – and brutally – when they go against the wishes of whatever regime they are in. It is only when they want to do something that the Arab regimes agree with that they turn into such a “threat.”

I have previously described this as “the diplomacy of fear,” a well-used part of the Arab negotiating lexicon. It is quite effective so there is no reason for Arabs and Muslims to stop using it.

cross-posted at Elder of Ziyon

The question of whether we could bear a redivision of Jerusalem is a searing and painful one. The Orthodox Union, National Council of Young Israel and a variety of other organizations, including Christian Evangelical ones, are calling upon their constituencies to join them in urging the Israeli government to refrain from any negotiation concerning the status of Jerusalem at all, when and if the Annapolis conference occurs. And last week, as I read one e-mail dispatch after another from these organizations, I became more and more convinced that I could not join their call.

It’s not that I would want to see Jerusalem divided. It’s rather that the time has come for honesty. Their call to handcuff the government of Israel in this way, their call to deprive it of this negotiating option, reveals that these organizations are not being honest about the situation that we are in, and how it came about. And I cannot support them in this.

These are extremely difficult thoughts for me to share, both because they concern an issue that is emotionally charged, and because people whose friendship I treasure will disagree strongly with me. And also because I am breaking a taboo within my community, the Orthodox Zionist community. “Jerusalem: Israel’s Eternally Undivided Capital” is a 40-year old slogan that my community treats with biblical reverence. It is an article of faith, a corollary of the belief in the coming of the Messiah. It is not questioned. But this final reason why it is difficult for me to share these thoughts is also the very reason that I have decided to do so. This is a conversation that desperately needs to begin.

No peace conference between Israel and the Palestinians will ever produce anything positive until both sides have decided to read the story of the last 40 years honestly. On our side, this means being honest about the story of how Israel came to settle civilians in the territories it conquered in 1967, and about the outcomes that this story has generated.

An honest reading of this story reveals that there were voices in the inner circle of the Israeli government in 1967-1968 who warned that settling civilians in conquered territories was probably illegal under international law. But for very understandable reasons — among them security needs, Zionist ideologies of both the both secular and religious varieties, memories that were 20 years old, and memories that were 3,000 years old — these voices were overruled. We can identify with many of the ideas that carried the settlement project forward. But the fact remains that it is simply not honest on our part to pretend that the government of Israel didn’t know that there was likely a legal problem, or that the government was confident that international conventions did not apply to this situation. That just wouldn’t be an honest telling.

An honest reading of the story reveals that the heroes of Israel’s wars who became the ministers in its government, who were most responsible for the initial decision to settle, were quite aware that by doing so they were risking conflict with the Arab population that was living there. They were aware that these Arabs would never be invited to become citizens of Israel, and would never have the rights of citizens. Nonetheless, they decided to go forward. Some believed that the economic benefit that would accrue to these Arabs as a result of their interactions with Israelis and Israel would be so great that they wouldn’t mind our military and civilian presence among them. Others projected that some sort of diplomatic arrangement would soon be reached with Jordan that would soften the face of what would otherwise be full-blown military occupation. These may have been reasonable projections at the time. But as it turned out, both of them were wrong. And it’s not honest to tell the story without acknowledging that we made these mistakes.

The Religious Zionist leadership (similar to today’s Evangelical supporters of Israel) made a different judgment, namely that settling the Biblical heartland would further hasten the unfolding of the messianic age. Thus, the Arab population already there was not our problem. God would deal with it. This belief too — reasonable though it may have seemed at the time — has also turned out to be wrong. To tell the story honestly, this mistake too must be acknowledged.

And the difference that honest storytelling makes is enormous. When we tell our story honestly, our position at the negotiating table is one that is informed not only by our own needs and desires, but also by our obligations and responsibilities. The latter include the responsibility to — in some way, in some measure — fix that which we have done. Also included is the need to recognize that we have some kind of obligation toward the people who have been harmed by our decisions. Honesty in our telling of the story reveals the stark and candid reality that we also need to speak the language of compromise and conciliation. Not only the language of entitlement and demands.

To be sure, I would be horrified and sick if the worst-case division-of-Jerusalem scenario were to materialize. The possibility that the Kotel, the Jewish Quarter or the Temple Mount would return to their former states of Arab sovereignty is unfathomable to me, and I suspect to nearly everyone inside the Israeli government. At the same time though, to insist that the government not talk about Jerusalem at all (including the possibility, for example, of Palestinian sovereignty over Arab neighborhoods) is to insist that Israel come to the negotiating table telling a dishonest story — a story in which our side has made no mistakes and no miscalculations, a story in which there is no moral ambiguity in the way we have chosen to rule the people we conquered, a story in which we don’t owe anything to anyone. Cries of protest, in particular from organizations that oppose Israel’s relinquishing anything at all between the Mediterranean and the Jordan, and which have never offered any alternative solutions to the ones they are protesting against, are rooted in the refusal to read history honestly. And I — for one — cannot lend my support to that.

Without a doubt, the Palestinians aren’t telling an honest story either. They are not being honest about their record of violence against Jews in the pre-State era, or about the obscene immorality with which they attacked Israeli civilians during the second intifada. They are not being honest about the ways in which their fellow Arabs are responsible for so much of the misery that they — the Palestinians — have endured, and they certainly are not being honest about the deep and real historical connection that the Jewish people has to this land and to this holy city. And there will not be peace (and perhaps there should be no peace conference) until they tell an honest story as well. But for us to take the approach that in order to defend and protect ourselves from their dishonest story, we must continue telling our own dishonest story, is to travel a road of unending and unendable conflict. Peace will come only when and if everyone at the table has the courage, the strength, and enough fear of God to tell the story as it really is.

For many decades we have sighed and asked, “When will peace come?” The answer is starkly simple. There will be peace the day after there is truth.

Rabbi Kanefsky says many right things, and he makes a few mistakes, to reach a very wrong conclusion.

He is entirely correct that there cannot be peace until there is truth. Unfortunately, he is not being entirely honest himself as he conflates the history of Jerusalem after 1967 with that of Judea and Samaria – the Israeli government annexed Jerusalem and did offer citizenship to all its Arab residents, so his arguments would be more powerful if he would only be referring to the rest of the West Bank and not Jerusalem.

His major mistakes, though, are not historical but tactical. His yearning for truth in negotiations may be admirable, but when one is in a situation where only one side is willing to tell the truth, it puts that side at an enormous disadvantage in a neutral forum.

I touched upon this point recently when I discussed the British commission of inquiry after the 1929 riots, where they listened to the Arab claims of ownership of the Western Wall and the Jewish claims that only God owns the wall – and they sided with the Arabs. The Jews could have made a compelling legal case for historic ownership of the entire Temple Mount but instead they told the truth. And in that forum, they lost.

Whenever third parties look at competing claims, they make the assumption that both claimants are fundamentally honest and that the truth is somewhere in between. When one side has no compunctions about lying, that side has a tremendous advantage over the side that is willing to admit mistakes. Honesty will be used against the truth-tellers.

Simply put, the Arab/Israeli conflict is a land dispute. If one side claims all the land and the other side equivocates about that question, naturally the side that claims it all is in a position of power.

This is not to say that Israel should lie. Its true claims are powerful enough, if they are not often stated as well as they should be. But this means that Israel should not negotiate by showing its hand as to what it is willing to give up – because these are essentially one-way negotiations, the question is how much land Israel will end up losing, and not what she will get in return because that is intangible (and almost certainly fantasy.) An “honest” negotiator will always lose because you will never find both sides putting on the table their final position.

Israel’s legal, moral and historic claims to Jerusalem – and the entire West Bank as well – are very strong, but they have been given up by successive Israeli governments, in some part because of this desire for “honesty.” Is Israel in better shape now than before Oslo? Is real peace any closer? Has Israel reaped rewards for its honest negotiations, which translates directly into capitulations?

It is unfortunate but becoming increasingly clear that “peace” is literally impossible with the current generation of Arabs. “Honesty,” goodwill gestures, pleading, and the intense interest of most of the world has led to nothing. Israel’s relative safety vis a vis its neighbors (as opposed to terror groups) is a result not of peaceful negotiations but because of Israel’s success at war.

Sure Israel has made mistakes. No one should cover up errors or change history. But honesty has little to do with negotiations.

Kanefsky’s major error is the assumption that both sides want peace and have the capability to deliver, and his advice (glowingly quoted in The Forward) is very, very wrong.

See also “The Case for a Larger Israel” for a completely different way of looking at things.

A couple of days ago, in an earthshaking find, some artifacts from the First Temple period were discovered:

The artifacts, which date to the First Jewish Temple period—the eighth to sixth centuries B.C.—were found by employees of the Waqf Muslim religious trust doing maintenance work, the Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA) reported.

The artifacts may be the first physical evidence of human activity at the Temple Mount—also known as Solomon’s Temple—in that time.

Jerusalem’s district archaeologist Yuval Baruch is supervising the Muslim maintenance project.

Baruch and Sy Gitin, director of the W. F. Albright Institute of Archaeological Research in Jerusalem, Ronny Reich of Haifa University, and Israel Finkelstein of Tel Aviv University, concluded that the finds might help reconstruct the dimensions and boundaries of the Temple Mount during the First Temple Period.

The findings include animal bones; ceramic bowl rims, bases, and body sherds; the base of a juglet used to pour oil; the handle of a small juglet; and the rim of a storage jar, according to the IAA.

The bowl sherds were decorated with wheel burnishing lines characteristic of the First Temple Period.

In addition, a piece of a whitewashed, handmade object was found. It may have been used to decorate a larger object or may have been the leg of an animal figurine.
“This is the first time we have shards from the Temple Mount with a [uniform] date,” Haifa University’s Reich told National Geographic News.

The find “most certainly” indicates the presence of people in the temple during the late eighth century and seventh century B.C., he said.

“From an archaeological standpoint, this is the first time this has happened,” Reich said.

“You can say that this was written in the Bible—but the Bible is a text and texts can be played around with. This is physical evidence.”

As one would expect, the Muslims who completely deny that Jews ever lived in ancient Jerusalem – the same ones who deliberately destroy all evidence of Judaism on the Temple Mount – are strongly denying that these finds mean anything. Here’s an autotranslation of an Arabic article from Al-Hayat al-Jadida:

Astonished Sheikh Mohammad Hussein General Mufti of Jerusalem and the Palestinian imam and the Al-Aqsa mosque, yesterday, allegations of Israeli occupation authorities and the so-called alleged Temple Mount during excavations carried out by the Waqf Islamic before the close of the extension the electricity cables in the Al-Aqsa mosque.

The Mufti statements issued several months ago on the effects of Israel and which claimed to have found remnants of dust effects in which the Waqf Islamic factions in 1999 outside the Al-Aqsa mosque.

He said: that these allegations are lies and fabrications denying the existence of any implications for the structure of the alleged yards in the Al-Aqsa mosque or the mosque or close to, adding that this earth that the Waqf Islamic factions are superficial and external back to the Ottoman era and not from the Old Testament as they claim.

The Sheikh Hussein that the city of Jerusalem had been many times for demolition and landfill because of earthquakes in Palestine throughout history, so the soil is excavated in recent times have been of the effects they are talking about nothing.

He added that the occupation authorities claimed each time she found the alleged effects of the structure and mean it behind interference in the affairs of Al-Aqsa mosque and the withdrawal of Endowments and the transfer of powers to the conflict and is impeding the restoration.

The discourse and spending excavations carried out by the occupation authorities since 1967 on the Al-Aqsa mosque and the bottom of walls, occupation authorities warned of the consequences of interference in its affairs.

He appealed to all international bodies and organizations to intervene to stop these practices against the Palestinian holy sites, especially the Al-Aqsa Mosque, also called the Arab League and the Organization of Islamic Conference to move soon to stop the campaign Althudi of Jerusalem and Al-Aqsa mosque.

If chutzpah wasn’t a Yiddish word, it would have to be invented in Arabic. In the same breath where he claims that there are no problems with excavating directly on the Temple Mount, he calls on the world to condemn Israeli excavations far away from the Al Aqsa Mosque – excavations that are being done with utmost care.

The Mufti’s casual dismissal of any finds as being from the Ottoman period – and any sixth-rate archaeologist can easily tell the difference between pottery from the 7th century BCE and pottery from 2400 years later – shows how he is, in the most simple terms, a liar. But his embrace of the destruction of Jewish artifacts while calling on Israel to stop their own work is breathtakingly hypocritical.

Of course, when his purpose is to establish Islamic supremacy and deny any Jewish history in Jerusalem, then his statements are quite consistent, if still as dishonest as can be. Making up fairy tales about Mohammed’s flying horse being tied for a couple of hours to the Kotel, which is a story made up entirely by the Grand Mufti in the 1920s in order to get the Jews away from the Western Wall, proves to anyone with an ounce of intellectual honesty that the Muslim claim to Jerusalem is exaggerated specifically in order to de-legitimize Judaism itself.

It is a scandal that the West places equal weight on the liars.

Prominent leader of the Popular Resistance Committees Abu Al-Sa’id on Wednesday called on the de facto Palestinian government to hasten disbanding the Palestinian Authority and establish a ‘Resistance Authority’ instead in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

Speaking during a press conference, Abu Al-Sa’id urged Palestinian resistance factions, particularly the Salah Addin Brigades of the PRC, to “kill Jews everywhere without waiting for permission”, in retaliation for the murder of Muhammad Al-Ashqar and the violent treatment of Palestinian detainees at Ktziot prison.

The PRC and Hamas are linked together, there have been numerous cases where they worked together for terror attacks.

Yesterday’ s airstrike against a Qassam cell is a case in point:

An Israeli aircraft attacked a car in central Gaza on Tuesday, destroying the vehicle and killing a senior security official in the Hamas government, Palestinian officials said. Hamas radio identified the dead man as Mubarak al-Hassanat, a senior official in the Hamas-controlled Interior Ministry. The ministry oversees all Hamas security forces in the Gaza Strip.

Al-Hassanat, 37, also was a top member of the Popular Resistance Committees, a Hamas-linked group that frequently fires rockets into Israel.

So Hamas has effectively just declared open season on Jews worldwide. And since the vast majority of Arabs have no problem with Jews, only Zionists, we can expect to see a torrent of Arab and Muslim condemnations against this anti-semitic statement any minute now.

Any….minute….now…..

Meanwhile, I will also wait for any other media outlet to publish this story. At the moment the phrase “kill Jews everywhere” comes up empty on Google News. I guess it is not newsworthy.

There are between 110,000 and 120,000 stateless Bidoon in Kuwait. Many have lived in Kuwait their entire lives, but Kuwait reserves full citizenship rights for those who established residence in the country prior to 1920. In some cases, residence prior to 1920 was not sufficient for acquisition of nationality…

The Bidoon in Kuwait are not allowed to work or to receive welfare services. Security ID had been taken from the majority of them leaving them no access to public health care. They are banned from travel. Bidoon children may be denied birth certificates needed to attend school.

(In Saudi Arabia), stateless Bidoon are not given passports.

The UAE also has a population of a roughly estimated 100,000 stateless Bidoon. Despite the fact many of these individuals were born in the U.E., they are not considered to be citizens.

Bahrain, to its credit, did naturalize most of their 15,000 Bidoon in 2001.

The only possible reason we don’t hear about the Bidoon is because they haven’t embarked on any terror campaigns against Western targets. If they would try to fight for their rights in the lands that they came from they’d be destroyed without anyone really caring – a couple of hundred thousand Arabs being killed by other Arabs is hardly newsworthy. There are no UN committees that condemn Kuwait or the UAE for their “apartheid” against fellow Arabs, no outraged editorials pretending to care about these Arabs’ civil rights, no international campaigns for allowing basic human rights to these Arabs. And of course there are no UN refugee camps for these people providing free food and education.

Because the oppressors are Arab, which means that the victims don’t really matter.

(crossposted on Elder of Ziyon )

The past few days have been particularly violent, with some 16 deaths since last Wednesday, not to mention numerous injuries and kidnappings. Details can be found here, here, here and here. The most newsworthy were “clan clashes” between the Fatah-affiliated Hillis family and Hamas, although there were also Hamas/Islamic Jihad fights and a number of other random political murders.

One must wonder why such a depraved corner of the planet, where the rate of terror and murder increased so dramatically after Israel withdrew from Gaza, “deserves” its own state? Yet somehow there appears to be nothing that Palestinian Arabs can do to derail the West’s insistence on helping them with their goal of destroying Israel by creating yet another terror state.