The Phantom Menace in the Middle East: A Review of Caroline Glick’s The Israeli Solution

glick_israeli_solution_cover_4-2-14-1By David P. Goldman:

By any standard, the Palestinian problem involves the strangest criteria in modern history.

To begin with, refugees are defined as individuals who have been forced to leave their land of origin. A new definition of refugee status, though, was invented exclusively for Palestinian Arabs, who count as refugees their descendants to the nth generation.

All the world’s refugees are the responsibility of the United Nations High Commission on Refugees, except for the Palestinians, who have their own refugee agency, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine. Among all the population exchanges of the 20th century — Greeks for Turks after World War I, Hindus for Moslems after the separation of India and Pakistan after World War II, Serbs for Croats after the breakup of Yugoslavia during the 1980s — the Palestinians alone remain frozen in time, a living fossil of long-decided conflicts.

Some 700,000 Jews were expelled from Muslim countries where they had lived in many cases more than a thousand years before the advent of Islam, and most of them were absorbed into the new State of Israel with a territory the size of New Jersey; 700,000 or so Arabs left Israel’s Jewish sector during the 1948 War of Independence, most at the behest of their leaders, but few were absorbed by the vast Muslim lands surrounding Israel.

Instead, the so-called refugees were gathered in camps (now for the most part towns with a living standard much higher than that of the adjacent Arab countries thanks to foreign aid) and kept as a human battering ram against Israel, whose existence the Muslim countries cannot easily accept.

Some 10 million Germans who had lived for generations in what is now Russia, Poland and the Czech Republic were driven out at the end of World War II (more than half a million died in the great displacement).

Imagine that Germany had kept these 10 million people in camps for 70 years and that their descendants now numbered 40 million — and that Germany demanded on pain of war restitution of everything from the Sudetenland to Kaliningrad (the former Konigsberg). That is a fair analogy to the Palestinian position.

It is a scam, a hoax, a put-on, a Grand Guignol theatrical with 5 million extras. Because polite opinion bows to the sensibilities of the world’s 1.4 billion Muslims, it is treated in all seriousness.

As a matter of full disclosure, I want to put my personal view on record: The mainstream view amounts to a repulsive and depraved exercise in hypocrisy that merits the harshest punishment that a just God might devise.

In this looking-glass world of hypocrisy and hoax, though, the most noteworthy deception is the physical existence of the Palestinians themselves: in Judea and Samaria (sometimes called the occupied West Bank), there are perhaps half the number of Arabs as the Palestinian Authority’s census has counted, or the international community acknowledges. As Jerusalem Post reporter Caroline Glick reports in her new book, The Israeli Solution: A One-State Plan for Peace in the Middle East, Israeli researchers have demonstrated that:

The 1997 Palestinian census was a fraud. The Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics [PCBS] had exaggerated the Palestinian population figures by nearly 50 percent, or 1.34 million people… First, it had inflated the existing Palestinian population base. In the 1997 census, the PCBS had included 325,000 Palestinians who lived abroad. It had also included 210,000 Arab residents in Jerusalem, who had already been accounted for in Israel’s population count.

The Palestinian census had included an additional 113,000 persons whose existence was not noted in the 1996 Israeli civil administration. When the data was compared to the voter base published by the Palestinian Central Elections Commission (PCEC) in 1996 and 2005, the PCEC data substantiated the Israeli data. That is, the 113,000 people did not exist.

Taken together, these three moves increased the Palestinian base population by 648,000 people or approximately 27 percent. Imagine if the US Census Bureau had predicted that, in 2012, the United States would have a population base of 400 million, instead of its actual 2012 base size of 314 million. The second stage of the population inflation involved exaggerating future growth. First, it predicated the projections for future growth on a population base that — as we have seen — was massively inflated. Every annual growth assessment based on an inflated population model is necessarily false and inflated.

This fundamental problem was compounded by other factors. The PCBS inflated birthrates and massively inflated immigration rates . Moreover, it ignored the high numbers of Palestinians who immigrated to Israel by marrying Israeli citizens. All told, the PCBS census claimed that the compound annual growth rate of the Palestinians in Judea, Samaria, and Gaza was 4.75 percent — the highest population growth rate in the world. Significantly, just as the Palestinians were claiming to be the fastest-growing population in the world, the Arab world, and the larger Muslim world, were entering a period of unprecedented demographic contraction, even collapse.

The data are well known and long-debated; I took the same position as Ms. Glick in a 2011 essay for the Jewish webzine Tablet. But Ms. Glick, an American immigrant to Israel and a former captain in the Israel Defense Forces, draws a bold conclusion: Israel should annex Judea and Samaria just as it did the city of Jerusalem. Jews will comprise a demographic majority well in excess of 60% between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean. As Palestinians continue to emigrate and Jewish immigration picks up, she adds, “some anticipate that due almost entirely to Jewish immigration, Jews could comprise an 80 percent majority within the 1949 armistice lines and Judea and Samaria by 2035.”

Under Ms. Glick’s plan, Israel would offer to West Bank Arabs the opportunity to apply for Israeli citizenship; all would have full civil rights, and those who chose Israeli citizenship would have voting rights as well. Israeli no doubt would earn the anathema of the international community were it to annex Judea and Samaria, but from Ms. Glick’s way of looking at the matter there is little to lose.

Read more at PJ Media

The Malevolence of the ‘Zionism Unsettled’ Authors

zaby :

The Presbyterian Church USA (PCUSA) considers itself to be peace loving and fair. Today’s “progressive” churches, including the PCUSA, believe that taking the Bible seriously means it cannot be taken literally. This “progressive” outlook has largely given up on biblical prophecy and biblical truth, and taken on a multi-culturalist, moral relativist, and politically correct (PC) worldview. God’s love therefore, embraces all persons equally; no matter their gender, race, or sexual identity. They believe in diversity, tolerance, and inclusivity, except when it comes to Israel. This lingering strain of anti-Semitism has crept in among a determined group of activists within the church, who issued last January a monograph titled “Zionism Unsettled – A Congregational Study Guide.”

The Congregational Study Guide was released in January, 2014 ahead of the PCUSA biennial General Assembly (GA), taking place this June in Detroit. The gathering will once again consider recommendations that it divest from companies that deal with Israel’s military. Similar resolutions have been narrowly defeated in the past. The Israel Palestine Mission Network (IPMN) 68-page guide accompanied by a DVD is meant to influence the GA delegates.

The IPMN, which is responsible for the study guide, is made up of “progressive” Christians influenced by “Liberation Theology” and tainted by a Marxist worldview.

They have mobilized on behalf of the Palestinians (no word from them about the mass killings in Syria or the persecution of Coptic Christians in Egypt and the rest of the Muslim world) and against “Zionist” Israel, a code-word for Jews. Failing in their BDS (Boycott, Divestment, and Sanction) efforts against Israel in recent General Assemblies of the PCUSA, these BDS activists raised the ante a notch by publishing “Zionism Unsettled,” which argues that Zionism, or the Jewish State of Israel is inherently discriminatory toward the Palestinians, and that the very idea of a homeland for the Jewish People is illegitimate.  The authors (IPMN) have no problem with the reality of 22 Muslim states, which are governed by Sharia Islamic law. The Congregational Study Guide states that “the fundamental assumption of this study is that no exceptionalist claims can be justified in our interconnected, pluralistic world.”

According to the authors of the IPMN study guide, national-particularism cannot be justified in the case of Zionism. Yet, Palestinian Arabs who considered themselves part of the Arab nation until 1964, and speak Arabic like the rest of the Arab world, profess the same religion as the rest of the Sunni-Islam Arab states, and share the same cultural milieu as the rest of the Arab world, are acceptable in an “interconnected, pluralistic world” of the IPMN. Their malevolence is as transparent as their hypocrisy!

Read more at Front Page

Dead End: J Street’s One-Way Opposition to Israel

Palestinians call for the death of all Jews (Youtube)

Palestinians call for the death of all Jews (Youtube)

by Andrew Harrod:

J Street (JS) supporters “align themselves on the Arab side in the lopsided Arab war against the Jews,” Harvard University Professor Ruth R. Wisse states in the recently released documentary The J Street Challenge.  As the film documents, this leftist Jewish organization hardly embodies proclaimed “Pro-Israel, Pro-Peace” goals, but rather endangers Israel’s peace with myopic, anti-Israel bias.

“We want the conflict to end,” the film quotes JS founder Jeremy Ben-Ami declaring with respect to Israel’s embattled existence.  This desire for peace is “one of the most seductive messages to the Jewish people for the last two centuries at least” Wisse notes.  “Jewish politics is based upon looking for accommodation” in the face of past unrelenting anti-Semitic hostility, Wisse observes.  “You are willing to do almost anything to stop that aggression against you.”  The “label of pro-peace” has “something very captivating,” the Israeli-based academic Daniel Gordis concurs.

A “one-sided blame game,” though, is ultimately what JS’s vision entails for Israel according to Roz Rothstein of the pro-Israeli advocacy organization Stand With Us.  In JS’s assessment of the Arab-Israeli conflict’s suffering, the “only responsible party for any of this are the Jews,” Israeli writer Caroline Glick observes.  JS presents a “classic illustration” of “not willing to believe bad things about other people,” Boston University Professor Richard Landes elaborates.  This is “more than just an intellectual commitment, it is an emotional commitment.”  Such a “utopia where everybody is the same” dominates youth thinking today, states Samantha Mandeles from the anti-Israel propaganda-debunking CAMERA.

Even though the “stupidity of this kind of innocence” is “almost intolerable” according to Wisse, various Jews might actually derive comfort from a blame-Israel-first outlook.  An “inflated sense of importance” for Jews ironically comes from self-castigation in the Arab-Israeli conflict, for example, Glick argues.  It is “much more luxurious to believe that it’s about me” and in a unique Jewish power to obtain peace.  Although Landes condemns this “moral narcissism” allowing Jews “to feel good about ourselves,” such views have led to an “almost…mythical belief” in the Kabbala teaching of Tikkun Olam or “world repair.”  Interpreted according to this belief “Judaism is liberalism and liberalism is Judaism,” the Emergency Committee for Israel’s Noah Pollack states.

Among Jews the “younger generation is embarrassed about supporting Israel,” Harvard Law School Professor Alan Dershowitz adds, even though “as a progressive you must support Israel” and its liberal society.  “Israel taints them,” film producer Charles Jacobs from Americans for Peace and Tolerance concurs.  Young American Jews thus seek “expiation” in JS and “to get out from under the burden of that guilt.”  While “bravery is to be a Zionist on college campuses today…to stand up for Israel,” Dershowitz analyzes, criticism of Israel provides a “way of becoming acceptable.”

Read more at Religious Freedom Coalition

Also see:

Guest Column: The Palestinian Country of Lies

Arabs No Longer Take Obama Administration Seriously

by Khaled Abu Toameh:

The extension of the peace talks means only one thing: that Abbas will be able to use the new time given to him to try to extract further concessions from the U.S. and Israel, while all the time bearing in mind that Obama and Kerry are willing to do almost anything to avoid a situation where they are forced to admit that their efforts and initiatives in the Middle East have failed.

The communiqué issued by Arab heads of state at the end of their summit in Kuwait this week shows that the Arab countries do not hold the Obama Administration in high regard or even take it seriously.

The Arab leaders also proved once again that they do not care much about their own people, including the Palestinians.

The Arab leaders, at the end of their two-day meeting, announced their “total rejection of the call to consider Israel a Jewish state.”

This announcement came despite pressure from the Obama Administration on the Arab leaders to refrain from rejecting the demand.

A top Arab diplomat was quoted as saying that U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry contacted Arab leaders on the eve of their 25th summit in Kuwait to “warn” them against rejecting Israel as a Jewish state.

Kerry, according to the diplomat, asked the Arab leaders completely to ignore the issue of Israel’s Jewishness and not to make any positive or negative reference to it in their final statement.

Kerry did not want the Arab heads of state to repeat the same “mistake” that the Arab League foreign ministers made on March 9, when they too issued a statement declaring their refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish state.

The Arab leaders, however, decided to ignore Kerry’s warning and went on to endorse Palestinian Authority [PA] President Mahmoud Abbas’s refusal.

The Arab summit’s statement was published shortly before Kerry cut short a European tour to hold an emergency meeting with Abbas in Amman in a last-minute effort to salvage the peace process with Israel.

 

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry cut short a European tour to hold an emergency meeting with PA President Mahmoud Abbas in Amman, Jordan, pictured above on March 26, 2014. (Image source: U.S. Sate Department)

In light of the Arab summit’s announcement, all that is left for Kerry to do is to put heavy pressure on Abbas to agree to the extension of the peace talks after the April 29 deadline set by the U.S. Administration.

At the meeting in Amman, Kerry warned Abbas that failure to comply with his demand would result in U.S. sanctions against the PA, including suspending financial aid and closing the PLO diplomatic mission in Washington.

Emboldened by the Arab leaders’ backing, however, Abbas does not seem to take Kerry’s threats seriously, particularly in light of previous threats by the U.S. Administration that were never carried out.

In 2012, Abbas had also ignored U.S. threats and pressure by seeking UN recognition of a Palestinian state. The Obama Administration did not take any retaliatory measures against the PA or against Abbas himself.

Like most of the Arab leaders, Abbas apparently understands that the Obama Administration has been weakened to a point where it is no longer able to impose its will on any Arab leader.

The way things appear now, it is Abbas who is setting new conditions and coming up with new demands, evidently from a conviction that the Obama Administration has no choice but to succumb.

Abbas today seems to feel confident enough to set his own conditions for accepting Kerry’s demand to extend the peace talks.

Abbas has therefore now come up with a new requirement: that Israel release three senior Palestinians from Israeli prison: Fatah leader Marwan Barghouti, PFLP Secretary-General Ahmed Sa’dat and Gen. Fuad Shobaki. All three are serving lengthy prison sentences for their role in terrorist activities, including the assassination of Israeli Tourism Minister Rehavam Ze’evi.

The Palestinians also continue to accuse the Obama Administration of exerting heavy pressure on Abbas to soften his position and accept some of Israel’s demands, including the issue of Israel’s Jewishness. Some senior Palestinian officials in Ramallah have even accused Obama and Kerry of practicing “political and financial blackmail” against Abbas.

Abbas seems assured that Obama and Kerry are so desperate to avoid a collapse of the peace talks that they will be willing to accept anything he or the Arab leaders ask for.

The Arab summit stance on the issue of recognizing Israel as a Jewish state is a blow to the Obama Administration’s efforts to achieve a peace agreement between the Palestinian Authority and Israel.

There is a feeling among many Arabs and Palestinians that the Obama Administration has no clue as to what it wants from the Arab world. They point out that the Obama Administration has failed in its policies toward several Arab countries, especially Egypt, Libya and Syria.

Read more at Gatestone Institute

Video: Glick, Spencer & Ibrahim on the truth about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict

hj1-450x250This week’s special episode of The Glazov Gang was filmed at David Horowitz’s West Coast Retreat held at the Terranea Resort in Palos Verdes, California, from March 21-23, 2014.

The panel, titled The Mideast Test, was joined by:

Caroline Glick, the senior contributing editor to the Jerusalem Post who is the author of the new book, The Israeli Solution: A One-State Plan for Peace in the Middle East.

Robert Spencer, the director of Jihad Watch who is the author of an upcoming book, Arab Winter Comes to America: The Truth About the War We’re In.

and

Raymond Ibrahim, a Shillman Fellow at the Freedom Center who is the author of his recent book, Crucified Again: Exposing Islam’s New War on Christians, published by Regnery.

The panelists discussed their books and how to best confront the threats emanating from the Islamic Middle East:

New Anti-Semitism Tailored for Evangelicals

CATCPby Christine Williams:

“For any self-respecting person, the endorsement of terror… at a Christian conference is obscene.” — Kay Wilson, tour guide attacked by Palestinian terrorists.

In what is being dubbed an “unprecedented advisory,” Israel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued a warning to Christians to steer clear of the “Christ at the Checkpoint” [CATC] conference that took place from March 8th-15thin Bethlehem, and coincided with Israel Apartheid week there. Israel Today , a publication that investigated the conference, concluded that it could pose “a long term threat to Israel’s security.” According to the official statement of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs:

“The attempt to use religious motifs in order to mobilize political propaganda and agitate the feelings of the faithful through the manipulation of religion and politics is an unacceptable and shameful act. Using religion for the purpose of incitement in the service of political interests stains the person who does it with a stain of indelible infamy.”

A ministry official stated that, “the conference is designed for the evangelical Christian leadership leadership – an extremely important audience to us.” Christians around the world should pay close attention to the Israeli government’s concern about the dangerous propaganda being fanned and fueled at “Christ at the Checkpoint.” According to the conference website: “the checkpoint and the wall become a focal point and symbol of the conflict.” Yet the reason for the wall and the checkpoint is never mentioned — not the daily incitement to destroy Israel, the countless terrorist attacks against it which necessitated the barrier, nor the seemingly corrupt leadership of the Palestinian people.

Looking further into the agenda of this event, the Jewish National News Service pointed out that “Christ at the Checkpoint” emphasizes replacement theology, which teaches that the Christian Church has replaced Israel and the Jewish people in God’s purpose and plan so that the Jews are no longer God’s “chosen people,” and that Christians have replaced them. This is a source of division in the Churches and a stance many Christians resolutely oppose.

Bethlehem Anglican Canon Rev. Naim Ateek , president of the Sabeel Ecumenical Liberation Theology Center, spoke at the inaugural CATC in 2010; he is one of the first church leaders to connect Liberation Theology with the Palestinian cause. Liberation Theology is a political movement in the Catholic church that stresses liberation from unjust economic or political circumstances; in the Palestinian cause, it replaces the Jewish Messiah in scripture with that of a Palestinian Jesus or martyr. As an aggressive anti-Israel campaigner, Ateek stated in an Easter message he once delivered: “In this season of Lent, it seems to many of us that Jesus is on the cross again with thousands of crucified Palestinians around him. It only takes people of insight to see the hundreds of thousands of crosses throughout the land, Palestinian men, women, and children being crucified. Palestine has become one huge golgotha. The Israeli government crucifixion system is operating daily. Palestine has become the place of the skull.”

Executive Director David Brog of Christians United for Israel described the speakers of CATC as the “who’s who of the new anti-Israel narrative…in a guise of love…. who claim to be “pro-Israel, pro-Palestinian, pro-peace.” Just before the conference convened, Brog warned that “almost every speaker will blame Palestinian suffering on Israel and Israel alone.” He calls CATC a “dangerously one-sided propaganda campaign against Israel.”

According to a World Net Daily report, Brog later lamented about the conference that: “They are so careful about excluding possible justification for Israel’s actions that not a word was uttered about the 60 missiles fired from Gaza into southern Israel. … they are so disconnected from real Christian suffering that there’s been no mention of the besieged Christian communities of Egypt, Iraq or Syria.”

The report also quotes Dexter van Zile, a researcher and writer for the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America [CAMERA] as saying: “The story told in this movement is of Israeli guilt and Palestinian suffering and innocence.”

Bishraw Awad, former president of Bethlehem Bible College opened the CATC with a pledge of Allegiance to Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas: “As evangelicals we pledge our allegiance to Palestinian President Abbas and the Prime Minister.”

Read more at Gatestone Institute

Palestinian Activists Violently Threaten Pro-Israel Students

SAFE sit-in / Facebook

SAFE sit-in / Facebook

By :

Pro-Palestinian activists on the University of Michigan campus have had the cops called on them for threatening pro-Israel students and staging a sit-in over the student government’s refusal to back an anti-Israel initiative to divest from the Jewish state.

University of Michigan police were contacted Wednesday evening after two pro-Palestinian activists allegedly threatened a student who refused to support their boycott initiative.

The threatening rhetoric used by these pro-Palestinian activists is part of wider campaign by the University of Michigan’s pro-Palestine group Students Allied for Freedom and Equality (SAFE), which is part of the virulently anti-Israel Boycott, Sanctions and Divestment movement (BDS).

The pro-Palestinian faction’s violent rhetoric has sparked an atmosphere of fear among pro-Israel students and led at least one to ask that the police launch an investigation into these threats.

SAFE, which describes itself as “a Palestinian solidarity group at the University of Michigan,” has been staging sit-ins at the university’s student government chambers and elsewhere, according to insiders and the group’s Facebook page.

On Wednesday of this week, SAFE apparently staged one of its sit-ins in the university’s student government chambers. That is when SAFE activists started shouting threats at those who do not support BDS, according to a police report and University of Michigan Police official.

“A student reported that around 6:30 p.m., two males yelled threats at him while they were in the Central Student Government chambers,” states a “threat of violence” police report from that evening. “They are described as Arabic males, approximately 20 years old and wearing white scarves. One reportedly had light brown skin, black hair, and a trimmed beard. The other was described as shorter than the other subject and thinner hair.”

An official with the university police told the Washington Free Beacon that the past week has been rife with tension following “an effort by a pro-Palestinian group” to promote divestment from Israel.

Read more at Free Beacon

Why the Media Doesn’t Cover Jihadist Attacks on Middle East Christians

cufiThe Torch (Christians United for Israel’s Magazine, Winter 2014) by Raymond Ibrahim:

“To their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting Him to public disgrace”—Hebrews 6:6

The United Nations, Western governments, media, universities, and talking heads everywhere insist that Palestinians are suffering tremendous abuses from the state of Israel.  Conversely, the greatest human rights tragedy of our time—radical Muslim persecution of Christians, including in Palestinian controlled areas—is devotedly ignored.

The facts speak for themselves. Reliable estimates indicate that anywhere from 100-200 million Christians are persecuted every year; one Christian is martyred every five minutes. Approximately 85% of this persecution occurs in Muslim majority nations. In 1900, 20% of the Middle East was Christian. Today, less than 2% is.

In one week in Egypt alone, where my Christian family emigrated, the Muslim Brotherhood launched akristallnacht—attacking, destroying, and/or torching some 82 Christian churches (some of which were built in the 5th century, when Egypt was still a Christian-majority nation before the Islamic conquests).  Al-Qaeda’s black flag has been raised atop churches.  Christians—including priests, women and children—have been attacked, beheaded, and killed.

Nor is such persecution of Christians limited to Egypt.  From Morocco in the west to Indonesia in the east and from Central Asia to the north to sub-Saharan Africa to the south; across thousands of miles of lands inhabited by peoples who do not share the same races, languages, cultures, and/or socio-economic conditions, millions of Christians are being persecuted and in the same exact patterns.

Muslim converts to Christianity and Christian evangelists are attacked, imprisoned, and sometimes beheaded; countless churches across the Islamic world are being banned or bombed; Christian women and children are being abducted, enslaved, raped, and/or forced to renounce their faith.

Far from helping these Christian victims, U.S. policies are actually exacerbating their sufferings.  Whether in Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, or Syria, and under the guise of the U.S.-supported “Arab Spring,” things have gotten dramatically worse for Christians.  Indeed, during a recent U.S. congressional hearing, it was revealed that thousands of traumatized Syrian Christians—who, like Iraqi Christians before them are undergoing a mass exodus from their homeland—were asking “Why is America at war with us?”

The answer is that very few Americans have any clue concerning what is happening to their coreligionists.

Few mainstream media speak about the horrific persecution millions of people are experiencing simply because they wish to worship Christ in peace.

There, is of course, a very important reason why the mainstream media ignores radical Muslim persecution of Christians: if the full magnitude of this phenomenon was ever know, many cornerstones of the mainstream media—most prominent among them, that Israel is oppressive to Palestinians—would immediately crumble.

Why?  Because radical Muslim persecution of Christians throws a wrench in the media’s otherwise well-oiled narrative that “radical-Muslim-violence-is-a-product-of-Muslim-grievance”—chief among them Israel.

Read more at Raymond Ibrahim’s blog

Arafat Recognized Jewish State, Why Won’t Abbas?

 

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas / KHALED EL FIQI/EPA

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas / KHALED EL FIQI/EPA

IPT: The Arab League is endorsing Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas’refusal to accept Israel as a Jewish state as a part of any peace agreement.

But in taking this position, Abbas – considered by the Obama administration to be a moderate Palestinian leader with whom a deal can be struck – is not going as far as his predecessor. Yasser Arafat recognized Israel as a Jewish state at least twice. In an undated video, Arafat said the PNC (Palestine National Council) accepted two states. One Palestinian, and a “Jewish state … Israel.”

 

 

“The PNC has accepted two states. Palestine state and Jewish state … Israel.”

Arafat also unequivocally accepted Israel’s Jewish character during a 2004 interview. Asked whether Israel should endure as a Jewish state, Arafat’s reply simply was “Definitely.”

“What Arafat permitted,” Ari Shavit wrote last month in Haaretz, “Abbas cannot forbid. The current Palestinian Authority president must say explicitly what his predecessor said implicitly. Peace? There won’t be any peace if Abbas doesn’t follow in Arafat’s footsteps and say that Israel is a Jewish state whose Jewish character must be preserved.”

Abbas is scheduled to visit the White House next week. In an interview last month that included pressure on Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to support the U.S.-led effort, President Obama told journalist Jeffrey Goldberg that Abbas represents “a partner on the other side who is prepared to negotiate seriously … for us to not seize this moment I think would be a great mistake. I’ve said directly to Prime Minister Netanyahu he has an opportunity to solidify, to lock in, a democratic, Jewish state of Israel that is at peace with its neighbors.”

Only if Abbas is prepared to negotiate seriously.

In Washington last week, Netanyahu spoke glowingly of the opportunities a peace deal would present. Abbas responded to that optimism with an adamant rejection of a reality that even Yasser Arafat could see. Israel twice before has extended generous offers that would create a Palestinian state, only to have them rejected, most recentlyby Abbas in 2008.

In an interview with an Israeli television station, Netanyahu said the Palestinian posturing creates doubts about the depth of their commitment to a peace deal.

“The question of whether there will be an agreement must first and foremost be posed to the Palestinians,” he said.

Obama’s Betrayal of Israel as a Jewish State

Kerry-450x322by :

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas has flatly refused to recognize Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state. Such recognition is a key condition that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has demanded for reaching an acceptable peace agreement on a two-state solution with the Palestinians.

Prime Minister Netanyahu explained the importance of such Palestinian recognition, which would amount to an expression of the Palestinians’ good faith intention to truly end the conflict by accepting Israel’s right of self-determination to once and for all live in peace as the Jewish state its founders envisioned:

“The central question at the end is of course ‘Are you willing to recognize that the state of Israel is the nation state of the Jewish nation?’. If you don’t have the brunt of the agreement, then why turn to the leftovers. Concentrate on the central and difficult questions that they need to provide an answer for, but they don’t provide an answer. If they do give an answer — its negative. They say that they will not recognize a Jewish state in order to leave the right of return on the table. So then what are we even talking about here? That a Palestinian state will be established but it will continue its conflict against the state of Israel with more preferential borders? We are a lot of things, but we are definitely not fools.”

Incredibly, the U.S. State Department backs Abbas’ position. The spokeswoman for the State Department, Jen Psaki, stated in an interview Saturday with the “Al-Quds” newspaper that “[T]here is no need for the Palestinians to recognize Israel as a Jewish state. The American stance is clear in that it recognizes Israel as a Jewish state, but there is no need for the Palestinians to recognize it as such in a final agreement.”

Psaki is ignoring the Palestinians’ intent to throw out any Israelis still living in an independent Palestinian state. Abbas, for example, declared that “If we want an independent state, I will not accept any single Israeli in our territories.” He denied that he was against the Jews per se, but such antipathy is precisely what animates the xenophobic, anti-Jewish Palestinian ideology. This ideology starts with the Palestinian Authority’s attempt to falsely re-write the history of the Jewish homeland, denying that Jews have any historic connection to the land at all. Official Palestinian Authority outlets broadcast this lie over and over again. For example, in a documentary appearing last December on an official Palestinian Authority TV station, a woman proclaimed:  “I’m not against Jews. They can live. They can live on Mars, Allah willing, but they cannot take over places that are not their places, or land that is not their land and a homeland that is not their homeland.”

On January 7, 2014, the official spokesperson for President Abbas, Nabil Abu Rudeina, accused the Israeli government of “falsifying history.”

Then there is the provocative statement by Palestinian Authority Minister of Religious Affairs Mahmoud Al-Habbash in a sermon delivered in the presence of Abbas and broadcast on official Palestinian Authority TV. Al-Habbash said that any peace agreement reached with Israel is just the first step towards defeating Israel, citing as the “model” Mohammed’s conquest of Mecca just two years after he had signed a treaty that gave his forces time to gain enough strength to carry out the conquest.

Recognizing Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state would be contrary to the Palestinians’ goal of returning millions of the descendants of the original refugees to pre-1967 Israel. In other words, while insisting that Israel withdraw to the pre-1967 lines to make way for an independent Palestinian state devoid of any Israeli Jews, the Palestinians still demand the right to undermine the Jewish character of Israel, even as it existed pre-1967, by flooding Israel with so-called “refugees” (actually many descendants several generations removed from the original refugees) rather than giving them real homes in an independent Palestinian state.

Read more at Front Page

Also see:

Op-Ed: Egypt Deports Code Pink Leader: ‘Stop the ISM’ Did It

medea-benjaminArutz Sheva, By Lee Kaplan:

The news wires were all abuzz today with the report that Medea Benjamin of Code Pink was deported from Egypt on trying to enter Gaza through the Rafah crossing. Stop the ISM, a division of DAFKA.org was responsible for this.

Upon learning that Benjamin was planning a trip to Gaza under the ruse of bringing lanterns to the Palestinian Arabs, our agency contacted the Egyptian embassy in Washington D.C.  and alerted them to her plans. The result was  Egyptian officials met her airplane when she arrived and immediately arrested her.

Benjamin, who exults in creating media scenes, attempted to resist the Egyptian police who, she claims, then dislocated her shoulder as they dragged her to a holding cell prior to her deportation to Turkey.

Benjamin is a lifelong communist and funds the BDS movement in the United States through one of her nonprofits, Global Exchange, in the San Francisco Bay Area. Until recently, Benjamin was employing Dalit Baum of Who Profits in Israel to tour the U.S. and promote BDS against Israel and Jewish institutions as well as corporations that do business with Israel.

Baum now works for another part of the ISM, the American Friends Service Committee, which helps her organize her tours, mainly of college campuses.

Benjamin has become famous by creating rackets and demos in the U.S., demonstrating against the United States and Israel, appearing topless on more than one occasion. She even interrupted President Obama during a speech in Washington to scream about drones being used against al Qaeda in Yemen. In that instance, she was not arrested, as usual, and got away with her antics.

Benjamin’s arrest and deportation show a serious shift in Egypt’s relationship with Hamas since the ouster of the Muslim Brotherhood and Morsi from that country. Only days ago, Egypt closed the Hamas office in the country and put out a clear signal that Egypt recognizes that the threat from Hamas extremists poses just as much of a threat to stability in Egypt as elsewhere in the Middle East.

Benjamin is part of the ISM network in the United States and was involved in several excursions to Gaza where her NGO’s would bring support to the Hamas terrorist leadership in Gaza.

Egypt is to be commended for finally putting a stop to this woman’s penchant for encouraging aid to a terrorist organization and disguising that aid as “humanitarian work.”  In any case, her arrest and removal by the Egyptian authorities is the first concrete step taken toward reining in Hamas in Gaza.

Hamas has been aligning itself more and more with Iran, also increasingly supported by Benjamin, so that she is seen as posing a security concern for Egypt.

img317054LEE KAPLAN, DAFKA’s chief editor is an investigative journalist, news bureau head, businessman and political activist. He formed DAFKA to create a more proactive movement against the Saudis’ well-financed campaign against Israel on US college campuses and elsewhere, as well as the professional propaganda plans of PASSIA. Readers of the DAFKA website can read about PASSIA in our opening issue and in later issues can find this information under our search engine. DAFKA chapters on college campuses nationwide play Palestinian Television for all to see the reality of the Arab movement to create a “Palestinian” country to destroy Israel.

 

Also see:

 

Obama to Israel — Time Is Running Out

OBAMA AND NETANYAHU IN ISRAEL IN 2013. WILL THIS WEEK'S TALKS IN WASHINGTON BRING THEM ANY CLOSER? PHOTOGRAPHER: MARC ISRAEL SELLEM-POOL/GETTY IMAGES

OBAMA AND NETANYAHU IN ISRAEL IN 2013. WILL THIS WEEK’S TALKS IN WASHINGTON BRING THEM ANY CLOSER? PHOTOGRAPHER: MARC ISRAEL SELLEM-POOL/GETTY IMAGES

By :

When Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu visits the White House tomorrow, President Barack Obama will tell him that his country could face a bleak future — one of international isolation and demographic disaster — if he refuses to endorse a U.S.-drafted framework agreement for peace with the Palestinians. Obama will warn Netanyahu that time is running out for Israel as a Jewish-majority democracy. And the president will make the case that Netanyahu, alone among Israelis, has the strength and political credibility to lead his people away from the precipice.

In an hourlong interview Thursday in the Oval Office, Obama, borrowing from the Jewish sage Rabbi Hillel, told me that his message to Netanyahu will be this: “If not now, when? And if not you, Mr. Prime Minister, then who?” He then took a sharper tone, saying that if Netanyahu “does not believe that a peace deal with the Palestinians is the right thing to do for Israel, then he needs to articulate an alternative approach.” He added, “It’s hard to come up with one that’s plausible.”

Unlike Netanyahu, Obama will not address the annual convention of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a pro-Israel lobbying group, this week — the administration is upset with Aipac for, in its view, trying to subvert American-led nuclear negotiations with Iran. In our interview, the president, while broadly supportive of Israel and a close U.S.-Israel relationship, made statements that would be met at an Aipac convention with cold silence.

Obama was blunter about Israel’s future than I’ve ever heard him. His language was striking, but of a piece with observations made in recent months by his secretary of state, John Kerry, who until this interview, had taken the lead in pressuring both Netanyahu and the Palestinian leader, Mahmoud Abbas, to agree to a framework deal. Obama made it clear that he views Abbas as the most politically moderate leader the Palestinians may ever have. It seemed obvious to me that the president believes that the next move is Netanyahu’s.

“There comes a point where you can’t manage this anymore, and then you start having to make very difficult choices,” Obama said. “Do you resign yourself to what amounts to a permanent occupation of the West Bank? Is that the character of Israel as a state for a long period of time? Do you perpetuate, over the course of a decade or two decades, more and more restrictive policies in terms of Palestinian movement? Do you place restrictions on Arab-Israelis in ways that run counter to Israel’s traditions?”

During the interview, which took place a day before the Russian military incursion into Ukraine, Obama argued that American adversaries, such as Iran, Syria and Russia itself, still believe that he is capable of using force to advance American interests, despite his reluctance to strike Syria last year after President Bashar al-Assad crossed Obama’s chemical-weapons red line.

“We’ve now seen 15 to 20 percent of those chemical weapons on their way out of Syria with a very concrete schedule to get rid of the rest,” Obama told me. “That would not have happened had the Iranians said, ‘Obama’s bluffing, he’s not actually really willing to take a strike.’ If the Russians had said, ‘Ehh, don’t worry about it, all those submarines that are floating around your coastline, that’s all just for show.’ Of course they took it seriously! That’s why they engaged in the policy they did.”

I returned to this particularly sensitive subject. “Just to be clear,” I asked, “You don’t believe the Iranian leadership now thinks that your ‘all options are on the table’ threat as it relates to their nuclear program — you don’t think that they have stopped taking that seriously?”

Obama answered: “I know they take it seriously.”

How do you know? I asked. “We have a high degree of confidence that when they look at 35,000 U.S. military personnel in the region that are engaged in constant training exercises under the direction of a president who already has shown himself willing to take military action in the past, that they should take my statements seriously,” he replied. “And the American people should as well, and the Israelis should as well, and the Saudis should as well.”

I asked the president if, in retrospect, he should have provided more help to Syria’s rebels earlier in their struggle. “I think those who believe that two years ago, or three years ago, there was some swift resolution to this thing had we acted more forcefully, fundamentally misunderstand the nature of the conflict in Syria and the conditions on the ground there,” Obama said. “When you have a professional army that is well-armed and sponsored by two large states who have huge stakes in this, and they are fighting against a farmer, a carpenter, an engineer who started out as protesters and suddenly now see themselves in the midst of a civil conflict — the notion that we could have, in a clean way that didn’t commit U.S. military forces, changed the equation on the ground there was never true.”

He portrayed his reluctance to involve the U.S. in the Syrian civil war as a direct consequence of what he sees as America’s overly militarized engagement in the Muslim world: “There was the possibility that we would have made the situation worse rather than better on the ground, precisely because of U.S. involvement, which would have meant that we would have had the third, or, if you count Libya, the fourth war in a Muslim country in the span of a decade.”

Obama was adamant that he was correct to fight a congressional effort to impose more time-delayed sanctions on Iran just as nuclear negotiations were commencing: “There’s never been a negotiation in which at some point there isn’t some pause, some mechanism to indicate possible good faith,” he said. “Even in the old Westerns or gangster movies, right, everyone puts their gun down just for a second. You sit down, you have a conversation; if the conversation doesn’t go well, you leave the room and everybody knows what’s going to happen and everybody gets ready. But you don’t start shooting in the middle of the room during the course of negotiations.” He said he remains committed to keeping Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons and seemed unworried by reports that Iran’s economy is improving.

On the subject of Middle East peace, Obama told me that the U.S.’s friendship with Israel is undying, but he also issued what I took to be a veiled threat: The U.S., though willing to defend an isolated Israel at the United Nations and in other international bodies, might soon be unable to do so effectively.

“If you see no peace deal and continued aggressive settlement construction — and we have seen more aggressive settlement construction over the last couple years than we’ve seen in a very long time,” Obama said. “If Palestinians come to believe that the possibility of a contiguous sovereign Palestinian state is no longer within reach, then our ability to manage the international fallout is going to be limited.”

We also spent a good deal of time talking about the unease the U.S.’s Sunni Arab allies feel about his approach to Iran, their traditional adversary. I asked the president, “What is more dangerous: Sunni extremism or Shia extremism?”

I found his answer revelatory. He did not address the issue of Sunni extremism. Instead he argued in essence that the Shiite Iranian regime is susceptible to logic, appeals to self-interest and incentives.

“I’m not big on extremism generally,” Obama said. “I don’t think you’ll get me to choose on those two issues. What I’ll say is that if you look at Iranian behavior, they are strategic, and they’re not impulsive. They have a worldview, and they see their interests, and they respond to costs and benefits. And that isn’t to say that they aren’t a theocracy that embraces all kinds of ideas that I find abhorrent, but they’re not North Korea. They are a large, powerful country that sees itself as an important player on the world stage, and I do not think has a suicide wish, and can respond to incentives.”

This view puts him at odds with Netanyahu’s understanding of Iran. In an interview after he won the premiership, the Israeli leader described the Iranian leadership to me as “a messianic apocalyptic cult.”

I asked Obama if he understood why his policies make the leaders of Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries nervous: “I think that there are shifts that are taking place in the region that have caught a lot of them off guard,” he said. “I think change is always scary.”

Go to at Bloomberg View for complete transcript

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA PARTICIPATES IN AN INTERVIEW WITH JEFF GOLDBERG IN THE OVAL OFFICE, FEB. 27, 2014. (OFFICIAL WHITE HOUSE PHOTO BY PETE SOUZA)

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA PARTICIPATES IN AN INTERVIEW WITH JEFF GOLDBERG IN THE OVAL OFFICE, FEB. 27, 2014. (OFFICIAL WHITE HOUSE PHOTO BY PETE SOUZA)

See also:

Hamas: Teaching Human Rights is Against Palestinian, Islamic Culture

Gatestone Institute, by Khaled Abu Toameh:

Hamas’ real problem with the UNRWA curriculum is that it could spoil the Islamist movement’s ongoing efforts to stir the hearts and minds of Palestinian children to wage jihad against the “enemies” of Islam. Hamas wants Palestinian children to be taught how to become suicide bombers and seek the death of Jews and “infidels.”

Palestinian schoolchildren in the Gaza Strip have been denied the opportunity to learn about human rights after the Hamas government determined that such a subject “dangerously contravenes Palestinian and Islamic culture.”

Hamas’s announcement came in response to an attempt by the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) to include a course on human rights in schools run by the agency in the Gaza Strip.

The UNRWA bid drew strong condemnations from the Hamas government, whose representatives accused the international agency of seeking to “brainwash” Palestinian children.

Mutasame al-Minawi, a senior official with the Hamas-run Ministry of Education, explained that the main reason why his government was opposed to the human rights subject being taught in Palestinian schools is because it “ignores the nakba [catastrophe] of the Palestinian people, seeks to scrap the right of return for Palestinian refugees [to Israel] and promotes the culture of peaceful resistance and submission as a way of restoring our rights.”

Al-Minawi said that UNRWA proposed two years ago to include in its school curriculum the subject of human rights. UNRWA was hoping, he added, that the subject would be taught to children from Grades 7-9.

According to the Hamas official, his government back then expressed reservations about some of the contents of the subject, prompting UNRWA to amend about 40% of the material.

But recently, UNRWA decided to go ahead with its plan to teach human rights in its schools in the Gaza Strip, ignoring warnings from the Hamas government, al-Minawi claimed. “UNRWA is acting as a state-within-a-state,” he charged. “They need to know the limits of their power and that they are committed to the curriculum taught in areas under UNRWA’s jurisdiction.”

The Hamas official said that UNRWA’s human rights course was aimed at making Palestinian children develop “negative sentiments towards the armed resistance although it is legitimate for a people under occupation.”

What is also worrying Hamas is that UNRWA is seeking to teach Palestinian children about the disastrous repercussions of wars and violence by depicting a child burning a military uniform. “This does not serve the cause of human rights,” the Hamas official said. “They want to raise children on calmness.”

The Hamas protests forced UNRWA to suspend its plan to teach the subject of human rights in its schools. Some Palestinians criticized UNRWA for “succumbing” to threats, while others said they were aware that the international agency had no choice but to comply.

In an attempt to calm Hamas, UNRWA denied that its school curriculum contravened Palestinian tradition and culture.

A spokesman for UNRWA said that his agency consults with “all components of Palestinian society” about its human rights courses.

Hamas’s real problem with the UNRWA curriculum is that it could spoil the Islamist movement’s ongoing efforts to stir the hearts and minds of Palestinian children to wage jihad against the “enemies” of Islam.

Hamas wants Palestinian children to be taught how to become suicide bombers and seek the death of Jews and “infidels.”

Hamas does not want Palestinian children to learn about civil rights heroes such as Mahatma Gandhi, Nelson Mandela, Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks. These people were opposed to violence and therefore their ideology, according to Hamas, is in violation of Palestinian and Islamic culture.

Hamas wants Palestinian children to glorify suicide bombers and terrorists who mercilessly kill innocent people, including many Muslims, on a daily basis. Hamas’s summer camps are all about training children in the use of weapons and injecting them with more hatred towards Israel and the US.

 

Palestinian children at a Hamas summer camp in June 2013. (Image source: IDF YouTube video)

“Hamas is behaving in the Gaza Strip as if it were an independent state,” wrote Palestinian columnist Hassan Khader.

Khader also criticized the Palestinian public and political factions for failing to pay enough attention to the controversy between Hamas and UNRWA over the school curriculum.

For now, Hamas appears to have succeeded in preventing UNRWA from teaching Palestinian children about human rights. The two parties are now negotiating an end to the crisis, which does not seem likely unless UNRWA officially joins Hamas’s ideology and starts preaching for jihad and anti-semitism.

 

Shapiro Crashes UCLA Divestment from Israel Hearing, Resolution Defeated 7-5

Truth Revolt, by  Paul Bois:

On Tuesday night, the UCLA undergraduate student government heard public testimonies for nearly 9 hours — from 7 p.m. until 4 a.m. — on whether or not the university should go forward with a resolution to boycott and divest from businesses that allegedly “profit from the Israeli occupation of Gaza and the West Bank.”

The meeting, attended by over 500 people, began at 7 p.m. Tuesday night and ended 6:30 a.m. Wednesday morning. Ben Shapiro, TruthRevolt.org Editor-in-Chief and UCLA alum, crashed the divestment hearing to blast both the student sponsors and those considering the anti-Semitic measure. Here’s the transcript:

My name is Ben Shapiro. I’m an alumnus of this university. I’m also a local talk show host on 870 [AM] in the morning, and I got out of bed and left my one month old baby there when I saw what was going on here tonight. I’ve never been more ashamed to be a Bruin. I’ve never been more ashamed to be an alumnus of this university than to see this divestment petition being considered at this level.

To pretend this is about occupation, to pretend this is about peace, to pretend that this anything other than vile, spiteful Jew hatred is a lie!

There is only one reason we are discussing Israel and not discussing Saudi Arabia. There is only one reason we are discussing Israel and not discussing Iran. There is only one reason we are discussing Israel and not discussing Palestine. There is only one reason we are discussing Israel and not discussing the vast bevy of human rights violations that happen every day in the Middle East, exponentially worse that what happens in Israel.

Any gay or lesbian that is targeting Israel in this room seems to have forgotten how high they hang gays from cranes in Iran. Every person of liberal bent who suggests that Israel is the problem in the Middle East seems to have forgotten that there is only one country in the Middle East that actually has any sort of religious diversity in it. The countries that are apartheid countries are those that are Judenrein – like, for example, Palestine.

So, for us to sit here and pretend that Israel is somehow on a lower moral plane is a direct manifestation of anti-Semitism. And to hold Jews to a different moral standard than any other country or group on the face of the earth represents nothing but an age-old and historic hatred for the Jewish people. All the folks here who are pretending that the B.D.S is about anything other than that, I would like to see a poll of those folks, and see how many of them actually believe in the existence of a Jewish state, qua-Jewish state, not as a state like any other, but as a Jewish state. They don’t. They don’t acknowledge that existence. They don’t believe in that existence. They don’t believe in peace. All this is about, pure and simple, is a desire to target the Jewish people.

“Judenrein” was a Nazi term to mean “clean of Jews.”

According to the Daily Bruin, the Undergraduate Students Association Council (USAC) shot down the resolution by an anonymous vote of 7-5. Despite protestation, the USAC decided the ballots would be secret when some members voiced concern for their safety.

Students in favor of the resolution offered no comment, saying they were “too disappointed.” Video of one particular protester has circulated:

Also see: