Of course the big thing coming up is the specter of the United Nations vote next month to officially recognize a “Palestinian” state in the territories occupied by Jordan and by Egypt from 1948 to 1967, but now under Israeli administration. Never mind the lack of a viable governmental structure on the part of the Arabs occupying those areas, or the likelihood that the whole endeavor will blow up in their faces, there exists nonetheless a “bizarre alliance against Israel” (as Michael Curtis at American Thinker puts it)–American and European observers remain blindly focused on imagined shortcomings in the only viable Middle East democracy, ignoring the obvious problems (to put it mildly) of Arab countries. (For example the ongoing slaughter of the Syrian people by their own regime.)

Israel’s ace on the hole, as it were, is a promised US veto in the UN Security Council, but there are also subtle reasons to doubt that promise.

For reasons which I have stated before, I still think it will come out all right in the end. But just how close we are to the end is a little hard to tell.

So won’t you watch with me?

lineman

Is this justice? Belgium Justice Minister supports blanket amnesty for Nazis collaborators

 

Belgium Justice Minister, Stephen De Clerck, made outrageous comments about World War II Nazi collaborators.

De Clerck called for an "adult" debate in Belgium about granting amnesty to wartime Nazi sympathisers and "maybe also forget, because this is in the past".

De Clerck remarks came as Belgium’s Senate voted on a draft to grant accepted draft legislation from the far-right Flemish Vlaams Belang party that would grant amnesty to those who collaborated with the Nazis during the war.

The Holocaust must never be forgotten – 6,000,000 Jews paid the highest price and history cannot be re-written. The time that goes by should be used to pass on the lessons of the Holocaust to the new generation that wasn’t part of that horrible chapter in history.

Around 25,000 Belgian Jews were deported to Auschwitz from Belgium, after being rounded up by authorities that often enthusiastically collaborated with the Nazis despite strong resistance from Belgium’s people.Those that collaborated with the Nazis assisted in genocide – such actions cannot be dismissed because time has passed.

Please take action – send a protest letter to Mr. Yves Leterme, the current Prime Minister of Belgium, and  Elio Di Rupo who is in charge of creating the new Belgium government, with a copy to the Ministry of Justice. Ask them to respect history and justice and condemn Mr. De Clerck’s comments. As a democratic nation we in Giyus.org expect Belgium to adhere to the highest legal standards and to respect the facts of history even when it’s not convenient.

Read on:

Egyptians Reject the Muslim Brotherhood!

UCI Staff – Special to UCI,  February 3rd, 2011

The following is an authentic testimony received from a protester at Tahrir Square in Cairo Egypt:

(Cairo, Egypt, Feburary 3, 2011) “I am writing this to you as a witness to what is going on from the streets of Cairo over the last few days. We have been following the developments since January 25th, which started with a large group of Egyptian youth taking to Tahrir square in an anti-government protest with specific demands.  I know some of these people who were in that group and I talked with them.  What is happening now has nothing to do with this original protest!  What is happening right now is a conspiracy to topple Mubarak from outside the country!!  I am not a conspiracy theorist, but let me tell you what I have personally witnessed on the streets of Cairo.

“As we followed the unfolding of events including the announced change in government and president Mubarak’s speech, we wondered why the international news media is focusing only on the thousands in Tahrir square who are escalating their demands and refusing dialogue.  The news media is reporting this as “the people of Egypt” wanting Mubarak to leave immediately.  Did they ask the “people of Egypt?”.  For one, they did not ask me!  Where are those, like myself, that want change and reform, but accept the changes that Mubarak is proposing, and want a peaceful transition through elections in September?

“We decided to take to the streets to voice our opinion. On Tuesday, February 1st we went to Mustafa Mahmoud Square in Mohandessin.  There were about one thousand people there around 3:30 pm. The crowd grew to about 2500 by 5:00 pm.  People were calling their friends over the phone telling them to come. We left at about 6:30 pm and returned yesterday, Wednesday, starting at 11:00 am.

“The small group had swelled to TENS OF THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE standing together with banners saying things like:

• yes to stability, yes to Mubarak
• give change a chance
• we are sorry Mr. president
• we accept dialogue, we trust you
• no to ElBaradei, no to the muslim brotherhood (many like this one)
• we are the Egyptians, where is Al-Jazeera, let them come and see
• no to corruption, no to vandalism
• we got what we asked the president for, so why are people still in Tahrir? Who are they? What do they want?

“etc., etc., etc.

“By 2:00 pm, the crowd had grown to SEVERAL HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE, maybe up to a million, stretching from Sphinx square to Sudan street.  We had a great sense of unity and victory.  We met with people who were in the original protest in Tahrir square who decided to join us saying: we got what we asked for, and now we accept Mubarak’s changes and proposals”.

“We left around 4:15 pm.  The numbers had grown even more, POSSIBLY OVER A MILLION. As we drove home we saw the same slogans on banners all over the city, on cars, on walls, on shop windows. We learned that similar demonstrations are taking place ALL OVER THE COUNTRY, IN MANY DIFFERENT CITIES. THIS IS THE CRY OF THE PEOPLE OF EGYPT THAT IS BEING TOTALLY IGNORED BY THE INTERNATIONAL NEWS MEDIA. Is this on purpose??!!! I am perplexed!!!

“I am wondering: How come CNN, the BBC, and others are reporting ONLY the anti-government protests as the voice of the people? This is not JUSTICE, this is not TRUTH. There have been reports that these people are being paid by the government.  NOT TRUE! I was there with many many others.  I SAW THE STREETS.

“Regarding the situation in Tahrir square. Only a few people (hundreds?) are still there from the original protesters. They have been slowly replaced by other HIGHLY ORGANIZED GROUPS.  They all have the same model of cell phones.  They all have the same blankets (eye witnesses). THESE ARE NOT THE PEOPLE OF EGYPT.  Some witnesses claim that they don’t look Egyptian, and don’t sound Egyptians (different accent, different dialect).  THIS IS A BIG ORGANIZED COUP TO TRY TO CONVINCE THE WORLD THROUGH THE MEDIA THAT EGYPT WANTS MUBARAK TO GO, AND THE MEDIA IS PART OF THE DECEPTION. People in Tahrir square are escalating the situation on purpose to topple President Mubarak FOR THEIR OWN HIDDEN AGENDAS. This is TYPICAL OF THE MUSLIM BROTHERS, AND EVERYBODY IN THE STREETS OF CAIRO KNOWS THIS. We heard people on the streets saying that the plot to take over the country is now clear. THE INTERNATIONAL MEDIA DO NOT WANT YOU TO KNOW THIS.

“The escalation of violence in Tahrir square is because of this.  Egyptians who love Egypt, the millions that took to the streets yesterday, want this to end. They fully understand that president Mubarak is between a rock and a hard place, that he cannot quench the unrest in Tahrir through the army, so the people want to go to Tahrir to disperse the crowds there by themselves.  People in Tahrir are vastly outnumbered. If Egyptians go to Tahrir square to take control of the situation, more chaos will erupt, giving a chance to the international media to blame the President even more.

“If Egypt falls, then neighbouring countries are going to fall one after the other. WE ASK FOR TRUTH, WE ASK FOR JUSTICE.  Stand with us. Let the deception be exposed!”

 

UCI calls on the media to seek the truth from the people of Egypt and on we call on you, our readers, to forward this report to your newspapers, radio talkshow hosts and television sources. Call their attention to the lone article (from a Muslim reporting agency) that has surfaced in support of this poignant testimony of the actual sentiments of the vast majority of Egyptians.

One article that substantiates the rallies in dilemma – http://www.onislam.net/english/politics/middle-east/450846-egyptians-wanting-to-vent-their-anger.html

Both Israel and diaspora Jews have to stop playing defence and go onto the offence. Israel has nothing to be defensive about or for which it needs to apologise. It is the enemies of Israel who are promoting injustice and the denial of international law and human rights. Playing defence intrinsically cedes ground to the enemy.

For years, Israel has been playing a defensive diplomatic game, which suggests inescapably that it has a case to answer. Such diplomatic cringing has badly undermined it and hugely strengthened its enemies, who are taking advantage of such weakness over and over again.

I couple of weeks ago, I posted some lengthy comments by respected author Melanie Phillips. She is one of a growing number of voices who are sounding the alarm for Israel and its defenders to take the initiative against, as she so well puts it, “a total inversion of truth evidence and reason.”

In routine, everyday discourse history is turned on its head; logic is suspended; and an entirely false narrative is now widely accepted as unchallengeable fact. This has led to a kind of dialogue of the demented in which rational discussion is simply not possible…

For the west to suck up to its enemies while bashing its friends like this is the diplomatic version of auto-immune disease. And eventually this disease will kill it…

If you need an example of a false narrative being presented as fact, just look at Hassan Ali’s comment to my post of December 9th. Or this list of perversion after perversion, going back several years (including an incredibly inventive narrative of how the Kotel is not actually the Kotel—thanks RubinReports!). In any event, please do read Phillips’ essay The challenge of public diplomacy vis-a-vis the delegitimisation of Israel.  At first I considered pulling out a few of her more striking points, but there are so many that I’d just end up reposting the entire article. My main point here is to call attention again to the glaring need, and thankfully the beginnings of a willingness to stand up and fight.

*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Another fighter whom I’ve often quoted is Caroline Glick. She also gets some hits in on this issue, pointing out that it’s not just words, it’s warfare:

Information warfare is not simply a question of competing narratives, as it is often characterized in the West. Information war is a form of warfare whose aim is to use words, symbols and images to force people to take real action. These actions can involve everything from war to terrorism to surrender…

On May 8, 2001, a group of Palestinians from a village adjacent to the Israeli community of Tekoa in Gush Etzion got their hands on two Jewish children, Koby Mandell and Yosef Ishran, from Tekoa. The two boys were bludgeoned to death with stones. The details of the butchery are unspeakable. The question is, what can make human beings butcher children? How can a person hurt a child the way that their killers hurt them? The answer is Palestinian television.

Glick goes on to outline how PA-TV is used for around the clock incitement, using doctored footage and other methods of deception.

The immediate context of Glick’s Jerusalem Post article is Hezbollah’s very real threat of a shooting war, dependent on the outcome of the Hariri assassination investigation. She uses this to underscore, as she concludes, that:

…information wars are not just about getting out the facts. Like kinetic warfare, they involve power plays, intimidation and the use of subconscious and visceral manipulation.

Israel has recently awoken to one aspect of information warfare. It has recognized the consequences of years of demonization of Israel in Europe and international organizations. But Israel has yet to awaken to the fact that it is a type of warfare and has to be countered with counter-information warfare.

Obviously this doesn’t mean that Israel should begin acting like its enemies. But what it does mean is that Israel must begin using more hard-knuckle techniques to defend itself. It must begin targeting people’s emotions as well has their minds.

For instance, when Israel is confronted by threats of lawsuits for acts of self-defense, it responds with defense attorneys… When Israel is accused of targeting Palestinian civilians, it responds by attaching legal advisers to combat units. What it should be doing instead is providing video footage of Palestinian children being trained as terrorists and exploited as human shields.

War is a dirty business. Information warfare is a dirty form of war. And if we don’t want to lose, we’d better start fighting.

I think we’ll be hearing more of this sort of thing in the near future. At least I hope so.

lineman

If this is news to you coming from me, then I haven’t done a good job of stating my purpose in this blog. Maybe I need to rewrite my About page.

More vitally, it is uncomfortably clear that Israel and Israel’s supporters have not done a good job of presenting Israel’s case to the world. The Jewish people gave our society its moral and religious foundation, but those who hate them are blatantly trying to rewrite history – and the awful thing is, they’re getting away with it.

This blog, and thankfully many others, and more significantly a good number of ‘ball carriers’ or name-brand commentators (several of whom you will find among my links to the right) are fighting the good fight, neither giving up nor slacking off. But then so often it seems like our voices are being drowned out by the sheer volume of noise coming from the abyss.

So it was very encouraging this week to see that two major Israeli leaders—Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon and  Minister of Strategic Affairs Moshe Ya’alon—published strongly worded statements in major media, Ayalon in the L.A. Times and Ya’alon in Foreign Policy Magazine.

Well at least I found it encouraging, but when I shared the articles with a colleague, she said they were “too scholarly;” that they needed to have more of a punch to them. I asked if my blog was also “too scholarly,” and she answered yes, so I suppose I’m in good company. But that doesn’t deal with the problem.

Then over the next few days I noticed that some answers are beginning to come, starting with an awareness and acknowledgment of the problem. Rather coincidentally, it was on the Unity Coalition for Israel news and commentary site that I saw three essays in quick succession narrowing in on the target.

First, Prof. Phyllis Chesler wrote an article (which I briefly noted in my last post) that  did a whole lot better job than I’d seen up till now of calling the problem a problem, and demanding an answer in no uncertain terms. She’s ready and willing to fight, and has been fighting seemingly alone for a long time, but this is not a one man or one woman war.

Then a piece by Melanie Phillips wrapped up a detailed but blunt message with a twelve point plan for taking the baddies to the mat:

Time to stop the hand-wringing. Time to stop fretting over how much better it is to play along with the narrative of Israel’s enemies in clear English rather than a thick Israeli accent – almost totally irrelevant.

Both Israel and diaspora Jews have to stop playing defence and go onto the offence.

1. We should be demanding of the world why it expects Israel alone to make compromises with people who have tried for nine decades to wipe out the Jewish presence in the land and are still firing rockets at it.
2. We should be demanding why America, Britain and the EU single Israel out for pressure which they apply to no other victims of genocidal aggression. For in any other such conflict, their cause of the aggressors would be deemed totally forfeit by their behaviour.
3. We should be asking so-called ‘progressives’ – including Jewish ‘progressives’ — why they support the racist ethnic cleansing of every Jew from a future state of Palestine.
4. We should be asking ‘progressives’ why they are not marching against Hamas on account of its tyrannical oppression of Palestinians in Gaza.
5. Why they are not mounting a boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign against Mahmoud Abbas’s Palestinian Authority on account of his Holocaust denial and the PA’s continued incitement of Arab children to Jew-hatred, murder and genocide.
6. Why they are ignoring Arab and Muslim persecution of women and homosexuals.
7. And we should be telling the Jews ‘own story of refugees and ethnic cleansing – the 800,000 Jews expelled from Arab lands after 1948, and who now make up more than half of Israel’s population. Why isn’t Israel bringing this to the world’s attention? In Britain virtually no-one knows about it. At a stroke it takes the ground from under feet of those demanding ‘right of return’ for Arabs.
8. We will never convince bigots that facts are as they are, or that the evidence of history tells a different story from the one they believe.
9. We cannot fight prejudice with reason. But we have a duty to bear witness to the truth. And we have a duty to fight in our defence.
10. We can best do this by getting off our back foot and putting western fifth columnists on theirs.
11. We should accuse them, not of Jew-hating motives we cannot prove but of absurdities and contradictions and untruths they cannot deny.
12. We should ridicule them, humiliate them, destroy their reputations; boycott them, not invite them to our houses, show them our disapproval and contempt. Treat them as pariahs.

Turn their own weapons against them.

In short, we must get up off our collective knees and fight. Justice, human rights and truth are on our side, not theirs. We must reclaim them as our own.

And now also Charles Jacobs puts his finger on an unsettling aspect that he sees in Jewish behavior: a tendency to go immediately on the defense as soon as an accusation is made. Speaking of the way this problem shows up in the universities where so much anti-Semitic invective is thrown up, Jacobs writes:

Instead of explaining to our students the dynamic of “accusation” that has been used to hobble Jews from time immemorial, we teach them to sit in the dock. Instead of exploring with them just how Israel is under a massive ideological assault which masquerades as legitimate criticism, we teach them to keep the focus of discourse Jewish conduct, Israeli behavior, which is exactly what our adversaries want. Instead of turning our fingers back on the tyrannical Arab/Muslim world whose criticism of Israel defines chutzpah, we answer their charges. Instead of exposing the hypocritical Western liberal elites — the “human rights” establishment, the media, and the professoriate – who have abandoned for reasons of political correctness whole classes of people in the worst of circumstances: women, gays, apostates, Christians, democrats in the Islamic realm – we accept playing the role of defendant. In other words, instead of making the subject of this entire discussion the actual world tyrannies and the execrable Western hypocrites who aim to destroy us, we are bitten by the “accusation” virus, and we simply lose our minds.

I will add that it’s not just Jewish nature; it’s human nature, or at least it is in the neighborhood where I live. But whether or not Jews are any better at it, we’re beginning to see that it’s not the answer, and especially not in this situation. The enemies we’re up against are sophisticated; they’ve been on to this pattern for a long time, and they’ve become very good at it. It is antithetical to honest people or people of integrity to even consider acting this way, but we’re not dealing here with honest people or people of integrity. The enemies of Israel do not operate on that level. I’m not saying that we should lower ourselves to their level, but we do at least need to recognize what they’re doing and refuse to any longer dance to their tune.

As with just about anything, it’s easier said than done, but it won’t ever get done if it never gets said.

Just sayin’…

MY CORRESPONDENT OVER at Giyus.org continues to provide beneath-the-surface insights on Middle Eastern matters. The latest two include another expert interview, and some aspects of life inside Iran that we don’t often hear about.

In the first item, a Tel Aviv university professor analyzes Syria’s recent history and current standing as a pivot point between Iran, Lebanon, and terrorist interests in the region. He also provides the first answer I’ve seen as to how the secular regime in Syria is able to stay (more or less) on the same page with the ultra-Islamists in Iran.

Here is a cross-post of the interview in its entirety:

Focus on Syria – using terror for political gains in the Middle East

In the complicated realm of the Middle East, Syria plays a central role. Giyus.org sat down with Professor Eyal Zisser, an expert on the modern history of Syria and Lebanon, to get a better understanding of Syria and the way it uses terror to advance its political goals in the region. Prof. Zisser is the head the department of Humanities Studies in Tel Aviv University; he is a frequent speaker and writer on this subject.

Giyus.org: What’s Syria role in the region and how is it impacted by the rising power of Iran?

Professor Zisser: Syria has a central role in the Middle East. First of all, it has a central geographic location practically at the heart of the region. Secondly, Syria borders Israel and plays a major part in the Arab-Israeli conflict. Its conflict with Israel allows Syria to maintain close relationship with Hamas and Hezbollah and help them out.

The Assad family has been in power since 1970. During this period Syria became a stable country, strong from the military and political perspective. Syria is involved in Lebanon and with the Palestinians, but most of the attention it gets from the Western world is due to its close ties with Iran.

This Syria-Iran alliance allows Iran to benefit from Syria’s central location and provides a gateway for Iran to Israel’s immediate vicinity. Syria, on the other hand, benefit from the rising power of Iran. By partnering with Iran, Syria seems stronger in the eyes of the West.

Giyus.org: Iran is ruled by a deeply religious Islamic regime, while Syria is completely secular – does that impact the relations between the states?

Professor Zisser: At the moment the political gains for both countries outweighs the religious differences. In the long term this is definitely an issue that can cause tension between Syria and Iran. However, since this alliance was forged 30 years ago, both countries have dealt with much greater threats to their existence so it is in their best interests to partner and over look the religious issue.

Giyus.org: What are some of the major threats facing Syria in recent years?

Professor Zisser: The list is very long. In the 80s Israel entered Lebanon in the first Lebanon war. This then created problems in Lebanon, the front yard of Syria. This last decade since September 11th attacks was marked by the war on Terror. Bush invaded Iraq and was considering an invasion to Syria as well.

In light of these threats Syria needs Iran as an ally to back her up. In the eyes of Syria, Israel and the US are a strategic threat, much more so than Iran.

Giyus.org:  What are the motivations behind Syria’s support of terror organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah?

Professor Zisser: Syria views terror as a tool to achieve its political goals. Syria does not have a strong army and is using its terror support to show its presence and make the West take it into account as a major player in the Middle East.

On top of that, by supporting terror organizations Syria is keeping radical Islamic terror at bay. Bashar al Assad said that radical Islam is a great threat for Syria since it is a secular regime. By supporting anti Israel terror organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah, Syria stays on the "right side" of Islamic terror organizations like Al Qaeda.

And of course, by supporting Hamas and Hezbollah, Syria gains popularity in the Arab street as the main backer of the resistance forces against Israel.

Giyus.org:   Moving from supporting terror to peace – what’s Syria strategic stand with regards to the peace process with Israel?

Professor Zisser: Syria would like to see the peace talks move forward but is not willing to take any actions as condition for the talks. Syria refuses to stop supporting terror as a condition to resuming the peace talks. If and when there will be peace talks Syria might be willing to discuss its terror activities.

However, when we think of a possible peace agreement between Syria and Israel, it will be more like a friendly divorce agreement than a unity in a marriage. There is too much suspicion on both sides for this to be a warm close peaceful relation. But there can be a lasting peace where each country minds its own business.

Giyus.org: How does Syria view the efforts by the US and the European Union to bring it closer to the West?

Professor Zisser: There is actually a great disappointment in Syria from the Obama administration. Syria expected Obama to start talks and advance the relationship but this didn’t happen.  Despite the rhetoric about engaging Syria, there is still no US Ambassador in Damascus (the last US Ambassador left in 2005 after the assassination of PM Harriri in Lebanon).

The US on the other hand demands that Syria make some changes that demonstrate they are heading for peace. The US would like to see Syria sending Hamas’ leader Mashaal away from Damascus, or stop assisting anti American terror in Iraq. Syria refusal to take these steps makes it very hard for the US to make real advances.

As for the European Union, while they can offer some benefits, Syria does not view them as a strategic partner.

Since these advancements from the EU came with no conditions, it only convinces Syria that supporting terror organizations pays out. They believe that they can convince the world to accept them as they are, as long as they stick to their guns and continue supporting terror activities.

Giyus.org:  How does Syria view its relations with Lebanon?

Professor Zisser:  Lebanon is very important to Syria which views it as its own front yard.  While they were kicked out of Lebanon a few years ago, they are now gradually increasing their involvement again.

Lebanon is a highly fractured country and Syria is the only one that can keep the balance and help maintain stability. Since this is in everyone best interests and no one wants to see Lebanon torn apart in a civil war again, Syria has been allowed back in the game.

Syria is willing to meddle in the Lebanese swamp and is the only one that can keep Hezbollah in its place. Hezbollah’s weapon route from Iran goes through Syria. This gives Syria great leverage over Hezbollah since they can cut off their weapon supply at any time.

Giyus.org:  Will there be any impact to the expected UN tribunal announcement regarding Hezbollah’s involvement in the assassination of Harriri?

Professor Zisser:  No one has an interest to burst the Lebanese bubble. Not the US, or France, which were behind the tribunal in the first place, nor the regional Lebanese players which know their power limitation.

The main question is if Hezbollah is willing to accept an indictment. It’s clear that even if there is a report accusing Hezbollah of involvement in the assassination, nothing will be done about it. But at the moment Hezbollah is not willing to accept any report claiming the organization or its people were involved.

It is not clear how far Hezbollah will go with its reaction on this issue but I don’t feel it will escalate to a new civil war. It’s much easier to bury a report by the UN and ignore it than to start a civil war over it.

Giyus.org:   What was Syria role in previous internal Lebanese conflicts such as Hezbollah’s coup in 2008?

Professor Zisser:  Until 2008 there was a strong anti Syria camp in Lebanon which included the Druze and Sunni and was backed by France and Saudi Arabia. When Hezbollah took over key areas in Beirut in 2008, as a reaction to an anti Hezbollah resolution in the government, the anti Syria camp was left alone in the field against the Shiite Hezbollah army.

Knowing their own power limitations, the anti Syria camp realized they cannot stand up to Syria alone. So they turned around and decided that Syria must be engaged again since they are the only ones that can maintain balance in Lebanon. The Druze and the Sunnis camps have made their peace with Syria, basically paving the road for Syria’s involvement in internal Lebanese politics once again.

Giyus.org: Syria is also bordering Turkey – how would you describe the relations between these two countries?

Professor Zisser:  Syria and Turkey enjoy close relations these days. They have strong economic ties and Turkish PM Erdoğan is a close ally. This was not always the case. In the past Syria and Turkey were enemies and Syria supported the Kurds anti Turkey terror activities. Since Syria stopped supporting the Kurds, the relations with Turkey have greatly improved. The recent Islamization process which Turkey is going through has also brought the two countries closer.

Giyus.org: Can you describe the daily life of the people in Syria?

Professor Zisser:  Syria is a totalitarian regime which is becoming more aggressive over the years. The hopes that Bashar al Assad, as a young leader, would bring about change have faded.

In the Middle East, before you seek the right to speak your mind, you seek the right to walk safely in your street. Take a look at Iraq, at Lebanon, personal safety is not granted. The people in Syria know very well where they live and realizing the alternative is chaos, therefore they stick with their dictator regime to gain stability and safety. It’s a choice between two evils – a tyrant regime or chaos in the streets.

Giyus.org: What keeps Assad’s regime in power? Why doesn’t it collapse like the Soviet Union?

Professor Zisser:  There is no real opposition to the Assad regime. Most people are very passive and there are no demonstrations against the ruling party. Assad power base relies on this passiveness and the fact that it brings stability. Of course the security forces play an important role as well.

Assad’s anti Western and anti Israel rhetoric is also very popular in the Syrian street. This unites the people in Syria against Israel and the West further strengthening Assad’s control.

From an economic perspective things have been rather good so again no cause for people to make a change.

This is an ethnic family based regime, similar in concept to the regime of Castro in Cuba or North Korea.

Other than Israel, there are no democracies in the Middle East – it’s all dictatorships which last a long time. The only dictator that lost power is Saddam Hussien and if September 11th attacks didn’t happen Saddam would probably still rule over Iraq.

Assad keeps a tight ship, and Syria has been stable throughout the years. While so many changes have happened in Israel or the US, Syria has shown remarkable stability and this stability is at the base of their power.

*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Another report from behind closed doors in Iran provides further insight on how internal pressures continue to be more strongly felt (and feared) by the regime than we may currently realize.

Here also in its entirety is IsraeliGirl’s message:

Staple prices rise in Iran and the regime cracks up on opposition

Things in Iran have been difficult enough. But as sanctions bite, the regime is now forced to raise prices on basic staples. As the regime is well aware, the most potent challenge to Iran’s ruling system may be as simple as a shopping list.

Iranians – both rich and poor – have long benefited from blanket subsidies on natural gas, electricity, petrol, water and many staple foods. As sanctions target Iran’s limited refining capabilities, Iran was recently forced to import refined fuel, despite owning one of the world’s biggest oil reserves. As a result most drivers expect a rise of 400% in gasoline prices creating immense pressure at petrol stations across the country.

In the food department, bread prices are up more than fivefold, cooking oil more than double, cuts of lamb about triple from last year.

Price supports have long buoyed Iranians, with average households receiving $4,000 worth of fuel and electricity payments a year. Taking these benefits away can shake up the regime’s stronghold significantly.

Although the government promised payout to low income families to soften the impact of higher prices, Ahmadinejad threatens that any problems will be the fault of criminals and “economic seditionists” – the government’s opponents at home and abroad who want to bring him down.

In anticipation of unrest and protests, the Iranian regime has cranked up the pressure on human rights activists, political activists, students and leaders of the Green Movement.

This week, the Iranian regime arrested a large number of students and journalists, blocked websites (including the website of former president Mohammad Khatami, one of the leaders of the Green Movement), attempted to prevent meetings between the heads of the Green Movement and increased security measures in the streets of Tehran and other cities in preparation for the planned government subsidy reforms.

Giyus.org have learned increased measures have been taken against lawyers, specifically those representing political and human rights activists, student activists, foreign nationals detained in Iran, and juveniles sentenced to death.

The sad case of Nasrin Sotoudeh is a good example – the human rights lawyer was arrested on Sep. 4th. Sotoudeh, who was the attorney for Nobel Prize laureate Shirin Ebadi, represents human rights activists and juveniles facing the death penalty. Since her arrest, Sotoudeh has been held in solitary confinement and for some time has not been allowed family visits.

She faces charges of "acting against national security" and “congregation and collusion with intent to disrupt national security.”

The systematic actions of the Iranian regime against lawyers are in flagrant violation of the UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers, which state that lawyers should be allowed to practice “without intimidation, hindrance, harassment or improper interference” and should be accorded freedom of speech.

So as the regime goes ahead with its economic plan the Iranian people will pay the price for the atrocities of the Ayatollahs or as Ahmadinejad recently warned:

“You have only one option: That’s recognizing the right and greatness of the Iranian nation,” Mr. Ahmadinejad said in a speech broadcast live on state television. “Should you choose this path, nations may forgive you … but if you want to continue the previous path of arrogance … these people (the Iranian nation) will pursue you until you end up in hell.”

Let’s hope the people in Iran will find the strength to take back their country.

***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***

An ongoing theme in attempts to de-legitimize Israel has been the falsehood that Israel is supposedly keeping Gaza in a state of poverty by means of the military blockade. The funny thing is, we keep seeing more reports of the burgeoning economic prosperity of the enclave. The latest tidbit concerns the opening of a new luxury shopping mall in Gaza City. Poor things. Not.

***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***

It’s gotten so bad, even, that I’ve read comments suggesting that Egypt or other Arab nations might do well to request their own blockade. Hmm, I wonder what Israel should charge?

***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***

I was speculating earlier on whether the latest Obama-Netanyahu summit was going to yield any tangible results. The reports are still coming in from various angles, but there seems to be a building consensus that Obama is in fact realizing how badly he’s been getting his fingers burnt in the Middle East. The latest report I’ve seen is here, from World Jewish Daily.

***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***

On a similarly positive note, alert Tweeter (& Israel Deputy Foreign Minister) Danny Ayalon reports on a recent agreement reached with organizations from  around the world to fight anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial. Read the report here. Any way you look at it, this development is welcome news.

***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***

Less welcome, and not really news at all, is this reminder that while the Arab world goes on happily bashing Israel for what they imagine is poor treatment of “Palestinians,” they turn a blind eye toward (or at least keep their mouth shut about) the way they treat them on their own turf:

The demolition of an Arab-owned illegal building in Jerusalem is, for most correspondents, much more important than the fact that hundreds of thousands of Palestinians living in Lebanon are denied the right to own property, do not qualify for health care, and are banned by law from working in a large number of jobs.

And so on.

***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***

And just to round things out, this report would be hilarious if it weren’t deadly serious. It seems a small health food store in the State of Washington has burst upon the world scene as a major player in global politics. Or it thinks it is. The sad but true tale is that anyone who starts frothing at the mouth over how wicked and evil they think Israel is will get the attention the world so badly longs to give them. Vultures of a feather flock together, I suppose.

Talk to y’all later.

As I may have mentioned before, I’m thankful that Glick has a much larger audience than I do, because we all need to pay attention to what she and others like her are saying. She pointed out a few things that I didn’t know; for one thing that Barack Obama’s commitment to not just Islam and Islamism, but even to extreme radical Islamism was evidenced in his Cairo speech last year when he thumbed his nose not only at the West but also at Egypt his host, in demanding that members of The Muslim Brotherhood jihad, enemies of Egypt’s more moderate current government, be allowed to attend. It’s becoming increasingly clear that Obama’s loyalties lie not with his own country, nor even yet with the Islamic world in general, but with the most extreme elements within the Islamic world, such as Hamas and the current Iran regime.

Glick says “It is not surprising that Obama is siding with Hamas,” and proceeds to give us several reasons why. I’ll admit I was surprised at first; I knew he was bad news for the US, but didn’t know he was quite this bad.

Then again, maybe we should have paid more attention when the truth slipped out right after the election that the Obama campaign had maintained a secret liaison with Hamas all along. A poor Hamas operative named Ahmed Yousef spilled the beans, before he realized it wasn’t OK. I never heard of him again after that, did you? Somehow I don’t think he was given a lush retirement package on the Riviera.

***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***

On a lighter note (if you can call it that), at least somebody outside of the Zionist Right Wing Blogosphere recognizes Israel as the best thing that ever happened to the West with respect to preserving any semblance of civilization in the region. Somebody like former Spanish Prime Minister José María Aznar. He wrote Friday in an opinion column that

Anger over Gaza is a distraction. We cannot forget that Israel is the West’s best ally in a turbulent region.

Minister Aznar points out a few often overlooked matters, such as:

It was the United Nations which birthed what is now the State of Israel over 60 years ago; so why is the UN now screaming that the State is illegitimate? What does that make the UN? (OK, so I’m somewhat paraphrasing what the Minister wrote – after all, he is a gentleman.)

Israel is not what is threatening to destabilize the Middle East. It is the rise of radical Islamism which is the destabilizing factor.

Moreover, Israel is the one element in the region which is holding back the forces seeking to destroy civilization. Israel is in reality our first line of defense and is taking the blows for us; if Israel falls, we’re next on the list.

It is the decline in the West of a sense of moral and strategic clarity that is setting us up for a fall. For us to pursue appeasement with those who oppose Israel is to seek appeasement with those same forces that seek our own destruction, and that “is not only a grave moral mistake, but a strategic error of the first magnitude.”

Minister Aznar summarizes by saying:

Israel is a fundamental part of the West…  If… Israel is lost, then we are lost too. Whether we like it or not, our fate is inextricably intertwined.

***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***

Well, that brief visit with sanity was wonderful, wasn’t it? All right then, back to normal, since of course, complete irrationality seems to have become the norm of late.

Do you recall the story of “The Green Prince,” also called “Son of Hamas?” Mosab Hassan Yousef is the son of one of Hamas’ founders, but he converted after witnessing the sickening cruelty of the Palestinians toward their own kind. He worked undercover for Israeli security for a while, saving lives on both sides of the fence, and then came to this country and applied for political asylum.

To any rational mind, he’s the perfect candidate, considering the price on his head if he were to ever go back to Hamastan. Ah, but a rational mind is a rare commodity indeed in the current US administration! Incredibly, the Department of Homeland Security is pursuing deportation proceedings against him this month. Somehow DHS seems to reason that since he fought against terrorism, that makes him a terrorist. Kind of like if you’re black, that means you’re white. Or something like that. Don’t ask me to explain – just read it for yourself.

Of course, it all does make sense if you look at it this way: Barack Obama’s loyalties are with Hamas and with the other elements of radical Islamic jihad, not with the country he was elected to lead. Not that I’m applying the word “treason,” though it does seem to describe his actions better than anything. Maybe I’m hoping to wake up and find all of this alternate reality was just a dream. Or maybe we all just need to wake up.

Good night.

I assume everyone has been at least trying to keep up with the twists and turns in the unfolding tale of what really happened on board the Mavi Marmara and where it all leads. I’ve been holding off on saying anything here until some of the dust has settled, but it doesn’t look like that will be happening any time soon.

I’m not even going to try to go over the whole story at this point. That’s been done already in enough places that I would be merely duplicating others’ efforts.  You can get the basics from day one here, and Peace Flotilla is a great place where you can find current updates.

There have also been a number of excellent commentaries made by prominent figures in this arena. Caroline Glick points out several vital points in “Ending Israel’s Losing Streak.”

But I’ll try to recap just a little in order to get on to my main points. Over the weekend, a hodgepodge of leftists calling themselves “Free Gaza” attempted to run Israel’s naval blockade of Hamas-controlled Gaza. The Israel Defense Forces interdicted the offending vessels as allowed under international law. Five of the six vessels were boarded peacefully, but mercenary combatants on board the sixth ship, the Mavi Marmara, ambushed the IDF boarding party with metal poles and clubs, electric saws and other crude weapons, and with grenades, knives and firearms. The IDF troops sustained serious wounds but successfully completed their mission. When the smoke had cleared, the IDF had sustained several injuries, including two rated as serious or critical, and the enemy combatants (please, folks, let’s stop calling them “activists” – they were hired soldiers) sustained many more casualties, including nine fatalities.

As details began to emerge over the next few days, several things began to stand out (including a couple of things that I really haven’t heard discussed much elsewhere):

1) Although the leftists were assembled under the umbrella organization “Free Gaza,” the expedition was actually led by (and the Mavi Marmara operated  by) a known terrorist organization headquartered in Turkey known by its initials IHH.

2) The attackers who assaulted the IDF commandos were identified as cash-paid mercenaries, primarily Turkish nationals. (Of the nine fatalities, eight were Turkish citizens and one was a naturalized US citizen from Turkey.)

According to one well-placed source, the cash with which the mercenaries were paid was not passed to them until after they were on board. This would mean they were not quite dedicated enough to the ‘cause’ to be counted on to otherwise show up.

3) Turkey’s role in this affair was, and still is, of very serious concern. It would be distracting here to try to get deeply into the complexities of the Turkey – Iran – Syria axis, but it appears possible that Turkey is vying for a stronger position in that company of thieves. I had issued several “tweets” over the past few days calling attention to the extremity of Turkey’s involvement, but now I’m not so sure it’s a whole lot more than a serious attempt to gain a bigger piece of the pie. To be certain, the Turkish government has recently become a major sponsor of terrorism, but they still haven’t toppled Iran, or even Syria, in that respect.

4) Most importantly, though, the military blockade of Gaza has been in fact very effective against Hamas, and by extension against Iran’s interests in the area, not only in terms of making war materiel less available, but also by way of restricting Hamas’ finances, and even causing serious internal political pressure on the regime.

This brings up a crucial point: the blockade running attempt was a desperation move by Hamas and Iran. I haven’t heard that part of the matter emphasized in the media, but it is very consistent with the hiring of mercenaries in an attempt to repel the IDF naval interdiction. And it is consistent also with the possession by the mercenaries of huge sums of cash, some of which was payment for their services, but the greater part of which was apparently intended for Haniyeh’s grubby little hands. It would also mean that Hamas is not about to give up – because it can’t afford to give up. The next attempt is already underway as of this writing.

A further serious implication of this is that those who are advocating removal of the blockade (and there are many, including major players in the UN and in Europe, and perhaps even the current US administration) are in effect allying themselves politically and even militarily with Hamas, and again by extension with Iran. If that bothers you, it does me, too.

I’m talking of course about the top counterterrorism official in the White House, John Brennan. According to this NY Times article his official designation is “assistant to the president for homeland security and counterterrorism,” but that was apparently just something they came up with to get around the need for Senate confirmation. (If you’re wondering why, keep reading.) I think maybe we should just call him “terrorism czar;” it’s an easier handle to use, and more descriptive of his actual function within the administration.

So anyway, whatever we should call him, Brennan first came to my attention as having said last week, basically, that Hezbollah is not really such a bad bunch, after all. That we should be paying less attention to the admitted terrorists dominating the organization, and begin reaching out to the “moderates.” As many have pointed out since that statement, Hezbollah is an organization dedicated to the complete destruction of Israel (and anyone else who gets in its way), by means of terror, aggressive military action, mass extermination of civilian populations, or whatever else seems handy at the moment, and saying that the group contains moderates is, well, to put it mildly, an oxymoron of the highest caliber. And to say we should be “reaching out” a hand to them is to say we really would like to be left with a bloody stump, or probably worse.

Ok, we could at this point give the man the benefit of the doubt and just say he’s an idiot (don’t bother asking why an idiot is occupying a top level position in the Obama administration – that’s another topic), but he’s not stopping there. A few days after the news of his fondness for the Hezzies came out, it also came to light that he thinks of Jerusalem not as Jerusalem, but as Al-Quds. For those of you who don’t follow such matters (and perhaps I should begin to wonder why I do), Al-Quds is the Arabic name for the capital of Israel, and as one observer put it,

No one refers to Jerusalem in the English language as Al-Quds, unless they have a specific political, anti-Israel agenda – in this case, pandering to Israel’s enemies, who will draw comfort from the use of the term Al-Quds by a senior U.S. government official.

Or, simply, whether one uses “Jerusalem” or “Al-Quds” is simply a matter of preference and loyalty, not stupidity.

So now, if we haven’t yet caught on, we should be really wondering where this guy’s loyalties lie, and whether he might perhaps be dangerous to not only Israel, but to the US as well. Well wonder no more! His latest revelation is that jihad is not actually a program of ongoing warfare against western society, but sort of a self-improvement program for Muslims. What a lovely thought! Now we can relax all of our defenses and welcome Al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigades, and all these other armed to the teeth hell-bent on destruction self-help groups to come help themselves to ourselves and everything we have or stand for. Maybe we can even invite them to a guest appearance on Oprah before they behead us.

In case you’re wondering if maybe Brennan has a point there, here is what the Quran itself has to say on the matter:

The hadiths of Bukhari and Muslim contain entire books on jihad, and the Qur’an is littered with verses devoted to it. It’s not a pretty sight. The first verse of the Qur’an that deals with jihad is 002.190, for which the Qur’an translated by Al-Hilali and Khan provides the following footnote:

Al-Jihâd (holy fighting) in Allâh’s Cause (with full force of numbers and weaponry) is given the utmost importance in Islam and is one of its pillars (on which it stands). By Jihâd Islam is established, Allâh’s Word is made superior (His Word being Lâ ilaha illallâh which means none has the right to be worshipped but Allâh), and His religion (Islam) is propagated. By abandoning Jihâd (may Allâh protect us from that) Islam is destroyed and the Muslims fall into an inferior position; their honor is lost, their lands are stolen, their rule and authority vanish. Jihâd is an obligatory duty in Islam on every Muslim, and he who tries to escape from this duty, or does not in his innermost heart wish to fulfill this duty, dies with one of the qualities of a hypocrite.

(Many thanks to Droog’s Concise Guide to Islam for that brief but authoritative description!)

So we really should not be wondering at this point which side Brennan is on. I think it is not stretching the point at all to refer to him as the unofficial jihadist for the White House. (Or as one eloquent tweeter put it, Ambassador for Al Qaeda to the United States.) And as I said at the start of this post, give it a few days & maybe it will become official.

Watching the scandal spin out of control, Apkon took note of the irony that the pro-Israel community had lynched one of the people at HRW who was most sympathetic to its concerns. “You’re sitting there watching this, and you realize: They’re going after the wrong guy!”

Do y’all remember Marc Garlasco? He is (or was) the military analyst over at Human Rights Watch whose partiality with respect to reporting on Israel  was called into serious question via the revelation that he just happened to be an avid collector of Nazi memorabilia.

A  report last week (yeah – I’ve been away) in The New Republic detailed some of the internal turmoil at HRW which eventually led to founder Robert Bernstein publicly distancing himself from the organization’s blatant hostility toward Israel. The report by Benjamin Birnbaum chronicles some of the behind the scenes activities which demonstrated a disturbing bias in its reporting, a bias that deeply conflicted with the principles of honesty that Bernstein had brought to the table when he began the organization over thirty years prior.

Birnbaum introduces a broader cast of rather disturbing characters such as Sarah Whitson, who keeps a movie poster in her office “that attempts [sic] to humanize Palestinian suicide bombers,” and who says in one breath that Hamas is wrong for making rocket targets (let alone human shields) out of civilians, and in the next breath that “no one can deny that the pain and destruction that Israel causes cannot be compared to what Hamas is doing.”

Or take Norm Finkelstein, an “avowed Hezbollah supporter who has likened Israel to Nazi Germany,” and who prosecuted a successful campaign to extract an official apology for a press release critical of Palestinian officers.

The infamous Richard Goldstone is also cited by Birnbaum as agreeing with Whitson and HRW executive director Ken Roth that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s threats to “wipe Israel off the map” were not something worthy of any special attention. They had other fish to fry, you see.

Birnbaum touches as well on some of the other ways a pervasive anti-Israel attitude generally made itself felt at HRW. HRW’s grossly disproportionate reportage of alleged Israeli abuses while giving relatively minimal attention to the far more excessive abuses practiced by regimes such as Libya, Syria, or Iran is characterized by one of their own members as going after the “low-hanging fruit.” In other words, it’s easy to pick on Israel – not so easy to penetrate Iran.

Birnbaum notes HRW’s report on Israel’s 2002 anti-terrorist operation in Jenin deftly ignored Israel’s decision not to use aerial bombardment in order to greatly reduce the potential for civilian casualties, at the cost of greater casualties among its own military personnel. That sort of information defeats the organization’s purpose of demonizing Israel, in case you can’t tell.

Other occasions are cited by Birnbaum where HRW withheld critical information or simply misreported key factual details. Accuracy in reporting does not appear to hold a high priority at HRW.

Birnbaum went on to some length illustrating the gross bias on the part of the organization, but I was caught by surprise as he turned his attention to the Garlasco affair. Not that I was surprised when he delved into it, but that his characterization of it drew a picture indicating Garlasco was really not nearly so much a sworn enemy of Israel as were others within the establishment. Birnbaum’s interviews with advisory committee member Steve Apkon brought out some interesting – and possibly mitigating – details about Garlasco’s background and viewpoints. Even his pre-occupation with Nazi artifacts can be seen in a different light if you consider what Apkon says about Garlasco’s relatively narrow focus as a military analyst. Did he report unfavorably on Israeli activites, as part and parcel of his employment? Yes, of course he did. But Apkon also brings up some things that we didn’t know about Garlasco. That, for instance, owing to his military experience, he at times expressed sympathy for Israeli soldiers with regard to the no-win predicaments in which they continually find themselves. Or that he also (if perhaps too quietly to make an impact) pointed out discrepancies in the way his bosses handled the issue of white phosphorous in combat. He knew it was used not only by Israel, but by the U.S. and Britain, and that it did not necessarily imply a misuse of military technology. Or that in general Garlasco expressed some degree of frustration with HRW’s seeming inability (or unwillingness) to acknowledge even the very complexity of war. Birnbaum cites Apkon as going so far as to say Garlasco had already been considering leaving HRW when the scandal broke. The notoriety gained by the exposure of his odd proclivities apparently did little more than to seal the deal.

Do I think Garlasco got a raw deal out of the whole matter? I suppose that depends on whether he ultimately suffered from the exposure, and whether the exposure was uncalled for. My purpose at the time that I  participated in that exposure (not that I harbor illusions of having made a significant impact) was, and still is, to shed light wherever I can into dark corners wherever I spot them. Or to be at least another relay point in the transmission of information when someone else has turned the lights on. And in that, I am convinced more than ever that Human Rights Watch has a lot of dark corners needing illumination.

It is apparent that President Obama unjustly questions Israel’s desire for peace, “even while Palestinian Authority leaders are avoiding peace talks like the plague.” Palestinian Authority officials from Mahmoud Abbas on down have refused to talk to Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu. If called to task on the matter, they have a constant supply of pretexts, happily supplied by Washington itself.

Parsons also cites instances of dishonesty toward Israel on the part of the Obama Administration: such as Secretary Clinton disowning an agreement the US made with Israel, for which she voted in Congress, or of Clinton criticizing an action as having been committed by Hamas, when it was in reality  done by our supposed “peace partner” Fatah.

There have also been indications coming from chief-of-staff Rahm Emanuel that this Administration has secretly set an objective to declare a Palestinian State before the end of Obama’s first term in office.

First term? This is just my opinion, but let’s pray to God that it’s his only term, and that at least some of his more damaging objectives remain unrealized.

Here is David Parsons’ special commentary:

Behind Obama’s battering of Israel
-by David Parsons
After one year in office, it seemed US President Barack Obama had learned some lessons in conducting foreign policy and was ready to back off some of his heavy handed tactics in dealing with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. It had become all too obvious that Obama had blundered by hammering away at Israel on settlements, while giving the Palestinians a free pass.

Thus, US Vice President Joe Biden paid a solidarity visit to Jerusalem in March to reassure Israeli leaders on Washington’s balanced approach to peacemaking with the Palestinians. But then the Obama administration deliberately ratcheted up the pressure again over the issue of Jewish construction in east Jerusalem and relations soured once more.

It has been manifestly unfair for the US administration to treat its closest democratic ally in the region and arguably the world in this manner. Obama has gone so far as to question Israel’s desire for peace, even while Palestinian Authority leaders are avoiding peace talks like the plague. When Netanyahu came into office last spring, PA officials from Mahmoud Abbas down unanimously said they would not talk to him “in a thousand years.” All their subsequent preconditions to talks are merely pretexts, often conveniently supplied by Washington, which has yet to hold them accountable for their intransigence.

Besides being unfair, the Obama administration has also been dishonest in its dealings with Israel. Early on, for instance, Netanyahu reminded the new Administration of the letter delivered in April 2004 by former US President George W. Bush to then-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon containing key American commitments to Israel regarding the Palestinian track. But US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton brushed the letter aside as no longer binding, even though as a US Senator she had voted for a joint congressional resolution which endorsed the Bush letter as official US policy.

Another clear example of the dishonesty can be seen when Clinton went before the annual AIPAC policy conference in March and criticized Hamas for its incitement against Israel. Yet her comments on the incitement issue had actually been prompted by the Israeli government specifically complaining to the US State Department that PA chairman Mahmoud Abbas and prime minister Salaam Fayyad were honoring PLO terrorist Dalal Mughrabi, the leader of the notorious “Coastal Road Massacre” in 1978. Clinton is now trying to correct the record by finally confronting the PA about its own incitement, but only after being caught in an embarrassing fib.

All this has left many wondering what exactly is Obama up to with his heavy pressure on Netanyahu while coddling the Palestinians. Besides courting favor with the wider Arab/Islamic world, one commentator close to Obama recently chalked up the festering quarrel over Jewish housing in east Jerusalem to the White House wanting to bring the more dovish Opposition leader Tzipi Livni of Kadima into the coalition. That may be a welcome outcome of the arm-twisting, but the ultimate goal is two-fold.

First, the Obama administration is sending a message of “no adventurism on Iran.” By making Netanyahu sweat over a manufactured issue like the Ramat Shlomo housing approvals, Obama is signaling that Netanyahu is being kept on a short leash, meaning any unilateral Israeli actions regarding Iran will n ot be tolerated. If the Netanyahu government deems it necessary to pre-empt the growing threat of Tehran’s renegade nuclear program, no one should expect America to cover its back in trying to manage the global fallout from such actions.

Secondly, the Administration is unnecessarily battering Netanyahu in a bid to soften his opposition to a Palestinian state, which they hope to declare within Obama’s first term in office. White House chief-of-staff Rahm Emanuel said as much to an American Jewish leader last year, according to Yediot Aharonot, and I don’t think it was a slip of the tongue.

In this regard, Obama and his team have misread the Israeli public. Obama believes Netanyahu does not truly represent the views of most Israelis, but he does. They have been conditioned by years of violence, terror and foreign pressure into being ready to give up the West Bank for peace. Yet they remain highly skeptical that there is a peace partner on the Palestinian side who can keep their end of the bargain. Obama will make an even bigger blunder if he persists in thinking the Palestinians are currently ready for a state that would live at peace with Israel.

And Noah Pollak in Commentary Magazine raises the larger question of why didn’t Obama, as host of the conference (let alone as a respected national leader) put a stop to any such shenanigans in the first place. Pollak suggests

There are two possible explanations, and I’m not sure which is more disturbing. Obama either welcomed the prospect of another humiliation of Netanyahu, or he was afraid to stand up to two Muslim leaders. Perhaps both are true.

So is Netanyahu snubbing Washington, or is it just prudent not to attend another bash-Israel fest? I have a good friend who loves to state both/and questions as either/ors, to which the obvious answer is supposed to be “yes.” So, to answer my own question – yes. However, Israel will be well represented at the conference. Just not Bibi.

While Hamas attempts to send a strong military message to the IDF tonight, by stating that it "responded…appropriately" to Israel’s on-foot incursion into Gaza late Friday, there is no doubt in my mind the game is about politics rather than military. There are two sides to Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and one of them plays it smart. Sadly, it is not us.

Israel made tactical mistakes one after another: first, announcing Jerusalem construction plans during John Biden’s visit – giving the Americans perfect excuse to pressure Israel into submission; allowing Palestinian PM Abbas take the initiative on the talks – making Israel look unwilling to play any political game; then stepping into Gaza, giving Hamas a way to blame Israel for violence once again. The current crisis is not Israel’s fault – but it sure as hell could be avoided by playing smart.

Hamas knows to use a good opportunity to cry wolf. Golani Major Peretz made a correct decision to pursue terror cell into Gaza’s territory to halt IED positioning by the cell – practice used daily by Hamas and subsequent groups, causing – at times – disastrous consequences. Yet, Haniyeh knows his practices rarely make it to first page of the New York Times, while Israel’s incursions are widely condemned by the likes of Thomas Freidman, who believe Hamas is all white and fluffy. Moreover, Mashaal and his minions understand full well that any Israeli military step could easily be turned against the Jewish state – particularly now, when Netanyahu’s government already gave Americans enough to demand transfer of Abu-Dis, near Jerusalem, to Mahmoud Abbas and Fatah. Khaled Mashaal’s wet dream is to have the opportunity to fire few rockets at the Knesset – with little to none consequences to himself.

To be honest, there was no way Israel could avoid Hamas’ show of military prowess – poor as it might be. One way or another, Ismail Haniyeh’s men would find a way to engage IDF troops and use the always willing press to distribute pictures of wounded and killed. According to Palestinian sources, Israel’s nightly incursion into Gaza with several tanks and bulldozers left a "fighter" wounded – but it is unlikely the "fighter" term would find its way into AP’s wire.

To the disdain of the Americans, Israel holds great power in the region. Israel is the sole player who could easily dismantle any effort on the part of President Obama to reconcile with the Arab world. Israel could set the whole Middle East on fire, crashing American interests in the Gulf, Egypt and Syria. Finally, Israel is America’s foot in the door to hearts and minds of Arab leaders, with administrations able to restrain or unleash Israel at will, pressuring Arab partners into certain concessions.

Israel’s acceptance of the rules of the game is what makes its position weak – and it is time to take the initiative. While Netanyahu lost the opportunity to take the frying pan off the fire, he surely could turn the situation to his advantage. For example, it is likely to be in Israel’s interests to announce a two-month construction freeze inside Arab-populated areas of Jerusalem, keeping the area frozen to a reasonable minimum. Such a freeze would allow Israel to place the ball in PA’s court, putting an end to Abbas’ constant whining and lifting some of the weight placed by Secretary of State Clinton off Jews’ shoulders.

Winning points vis-à-vis Hamas would be harder, but not impossible. Sad, but true – repeated small-scale incursions into Gaza bear no fruit, while a large-scale operation would be widely criticized by the international community. Thus, the only real leverage Israel has is its crossings. With Egypt setting up its own barrier against Hamas smuggling – not impassable, but much harder to penetrate – Israel’s only viable option is to leave any ground and sea units off Gaza and declare that any attack from Gaza Strip – be it a rocket attack or an IED – would result in closure of the crossings for a day, thus preventing transfer of hundreds of tons of supplies. Before implementing the strategy, it is Minister Lieberman’s job to widely publicize the strategy and the outcome of a possible attack. Israel should make it clear: we play fair and we will not attack; yet, we will not tolerate fire on our soldiers and citizens. The IAF could be used to drop hundreds of thousands of leaflets, announcing to Gaza’s citizens that any armed assault against Israel’s South would have grave consequences.

The above strategy would, in fact, hurt Hamas. In the past months, the group fiercely opposed Egypt’s project to stop underground smuggling into Gaza, with Haniyeh’s men realizing things could go South if they would have no way to feed Gazans. For now, the markets are full of food; however, the supply will dry fast if all the routes would be closed. Arab states’ clear indifference to Hamas’ struggle – clearly portrayed after Israel’s operation "Cast Lead" – makes the situation all the more gloomy.

Playing the game on your own terms takes political courage rarely seen here in the past two decades. Yet, it could change the view of Netanyahu from weasely politician to a national hero. No doubt, he should take it.

AT THE LEADING EDGE of Israeli – U.S. relations lately, as most of you know, has been the amazing transformation of what had been presented two weeks ago as a minor diplomatic blunder, into a crisis of immense proportions. U.S. VP Joe Biden openly accepted PM Benjamin Netanyahu’s public apology for the faux pas in question, so why then did Hillary Clinton call back a few days later to ream the Prime Minister out for 43 minutes straight?  I will note here that PM Netanyahu as the leader of a sovereign nation – a leader among nations at that — was not by any stretch of diplomatic courtesy obligated to accept or tolerate such aberrant behavior from someone of lesser rank in another government, let alone anyone of any rank. But, unlike Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Netanyahu is a class act, and chose not to answer in kind. And if the whole incident was precipitated, as the U.S. claims, by a diplomatic discourtesy, how can we explain or justify such extreme, unacceptably  discourteous treatment by Mrs. Clinton?

The simple answer – we can’t. And that also calls into focus the (as I just named it)  amazing transformation part of the entire affair. It’s not about a diplomatic blunder. Neither is it, as further claimed by the U.S., about an impediment created thereby to the hope of further peace negotiations. It’s about the U.S. seizing on the opportunity to ratchet up pressure on Israel to give up fighting for its survival and give in to the demands of its enemies.

The specific issue initially cited was the poor timing of an announcement of building permits for construction of more housing units in Jerusalem. That issue itself is a complete non-starter. Construction of housing in Jerusalem has been going on for decades. Or millennia, depending on how you look at it. Israel was building homes in Jerusalem when Hillary Clinton was a starry-eyed college hippie. And more importantly, the U.S., including the Obama administration, has been aware of this process. As proof that this has been no surprise to the U.S., take a look at other very public recent attempts by Mr. Obama to put a stop to it, or to at least hinder it by any means available.

And, if it was the announcement itself which was a monkey wrench thrown into the peace process by offending the sensibilities of the Palestinian hierarchy as potential negotiating partners, then why didn’t Joe Biden simply side-step it, not calling attention to it at all?

And why also has the U.S. administration simply ignored blatant provocations on the part of the Arabs which can only serve to dash any hope of peace? Everything from near-declarations of renewed “holy war,” to the very in-your-face honors accorded to a mass-murderer terrorist by the  Palestinian Authority, publicly ballyhooed at the same time as Israel’s so-very-offensive announcement of building permits. Was Hillary deliberately twisting the facts when she called the dedication of a public square to terrorist heroine Dalal Mughrabi an insult to decency on the part Hamas, the natural enemy of “peace partner” Fatah, covering up the fact that the offense was committed (and gloated over) by Fatah itself, not by Hamas? Or maybe she was just a little confused as to the facts of the case. If so, why was she confused when the rest of us knew quite well what was going on. What did you say her job was? Secretary of what? For whom?

Again, a short answer: it’s not at all about building permits, announcements of building permits, or even the horrifying prospect of Jews having more homes in Jewish neighborhoods of the Capital of the Jewish Nation of Israel. It’s about the continued drive to exterminate the Jewish Nation by whatever means comes to hand. The housing issue is just the latest one to handily present itself to the twisted minds of Mahmoud Abbas, Hillary Clinton, Ismail Haniyeh, and Barack Hussein Obama.

But I have an overriding concern which I’ve stated before as an American that my country is headed for an awful cliff in its opposition to the “apple of God’s eye.” Someone said the other day that they were concerned that the next step on our part might be to send in troops to bring our ‘wayward friend’ back in line. That would be a very, very bad move indeed, but not something that I see as imminent, if for no other reasons than not only is the American public still solidly behind Israel, regardless of what our President or his inner circle say, but 75% percent of the U.S. House of Representatives just yesterday issued a letter to the Secretary of State saying, in effect, and in necessarily polite terms, back off, lady!

So it isn’t over by a long shot, nor do I even think it’s reached a peak. It’s still in crescendo mode, and “the fat lady,” as Yogi would say, is not even on stage yet.

I received this special commentary today from the International Christian Embassy Jerusalem. I am simply copying it in here, partly because the link to it is not yet up on the ICEJ page, and partly just because it needs to be seen.

The author of the what you see below, Rev. Malcolm Hedding took part in the true anti-Apartheid fight, in the 1980s, in South Africa, as a white man, and as a minister of religion. He was threatened with detention without trial by the infamous Bureau of State Security. In other words, he knows the difference. This is what he sees and how he sees it.

Israel and the charge of Apartheid
-by Malcolm Hedding

Day by day the anti-Israel alliance, and sadly in collaboration with major church movements mainly from the Protestant world, is seeking to make the Apartheid label stick to Israel. We see this at present in the fortnight of global agitation known as “Israel Apartheid Week.” There is more to this scheming than meets the eye in that the real agenda behind branding Israel an “Apartheid state” is to remove the Jewish State altogether.

The real Apartheid State of South Africa was rightfully dismantled in the late 1980s and early 90s. It was first discredited, then delegitimized and finally dismantled to the elation of the world and the enslaved black majority who had lived under and endured its brutality. However, to describe Israel in these terms is, quite frankly, immoral and wicked. Yet on university campuses across the Western World, this is becoming a very popular cause.

Radical leftist academics and politicians are teaming up with extremist Muslim elements to pursue this goal. They want to equate Israel with the original Apartheid State and thus demand that the world do as it did to South Africa – dismantle it! Most of these people know absolutely nothing about Apartheid, but the word is extremely powerful since it conjures up notions of hatred, discrimination, brutality, racism and prejudice.

It is quite astonishing to witness how a lie told often enough can eventually be accepted as truth! Most of these people have no knowledge of the “inner workings” of the Apartheid regime and couldn’t even tell you the basic facts about it. It is just a very powerful weapon to use when discharging their hatred of Israel.

Essentially, Apartheid was a totalitarian system of governance – not unlike many of the regimes in the Arab world today – whereby a minority white population subjugated and enslaved the overwhelmingly black population. It was ideologically driven and was obsessed with racial superiority. The superior whites could not mingle with or even sit on a bench with the inferior black peoples. Even the education system was “dumbed down” for black people because they were deemed mentally inferior and unable to cope with the higher levels of learning that whites could embrace.

The towns and cities were “white by night” as all “blacks” – as they were called – had to be removed to their shanty towns, which served as cheap labour ghettos for the nation. The black people could not vote, own property or even move freely inside their own country.

Various instruments of state were used to ruthlessly apply the system of total and complete segregation and these included the police, the military and the judiciary system. In short, it was Aryanism in a new form!

There is absolutely nothing equivalent to this in the dispute that rages between the Palestinians and Israel today. Within Israel itself, Arabs and Jews share the same shopping malls, benches, hospitals, theatres and, in many cases, suburbs. The educational institutions do not have a deliberately “dumbed down” Arab curriculum and the privilege of voting is given to all. The Israeli Knesset has Arab members of parliament, and Jews, Arabs and Palestinians often work together at construction sites, businesses, hotels and elsewhere. Most important of all is the fact that Israel is a democratic state. Though not a perfect one, it does have democratic institutions and it is definitely not governed by a totalitarian minority!

Out in the disputed territories, some 98% of the Palestinian Arab population now lives under the governance of their own Palestinian Authority, where they have the right to vote and change their leaders – at least theoretically. True, Israel has adopted security measures that curtail their movement, but these have been necessitated by the conflict thrust upon her and are legitimate acts of self-defense, rather than acts of racial discrimination.

It is also important to remember that there never had been a Palestinian State in the region, as even Jews were called and registered as “Palestinians” in 1948! British authorities held a Mandate over the country and accepted the right of Jews to have a state of their own in what was their ancient homeland. Even the United Nations accepted and voted for this right. When Israel implemented this decision by declaring its existence, she was immediately attacked by no less than five Arab armies!

This brings into focus the real nature of this conflict. That is, it has very little to do with politics or peace agreements but everything to do with theology! By this I mean a radical jihadist theology that considers the whole Land of Israel and not just the West Bank as part of the “House of Islam.”

This theology dictates that all this land must be returned to Islamic rule, whether by peaceful, political or violent means of jihad. So from 1948 to 1967, when the Palestinians had everything they say they want now, they neither protested against the illegal Jordanian occupation of the West Bank nor even remotely demanded a state of their own. They did, however, found the PLO in 1964 with the distinct mission of destroying the State of Israel. They subsequently launched a terror campaign to force this end and throughout the Oslo era refused to remove the infamous clauses from their Charter calling for the “elimination” of Israel!

The same jihadist theology drives Hamas and its affiliated militia al-Aksa Martyrs’ Brigades, as well as Hizbullah, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran, and all the rest of the “resistance” front.

This has absolutely nothing to do with Apartheid! The state of Israel enjoys a Jewish majority. It is democracy which must answer to its citizens and thus has demonstrated a willingness to make painful concessions in order to secure a future of peace with its neighbors. In all cases, it alone paid the real price by giving up land. It even withdrew from Gaza to demonstrate its sinceri ty in seeking a peaceful resolution to the conflict with the Palestinians. The trauma that this withdrawal brought to the people of Gaza and to Israel was played out for the entire world to see through the international media. Yet it was not good enough! So, the result was the, “same old, same old”. That is, within a short span of time thousands of missiles, fired from the vacated territory, rained down on Israeli civilians in the western Negev. The world said and did very little, except to call Israel an “apartheid state”!

Over the years, and even in response to Israel’s most generous peace overtures during the Oslo era, the Palestinians have opted for violence. This they called an “intifada.” Wave upon wave of suicide bombers attacked Israel from the porous boundaries surrounding the West Bank. Men, women and children were indiscriminately murdered in buses, restaurants, hotels and shopping malls. To protect herself from these murderous infiltrations, Israel built a security barrier, which in some of the more vulnerable built-up areas consisted of a wa ll. It was not built to segregate people or discriminate against them, but to protect its own citizens from attack. In this connection, the security fence has been highly successful though even Israelis admit it is regrettable. But what would any other self-respecting, democratic state do? Nevertheless, Israel’s detractors love to deride the “Apartheid Wall” to further their accusation.

To presume, after all that Israel has been through in her sixty-two years of modern statehood, that the Jewish State has no legitimate security concerns is madness. The Palestinians have time and again demonstrated that their strategy has not changed since 1964. In Johannesburg in 1994, a year after shaking the hand of Israeli leader Yitzhak Rabin on the White House lawn, PLO chief Yasser Arafat declared as much. Close monitors of the Palestinian media have also repeatedly drawn attention to this fact. The liberal left and their fellow travelers conveniently ignore this fact. No sir, Apartheid is not the issue; the destruction of Israel is.

Just recently, the Syrian-based leader of Hamas stood shoulder-to-shoulder with Ahmadinejad and together they boasted that very soon Israel, in its entirety, would vanish from the map of the world. Theirs is a holy war but for the liberal left it is Apartheid, and the truth is their radical positions have made them allies!

These same radical leftists espouse democracy but in practice they deny it. They will not allow Israeli academics, leaders or politicians to exercise their democratic right to free speech. Their intolerance knows no boundaries as they threaten and disrupt meetings in educational institutions in Western countries that supposedly are there to educate within the context of democratic values. This is exactly what the Apartheid thugs of the South African regime did. They violently brought public meetings to an end if anyone opposed their view of the world. They were scared to death that someone might just have a more truthful and compelling argument than theirs. The democratic rights they claim for themselves, they deny to others.

For sure, the Palestinians have suffered and still do but to place the blame entirely at Israel’s door is folly. Their failed and corrupt leadership, missed opportunities, and willingness to support violence and terror are also central causes of their suffering. Israel is no Apartheid state. She is a democratic state living under the constant threat of annihilation and thus seeking to balance her need to find a lasting peace with her neighbors with that of her security. Her regional experience has taught Israel that her security and very existence is the number one issue. After all, in all the so-called peace plans presented for the region, she is expected to do all the giving with only verbal guarantees of security given by her interlocutors. These have never amounted to much!

The truth is the Apartheid accusation is just another smokescreen in the war against Israel! I should know because I grew up in the dark Apartheid era of South Africa and stood against it to my peril.

_______________________________________________________________________

As a young minister in South Africa, Rev. Malcolm Hedding participated in the struggle against Apartheid in the 1980s and was threatened with detention without trial by the infamous Bureau of State Security. Today, he is the Executive Director of the International Christian Embassy Jerusalem; www.icej.org/

But the other day I saw, in coverage of events planned soon for something called “apartheid week,” that there is a broader sense in which the term is being used, namely as a generic term for any situation where a government or regime is abusing the human rights of its own people.

If that’s the case, it certainly makes identifying apartheid regimes much simpler. No doubt we can very well include under that label most if not all of Israel’s current enemies, perhaps starting with the number one leader of the Arab states, Saudi Arabia. And we don’t have to restrict ourselves to Arab states; Iran, though not Arab, has been very much in the news for its abuse of its own people right about now, and is hands down Israel’s most blatant opponent at this time.  Then there is, of course, Syria, the Hamas regime itself in Gaza, and… I’ll tell you what – you find me one of Israel’s Middle Eastern foes which isn’t an oppressive “apartheid” state, according this version of the term.

But still, that isn’t what the term ever meant, nor should we play so fast and loose with the language that we all become like Humpty Dumpty.

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.”

“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”

“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master – - that’s all.”

Israel & Palestine Ch. 1

Naked Data©

The 1844 census of Jerusalem found 7120 Jews…5760 Muslims…3390 Christians.

In 1869, Mark Twain wrote of the emptiness of the land, of traveling all day without seeing a human being on the roads or in the countryside.

Mark Twain wrote of Arab sloth and filth and flies.

In the 1880s, Americans forced Indians from their land to resettle Indian land with whites. Many Indians had to be killed.

In the 1880s, Australians forced Aborigines from their land to resettle Aborigine land with whites. Many Aborigines had to be killed.

In the 1880s, white New Zealanders forced Maoris from their land to resettle Maori land with whites. Many Maoris had to be killed.

In the 1880s, European Jews bought idle land in what is now Israel, joining Mizrahi Jews continuously there since Abraham.

Beginning in 1882, forty Jewish families settled at Rishon L’Tzion. Four hundred Arab families settled around them. Some of the Arab families were Bedouin. Some came from Egypt.

A British official reported Arabs sought employment, clean drinking water, better health care, and lower infant mortality. The official reported this pattern was repeated across areas where Jews settled.

In the 1890s, Belgians cut off the hands of Africans who did not gather enough rubber.

In the 1890s, Arabs flocked to Jewish areas of Palestine for jobs created by Jewish investment and enterprise.

After WWI, Britain tried to set up a Palestinian governing body of twelve…eight Arabs…two Christians…two Jews. Arabs said two Jews were too many. A cynic might say Arabs knew then two Jews outnumbered eight Arabs.

In 1917, the British Balfour Agreement promised a national home for Jews in Palestine. The British did not mean it.

Arabs turned down two-state solutions in 1917, 1937, 1948, and 2000.

After a Nazi supported Arab revolt in 1936-1939, British-backed Arab religious leader Husseini fled to Germany. Husseini is revered throughout Islam today.

In 1939, A British White Paper severely restricted Jewish immigration into Palestine.

After WWII, European Jews sought refuge in what is now Israel. The Arabist British did all they could to keep Jews out of Palestine. Under United Nations mandate, Jews established the State of Israel despite Arab objections and British perfidy.

In the United Nations document authorizing the formation of the state of Israel, an Arab/British/African clause weighted population numbers in favor of Arabs. In 1948, the Arab population was still largely transient. This clause identified any Arab who had been in Palestine for two years as a permanent resident.

Do we give casual Mexican labor citizenship after two years in the United States?

In 1948, Arab countries attacked the infant Jewish nation. Jewish citizen soldiers decisively defeated combined professional armies of five Arab nations.
In 1948, 850,000 Arab residents of Israel fled and/or were expelled. There is evidence Arabs residents were encouraged by Arab invaders to flee to give Arab invaders a freer hand.

Only Jordan offered refugees citizenship. In all other Muslim countries, Palestinian refugees remain in camps sixty years later…anti-Israeli propaganda pawns.

In the months following the 1948 war, 850,000 Sephardic/Mizrahi Jews fled or were expelled to Israel from the Arab countries who lost the war. We do not know how many Jews fled to other nations. We do not know how many Jews were killed. Arab nations claim no knowledge of this flight/expulsion.

Sephardic Jews had been in the Middle East since 1492, Mizrahi Jews since Abraham.

If Palestinians wanted their own country, Palestinians would call a constitutional convention…write a governing document… declare a nation. There is precedent.

Since the 1967 War, these Arabs have been called Palestinians. Palestinians are Arab-speakers… not Arabs. Palestinians are probably Turkish Hittites who reached Palestine via Crete and Cyprus. Palestinian origins are muddy.

Palestinians are the Philistines of the Bible… the Sea People. What is now Gaza was Philistia. Gaza is theirs… unless Gaza belongs to Canaanite peoples
Philistines displaced… peoples who had been there since time before memory.

Romans called the province Palestine to insult rebellious Jews. Ottomans kept the name.

If Palestinians had lived in peace beside Jews in democratic Israel, Palestinians would own Israel. With the differential in birth rates, Palestinians could have taken democratic Israel with the vote.

The story of modern Israel & Palestine is not what you have been told.

Palestinian leader Musa Alami said in 1948, "The people are in great need of a myth to fill their consciousness and imagination."

The King of Jordan also denied the displacement of Arabs by Jewish settlements.  The king said, "The Arabs are as prodigal in selling their land as they are in… weeping [about it].

The popular history of Palestine is myth.

Send this Page to Every Friend of Israel
©2009 Marcus Henderson Wilder
All Publication Rights Retained by the Author
Forwarding Between Friends Encouraged

I suppose a good many of us did a double take (which is a nice way of saying ‘spit our coffee all over the monitor’) the other day when we saw that Syria just wants Israel to “stop being the neighborhood bully.” 

Uh, do you want to run that one by me again? Syria, with three times the population of Israel, allied with several other similar sized nations which surround Israel, having committed themselves several decades ago to wiping Israel off the map, just wants Israel to stop picking on them?

You can rest assured that Israel would like nothing better than that, if such were the case. But to say that is the case is to deny history. Oh, excuse me, I almost forgot – denying history is what the Arab nations are so good at.

So – I said I’d keep this brief, so I’ll leave out 1956, two intifadas, tens of thousands of rockets fired at Israeli civilians including children, and so on – let’s take a quick walk down neighborhood bully lane:

1948: Israel, scrawny new kid on the block, wrong color skin and everything. Squashing him like a bug and getting back to fighting amongst themselves should have been no problem for Syria and friends. That’s what they said, anyway. The Arab governments even told their own people to get out of the way so they wouldn’t get hurt in the process. (Which, one might note, is precisely the source of the current “refugee problem,” but that’s another matter.) So Syria & bully buddies roll up their sleeves, start throwing punches – and lose.

Ok, that smarted! Give them a little time to recover, and think this over. Hey – great idea! We’ll just beef up and line up all our armies and air forces and wait for the signal and – bam! Only problem was, little Israel saw it coming, ducked, and kicked the bullies clean out the alley. That was 1967.

But Syria and pals started getting good at licking their wounds, and learning to fight a little dirtier – this bully business was getting harder than they thought.  Israel, having some moral and religious standards lacking elsewhere in the neighborhood, is actually caught off guard on their most important holy day of the year – we call that the Yom Kippur War. That was 1973. Israel took a wallop, punched back, and – guess what – Syria and gang lost the fight again.

They must be getting tired of this by now, one would think.  Maybe they’re even a little punch drunk. That must be it. It doesn’t even qualify as chutzpah. No, it’s just foolishness for the bullies to gang up and call the victim the bully – just because the bullies are the ones who end up getting beaten up.

But isn’t that how it always is?

The land of Gilo in Jerusalem was purchased by Jews before World War II

The suburb of Gilo is very different from the so-called Jewish outpost in Judea and Samaria, whom the Arabs and International media calls «The West Bank». Gilo is not in East Jerusalem as widely reported, but in southwest Jerusalem within the municipal borders.

It is a Jerusalem neighborhood with a population of around 40,000. The ground was bought by Jews before WWII and settled in 1971. There is no inference whatsoever that it rests on private Arab land.

Source: The Jerusalem Post.

My comment:

To claim that Jews can not build in Gilo is not only racism against the Jewish people. Its also a daylight robbery of Jewish properties.

The Arabs have always been jealous of the Zionist Jews, that returned to Eretz Israel. In modern time, the great return home to Israel started around 1895. The Jews that returned home purchased land, wherever there was a owner to be traced in this massive wasteland.

The Jews purchased sand dunes, and rocky soil.

When the Jews liberated the so called West Bank from Islamic occupation in 1967, Jews also came home to the Mountains of Zion. They gave the local Arabs the job of constructing houses. The Arabs had a saying:

«Good the Zionist are building such beautiful houses. Because one day we will just take the key´s from them, and declare these houses as Palestinians properties».

In plain English: This is theft and robbery, promoted by Islam as a struggle for independence.

Why has Gilo first developed in 1971?

Because from 1948 to 1967, East Jerusalem was occupied by Islamic forces. The Kingdom of Jordan did not give Jews access to their properties in the suburbs. The Islamic occupation was the real Apartheid.