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?

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.

President Obama's Cairo speech

President Obama delivered an important speech in Cairo on June 4, 2009. I believe that the naivete, wishful thinking, and distortions in his speech are beyond breathtaking. They are frightening. That we have a President who believes what he believes about the Arab/Muslim world, the history of the Jewish people, and world politics is cause for tremendous alarm. I urge you to read his speech deliberately, and then read the analysis articles which follow. Additionally, I have included excerpts from the speech, as well as my brief comments which follow. Anyone who cares about the security of the United States and the State of Israel should read his speech carefully, as this man chooses his words carefully. I look forward to reading your comments.

President Obama's speech
Caroline Glick in the Jerusalem Post
Charles Krauthammer in the Washington Post
Anne Bayefsky in National Review
• Prime Minister Netanyahu's response at Bar-Ilan
  

...tension has been fed by colonialism that denied rights and opportunities to many Muslims... - Of course, it is not Muslims' fault, it is the West's fault. Muslims need not be held accountable for their actions; they are victims. How does the President explain the fact that 15 of the 19 9-11 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia, a country that was never colonized? How does he explain India, freed from British colonization, which did not resort to terrorism against its former colonizers? (Thanks to Dennis Prager for pointing this out.)
Violent extremists have exploited these tensions... - He never ONCE uses the term "terror" or "terrorism." Does that not give anyone pause? How can one's major policy speech to the "Muslim world" be taken seriously without mentioning "terrorism" once?
...throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality. - I am left speechless. On which planet, Mr. President?
...I also know civilization's debt to Islam. - Aside from suicide bombings and airplane hijackings, what has the Islamic world contributed over the past 500 years?
...Islam has always been a part of America's story. - Pure fiction, plain and simple. Aside from sports converts and Keith Ellison, can anyone name one famous Muslim-American who has "served in government...stood for civil rights...won Nobel Prizes"? Islam has never been part of America's story. Christianity and Judaism have.
...the aspiration for a Jewish homeland is rooted in a tragic history that cannot be denied. - This is crucial, a smoking gun. He has bought into the Arab propaganda. Israel was founded because of the Holocaust. No mention of the fact that there were two independent Jewish states there, and not one independent Arab/Muslim state. President Obama endorsed the Arab world's claim that if Europe committed the Holocaust, why should the Arabs be punished for it? And after hearing this line, they have every reason to believe he agrees with them.

Six million Jews were killed – more than the entire Jewish population of Israel today. - Important and relevant point.
1. Denying that fact is baseless, ignorant, and hateful. - It is good that the President said this. It is a bit disturbing, however, that in the 21st-century, a President needs to make this point. It says frightening things about his audience, representatives of a group with whom we are supposed to make peace.
On the other hand, it is also undeniable that the Palestinian people – Muslims and Christians – have suffered in pursuit of a homeland. - Here comes the moral equivalence. Never mind that the Jews suffered from without, while the Palestinians' suffering was due to their leaders' intransigence to any sized Jewish state and their people's greater desire to murder Jews than to have a state of their own. A second point - why mention Christians? Have there been any Palestinian Christian suicide bombers? No. Why? Because something is rotten in the state of the Muslim world.
2. They endure the daily humiliations – large and small... - Whose fault are the "daily humiliations"? The Israelis', for not wanting to get blown up? And what of the humiliations Israelis must endure, being searched when they enter a mall or restaurant, and having to assure invited guests that the wedding reception with have security present? (Thanks to Rabbi Aryeh Scheinberg of San Antonio for this point.)
For decades, there has been a stalemate: two peoples with legitimate aspirations, each with a painful history that makes compromise elusive. - A "stalemate"?! What does one call the offer of total withdrawal after the Six Day War in exchange for peace? What of the complete withdrawal from Sinai? What if the complete withdrawal from Gaza? What of the offers of more than 90% of Judea and Samaria, a portion of Jerusalem for a Palestinian capital, and a partial return of refugees? What more would he have liked Israel to do? And he calls it a "stalemate"? Additionally, he equates the Jewish- and Palestinian "painful history." But one "painful history" was other-inflicted, while the other was self-inflicted.

3. Resistance through violence and killing is wrong and does not succeed. - Really? How, exactly, did the Palestinians get to the position they are on the world stage? By lying down in front of Israeli tanks, Tienanmen Square-style? Or was it by hijacking planes, slaughtering innocents at the Olympics, in an airport arrivals hall, and in a school? The Palestinians have shown that violence succeeds indeed! (Hence, nobody cares about Tibetan independence. They do not murder innocent Chinese, or any Chinese, for that matter.) And why did he add, "...and does not succeed"? If it did, would it then be acceptable?
For centuries, black people in America suffered the lash of the whip... - So now the Palestinian cause is as righteous as the Black cause for integration and equal rights? Simply breathtaking.
It is a sign of neither courage nor power to shoot rockets at sleeping children, or to blow up old women on a bus. That is not how moral authority is claimed; that is how it is surrendered. - Two powerful lines, but he had already undermined them with his previous moral equivalency statements. These lines had nothing to stand on.
4. The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. - All previous understandings between the American and Israeli governments be damned. This is a tremendous policy shift. No President has ever been so blunt.
...I strongly reaffirmed America's commitment to seek a world in which no nations hold nuclear weapons. - Yes, Mr. President, and in Utopia, that might be possible. But on Earth, where I live, I would prefer the United States to have bigger guns than the bad people. Just like in my cities, I want the police to have bigger guns than the bad people, not ask the bad people to turn in their weapons.