Inconvenient Truths the Anti-Zionists Don't Want You to Know

The following is the text of a talk given by Alan Stein at the University of Connecticut's Waterbury Campus on October 10, 2016:

It's nice to be back in Waterbury.

I grew up and went to school in New York and then taught mathematics on this campus for 37 years. My office was on this very floor.

I was active both in the Jewish and general communities, serving as president of the Jewish Federation of Waterbury, being part of the Waterbury Progressive Caucus and a leader in the Connecticut Coalition to Save Darfur. I'm a liberal Democrat, in the tradition of Harry Truman, Hubert Humphrey, JFK and RFK.

When my wife and I started thinking about getting away from the brutal New England winters in retirement, my wife wouldn't consider Florida, which my father used to refer to as "the land of our people," and instead we went to the real land of our people. We now spend seven months a year in Netanya, a beautiful resort city. We eat dinner watching the sun set over the Mediterranean.

Here's one special connection between Waterbury and Netanya in Israel, where I now spend most of the year: Miriam Fierberg, our Netanya mayor, is under house arrest, being investigated for corruption.

I was president of PRIMER-Connecticut for ten years while living in Waterbury. I've since founded PRIMER-Massachusetts and PRIMER-Israel. PRIMER is an acronym for "Promoting Responsibility in Middle East Reporting." There is an enormous amount of irresponsible reporting, creating a distorted picture that's taken advantage of by hateful anti-Zionists such as those involved in the BDS - Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions - movement.

Hence the title of this talk: "Inconvenient Truths the Anti-Zionists Don't Want You to Know."

Today, I'll take for about a half hour to describe some instances of irresponsible reporting, briefly list a small subset - after all, I'm a mathematician - and document a few of them in more detail.  You'll then have the opportunity to ask questions.

Okay, first a recent example of irresponsible reporting.

On September 20, William Booth and Ruth Eglash wrote an article for the Washington Post about the Trump campaign wooing American citizens living in Israel. The article, which was published in numerous newspapers, included these two sentences:

"The settlements are on the land that many Jews say is their biblical and historical home. It is also land the Palestinians want for a future state."

In the first sentence, Booth and Eglash gratuitously insert the words "many Jews say" to cast doubt about something that is indisputable, historical fact.

The second sentence does the opposite: it presents an opinion as fact.

The Arabs have repeatedly spurned golden opportunities to establish a state, casting doubt on whether they really want one.

The Arabs rejected the Peel Commission proposal for a state in 1937, the United Nations Partition Plan in 1947 and Israeli proposals in 2000, 2001 and 2008.

They didn't bother setting up a separate state between 1948 and 1967, when Jordan annexed the West Bank and made all the resident Arabs Jordanian citizens.

Now, maybe the Palestinian Arabs do want their own state, but it's definitely not established fact, especially given that the evidence strongly suggests otherwise. It should not have been presented as fact in a news article.

Headlines are often even more distorting.

Another recent example from the Washington Post: A September 18 article had this headline: "Israeli authorities kill 3 suspected assailants in Jerusalem, West Bank attacks." There have been dozens, probably hundreds or thousands, of similar headlines in recent months.

That short headline was ambiguous, inaccurate and, at best, inverted the actual news. As I explained in a letter to the Washington Post:

"The ambiguity: readers could incorrectly infer that Israeli authorities attacked people in Jerusalem and the disputed territories. It was Arab terrorists who did the attacking.

"The inaccuracy: the attackers were not merely "suspected;" there is no doubt the three dead were assailants.

"The inversion: the heart of the news was that there was another Arab terror attack; the fact that some of the terrorists wound up dead was just a consequence of what were, fortunately, mostly "unsuccessful" attacks."

Most of you probably remember what happened on September 11, 2001. On the next day, did anyone see the headline "Plane crashes kill 19 suspected hijackers in New York, Virginia and Pennsylvania?"

Okay. Now I'll list a handful of inconvenient truths, and then go into detail about others.

•Zionism is simply the national liberation movement of the Jewish people.

•Anti-Zionists deny the right of the Jewish people to our own state.

•Denying that right to the Jewish people, while promoting it for others, is anti-Semitic.

•Until relatively recently, the people today calling themselves Palestinians were insisting they weren't.

•The articles in the PLO Charter calling for the destruction of Israel have never been removed.

•Taken together, Israel and the disputed territories take up less than a quarter of what constituted Palestine at the time of the British Mandate.

•Historically, Jerusalem has never held much interest for Arabs or Muslims except during those times when it was controlled by others.

•Jerusalem has been at the heart and soul of the Jewish people since King David made it his capital about 3,000 years ago. Every Passover, Jews all over the world end their Seders with the chant בשנה הבאה בירושלים - "Next Year in Jerusalem."

•The Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995 declares, as official United States policy: "Jerusalem should be recognized as the capital of the State of Israel."

•The term "West Bank" is a relatively new one. Historically, that area, the heartland of the Jewish kingdoms in Biblical times, was referred to as Judea and Samaria, or Palestine, or southern Syria.

•Only a handful, perhaps 50,000, of the so-called Palestinian refugees are really refugees. The youngest of the refugees are now 68 years old and have no recollection of ever living in what is now Israel.

•Palestinian Authority president Mahmoud Abbas is in the twelfth year of his four year term. He is no moderate, has shown no inclination to make peace with Israel and has neither the ability nor the authority to do so even if he wanted.

•More than 95 percent of the Arabs in the disputed territories have lived under their own government for more than two decades.

•The Christian community is increasing and thriving in just one country in the Middle East: Israel. It's being decimated in the Palestinian Authority and Hamas-run Gaza. Under the Palestinian Authority, Bethlehem has turned from a Christian city into a Muslim city.

•The proportion of civilian casualties in the Gaza wars has been amazingly low compared to the norm for post-World War II conflicts. General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said "Israel went to extraordinary lengths to limit collateral damage and civilian casualties." Israel has been criticized by international military leaders for setting a standard their countries can't possibly match.

Now I'll go into a few other inconvenient truths, in more depth - as our very limited time permits - with some documentation, including historical texts and the words of Palestinian Arab leaders.

•The Palestinian Arabs have shown far more interest in there not being a Jewish state than in having one of their own.

The PLO was established in 1964, while the West Bank was part of Jordan. Rather than promoting a separate Palestinian Arab state, the PLO was established to destroy Israel. This goal was enshrined four years later in the PLO Charter. It's sobering reading, although far less so than the Fatah and Hamas charters. Among its provisions:

The PLO "aims at the elimination of Zionism in Palestine."

"The Arab Palestinian people, expressing themselves by the armed Palestinian revolution, reject all solutions which are substitutes for the total liberation of Palestine."

AND

"Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine. Thus it is the overall strategy, not merely a tactical phase."

In their fundamental covenants, the Palestinian Arabs clearly say they reject the existence of Israel, but do not call for their own state.

•Mahmoud Abbas has admitted he's responsible for the continuation of the conflict.

In his own words, spoken in Ramallah on October 15, 2010: "If we showed flexibility on these issues the peace agreement would have been signed a long time ago."

•Mahmoud Abbas has also told his people he will never compromise on any of the key issues. 

As quoted in the Palestinian Authority's own newspaper, Al-Ayyam, on September 7, 2010: "If they demand concessions on the rights of the refugees or the 1967 borders, I will quit. I can't allow myself to make even one concession."

•Abbas clearly rejects the very concept of a two-state solution, vigorously insisting he will never acknowledge Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people.

•Abbas even bluntly told President Obama he would not commit to an "end of conflict" - in other words, even if he signed some agreement with Israel, the conflict would continue.

Peace requires concessions, by both sides.

Israel has made enormous concessions. Benjamin Netanyahu may be considered "right wing," but he's offered concessions, such as offering the Palestinian Arabs a state, Yitzhak Rabin insisted he would never make.

Mahmoud Abbas may be called "moderate," but he has yet to make a single significant concession; he's still clinging to the same demands Arafat was making in 1993. It's one thing to start negotiations with extreme demands; I thought only my mother-in-law, may she rest in peace, could refuse to budge for more than two decades. I was wrong.

•Abbas demands ethnic cleansing.

For example, on Christmas Day, 2010, in Ramallah, he said: "We have frankly said, and always will say: If there is an independent Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital, we won't agree to the presence of one Israeli (meaning Jew) in it." How's that for the Christmas spirit!

•Mahmoud Abbas was a prime instigator of the year-long and counting wave of knifings, shootings and vehicular attacks.

On September 16 last year, he proclaimed "Al-Aksa is ours and so is the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. They (meaning the Jews) have no right to desecrate them with their filthy feet. We won’t allow them to do so and we will do whatever we can to defend Jerusalem."

Praising Muslim women who harass Jews on the Temple Mount, he said "Each drop of blood that was spilled in Jerusalem is pure blood as long as it’s for the sake of Allah. Every shahid (martyr) will be in heaven and every wounded person will be rewarded, by Allah’s will."

•In Israel, Arabs comprise nearly a quarter of the population and have full, equal rights.

Of course there's some discrimination; I challenge you to name a single country in which there's no discrimination. I also challenge you to name a country, other than Israel, giving equal rights to a minority which in significant measure is loyal to the nation's enemies.

Arabs participate in every area of Israeli civil life. They're doctors, lawyers, teachers, police. They're in the Knesset, the parliament. Majalli Wahabi, an Israeli Druze, actually served as Acting President for a time in 2007. George Karra, an Israeli Arab Supreme Court Justice, convicted President Moshe Katzav and sent him to prison.

Think about that: an Israeli Arab sent the president of Israel to prison!

When it comes to legal discrimination, if anything, it's the Jews who suffer. Jews are compelled to serve in the army. They don't have a choice. Arabs have a choice. They may serve if they wish, but they don't have to.

•The BDS movement is anti-Zionist and thus inherently and irredeemably anti-Semitic.

Omar Barghouti, the most prominent of the founders of BDS, has said: "Definitely, most definitely we oppose a Jewish state in any part of Palestine. No Palestinian, rational Palestinian, not a sell-out Palestinian, will ever accept a Jewish state in Palestine.”

Anna Baltzer, a frequent speaker at "Tree of Life" events, was even more blunt, saying "We need to wipe out Israel." [Note: These were the notes I used for my talk. I'm no longer certain Baltzer ever used those exact words, since she denies ever saying that. On the other hand, when she wrote that to me, I asked if she was willing to state she didn't want Israel to be wiped out, but she didn't respond to that part of my email.]

•While Mahmoud Abbas may refuse to make peace with Israel, may defame and slander Israel at every opportunity, when push comes to shove he knows Israel is his only friend.

In April, Abbas' brother, who lives in Qatar, was in critical condition with cancer. Where did Abbas make sure he went to get the best medical care? Assuta Medical Center in Tel Aviv, where the doctors had saved his brother-in-law's life with a delicate heart operation six months before, and where his wife underwent leg surgery in 2014.

Ismail Haniyeh is even more extreme than Abbas. Haniyeh is the chief Hamas terrorist in charge of Gaza. But he wasn't too proud to send his granddaughter for treatment at Ichilov Hospital in Tel Aviv in 2013. In 2014, he sent both his mother-in-law and his daughter there, one shortly before the war he launched and the other shortly after.

•The "illegally occupied territories" aren't even occupied. They are disputed territories and Israel has a strong legal claim to them.

At the San Remo Conference in 1920, following World War I, Britain was assigned a mandate over Palestine - which then comprised all of what is today Israel, Jordan and the disputed territories. The mandate called for Britain to prepare for the reestablishment of the Jewish homeland, including the "close settlement" of the land by the Jewish people. This actually included the "East Bank," the 77-78 percent of Palestine east of the Jordan River which Britain separated from the rest, renamed Transjordan and gave to the Hashemites. The decisions made at the San Remo Conference were confirmed by the League of Nations in 1922, and incorporated into the founding documents of the United Nations. That makes them international law.

So, under international law, Israel has claim to all of the disputed territories and building in those territories is not only not illegal, but encouraged.

•The "1967 borders" were never borders.

Article II of the 1949 armistice agreement with Jordan stated "no provision of this Agreement shall in any way prejudice the rights, claims and positions of either Party hereto in the ultimate peaceful settlement of the Palestine question, the provisions of this Agreement being dictated exclusively by military considerations."

In plain language, the armistice lines were specified to have no political significance.

References to "1967 borders" are factually wrong; no borders existed.

Insisting on "negotiations based on the 1967 borders" is actually an insistence on the violation of that signed agreement! It's also an insistence on the violation of United Nations Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338.

Resolution 242 was adopted November 22, 1967, exactly five years after the assassination of President Kennedy. Its provisions called for:

"Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict" in conjunction with the "termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force."

So, according to this binding Security Council resolution, any Israeli withdrawal awaits a peace agreement and must not be a total withdrawal to the temporary armistice lines. The Security Council itself has given legitimacy to an Israeli presence in the disputed territories until that time.

My apartment in Netanya lies about nine miles from the armistice line and the Arab town of Tulkarm, which is already under the control of the Palestinian Authority. I'm across from the Mediterranean, so the actual width of Israel at that point is only about 9 miles and 50 yards. Secure borders, as called for in the resolution, are unfortunately an impossibility, but the goal should be to make them as close to secure as reasonably possible.

•The Palestinian Arab leadership accepted the Israeli presence in the disputed territories and depends on it.

They agreed to it in the Oslo Accords and Mahmoud Abbas knows that he wouldn't last a week if it wasn't for the Israeli military maintaining security.

Abbas may demand an Israeli withdrawal, but he stakes his life on Israel not caving in to that demand.

My final three inconvenient truths:

1. We keep hearing that the Palestinians deserve a state of their own. There is actually an "Encyclopedia of Stateless Nations." Most people know of the Kurds and the Tibetans, but there are literally hundreds of others, almost all with a far longer and more peaceful history than the Palestinian Arabs. None have repeatedly rejected statehood the way the Palestinian Arabs have. Every one of those national groups is arguably far more deserving of statehood than the Palestinian Arabs.

When my wife and I bought an apartment in Israel, we decided we needed to sell our private home in Waterbury and move to a condo in Massachusetts nearer our daughter. We joined the nearest synagogue, Temple Israel of Natick, which has a "Rabbi Laureate" you may have heard of, Harold Kushner, of "When Bad Things Happen to Good People" fame. One week ago today, on the first day of Rosh Hashanah, I was in the first row, right in front of Rabbi Kushner, when he gave his sermon and said: 

"I would remind you that for almost twenty years, from 1948 to 1967, the Palestinians had a state of their own on the West Bank and half of Jerusalem, including the Old City and the Temple Mount."

Now, when Jews say "Jordan is Palestine," people tend to dismiss it as propaganda. But it turns out that Mahmoud Abbas - remember, he calls himself the president of Palestine, even though there is no Palestine - agrees with Rabbi Kushner. Just last year, on June 2, 2015, Abbas said "Jordan and Palestine are one people living in two states."

There are two basic reasons the Palestinian Arabs get so much undeserved attention: They are the world's most successful practitioners of terrorism ... and their target has been the world's only Jewish state.

2. Israel is the front line state in the fight against fanatical, Islamist terrorists. Every method used by those terrorists against the United States, against France, against Britain, was first used against Israel. Had the civilized world stood solidly with Israel in the past, we might not be suffering from today's outbreak of terrorism. The first, essential step in defeating terrorism around the world is standing with Israel.

3.

If you value human rights, Israel stands with you.

If you value freedom of the press, Israel stands with you.

If you value the rights of gays, Israel stands with you.

If you value the rights of women, Israel stands with you.

If you value diversity and multiculturalism, Israel stands with you.

If you believe children should grow up and not blow up, Israel stands with you.

If you treasure the values that have made the United States of America the greatest country in the history of the world, Israel stands with you.

Israel exemplifies the very values true liberals cherish most, while Palestinian Arab society rejects those same values.

Rabbi Kushner said, in his Rosh Hashanah sermon: "We were privileged to see the rebirth of a Jewish nation in the ancestral Jewish homeland. Be grateful that you were privileged to live in the age of the Third Jewish Commonwealth."

In my years of involvement with the Arab-Israeli conflict, I've rarely read a news story, or a letter to the editor, or a presentation by someone anti-Israel, that wasn't tainted by what I'll euphemistically call false information. I urge you to read, and listen, skeptically, and find the real truth, the inconvenient truth, so often denied.

On that note, thank you for listening to these inconvenient truths. I'm eager to hear your questions, with the usual qualification: questions, not long-winded statements.

D'Var Torah - Family Values

This D'var Torah was presented at Temple Israel of Natick, Massachusetts, July 30, 2016, by Alan Stein. During the summer, the D'vrai Torah are given by congregants.

Shabbat shalom.

Today's parshah, Pinchas, serves as a reminder that, as important as our sacred texts are, we need to interpret them using our own knowledge, understanding and morality.

God explains to Moses how he rewarded Pinchas, the son of Elazar and grandson of Aaron, for slaying Zimri, and his Midianite consort and thus halting a lethal plague.

Is the Torah really telling us that licentious behavior causes plagues? Is it really telling us we should slay people engaging in such behavior?

The parshah discusses a census of the people, including 601,730 males between the ages of twenty and sixty, used in conjunction with the allocation of the land of Israel among the tribes and families.

Is that figure reasonable?

That many adult males implies a total population of millions, all descended from the roughly 70 families that had gone down to Egypt with Jacob 400 years earlier.

David Ben-Gurion, that celebrated prime minister, noted scholar of the Bible and atheist, observed that in שמות, Exodus, the Hebrew text refers to שש מאות אלף. This is usually translated as 600,000, but The Old Man noted אלף can also mean "family" or "clan." Having 70 families grow to 600 families seems a lot more reasonable than growing to millions of Israelites.

The parshah also relates the story of the five daughters of Tzelafchad, who had no brothers when their father died. They beseeched Moses to allow them to inherit their father's land. God accepted their plea and the law was adapted, although it was still discriminatory against women.

Are we comfortable with this?

Parshat Pinchas brings to mind the importance of critical thinking, of questioning, of family, and of the centrality of Eretz Yisrael to us, the Jewish people.

I love that in Judaism we don't have a catechism, but we question and we disagree.

The first time I ever drove a car with a GPS was in Israel in 2006. Marsha and I were there for my cousin Hagit's wedding in Beersheva, staying at the Paradise Hotel. What a prime example of a hotel's name being as believable as Mahmoud Abbas.

The night before the wedding, we went to the Inbal Hotel, in the heart of Jerusalem, for the Bat Mitzvah of a friend's daughter. 

It was about midnight by the time we left, very dark - it must have been around Rosh Chodesh - and since I always make wrong turns driving out of Jerusalem, even in daylight, I decided to depend on our rental car's trusty GPS ...  until we found ourselves at a dead end, on a dirt road, in an unfamiliar area, in front of a large home with mosaic tiles and Arabic lettering, and I realized, just as we must interpret Torah using our own judgment, it was time to supplement the GPS with my own judgment.

We finally, successfully, got out of Jerusalem that dark night, started wintering in Israel four years later, and made aliyah four years after that.

The city in which we live, Netanya, is a sister city to Nice. 

Nice. The site of that massacre barely two weeks ago. 84 people murdered because a fanatic did not use independent judgment to temper the extreme theology of the radical Islamist clerics he followed.

The street on which we live, Nitza, is named after Nice. Apparently, if you transliterate Nice into Hebrew, and then transliterate the Hebrew into English, you come up with Nitza. That's Israel.

Ironically, Netanya has benefited from the terrorism and anti-Semitism in France. French Jews have been making aliyah in increasing numbers and Netanya is their favorite destination. Our Vaad's AGM, Annual General Meeting, is now conducted in both English and French, and occasionally a little Hebrew.

One of those olim, who had come to Israel after being a victim in the attack of the Charlie Hebdo terrorists on the Hyper Cacher kosher market in Paris, was also the victim of the one stabbing attack in Netanya during the time we were there last year. 

Our lives in Israel are very similar to our lives in the United States.

As in Natick, our Masorti synagogue is an important part of our lives, our substitute family. On Shabbat, we're usually at services, which are like services here except nobody kisses their tsitsit during the Shema and nobody wears a tie.

Home for lunch, we look out our window at what Marsha calls the "Shabbat parade," the large Orthodox families from Kiryat Sanz, Netanya's version of Mea Shearim, marching along the tayelet, boardwalk, still in their synagogue clothes. After lunch, we'll often join them or walk down to the beach. I find a Shabbat nap on the beach by the Mediterranean even more pleasant than one on our porch in Natick.

With our synagogue a six minute walk from our doorway and morning minyan starting not at 7 am but at a more civilized 8, I'm usually there on weekday mornings, too. We daven using Siddurim that previously got a lot of use in the chapel here, at Temple Israel of Natick.

We go to concerts and lectures. We shop in supermarkets, where I not infrequently need to make use of a Hebrew app on my phone. We shop at Netanya's wonderful shuk, around the corner from which, at a spot I walk by several times a week, the one terror attack in Netanya since we left took place. We visit with friends. We host friends from Natick and show them around Netanya.

We replace broken appliances, always an experience. We needed a plumber when I tried to replace a faucet but, because of the corrosion from the sea, couldn't get the old one off. That cost me an extra 150 shekels, about $40. Not quite what a plumber costs here. And the plumbers here don't usually wear yarmulkes when they're fixing toilets.

At kiddush, our post-minyan coffee klatch, at AACI or ESRA - Association of Americans and Canadians in Israel or English Speaking Residents Association - or with friends, the conversation often turns to politics. We try to decide whose politics are more insane, America's or Israel's.

And people kept asking us what was going on with the Jewish community in the United States. Why all the public sniping at Israel, the patronizing op-eds in The New York Times by clueless self-appointed leaders criticizing Israel no matter what Israel does, ignoring the basic fact, obvious to everyone but the oblivious fringe in Israel, that the Palestinian Arabs and their leadership aren't willing to make peace with Israel, no matter what Israel offers?

Israelis remember Mahmoud Abbas, the "most moderate" leader the Palestinians have ever had - what a joke! - walked away after being offered the equivalent of all the disputed territory, plus a redivision of Jerusalem, in 2008 and has, for all practical purposes, ever since refused to negotiate. Last week, he announced plans to sue Great Britain for issuing the Balfour Declaration a century ago. My God! It's not even Purim.

What does Abu Mazen have to do before those critics, including, most incomprehensibly and discouragingly, Jewish critics, admit Israel can't force the Arabs to make peace, and has no alternative but to try to manage the conflict until Palestinian Arab society, and its leadership, undergoes a complete transformation?

I recently watched a few YouTube videos featuring Rabbi Avi Weiss being interviewed by Rabbi Mark Golub on JBS, the Jewish Broadcasting System. Rabbi Weiss said he viewed all of world Jewry, including Meir Kahane at one extreme and J Street at the other, not just as community, but as family.

In private, family members may argue bitterly with each other, but they usually know better than to argue publicly in the pages of The New York Times or the Boston Globe. Yes, I remember the Market Basket family feud between Arthur S. and Arthur T., but normal, loving families stand together in public, especially when they are under attack.

There is no shortage of vocal criticism of Israel, some justified but mostly unjustified, coming from anti-Semites, from anti-Zionists. Public criticism from Jews only adds fuel to the already flaming fire.

Especially now, we need to all act in the spirit of the banner in front of Temple Israel: "We Stand With Israel."

And not just because Israel needs our support. The world needs us to stand with Israel.

The words of our friend Charles Small, executive director of ISGAP, the Institute for the Study of Global Antisemitism and Policy, keep reverberating in my head: "It may start with the Jews, but it never ends with the Jews."

Today, it may start with Israel, but it never ends with Israel, the frontline state in the fight against radical Islamist terrorism.

The world is today reaping the dubious rewards of not standing with Israel.

Today, it's not just Israel that's under attack. America is under attack. The Western World is under attack.

Is there a type of terrorist attack that wasn't used against Israel before being used against America, or France, or England, or Germany?

Hijackings

Kidnappings

Stabbings

Firebombs

Suicide bombings

Trucks ramming into pedestrians

Planes ramming into buildings

Attacks on schools

Attacks on synagogues

Attacks on nightclubs, attacks on restaurants

They were all tried on Israel.

The world is silent when terrorists attack Israelis ... until Israel defends itself.

The United Nations adopted the infamous "Zionism is Racism" resolution, welcomed Yasser Arafat to contaminate the formerly august General Assembly while wearing a gun holster.

It repeatedly rewarded the PLO, the organization which effectively invented and popularized modern terrorism.

And thus sowed the seeds of today's plague of worldwide terrorism.

It may start with Israel, but it never ends with Israel.

Hillel said "If I am not for myself, who will be for me?"

If we are not solidly for Israel, who else can we expect to be with Israel?

Hillel also said, "If I am only for myself, who am I?"

In standing with Israel, we are not only for ourselves, but we are protecting the civilized world.

The scourge of terrorism facing the civilized world started with the rewarding of terror attacks on Israel. To turn the tide against the terrorists, the civilized world must reverse that original sin.

In Pinchas, God instructs Moses to appoint Joshua as his successor, with the responsibility of leading our people into the Promised Land.

Is it not now our responsibility to, by standing with our people in the Promised Land, do our part to help lead the world out of today's darkness into the shining light of peace?

Am Yisrael chai.

Shabbat shalom.

Peace in Israel, With Conviction

This letter was published in The New York Times on April 25, 2016. Uri Weltsch was not on any of the PRIMER email lists when he wrote this terrific letter, or when it was published, but he is now. I recommend paying attention to when he moved from Germany to Palestine. May he live to 120 and may he continue to be an inspiration to us all.

To the Editor:

Re: Roger Cohen (“Bernie’s Israel Heresy,” April 19): While I do not support all of Mr. Nethanyahu’s policies, I share his deep conviction that we must face the intentions of Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas to eventually “wipe Israel off the map,” which they repeatedly proclaim to be their ultimate goal.

When Prime Minister Ariel Sharon voluntarily retreated from Israeli-held territories in the south of the country, Hamas moved in and hurled missiles at the civilian population. (When still a U.S. senator, Barack Obama referred to this on a visit to the south of the country in 2008).

I moved from Germany to Palestine with my family in 1933 at age 10, and I have lived there ever since. Perhaps it was Mr. Cohen’s and Mr. Sanders’s good fortunes that their families immigrated to the United States. They do not seem to share our concerns as to the safety of our grandchildren.

Despite the current upheavals in the Middle East, we should not rest but continue to achieve some understanding with the other side toward a permanent peace plan.

URI WELTSCH
Tel Aviv

UNESCO Resolution on Har Habayit

The following email about UNESCO's latest disgraceful anti-Israel resolution was sent to the following people: mp.roudil@unesco.org, i.bokova@unesco.org, USUNPolFax@state.gov, themission@angolaun.org, enaun@mrecic.gov.ar, new-york-ov@bmeia.gv.at, bangladesh@un.int, bdpmny@gmail.com, fsnypmbd@mofa.gov.bd, z.aynuzzaman@gmail.com, blzun@belizemission.com, blzun@aol.com, Distri.delbrasonu@itamaraty.gov.br, chinesemission@yahoo.com, cuba_onu@cubanmission.com, un.newyork@embassy.mzv.cz, drun@un.int, ecuador@un.int, elsalvador@un.int, mission.newyork@mfa.ee, ethiopia@un.int, france@franceonu.org, info@gabonmission.com, gambia_un@hotmail.com, info@new-york-un.diplo.de, india@un.int, info.italyun@esteri.it, archives.italyun@esteri.it, p-m-j@dn.mofa.go.jp, MalawiNewyork@aol.com, MalawiU@aol.com, mauritius@un.int, onuusr1@sre.gob.mx, UN.NewYork@mfa.gov.me, mozambique@un.int, namibia@un.int, nepal@un.int, nepalmissionusa@gmail.com, nyv@minbuza.nl, permny@nigeriaunmission.org, pngun@pngmission.org, press@russiaun.ru, sknmission@aol.com, Rep.nuevayorkonu@maec.es, sweden@un.int, thailand@un.int, newyork@mfa.gov.mk, togo@un.int, togo.mission@yahoo.fr, tto@un.int, turkmenistan@un.int, ugandaunny@un.int, uno_us@mfa.gov.ua, uk@un.int.

CAMERA's analysis of UNESCO's resolution may be found at http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=7&x_issue=4&x_article=3318.

Sent to the above list of people:

I find UNESCO's recent resolution on what it refers to as "al-Aksa Mosque/al-Haram al Sharif" is a disgraceful totally in conflict with the values for which UNESCO is supposed to stand as well as the basic values under which the United Nations was founded. It also blatantly conflicts with the words of your director-general:

"Jerusalem is a Holy Land of the three monotheistic religions, a place of dialogue for all Jewish, Christian and Muslim people, nothing should be undertaken to alter its integrity and authenticity. It is a mosaic of cultures and peoples, whose history has shaped the history of all humanity. Only respect and dialogue can build the trust we need to move forward -- this is the strength of UNESCO, for the benefit of all."

In its resolution, UNESCO completely ignores the connection of what was Har Habayit (the Temple Mount) for millennia before the Al Aksa Mosque was built over the ruins of The Temple. While Jerusalem has importance for Christians and Muslims, its importance to them pales compared to its centrality for the Jewish people.

Despite this, since Jerusalem was reunited in 1967 after Jordan attacked Israel, Israel has, perhaps foolishly, allowed Muslims to administer Judaism's holiest site. During this period, the Muslim Wakf has destroyed countless irreplaceable historical artifacts, while the leader of the Palestinian Authority has insisted he will not allow Jews to "defile" Judaism's holiest place with what he calls their "filthy feet." This irresponsible behavior should be condemned by UNESCO.

There is one positive element I found in UNESCO's resolution, the call for the status quo in effect prior to 2000 to be restored, although that request does not go far enough. Since the Arab terror offensive launched in 2000 after Yasser Arafat rejected the establishment of a Palestinian state, access to the Temple Mount has been severely restricted for Christians, Jews and other non-Muslims. There should be free, equal access for all peoples.

Besides UNESCO's resolution being a disgraceful capitulation to religious and ethnic hatred, it also sends a dangerous message at a time when the civilized world is being attacked by brutal terrorists who actually kill more of their fellow Muslims than anyone else. The current wave of Palestinian terrorism, which your resolution falsely refers to as a "cycle of violence," was instigated by inflammatory lies from leaders of the Palestinian Arabs, including Mahmoud Abbas. The UNESCO resolution effectively rewards both the liars and the terrorists.

One reason terrorism is such a problem today is that for many years the world, including the United Nations and UNESCO, have rewarded Palestinian terrorism, sending the message to all that terrorism pays. Your resolution continues that destructive tradition. Many innocent people have paid with their lives for those actions in the past and many more will certainly pay with their lives in the future.

For the good of the world, for truth, for the faceless but innocent people who otherwise will pay with their lives, the UNESCO resolution must be repealed and replaced by an honest and fair resolution which recognizes the history of Har Habayit and its place in the hearts of the Jewish people and the core of the Jewish religion.

Shalom - Salaam - Peace,

Alan H. Stein אלן שטיין

Terror attacks in Brussels should serve as eye-opener; time to demand U.S. government have a strategy to combat ISIS

Thanks to Chana Givon:

Dear everyone,

The very recent simultaneous terrorist acts in Brussels should serve as an eye-opener for Americans. It took more than 30 lives and injured at least 270 people - some still being identified. Not only are all of these casualties but their families and friends are deeply wounded as well. We weep for them and for all of the innocents who will in the future become victims. ISIS has since announced that it is releasing 400 more terrorists to wreak havoc all across Europe. This should serve as a serious warning for Americans as well.

It is time to demand that the U.S. government have a strategy to combat ISIS; there must be an organized international response to this and other terrorist organizations. They must first be identified as radical Islamists and war declared against them with the distinct purpose of destroying them - not containing them. While they may represent but a 'small' percentage of Muslims, they are recruiting and growing in numbers and are supported by those who may not be actively involved in the killing but champion their cause. 

Please - for your own understanding - watch the video made by Raheel Raza - the first link below. We live in critical times in world history; the world has shrunk and one cannot ignore what is happening elsewhere.

It is frightening to see the lack of real understanding of the enemies of Western civilization.  It is time to understand that the tragedy that has unfolded in the Middle East with the effort to ethnically cleanse Christians, Kurds, and Yazidis, also included attacks against Jews In Palestine during the last century.  Fortunately, Israel today stands as a haven for Jews who were expelled from Arab/ Muslims countries but today a nuclear Iran is a global threat.  It is important to understand that Israel is not the problem regardless of the enemy's propaganda; the country is a victim of the same terrorism that is now being visited upon Europe. 

There are approximately 22 Muslim enclaves in the U.S. - ( why not call them 'settlements') and no-go zones where there is no entry to anyone not belonging. Members are given military training.  Why?  Not difficult to understand when one knows that it has existed in Europe, too, and we know what has happened there.  No more need be said.

Chana

---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSPvnFDDQHk   ( This is a most important video by a Muslim woman who clearly articulates the truth about her religion; so educational in these confusing times)  Worthy of being forwarded to others.

https://www.clarionproject.org/analysis/exclusive-clarion-project-discovers-texas-terror-enclave
http://heritagefl.com/story/2014/04/18/opinions/islamic-enclaves-in-america/2562.html


Just a few choices regarding just a few of the  Muslim Brotherhood members in the U.S. government

http://www.investigativeproject.org/3869/egyptian-magazine-muslim-brotherhood-infiltrates#
http://www.theobamafile.com/_Islam/ObamasMuslims.htm

http://freedomoutpost.com/sharia-advisers-barack-obamas-muslim-appointees/

Netanyahu's Lost Opportunities

The following was submitted as a letter to The New York Times in response to their editorial blaming Israel for missing opportunities to make peace with the recalcitrant Palestinian Arabs.

To the editor:

The assertion, in the editorial "Mr. Netanyahu's Lost Opportunities," that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu "has never shown a serious willingness" to make progress towards peace would have been stronger if it contained a list of some of the ways Netanyahu has fallen short. Here's such a list.

Turning down a generous peace offer. Oops, Netanyahu hasn't been presented with even a realistic, no less a generous, peace offer. It was Mahmoud Abbas who walked away in 2008 when presented with an incredibly generous offer.

Refusing to negotiate. Oops, wrong again. Netanyahu has virtually begged the Palestinian Arabs to negotiate, going so far as freezing construction in Jewish communities in the disputed territories and releasing dozens of convicted terrorists, including mass murderers to bribe the Palestinians into negotiations. It's been Mahmoud Abbas who's essentially refused to negotiate since walking away in 2008 and it's the Palestinian Authority Foreign Minister who last month said the PA would never again negotiate directly with Israel.

Inciting his people against the Palestinian Arabs, even insisting he won't allow Arabs to desecrate the Temple Mount with their "dirty feet." Oops, wrong again. It's Abbas who said he wouldn't allow Jews to desecrate their holiest site with their "dirty feet" and who saying any blood spilled in defending the Temple Mount against those "dirty feet" was "pure."

Glorifying the murder not only of Arabs, but of Americans. Oops, wrong again. It's the terror group - er, political party - Fatah headed by Abbas which praised the murderer of American tourist Taylor Force as a "heroic Martyr," and Abbas' Palestinian Authority which actually referred to the murdered American as a "settler."

Violating the commitment under the Oslo Agreements to not attempt to unilaterally change the status of the disputed territories outside a negotiated agreement between the parties. Oops, wrong again. It's Abbas who unilaterally went to the United Nations to get "Palestine" recognized as a state.

Rejected the essence of a two-state solution, an Arab state for the Palestinian people and Israel for the Jewish people. Oops, wrong again. It's Mahmoud Abbas who has repeatedly insisted he will never accept Israel as the Jewish state.

Oops. I guess it's not very easy to construct a list of ways Netanyahu has failed to show "a serious willingness" to make progress towards peace. No wonder The New York Times didn't include such a list in its editorial.

Sincerely,

Alan Stein

The Latest SLANT on Anti-Semitism and the Middle East

Get the latest SLANT from Nathan Salant by following him on Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100009026229721.

The decision by the United Methodist Church's Pension Board to divest from the five largest Israeli banks and one Israeli company is something we need to stand up and challenge.  I do not believe that the majority of Methodists support this move at all, and I've posted what's below on the Church's web site.

UNITED METHODIST CHURCH'S PENSION BOARD SHOULD RECONSIDER BOYCOTT OF ISRAELI BANKS

It is very sad to read that the United Methodist Church's Pension Board has included five Israeli banks among the 39 it is blacklisting.

This lumps Israel in with countries like Sudan, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Somalia and Syria - a designation that makes no sense whatsoever.

The reason behind the decision is that these five banks invest in and support what the Church views as illegal construction of, support for and financial assistance to settlements in Judea, Samaria and the West Bank, according to its public statements.

Strangely enough, the Palestinian Authority Banks and those controlled by Hamas in Gaza are not listed, despite the fact that the PA Charter requires that no Jews be allowed to live in any emergent Palestinian State, while Hamas not only prohibits them, but calls for killing all Jews and their supporters worldwide.

And of even more interest, there is no blacklisting of banks in places like China (which has occupied Tibet since the early 1950s), Morocco (which has occupied the Spanish Sahara - once an independent country - for more than 20 years), Russia (which invaded and seized 20% of the Ukraine last year), Armenia (which seized 20% of Azerbijian more than 20 years ago and ethnically cleansed it), Lebanon (where the terrorist group Hezbollah has undermined the government, militarily supports the Bashar Asad regime in neighboring Syria and blew up the US Marines Barracks as one of its countless documented terrorist attacks, while also calling for the elimination of Israel), etc.

Egypt, which has closed its border with Gaza and razed 1,100 yards of land adjoining that border and is flooding the smugglers' tunnels that run under that border, gets a free pass...so does Venezuela, which has done more to undermine democracy in South America than any other country save, perhaps, Cuba (which also gets a free pass, despite its history of persecution).

Another question to be raised is: if the issue is financial activity in Judea and Samaria, exactly what boundaries is Israel supposed to exist within? According to every site I've checked, Judea included everything from the Tel Aviv area to ALL OF JERUSALEM, and south well past Beersheva. It also included Shiloh, Shechem (now known as Nablus), Jericho and a host of other familiar names that the Palestinians claim as their own.

See this link:http://www.bible-history.com/…/southern_palestine_judea.html

So, if construction inside Judea is illegal - and if you check the map, you'll see that biblical Samaria also included the rest of modern Israel - exactly where is the Methodist Church setting Israel's boundaries?? Or, has it constructively called for the abolishment of the Jewish Homeland?

Furthermore, under international law, the West Bank was illegally occupied by Jordan from 1948-67 (where was the United Methodist Church during those days?) and Gaza was illegally occupied by Egypt during the same period. However, Israel is not an "occupier" because there was NEVER a country of "Palestine," and there is no centuries-old history or holidays, unique language or customs, etc., for this Arafat-created entity.

It is also shocking that the United Methodist Church closes its eyes to the persecution of Christians in every other country in the Middle East; in fact, by condemning Israel's banks and others, it gives what I hope is unintended tacit support to those other nations in which there is no religious freedom, in which churches are being burnt, in which no one can publicly wear a cross or display a bible, and in which conversion to Christianity is punishable by death.

This is a terrible decision and needs to be rescinded immediately.

Map of Judea and Southern Israel (Bible History Online)

Map of the Territory of Judah and Judea in Ancient Israel. Judea and the surrounding territories (Southern Israel). The locations that have an underline…

BIBLE-HISTORY.COM

Letter to PBS Frontline About "Netanyahu at War"

This insightful critique was sent to PBS by Daniel H. Trigoboff and is posted here with the permission of the author.

Dear Frontline Staff:

I am writing to express both a modicum of praise and some important concerns regarding the Frontline Episode "Netanyahu At War" which was aired on WNED-TV Public TV on 1/5/16 at 9PM in Buffalo, New York. It is commendable that at times comments from interviewees across the political spectrum in Israel and in the United States were presented, and that at times Mr. Netanyahu's perspectives were somewhat articulated.

Nonetheless I came away from this program with some strong concerns and objections. These were related to frequent bias against the Prime Minister, embodied both in some aspects of format and also in the content of many of the narrator's and interviewees' comments.

With regard to format, it was notable that many of Netanyahu's perspectives, views, and experiences were immediately followed by comments from a plethora of anti-Israel and anti-Netanyahu sources, and then the show would move on to a different issue or topic. Journalists know well that the final comment on a news story or political matter is often the one that stays with the public, and therefore this positioning of the negative comments reflected implicit bias in the broadcast format. A fairer rendition would have had a much more even split between anti-Netanyahu and pro-Netanyahu final comments.

This was particularly evident with regard to the narrator, whose voice often intoned "the truth" after the presentation of some statement or action of Netanyahu's, which was far more often than not contradictory to the Prime Minister's positions or actions. Also global negative statements were often permitted about Netanyahu, such as "...people like Netanyahu, you don't get a second chance..." by Ari Shavit, a well known extreme leftist author, but no similarly generalized positive comments were in evidence. Another example was interviewee Martin Kalb's statements that "...he doesn't and didn't want to have a deal with them (Palestinians)," as though Kalb was telepathic, or as though Netanyahu's many concessions to Palestinians - releasing dozens of convicted Palestinian murderers from jail, offering to negotiate with no preconditions, remaining supportive of a Palestinian State despite ongoing Palestinian terrorism and conduct expressive of their wish to destroy Israel, pulling Israeli troops out of Hebron and signing a treaty advancing the Oslo process - were of no value. Furthermore after detailing some of these concessions, the documentary implausibly proceeded to focus on "how difficult Bibi was making it."

A particularly odious example of this documentary permitting an interviewee to claim anti-Netanyahu telepathy was the statement, referring to Rabin's assassination, that Netanyahu "...knew what was coming and accepted it." Furthermore the documentary often returned to interviewees making obviously hostile telepathic statements about Netanyahu's inner workings like Marvin Kalb, who stated "what kind of objectivity could this man (Netanyahu) bring." Like Shavit, who alleged that Netanyahu has a "fortress mentality" about Israel, and who compared Barak Obama to sanctified political figures like Nelson Mandela, but who, in discussing Netanyahu's alleged "pessimism" couldn't bring himself to compare Netanyahu to any similarly commendable illustrative historical figure, for example Winston Churchill.

There were also numerous specific problems with content. To begin with, "Palestinians" were not displaced by the 1967 war, as the disputed territories were then controlled by Jordan and Egypt. There was no country of Palestine then, nor has there ever been such a country. In fact up until 1964 the Arabs steadfastly insisted that there was no such entity as "Palestine," and that the Arab residents of Judea and Samaria were indistinguishable from the Arabs of the surrounding Arab countries.

Furthermore, Saeb Erekat was allowed to claim disingenuously that prior to Oslo both sides "knew nothing but to shoot." The documentary did not point out that in 1967, Israel offered to withdraw from Judea, Samaria, and the Gaza Strip in return for peace, an offer which was spurned by the Arabs in favor of continuing violent efforts to destroy Israel. So it wasn't both sides that knew nothing but to shoot, it was one side, and that side continues to this day to engage in endless violence against Israeli civilians.

Martin Indyk was permitted to lie by claiming he sat next to Netanyahu at Rabin's funeral, and that Netanyahu's primary focus at that event supposedly was his own political fortunes. Yet photographs of that funeral circulating today make it clear that Indyk was not sitting anywhere near Netanyahu, and therefore could not possibly have overheard anything Netanyahu said.

Ari Shavit was permitted to lie about the outbreak of the Second Intifada by falsely claiming "...Boom! It exploded...", when in fact subsequent interviews with several of Arafat's minions revealed that this round of violence was planned months in advance by Arafat, who wished to torpedo any peaceful process or resolution of the conflict.

The myth of spontaneous Palestinian violence was further intoned by Diana Buttu, the former PLO negotiator, when even cursory examination of Palestinian media and leadership statements on a daily basis reveals violent incitement and murderous antisemitic slurs that would be completely at home in Nazi Germany. The documentary failed to mention this incitement or examine its role in fomenting violence.

The documentary opened its discussion of Israel's legitimate war of self defense in Gaza in 2008-9 by completely failing to reference the cause of the war, to wit, unceasing attacks by Hamas. Instead the only exploration of that event was a discussion of Israeli "...targeting..." of Palestinians, and the only pictures shown were of horrified or grieving Palestinians. Where were, for example, any pictures of terrified residents of southern Israel in shelters, under attack by Hamas terrorists?

The documentary focused on the allegedly "outrageous" behavior of Netanyahu in lecturing Obama in the Oval Office in 2011, while giving relatively short shrift to the truly offensive conduct of the Obama Administration in springing an important policy change detrimental to Israel's national interests - advocating a return to the 1967 Armistice Lines as a starting point for negotiations, instead of maintaining the decades long American and Israeli positions that borders will arise out of negotiations, not precede them - on Netanyahu the day before he was to arrive in Washington for a scheduled visit. Unfortunately the documentary didn't cover this diplomatic history, which made this Obama Administration pronouncement so problematic.

The documentary focused on what it mistakenly represented as an exaggerated, overblown response by Netanyahu to the egregiously flawed deal with Iran, while papering over the actual problems with this deal which justified Netanyahu's anguish. The documentary went so far as to permit Martin Indyk to state in hyperbolic fashion that Netanyahu was "no longer rational" in his attempts to articulate the problems with the flawed Iran deal.

Yet these problems are now becoming all too evident as Iran flouts the international community by testing prohibited missiles, while threatening to terminate this deal every time it is called to account for its aggressive behavior, which recently included firing missiles near American Navy ships. And permitting Indyk to sling mud in this fashion, without permitting an opposing view to be voiced - i.e., it wasn't Netanyahu who was being irrational in opposing the deal, it was the Obama Administration's irrationality, short sightedness, and over focus on the President's legacy that led it to conclude a deal that was basically a surrender to Iran - was hardly responsible journalism.

The documentary concluded with the narrator stating that the "violence returned to Israel," without mentioning the cause, as though somehow "the violence" had been away somewhere on vacation. In fact what happened was that Mahmoud Abbas and other Palestinian propagandists launched a series of dangerous anti-Semitic libels and slanders about Israel and Jews "threatening Al Aksa Mosque," glorifying stabbing and other attacks against Jews, and continue to do so to this very day. They are directly responsible for precipitating the current wave of violence against innocent Israeli civilians, which didn't just "return" despite the failure of the documentary to include these important facts.

So although this documentary did include a modicum of balance at times, a lack of objectivity and a clear bias against PM Netanyahu were in evidence all too often. Frontline should broadcast some corrections of the errors in this documentary, and redouble efforts to cover events in the Middle East or in Israel with a higher degree of objectivity.

Daniel H. Trigoboff, Ph.D.
Williamsville, New York