Pro-Israel videos from Prager University

Here are some videos (none longer than 6 minutes) related to the Israeli-Arab conflict, and Radical Islam, courtesy of Prager University. They are excellent resources to use as "ammunition" in the battle to defend truth and freedom, against the forces of lies and totalitarianism. Only by consistently fighting for good values can we expect to win this war. This conflict is being fought at least as much in cyberspace and in the court of public opinion as it is being fought on the battlefield. For the world's sake, may we be successful.

• Dennis Prager - The Middle East problem
• Anne Bayefsky - Is the UN fair to Israel?
• Alan Dershowitz - Israel's legal founding
• Alan Dershowitz - Are Israeli settlements the barrier to peace?
• Alan Dershowitz - BDS: The attempt to strangle Israel
• George Gilder - Do you pass the Israel Test?
• Raymond Ibrahim - Radical Islam: The most dangerous ideology
• Kenneth Meshoe - Is Israel an apartheid state?
• Haroon Ullah - Why do people become religious extremists?

Justice is served; IDF kills Hamas terrorists

At the end of August, four Israelis were murdered in a drive-by shooting near Hebron.   Yitzhak and Talya Ames, Kochava Even-Haim, and Avishai Shindler were shot as they drove to their home in the town of Beit Haggai.  At the time, Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak promised that the perpetrators would be found, and they would be made to pay for their crimes.

It did not take long for justice to be served.

A month and a half after the murders, the Israel Defense Forces eliminated the murderers, at their hideout in Hebron.

While this does not, of course, bring back their innocent victims, it does bring justice to the world.  For murderers of innocents to continue to breathe free air is an affront to the God Who created all human beings in His image.

May God grant the IDF the safety and strength to hunt down and eliminate the other murderers of innocents.  If they can bring the terrorists to justice, fine.  If justice must be brought to them, so be it.

But justice will be served.

(By the way, before beginning their assault on the hideout, the IDF called on the occupants to leave the house, thereby eliminating the element of surprise.  Another example of the high ethical standards by which Israel holds it soldiers.)

Why doesn't anyone get it? Settlements have NEVER been the issue!

• Listening to leaders around the world, one would think that if only those darn Jewish settlements would disappear once and for all, or at least stop having the nerve to expand their homes to accomodate more family members, peace would immediately descend on the Middle East.  Palestinians would no longer have an excuse to target innocent Israelis, Yemen and Saudi Arabia would end their border dispute, and Iran would change its mind about wanting to anihilate Israel with a nuclear weapon.  Only someone who is completely ignorant of the history of this region could believe such foolishness.  And foolishness it is.  Consider:

• 1920 - Arabs riot in Palestine, murdering Jews, before a single settlement was built.  They opposed any Jewish presence in the Land of Israel.  Were settlements preventing peace then?
• 1929 - Arabs riot in Palestine, murdering Jews, before a single settlement was built.  They opposed any Jewish presence in the Land of Israel.  Were settlements preventing peace then?
• 1936-1939 - Arabs riot in Palestine, murdering Jews, before a single settlement was built.  They opposed any Jewish presence in the Land of Israel.  Were settlements preventing peace then?
• 1947 - Arabs riot in Palestine, murdering Jews, before a single settlement was built.  They opposed any Jewish presence in the Land of Israel.  (They rejected the UN Partition Plan (having rejected a number of previous partition plans, which would have established a Palestinian Arab state on much more of the land than they are asking for now.)  Were settlements preventing peace then?
• 1948 - Arabs attack the newly-founded State of Israel, in hopes of destroying it at birth, before a single settlement was built.  They opposed any Jewish presence in the Land of Israel.  Were settlements preventing peace then?
• 1948-1967 - Arabs launch terrorist attacks within the internationally-recognized borders of Israel, before a single settlement was built.  They opposed any Jewish presence in the Land of Israel.  Were settlements preventing peace then?
• 1964 - PLO is founded, three years before a single settlement was built.  The Palestine (not Palestinian; a major distinction) Liberation Organization opposed any Jewish presence in the Land of Israel.  Were settlements preventing peace then?
• 1967 - Arabs mass their armies on Israel's borders, openly proclaiming, "Our goal is clear - to wipe Israel off the map" (Iraqi president Abdul Rahman Arif).  As of the start of the Six Day War, not one settlement had been built.  Yet the Arabs still wanted to destroy Israel.  Why?  They opposed any Jewish presence in the Land of Israel.  Were settlements preventing peace then?

How many more examples need be given?  The obstacle to peace in the Middle East/Israel/Palestine has never been "the settlements."  It has always been the Arab refusal to accept any sovereign Jewish presence anywhere in the Land of Israel.

Was any attempt made to establish a Palestinian state in the lands now claimed for one, when the Arabs controlled those lands?  Did the Palestinians even clamor for a state on those lands then?  No, they did not, because they felt that eventually, they would liberate the rest of Israel, turning it into a cohesive Palestine.  Yet in attempt after attempt, they have failed.  Israel stubbornly survived.  And continues to survive.

So they changed their tactics.  We do not want all of Israel, they say.  We just want the "Occupied Territories," nothing more.  Sorry, but that ship has sailed.  You Palestinians had chance after chance to have those territories, plus much more, a number of times in history, and you rejected each offer, and squandered each opportunity.

Before there were settlements, you attacked us.  When there are settlements, you attack us.  We will be damned if we will give you another chance to attack us, after there are no more settlements.  Because we both know, dear Palestinian, that if there would be no settlements, you'd just come up with a new excuse to attack us.  So we'll keep those "peace-process-impeding" settlements, thank you very much.

We have come home.  And we are staying.

PA cannot bring itself to condemn terrorism, sans caveats.

They just can't do it; it's almost like they are physically incapable of doing so.  Yasser Arafat could not do it, and Mahmoud Abbas serves as a worthy heir to this tradition.  Which tradition, you ask?  The Palestinian tradition of, when they actually do condemn a terrorist act, adding a caveat.  Why do they condemn the act?  Because it is "contrary to Palestinian interests," or it is "harmful to the peace process."  What these "condemnations" are actually saying is, of course, that if the particular terrorist act were not "contrary to Palestinian interests," or were not "harmful to the peace process," they would be acceptable (welcomed?).

Here's an idea: why does not the Palestinian leadership condemn terrorist acts because they are wrong, period?!  Is this such a difficult concept?  Well, for Mahmoud Abbas, it is too difficult.  This concept is not on his radar screen.  This man is a copy of Yasser Arafat, just better groomed, and with a more presentable appearance.  He, like Arafat, say the right things to western media, and the media dutifully fawn over him.  They declare him to be the most moderate Palestinian leader out there, a man with whom Israel can do business, and a man who truly wants to end the conflict once and for all.  Yet this man of peace consistently allows messages of hatred, violence, and antisemitism to be broadcast on official PA television, radio, and print media.  He says that he will never recognize Israel as a Jewish state.  He declares that should Israel not extend the freeze on building in Judea and Samaria (a requirement not mentioned in any one of the peace agreements thus far signed, as opposed to the Palestinian requirement to cease any and all incitement), he will walk away from the negotiating table.  This is a man with whom Israel must negotiate?

Why are the vast majority of those in the media, and on the left side of the political spectrum (and, sadly, too many on the right side), so eager to embrace Mahmoud Abbas, despite his obvious non-commitment to peace?  The man cannot even simply declare, "I condemn the terrorist attack near Hebron, in which four Israelis were murdered.  The deliberate murder of innocents is wrong."  I believe that those who are enthused with Abbas are willfully fooling themselves.  They have so convinced themselves that all people desire to live in peace with their neighbors, and are, deep down, good, that they cannot bring themselves to deal with the reality staring them in the face.  They come up with a myriad of excuses as to why this or that inciting statement should not be taken at face value: It's just for internal consumption, they say.  He needs to allow freedom of the press, they say.  He is the most moderate Palestinian leader there will be for many years, they say.  Well, I, for one, am not consoled by any of these notions.  Can anyone imagine similar things being said about an Israeli leader who allowed such rhetoric to be regularly expressed in official Israeli media outlets, and who "condemned" an Israeli terrorist act on the grounds that it "contradicted Israel interests"?  The man would be run out of town, and justifiably so.

But the Palestinian leadership has always gotten a pass on statements like these.  Those who issue the pass may think that they are advancing the peace process.  In truth, however, they are sending a clear message: We do not expect anything better from you, Palestinians.  We do not hold you to the same standards of civility by which we hold nearly every other people.

And the Palestinian people, and their leaders, get this message, loud and clear.

More risks for peace?

We constantly hear how "both sides" in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict must take "risks for peace."  Prime Minister Netanyahu just announced at a press conference with President Obama that he was willing to do so.  The President said it was vital for Israel to do so.

Nonsense.  How many more "risks for peace" does Israel need to take?

1. Israel transferred thousands of weapons to the Palestinian Authority security forces, only to have those weapons turned against it during the Second Intifada.
2. Israel turned over territory in Judea and Samaria to full Palestinian civil and security control, only to have a number of these cities turn into terrorist hotbeds, from which originated many suicide bombers (e.g. Jenin, Qalqilya, Nablus et al).
3. Israel completely withdrew from the Gaza Strip in 2005, destroying Jewish communities and forcibly expelling their residents, only to have it become a launching pad of thousands of Qassam rockets into Israel.
4. Israel forcibly expelled four Jewish communities in northern Samaria.

Even if one believes that Israel is (much) more in the wrong in this conflict, one cannot seriously claim that Israel has not taken enough risks for peace.  By contrast, the Palestinians have taken virtually no tangible "risks for peace."

1. Have they taught their children that they should live in peace with their Israeli neighbors?  No, they teach them to hate all Jews (not just Israelis, highlighting the religious, not only political, element to this conflict), using language not seen since Nazi Germany.
2. Have they announced that suicide bombings are morally reprehensible?  No, they merely state that such attacks are counterproductive to achieving Palestinian nationalist goals.
3. Have they amended their various charters calling for Israel's destruction?  No (the 1998 Palestinian parliament vote in the presence of President Clinton was invalid, even according to the PLO's Covenant's own rules).  Hamas certainly maintains its open opposition to Israel's existence.
4. Have they ended incitement through their official media outlets (not from a fringe group)?  No, they constantly broadcast hate-filled, antisemitic sermons by PA-sanctioned imams.  (See MEMRI and Palestinian Media Watch.)
   

So I ask those who call on Israel to take risks for peace, what more would you ask of Israel?  Which other risks would you like Israel to take?  For the risks it has already taken, thousands of Israelis have paid with their blood.  Yet Israel is called upon to give more and more, with nary a peep about the Palestinians' constant violations of their accepted obligations.

The bottom line is this: Israel has accepted the notion of a Palestinian state in its midst (though I completely reject this).  The Palestinians in particular, and the Arab/Muslim world in general, do not accept the existence of a tiny Jewish state in the middle of their world.  That is all one needs to know about the current conflict.  If the Palestinians genuinely wanted a state, they could have had one many times in the past.  But anything short of all of Israel, they rejected each and every overture.  But it is not a state they want; it is the destruction of Israel.

If the Palestinians laid down their arms, there would be peace tomorrow.  If Israel were to lay down its arms, there would be no Israel tomorrow.  No more Israeli "risks for peace," please.

More moral equivalency from J Street

Poor J Street.  They just can't help themselves.  As much as they would like to call themselves "pro-Israel," the simple fact is that any group which regards the Israelis and Palestinians as equally culpable for the lack of a peace agreement cannot reasonably call itself "pro-Israel."  Even if one hates the State of Israel (which I do NOT believe J Street does, by the way), one cannot seriously claim that the two sides share equal blame for there not being a Palestinian state yet.  I would much rather debate with someone who claims Israel is more at fault then with one who claims both sides are equally guilty.  The former might be persuaded by evidence; the latter is obviously more interested in political correctness than in discovering truth.

J Street falls into the latter category.  See this ad which they produced recently.  Here are my comments, with citations from the ad in bold:

• We feel deeply the sense of pain and anguish over the violence and insecurity wrought on Israel by Hamas through rockets and terror - Kudos to J Street for stating this.  Too many liberal/Left groups cannot bring themselves to condemn Hamas' actions as terror; J Street did.  The problem is, though, despite their claim to "feel deeply" the pain of Israel, they do not support actions which would go a long way to minimizing the terror emanating from Gaza, such as bombing strategic targets as many times as it takes until the threat is neutralized.
• We are steadfast in remaining true to the vision of Israel's founders in creating a democratic, Jewish state—a nation that upholds the highest human and Jewish values - I hope J Street is not suggesting that Israel has strayed from this vision.  Israel is a model of how to protect the rights of all its citizens, even those citizens who openly call for the dismantling of the Jewish state (see a number of Arab Members of Knesset).  Israel's actions consistently demonstrate its commitment to the dignity of all people (certainly with exceptions, but one should compare Israel to other democracies, not to a Utopian country), and its army is among the most moral in the entire world.  How many armies call in air strikes to its targets to warn them to leave the battlefield (Gaza War)?  How many armies fight in house to house, hand to hand, combat instead of just bombing the (heck) out of its enemies (Jenin)?
• The international controversy surrounding the attack on the Gaza flotilla........concern[s] us deeply - It was NOT an attack on the Gaza flotilla.  It was an action of self-defense in response to an unprovoked, merciless attack by some of the passengers on the sixth boat.  They planned to attack the IDF commandos, and had no interest in actually delivering humanitarian goods to the Gazan people.  And in the act of self-defense, nine Hamas collaborators (and that is exactly what they were; please do not fool yourself) were killed.
• ...the growing isolation of Israel concern[s] us deeply - Why?  The issue should be, was/is Israel right or wrong?  If the world supports Israel, great!  If the world opposes Israel, great!  What is important is the righteousness of Israel's cause, not whether it has "the world" 's support.  A world which condemns Israel overwhelmingly more than any other nation, including the worst human rights violators, while granting these nations spots on a human rights council or women's rights group, is not a world whose approval I wish to gain.  Period.
• ...the rhetoric and actions that feed fear and violence, emanating from both Israeli and Palestinian leaders... - This is the giveaway.  "Emanating from both Israeli and Palestinian leaders"?!  The Israeli side consistently expresses support for a Two-State Solution, however misguided it may be, in my opinion; the Palestinians refuse to speak to the Israeli side.  Israeli schoolchildren learn a curriculum of peace and reconciliation; the PA-controlled media broadcast messages of hate, violence, and rejection of Israel as a Jewish state.  How, exactly, does an unprecedented ten-month building freeze in Judea and Samaria (from an allegedly right wing Israeli government) qualify as an action which feeds fear and violence?  Why can J Street not have the intellectual honesty to recognize that one side has consistently demonstrated its commitment to peace, while the other side consistently rejects these peace overtures?  If we cannot admit this uncomfortable truth, there will never be peace in this region.
• Od lo avda tikvateinu / We have not lost our hope - What a perversion of the words of Israel's national anthem!  Was it the hope of Israel's founders to have a Jewish and Arab state west of the Jordan?  No, they accepted the 1947 Partition Plan reluctantly.  Something was better than nothing.  But the Arabs rejected it out of hand, and tried to destroy the nascent Jewish state in its infancy (and this before even one settlement was constructed in Judea, Samaria, or Gaza!).  Ever since Israel extended its hand in peace, that Arabs have either slapped it away, or shaken it with their own hand, dripping with Jewish blood.  This last line in particular is disgusting, and belies the notion that J Street is concerned with Israel's best interests.  They either do not care about reality, or are in willful denial of it. 
  

The notion that Israel needs to be encouraged to make peace, either by the American government or by concerned Diaspora Jews, is laughable.  Israel need not prove its desire for peace anymore.  Let J Street take out ads in Arab newspapers; then there will be some glimmer of hope for peace.  Let J Street stop being a part of the problem, and start being a part of the solution.

Dutch lawmaker calls for Jordan to become Palestine

Geert Wilders, leader of a right-wing Dutch political party, is calling for the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan to be renamed "Palestine."  (See also Melanie Philips' article from the Spectator.)  In his view, this will solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, as then the Palestinians will have a homeland to go to.  Before you say, "Huh?," remember that until Winston Churchill cut off eastern Palestine from Jewish settlement and gave it to the Hashemite clan from Saudi Arabia, all of Mandate Palestine, (modern Jordan and Israel), was to be the Jewish homeland.  Today, at least 70% of the Jordanian population is Palestinian.  It is not Israel's fault that Jordan was given to the wrong people, and its security today should not be threatened because of this error.

Let me state it unequivocally: I support Geert Wilders' idea.  For those who think this is untenable, I would submit that it is no more untenable than the notion that there can reasonably be an Israeli state, and a Palestinian state, living side by side in peace, west of the Jordan River.  Considering that, overall, the Palestinians have not yet accepted the notion of a Jewish state anywhere west of the Jordan (see their newspaper articles and television shows at MEMRI and Palestinian Media Watch), and that a majority of Israelis (I being an exception) have accepted the notion of a Palestinian state in all of the Gaza Strip and in most of Judea and Samaria, the Two State Solution is no solution at all.  Only one side has accepted this.  There is no chance for this idea to be successful.  Yet politicians from all sides maintain that this can happen in our time.

So why not try Geert Wilders' idea?  We have had nearly seventeen years of trying to implement a Two State Solution west of the Jordan.  Let's try a Two State Solution using both sides of the Jordan.

Gaza flotilla "peace activists" vs. the IDF

It is important that those of us who truly care about peace have the tools necessary to counter the undoubtedly negative press Israel is sure to receive for the Gaza flotilla.  Follow your local media to see if they report the events fairly.  Please see this link from HonestReporting.com for information about what is really going on off our coastline in Israel right now. 

Watch the videos of an Israeli soldier being beaten by a "peace activist," and how the Israel Navy offered to let the "peace activists" themselves observe the transfer of humanitarian goods to Gaza's civilian population.  We Israelis have no desire for the innocent civilians in Gaza to suffer; what we want is to prevent supplies from being stolen by Hamas and used to prepare for another deadly offensive against us.

May God protect the soldiers of the Israel Defense Forces as they deal with these "peace activists."

Highway 443: No less of a threat, but it matters not to B'Tselem

Back in 2000-2001, there was a number of deadly attacks on Israeli motorists on Highway 443, which links the Israeli city of Modi'in with Jerusalem.  In response, the Israel Defense Forces closed it to Palestinian traffic.  The deadly attacks ceased (though not for lack of trying).  Then, at the end of 2009, the Israeli Supreme Court ordered the IDF to re-open 443 to Palestinian traffic.  Why?  Because of a lawsuit filed by B'Tselem, an Israeli human rights organization.  They contended that maintaining the restriction on Palestinian traffic amounted to a violation of freedom of movement.

443 will re-open to Palestinian traffic this week (May 23).

B'Tselem, of course, was correct.  The prohibition did limit Palestinians' freedom of movement.  But so did the shooting attacks limit the freedom of movement of their victims.  Forever.  But to people like those at B'Tselem, the ramifications of their actions did not deter them.  Will they have to suffer the near-certain results of the road's opening?  Will their family members?  Highly unlikely.  Will the Supreme Court justices?  No.  But this ruling must have made both B'Tselem and the Supreme Court feel great about themselves, as they stood up for Palestinian human rights.

Here's the self-contradictory problem with the Supreme Court's ruling.  They gave the IDF five months to make security arrangements.  Does it not stand to reason that if you need to make such preparations for opening up a road to Palestinian traffic, that there is something inherently problematic?  Why is it not as simple as removing the roadblocks?  By giving the IDF much time for new security arrangements, the Court was tacitly acknowledging that there is a continued high risk for fresh attacks on the road.  Neither B'Tselem nor the Court claimed that the threat was any less from the Palestinians, just that their freedom of movement was being hindered.  Yet they proceeded with subjecting thousands of Israelis to potentially deadly attacks, all in the name of justice and human rights.

Was it unfair to the peaceful Palestinian villagers, who only want to get from Point A to B securely, that they were also prohibited from using 443?  Yes, it was.  But it is not like the road was closed after one attack.  There were four shooting attacks between December 2000 and August 2001, causing five fatalities.  In other words, the Palestinians had four chances.  That is more than enough.  How many deadly shooting attacks will take place before the IDF closes it again, Supreme Court rulings notwithstanding?  Two?  Five?  Ten?  Do the Justices and B'Tselem even care?

I can only think of two possible rationalizations on B'Tselem and the Supreme Court's part:

1. They did not consider the real possibility that shooting attacks will resume on 443.  Granted, this possibility renders both parties incredibly naive at best, and criminally negligent at worst.  But this possibility makes them look much better than option #2.
2. They do not care.  It matters not to them that more Israelis are almost certainly going to die unnecessarily.  What is more important to them is to show the world how committed they are to their warped sense of justice and human rights.

Never mind that no Palestinian died due to the road being closed.  Inconvenienced?  Certainly.  But to remove this inconvenience, B'Tselem and the Supreme Court have practically sentenced an unknown number of innocent victims to an untimely death.  And when an attack inevitably does happen, if they even express regret, they will not change their position on the issue.  In their world, a fanciful notion of reality always trumps the actual facts on the ground.  They will sleep well, convinced they have done good for the world.

And due to the "good" they will have done, innocent Israelis will pay for it with their blood.

Even if Israel is completely wrong, can one make peace with these people? Part I

A question I like to ask my liberal friends who support a two-state solution or various other concessions from Israel towards the Palestinians is this: Even if Israel is completely wrong in its conflict with the Palestinians, and should completely withdraw to the June 4, 1967 lines, can one really expect Israel to make peace with these people?  I look forward to sharing many examples of why even if one maintains this view on Israel, one cannot reasonably expect the State of Israel to sit down with those who glorify murderers of innocents.  It sends a clear message to one's people, that murdering innocents is to be praised.

Palestinian Media Watch communique of January 15, 2010: "Fatah prides itself on deadly terrorist attacks."  They salute those who fired rockets into Israel from Lebanon in the 1980s, and praise those who murdered nearly fifty innocents in a hotel takeover in 1976, and a bus hijacking in 1978.

And these are the ones with whom Israel is expected to make peace?  Kudos to the Palestinians for at least being forthright with their feelings.  They do not hide their true thoughts at all.  They could have said, "At the time, we thought that what these fighters were doing was good.  We realize now that they were despicable acts."  At least make it seem like you have changed your spots!  But they continue to heap praise on terrorists who purposely murder innocents.  Not as collateral damage in an operation against a military target, but as intentional damage.  When Israel kills innocent Palestinians, it is nearly always in the course of targeting terrorists.  It is not the Israeli army's goal.  The Palestinians' goal, however, is to attack as many innocents as possible; it is not a bi-product of an attack, but the very purpose of the attack!

So I ask you, dear reader, knowing that the Palestinians glorify murderers, and make it clear that the primary goal of attacks is to murder innocents:

Even if Israel is completely wrong, can one really expect it to make peace with these people?

Had the Ft. Hood murderer been a devout Jew or Christian...

Just when you think the media cannot be any more politically-correct (read falsifying the news), we hear about the slaughter of at least thirteen US soldiers and others at Ft. Hood, Texas.  Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, an Army psychiatrist, was shot by fellow soldiers to end the killing spree.  And of which religious faith was he a member?  Surprise!  Islam.  But reading the vast majority of reports about the incident, one might never find this out.  We know that he was upset about his upcoming deployment to Iraq.  But are not more soldiers of this same feeling?  Why have they not burst out in anger as Maj. Hasan did, mowing down their fellow American servicemen and -women?  Here are the two New York Times stories of today, November 8, 2009:

• Painful stories take a toll on military therapists
• When soldiers snap

According to the Associated Press, Maj. Hasan shouted "Allahu Akbar!" before he began shooting.  A Google search of the New York Times comes up with zero references to this fact.  (Even the Huffington Post reported it!)  A few questions for my readers here:

1. Is it not noteworthy that what should be a beautiful phrase (God is great!) has become besmirched by the practitioners of one faith in particular?  For those who read things that are not being implied, I do not mean to say that all Muslims are terrorists, but that nearly all terrorists seem to be Muslim.  Are there Jewish terrorists?  Christian terrorists?  Yes and yes, of course.  But the scale is not even close, and terrorists of other faiths hardly ever claim that their actions are in fulfillment of their religion's dictates.  Muslim terrorists nearly always make it abundantly clear that their actions are motivated by a desire to worship their god.
2. Had the Ft. Hood shooter been a practicing Christian or Jew, and  cried out "Praise Jesus!" or "Am Yisrael Chai!" (the Jewish people live!) before shooting, would this fact not have been splayed over every headline about the attack?  Would we not have read demands to root out the evil from among the Christians and Jews, to ensure this would never re-occur?  The questions are rhetorical.
3. Why is the New York Times, flagship of mainstream liberal thought, barely mentioning the fact that Maj. Hasan was a practicing Muslim?  They have been focusing on other, possibly-related, aspects of the story, as mentioned above: the psychological effects of counseling so many soldiers returning from war, and the occasional occurrences of soldiers "snapping."  Is not Maj. Hasan's Muslim background, with parents from a small Palestinian town near Jerusalem, as relevant, if not more so, than the other Times perspectives?
4. On May 20, 2009, a Nidal Hasan wrote on scribb.com that a suicide bomber is the same as a soldier who jumps on a grenade to save his comrades' lives, since both committed suicide for a "noble cause."  In its mention of this, the Times wrote: "It could not be confirmed, however, that the writer was Major Hasan."  Is it possible that there was another Nidal Hasan who wrote this?  Undoubtedly yes.  Is it possible that had the Ft. Hood shooter been a Yaakov Moshe Goldberg, and a Yaakov Goldberg had posted a similar message months before, the Times would have offered the same disclaimer?  I will let you, my readers, decide.
   

As long as our media continue to whitewash terrorist acts by Muslims, there is no chance we will ever decisively defeat the terrorists.  In general, political correctness is an annoyance; when life, limb, and national security are at stake, it can be deadly.

J Street - Dangerous for the State of Israel

To those who might consider participating with J Street in any projects, let me issue a word of caution:

J Street is dangerous for Israel and the Jewish people.

They have an Executive Director, Jeremy Ben-Ami, who a) possesses an Israeli-sounding last name (it is), and b) has a father who fought in the War of Independence with Menachem Begin (he does; the elder Ben-Ami also purchased the Altalena). The man's Israel credentials are relatively untouchable. But let's take a closer look at J Street. Are they the mainstream organization they claim to be? Are they really pro-Israel, or are they merely a mouthpiece for liberal-, pro-Palestinian-, and in-actuality-supporters-of-a-discredited-peace-policy people?

1. J Street advocated for an early end to the 2008-2009 Gaza War, instead of supporting Israel's attempts to end the rocket attacks, once and for all, having endured eight years of them. True, they criticized Hamas' firing rockets, but also opposed Israeli military measures to stop those attacks. How would they have ended it? Just impose a ceasefire, during which Hamas can re-arm itself. This is pro-Israel?
2. Stephen Walt, co-author of The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, has praised J Street's "Israel advocacy" in a Washington Post opinion piece. J Street was asked about this vote of confidence in a Jerusalem Post article, and responded, "There are plenty of people who talk about J Street that we don't agree with. Just because they mention us in an article doesn't mean that we therefore endorse their analysis. We don't come out with a statement on every person who's spoken about us." Fair enough, but when Stephen Walt praises you, should that not give the rest of us pause? One is known by one's enemies and by one's friends.
3. J Street conducted a rigged opinion poll of American Jews, in which they wrote the questions, conducted the poll, and analyzed the results. Brilliant! And who heads the firm which was "hired" to conduct the poll? A founding vice-president of J Street, Jim Gerstein. Simply incredible.
4. See also Shmuel Rosner's analysis of the J Street "poll," as well as Shmuley Boteach's opinion piece in the Jerusalem Post on J Street's condescension towards ideological opponents.
5. Rabbi Eric Yoffie (Rabbi Eric Yoffie!) wrote a scathing critique of J Street's response to the Gaza operation. When you are a liberal Israel advocacy group, and you have lost Rabbi Yoffie, things are not looking good for you.
6. See J Street's policy makers' comments in a flattering, it-could-almost-have-been-written-by-J Street-itself New York Times Magazine article. If their views on Middle East peace do not frighten you, then I really do not know what more to say.
   
7. Finally, please see my blog posting on, among other issues, J Street's willful misrepresentation (read lying) about a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) report. Referring to page 7 of the document, they claim the NIE estimates Iran having nuclear weapons capability in 2013 (which would allow time for more diplomatic efforts), whereas in fact, the NIE estimates this capability possibly as early as next year, 2010. But then again, this information does not fit with their agenda, so they lie about it. Read the report yourself, and then judge.

I urge all of you to read these articles. Do not be fooled by J Street. I do not believe they are anti-peace, as they accuse those of us on the right of being. I believe they do want peace, but are pursuing it through means which have been discredited time and time again. There is literally nothing that the Palestinians can say or do which will convince J Street, and like-minded people, that the Palestinians have no intention of ever making peace with a Jewish state.

As I wrote to a friend in July 2009, we have had sixteen years of pursuing peace according to the designs of the left. They have failed. It is time to give someone else a chance.

Will Israel be Obama's fall guy?

Britain's Guardian reports on August 25, 2009 that President Obama is offering to increase US pressure on Iran in return for Israel's pledge to halt building in settlements. In other words, if Israel refuses to halt its settlement activity, the United States will do nothing when President Obama's self-imposed September deadline for an Iranian response to cease its pursuit of nuclear weapons expires. Sounds like blackmail to me. What President Obama is saying is, "Jews may not build or expand homes in certain areas of Israel. If you continue to do so, you are on your own with the existential threat which Iran poses. Good luck!" These do not sound like the words of a concerned friend.

As Caroline Glick writes in the August 27, 2009 Jerusalem Post, President Obama is setting Israel up to be the fall guy. If and when Israel refuses this "deal," President Obama will point to them and say, "I tried to take a tough stand versus Iran, but Israel stood in my way." Never mind that there was no chance Iran would respond positively to President Obama's peaceful overtures to begin with. They saw him as one of Lenin's "useful idiots." President Obama is one of those (almost always liberal) people who believes that if you just offer the right deal to evil people, they will cease their evil ways, and be reasonable. Those of us in the (almost always) conservative camp understand that often there are those who just wish to do evil, and no amount of incentives or coaxing can influence them. History is replete with examples of evil people who take advantage of good people's (well-intentioned) naivete. Many good people are genuinely so good, they cannot fathom that there are those who are equally genuinely evil. As much as the good wish to do good, the evil wish to do evil (though the evil rarely see their actions as evil, but rather as necessary, or even good).

I hope that American Jews finally come around to the realization that Barack Obama is not a friend of Israel. From his statements on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to the advisors with whom he has chosen to surround himself, he has chosen between support for Israel and currying Arab favor.

He has chosen the latter.

PA professor: No Jewish connection to Western Wall

In a previous post, I commented on a Palestinian Media Watch report which detailed an official Palestinian Authority claim that Israel is a racist state, and wishes to expel all Palestinians. Here is another report, in which a Palestinian Authority professor claims that there is no Jewish connection to the Western Wall (Kotel). Mountains of archaeological evidence and written records apparently mean nothing to this academic. The fact that his salary is paid by the group with whom Israel is to make peace means nothing to those on the Left who insist Israel must create a Palestinian state out of Israeli territory. There is literally nothing which the Palestinians can do or say which will convince the Left that peace with Israel is the furthest thing from the Palestinians' minds.

For example:

• Teach hatred of Israel and Jews in school textbooks? Check.
• Celebrate the deaths of innocents slaughtered in a pizza parlor? Check.
• Refuse to acknowledge Israel as the Jewish state? Check.
• Smuggle anti-tank weapons into the Gaza Strip? Check. (Against whom would these weapons be used? Egypt?)
• Randomly fire rockets at civilian centers, from civilian centers? Check.
• Stand in line at a disco and detonate a bomb belt with ball bearings? Check.

And Israel is still pressured to make "goodwill gestures." Incredible.

New York Times - Abbas lacks political weight

The New York Times certainly has a way of creatively interpreting events. On May 28, 2009, the Times reported that Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas' meeting with President Obama was "more amicable" than Israeli officials' meetings were. I interpret this, in light of President Obama's Cairo speech the next week, to reflect President Obama's clear preference for engaging the Arabs in dialogue, and heavily taking their side in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The President has essentially frozen Israel out of negotiations, only talking to the Palestinians.

But the Times has a different take. Why were the talks "more amicable" with President Abbas? Because Abbas "does not have the political weight at the moment to push through anything on the Palestinian side." Poor, poor Abbas. All he wants is to forge a peace with Israel, but he lacks the political ability. On what do they base this? Back in April, Abbas made it clear that he would not recognize Israel as the Jewish state (!). The Israelis have had the audacity to make this request of the Palestinians.

Does anyone honestly believe that all that is holding President Abbas back from making peace with Israel is "political weight," as the Times would have it? Or perhaps it is that, like his predecessor Yasser Arafat, Mahmoud Abbas has no desire to make peace with Israel? For if he would do this, as Arafat himself feared, this would spell the end of his career. President Abbas knows that if he reaches an agreement with Israel, there will be no more excuses. No more blaming Israel for the Palestinians' woes, no more claiming impotence when dealing with terrorism. It will be time to mature as a people, and take responsibility for one's own actions.

Leave it to the New York Times to make excuse after excuse for any perceived victim group. It is never their fault, always external factors'. Mahmoud Abbas categorically rejected the notion of Israel as the Jewish state. And the Times says that American-Palestinian talks were amicable due to President Obama's desire to build up President Abbas' political weight.

Somewhere, George Orwell is smiling.

PA: Israel is a racist state; threatens all humanity

In a Palestinian Media Watch article, the official Palestinian Authority news agency, WAFA, published an article on July 27, 2009, in which it accused Israel of plotting to expel its Arab citizens, as well as the Palestinians from their areas. It also accused Israel of being a racist state, a threat to the entire world, and of refusing to accept the return of Palestinian refugees.

1. If Israel had wanted to expel its Arab citizens and the Palestinians, does anyone honestly think they could not have done so by now?
2. Israel is not a racist state, because though it was founded as a state for the Jewish people, anyone can become Jewish, and hence earn citizenship. Additionally, Israel accepts non-Jews as citizens.
3. Israel being a threat to the entire world is such an odd accusation. I suppose that since there are so many who wish to see her destroyed, if she were to be destroyed, there might be a tad more peace in the world. Then again, those who destroyed her would most likely move on to their next target. Antisemites rarely satisfy themselves merely with the Jews (thanks to Dennis Prager for this point).
   
4. The "right of return" is nothing more than code for the elimination of Israel as a Jewish state. Millions of Palestinians streaming into Israel would "democratically" vote out the Jews. As opposed to what Israel did by absorbing and acculturating around 800,000 Jewish refugees from Arab lands around the time of Israel's founding in 1948, the Arabs have kept their Palestinian brethren languishing in refugee camps, maintaining their feelings of anger and sense of victimhood, promising them that one day, they would return, and drive the hated Jews into the sea.

It is with people like these that the world wishes Israel to make peace? Peace is not a possibility for this generation; yet another generation of Palestinian children has been taught to hate the Jews. I hope and pray that future generations of Palestinians are taught to live in peaceful coexistence.

Until then, peace through strength and deterrence!

What are defensible Israeli borders?

In the wake of the 1967 Six Day War, the American Joint Chiefs of Staff issued a non-political, purely strategic, map which showed the minimum territorial requirements for a secure Israel. In other words, what was the least amount of land Israel had to retain to ensure her security? No consideration was given to political factors; defensible borders was the only consideration. Considering what Israel has already given up for peace (well beyond what the Joint Chiefs suggested was feasible), and considering what Israel has received for its complete Gaza withdrawal in 2005, can anyone still honestly say that it is Israel which is the intransigent party in the "peace process"? What more would one suggest Israel do to prove its willingness to make peace?

Some questions about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict

One often reads about the "settlements," or the current Israeli boundaries, being obstacles to peace. I have some simple questions, to which I have never received convincing answers:

1. If the "settlements" are the main obstacle to peace, then why were there numerous attacks on Israeli civilians and soldiers as far back as 1929, with the Hebron Massacre, right up through 1967? Could they perhaps have been in anticipation of the settlements that would be constructed in the wake of the Six Day War?
2. Israel has been repeatedly pressured to retreat to the June 4, 1967 lines (pre-Six Day War). The Palestinians claim they desire a state in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, held by Egypt and Jordan, respectively, from the end of the 1948-49 War of Independence until the Six Day War. First, why was there no clamoring for a Palestinian state when fellow Arabs controlled these territories? Why was it only when the Jews controlled them? Second, what is so sacrosanct about the June 4 lines? Let us suppose that in the wake of the 1948 war, Israel controlled all the land west of the Jordan, save for Jericho and its environs. The "June 4 lines" would then encompass much more territory. Would we then be discussing a Palestinian state on this tiny plot of land of Jericho? Conversely, let us suppose that Israel only held onto Tel Aviv and its environs after the 1948 war. Would we then be discussing a Palestinian state on nearly all of the modern State of Israel, with a tiny Jewish one? Why are the June 4 lines special?

I am eager to hear any and all responses to these perplexing questions.