Tuesday, October 27, 2009

J Street Admits to Part of the Truth

According to the Jerusalem Post, "J Street's university arm has dropped the 'pro-Israel' part of the left-wing US lobby's 'pro-Israel, pro-peace' slogan to avoid alienating students." (See http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1256557968276&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/Printer).

Since J Street has been harshly critical about just about everything Israel does, particularly actions taken to save lives, while pretty much condoning attacks on Israel, it's been pretty obvious Israel is not a Zionist organization.

"Yonatan Shechter, a junior at Hampshire College, said the ultra-liberal Massachusetts campus is inhospitable to terms like 'Zionist' and that when his former organization, the Union of Progressive Zionists (which has been absorbed into J Street U), dropped that last word of its name, 'people were so relieved.'"

Obviously, for the activists at J Street, the term that designates the national liberation of the Jewish people is a dirty word.

"Shechter said that J Street U allows students who support Israel to have an address on his campus, adding that nothing more to the right exists or would be sustainable and the only other Jewish student group 'is decidedly not political... they won't go beyond having felafel on Independence Day.'"

One wonders what address Shechter is talking about, since it obviously isn't J Street U.

"Ben-Ami described his organization's goal as one that includes changing the nature of the debate about Israel in America to one of a big-tent approach where different viewpoints and perspectives were welcomed."

The pro-Israel community already had a big-tent approach, including many different viewpoints and perspectives. It's rather ironic that Ben-Ami can say what he said with a straight face, especially since there doesn't seem to be much room in the J Street tent for the Zionist perspective.

J Street's web site still claims "J Street is the political arm of the pro-Israel, pro-peace movement," an assertion which would be misleading even if J Street was pro-Israel, since the definite article "the" falsely implies other groups, which actually are pro-Israel, are not pro-peace.

Indeed, while Palestinian Arab groups including Hamas and the supposedly "moderate" Fatah proclaim the centrality of armed struggle and one would be hard pressed to come up with a single Palestinian Arab leader who could honestly be described as pro-peace, I've never heard of a single Zionist organization that isn't pro-peace. Indeed, that someone who is pro-Israel is pro-peace is taken for granted.

Also from their web site: "J Street was founded to promote meaningful American leadership to end the Arab-Israeli and Israeli-Palestinian conflicts peacefully and diplomatically. We support a new direction for American policy in the Middle East and a broad public and policy debate about the U.S. role in the region."

It is the greatest desire of all Zionist groups that the entire Arab-Israeli conflict, including the Palestinian Arab portion of that conflict, be settled peacefully and diplomatically. The only disagreements regard the best means for achieving that goal. Unfortunately, J Street's prescription is to strengthen the counterproductive elements of American policy, to pressure Israel to make unreciprocated concessions which have in the past only fed Arab intransigence and made the conflict more intractable. If an organization were to be judged by the likely outcome of its agenda rather than its stated goals, J Street would have to be judged as anti-peace.

If anything, American policy needs to be changed to impress upon the Arabs that they need to come to terms with the reality of Israel, end their reliance on war and terror and negotiate in good faith, matching already immense Israeli concessions with at least minimal concessions of their own.

Finally, also from its web site: "J Street represents Americans, primarily but not exclusively Jewish, who support Israel and its desire for security as the Jewish homeland, as well as the right of the Palestinians to a sovereign state of their own - two states living side-by-side in peace and security. We believe ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is in the best interests of Israel, the United States, the Palestinians, and the region as a whole."

This is a statement which reflects the policies of virtually every pro-Israel organization.

Were J Street truly driven by the goals it professes to favor, it would disband, recognizing there are already many pro-Israel organizations working towards those goals whose effectiveness can only be compromised by by a new organization whose words and actions are antithetical to those goals.

Tuesday, October 20, 2009

Bob Hope Shows Up Alive and Hilarious in Iran

An analysis of an article posted by the Fars News Agency, Ahmadinejad, Erdogan Discuss Campaign against Terrorism, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan must be comedians.

According to the article, during a phone conversation between the two, Ahmadinejad said "Campaign against terrorism would yield fruit only through the presence and joint cooperation of the regional states" while Erdogan emphasized "Turkey is fully ready to render cooperation in the fight against the terrorists in the region."

Given that Iran is probably the world's top supporter of terrorism, being a prime supplier of Hamas, Hezbollah and other terror groups, while Erdogan used Israeli measures taken to stop rockets from being launched at civilians as an excuse to destroy a de facto alliance while siding with the terrorists, one can only conclude they are trying to humor the rest of the world.

Unfortunately, as a comedy sketch, this one's a turkey.

Monday, October 19, 2009

Jimmy Carter Acknowledges Jerusalem Isn't Holy to Islam

Hidden in Jimmy Carter's heavily biased book, "The blood of Abraham: insights into the Middle East," is an acknowledgement that Jerusalem isn't a holy city for Muslims.

The peanut farmer doesn't explicitly write it in so many words, but that's the clear meaning of the following from Carter's book:

"Damascus and then Baghdad and other cities became the dominant centers and Arabia was relegated to a mere province, its remaining importance being as the site of the two holy cities of Islam, Mecca and Medina."

Carter didn't write "two of the holy cities of Islam" or even "two of the three holy cities of Islam;" he clearly acknowledges there are really only two truly holy cities in Islam, Mecca and Medina. Jerusalem simply isn't on the radar.

This is one of a number of instances of Carter accidentally telling the truth and undermining his own basic anti-Israel message.

It's no accident that Jerusalem isn't mentioned in the Koran; it's just not important for Muslims.

One of the litmus tests for recognizing when the Arabs are ever getting serious about living together in peace is when they stop insisting on the redivision of Israel's capital, a city they have always ignored when it hasn't been controlled by those they consider infidels.

UK Commander Challenges Goldstone Report

This is available in several places and a video may be viewed on the UN Watch web site, but it's important enough we feel it should get as wide exposure as possible.

UN Watch Oral Statement

Delivered by Colonel Richard Kemp, 16 October 2009

UN Human Rights Council: 12th Special Session

Thank you, Mr. President.

I am the former commander of the British forces in Afghanistan. I served with NATO and the United Nations; commanded troops in Northern Ireland, Bosnia and Macedonia; and participated in the Gulf War. I spent considerable time in Iraq since the 2003 invasion, and worked on international terrorism for the UK Government's Joint Intelligence Committee.

Mr. President, based on my knowledge and experience, I can say this: During Operation Cast Lead, the Israeli Defence Forces did more to safeguard the rights of civilians in a combat zone than any other army in the history of warfare.

Israel did so while facing an enemy that deliberately positioned its military capability behind the human shield of the civilian population.

Hamas, like Hizballah, are expert at driving the media agenda. Both will always have people ready to give interviews condemning Israeli forces for war crimes. They are adept at staging and distorting incidents.

The IDF faces a challenge that we British do not have to face to the same extent. It is the automatic, Pavlovian presumption by many in the international media, and international human rights groups, that the IDF are in the wrong, that they are abusing human rights.

The truth is that the IDF took extraordinary measures to give Gaza civilians notice of targeted areas, dropping over 2 million leaflets, and making over 100,000 phone calls. Many missions that could have taken out Hamas military capability were aborted to prevent civilian casualties. During the conflict, the IDF allowed huge amounts of humanitarian aid into Gaza. To deliver aid virtually into your enemy's hands is, to the military tactician, normally quite unthinkable. But the IDF took on those risks.

Despite all of this, of course innocent civilians were killed. War is chaos and full of mistakes. There have been mistakes by the British, American and other forces in Afghanistan and in Iraq, many of which can be put down to human error. But mistakes are not war crimes.

More than anything, the civilian casualties were a consequence of Hamas' way of fighting. Hamas deliberately tried to sacrifice their own civilians.

Mr. President, Israel had no choice apart from defending its people, to stop Hamas from attacking them with rockets.

And I say this again: the IDF did more to safeguard the rights of civilians in a combat zone than any other army in the history of warfare.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Sunday, October 18, 2009

Know Thine Enemies: The Peanut Farmer's Fables

We thank Tundra Tabloids for the photo of Saudi Arabia's lackey.

I'd never been enamored of Jimmy Carter's forays into the Arab-Israeli conflict, believing the peace treaty between Egypt and Israel came about despite, not because of, the peanut farmer's intervention.

When Sadat announced his readiness to go to Jerusalem, Carter's Administration reacted with dismay, since it destroyed Carter's dream of putting together multilateral Geneva conference that at best would have been counterproductive.

Had Carter simply brooded and stayed away, Sadat's visit would have been followed by face-to-face negotiations and a peace treaty between the parties that might have actually been observed in spirit by Egypt. Instead, Carter injected himself between Egypt and Israel, encouraged Sadat to be intransigent while pressuring Israel, subverting the process, leading to a peace which is at best cold and creating dynamics which froze real progress.

I read Carter's error-filled apartheid screed, but had never read his earlier book, "The Blood of Abraham," published in 1985, until I saw it in the library recently. (I certainly didn't want to buy a copy and contribute to Carter's royalties.)

I read "The Blood of Abraham" hoping to get more insight into the sources of Carter's anti-semitism. I gained no more insight into that, but certainly saw lots of evidence of Carter's skewed perspectives. There's clearly something sick in the mind of someone who not only likes Anwar Sadat and King Hussein while hating Menachem Begin, but also loves the Saudi royal family and Hafez Assad and seems to admire Yasser Arafat.

It's astounding that Carter devotes a chapter to the Palestinian Arabs and barely mentions terrorism and devotes a chapter to Saudi Arabia and doesn't as much as hint at the brutal oppression of women.

It is interesting that Carter's own words sometimes betray the misconceptions he tries to promulgate. For example, he tries to portray the Saudis as benevolent peace-seekers, but writes "Although the Saudis look upon Israel as a disturbing irritant that might ultimately be removed, in the meantime they would probably give tacit support to a peace arrangement based on U.N. Resolution 242 or the Fez declaration."

In other words, Carter recognizes that for the Arabs a peace agreement would really be a tactic used if they felt it could further their goal of destroying Israel, but he chooses to ignore that reality.

Also, while repeatedly implying Israel has to totally withdraw from every inch of territory it captured in 1967, and ignoring the fact that all this territory, including portions of Jerusalem, had been illegally occupied by Egypt and Jordan prior to 1967, along with the fact that no part of Jerusalem had ever been designated for the Arabs, he contradicts himself when he rightly points out "The Arabs must acknowledge openly and specifically that Israel is a reality and has a right to exist in peace, behind secure and recognized borders."

The armistice lines from 1948 could certainly never qualify as secure borders, so Carter, in agreement with Security Council Resolution 242, tacitly recognizes secure borders need to be negotiated. Until that happens, something the Arabs have continued to refuse to let happen, all the captured territories remain disputed and Israel has as much right to them as any other party.

Perhaps one of the most typical examples of the distorted prejudice in Carter's view comes at the start of the next-to-last paragraph: "Many Israelis, like their neighbors, are eagerly seeking a measure of normalized existence."

The false implication is that the Arabs want a normal existence but are prevented from attaining one by the obstruction of the Israelis, but there are a handful of Israelis who share the aspirations of their peaceful Arab neighbors and peace could be achieved if only that handful of Israelis could convince their brethren to join them.

The truth, as it is so frequently, is virtually the opposite of Carter's implication. The primary goal of Zionism is to be able to live a normal existence in their homeland, but the Arabs have fought violently from the beginning to prevent that.

I would recommend Carter's book to those who wish to better understand this leading opponent of the Jewish state, but don't expect to gain much understanding for the source of Carter's hatred. Please, however, don't buy this book.

Friday, October 9, 2009

Comment & Analysis: More Lies and False Accusations Against Israel

The University of Connecticut Daily Campus published a typically irresponsibly biased and factually challenged op-ed on Friday, October 9, "Apartheid is alive and well in the state of Israel."

It is so slanted and error-filled that primerprez put together this "Comment & Analysis," with each comment being a quote from the article and each analysis referring to that quote.

The Daily Campus accepts letters sent to . The writer's Linkedin profile may be found at <>.

Comment & Analysis


In Israel there is a concrete wall 25 feet high sealing off the occupied Palestinian territories from the rest of Israel.

Its gates are guarded by heavily armed Israeli soldiers, and very few Palestinians are permitted to leave the West Bank or Gaza.


In the plans for the complete security barrier, designed to prevent Arab terrorists from setting off bombs in shopping centers, pizza parlors and discotheques, roughly 97 percent is made up of chain link fence and only about 3 percent is made of concrete. The concrete is required in urban areas and those close to roadways where Arab snipers would otherwise easily be able to shoot at civilians through a chain link fence.

In criticizing the existence of the security barrier, the writer is implicitly rejecting the notion of an independent Palestinian Arab state. Inherent in the concept of sovereignty is the existence of borders beyond which citizens may not go without the permission of the sovereign on the other side of the border.


Within the walls, Palestinians are isolated from all economic trade or political representation with the outside, while still being held under the authority of Israel.


Roughly 95 percent of the Arabs in the disputed territories live under their own Palestinian Authority, not Israeli rule.


They are alienated in poverty while their patrons bask in prosperity, with military might just a stones-throw over the wall.


See above. The Palestinian Arabs in the territories have lived under their own government since the mid-1990's. During that time, their condition has worsened because they chose to build up a terror infrastructure rather than create a state living in peace with its neighbors.


This condition of apartheid causes those born Palestinian in Israel is to be denied dignity, freedom or security.


Even Jimmy Carter doesn't libel Israel by falsely claiming there is apartheid in Israel, where the Arabs citizens live together with full rights, equal to those of their Jewish neighbors.


The few Palestinians that can travel freely through the checkpoints must obtain papers from the Israeli government.

These permits require having a pre-existing relationship established with an Israeli outside the wall that sponsors them. For many Palestinians, attempting to get one of these permits is like befriending one's captor. They would rather stay behind the wall and maintain the only dignity that they have left: not selling out to the Israelis.


Israel, like all sovereign states, has the right to determine who will be permitted in its territory. Given the massive amounts of terrorism it has suffered from Palestinian Arabs it has let enter, Israel obviously has to exhibit due diligence.


Outside the walls, Israelis continue to build settlements on land that the United Nations has continually declared as Palestinian.


Israel has not built any new settlements in more than a decade, despite the fact that it has as much if not more legal, moral and historical right to the disputed territories as the Palestinian Arabs.

United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 calls for the negotiation of secure and recognized borders, something the Palestinian Arabs have refused. Until they do, none of that territory can legitimately be considered Palestinian.


The Palestinians are powerless to resist. Their sticks and stones are no match for the advanced military might of the Israeli Defense Forces.


The Arab terrorists also have enormous fire power, including Kassam and Grad rockets, provided by Iran, Syria and other rogue supporters. Israel has shown amazing restraint in the face of enormous provocation.


The international community continues to demand that Israel not allow continued settlements, but even as recently as yesterday, Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Liberman insisted that no peace agreement is possible.


What Lieberman actually said was "Whoever says that it's possible to reach in the coming years a comprehensive agreement that means the end of conflict, that both sides sign up to the end of conflict, simply does not understand the reality. He is spreading illusions and in the end brings only disappointment and drags us into comprehensive confrontation." (See .)

This is obviously true, for many reasons, primarily related to the unwillingness and the inability of the fractured Palestinian Authority to make peace. The so-called "moderate" leader of the West Bank branch of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas, isn't even willing to negotiate with Israel.


Israel has continually stalled, sabotaged and made a mockery of negotiations with the Palestinian Authority and legitimate steps to peace. Israel's continual premise is their own security.


Israel has offered the Palestinian Arabs virtually all of the disputed territories, including parts of its own capital. The Arabs, unfortunately, have refused all offers and today refuse to even negotiate.


They keep millions of Palestinians behind walls cut off from almost any form of upward mobility or political representation, kill hundreds of them every year at checkpoints and then take the position that the burden of a peace agreement lies entirely on the Palestinians.


This repeats false allegations refuted above.


Some Palestinians turn to political violence in desperation. The vast majority are acquiescent, taking life one day at a time and attempting to ignore their bleak futures. They go from checkpoint to checkpoint, from gun barrel to gun barrel, asking only to live.


The writer reverses cause and effect. The checkpoints and the security barrier are responses to waves of Arab terror directed at innocent Israeli civilians.


They hope that one day Israel will allow them to exist; that one day there will not be roads that Palestinians are not allowed on; that one day being Palestinian will not exclude them from citizenship.


More repetition of already refuted allegations. Israel has offered the Palestinian Arabs their own state on land including almost all the disputed territory. Arabs in Israel have full citizenship now.

Ironically, it is the Palestinian Arabs who insist that their future state, if they ever agree to establish it, will be free of Jews.


Yet, the world does nothing.


Actually, the world gives disproportionate and undeserved attention to the Palestinian Arabs, effectively perpetuating their plight by giving them hope of destroying Israel rather than trying to get them to accept reality and agree to live in peace.


The United States continues to give more than six billion dollars of military aid to Israel every year since the 1970s. Almost every bullet and bomb fired at Palestinians is paid for by American tax payers.


The writer exaggerates the amount of assistance given to Israel by a factor greater than 2. Our current assistance is only about $2.4 billion per year and over the next ten years is scheduled to average just half of what the writer asserts.


Yes, apartheid is alive and well in the state of Israel.


Already refuted. The Arabs in Israel have full citizenship with equal rights.


Israel has no plans to negotiate a settlement with the Palestinian Authority.


Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has repeatedly called for negotiations without preconditions; the Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas refuses to negotiate.


It will continue to develop communities on Palestinian territory, cage the Palestinians behind walls and repulse every form of pressure to negotiate a settlement until the Palestinians cannot even remember a time when they were once equal citizens.


See above.


The United States will continue to pour military power and support into Israel because of its stabilizing force on the region.


As the only democracy in the region and the only outpost of Western values, Israel is indeed a stabilizing force whose existence and prosperity is in our interest.


Palestinian independence and reform in Arab countries threatens the balance of power, and hence American ability to influence oil trade in our favor.


There are already dozens of Arab states in the region, all of them dictatorships, authoritarian or monarchies. One more will have little effect on American interests. President George W. Bush promoted reform in the Arab countries, but met great resistance.

The price of oil was close to $10 per barrel shortly before the inauguration of the Bush administration; it has since spiraled to over $140 per barrel and now stands at about $70 per barrel. America clearly has little ability to influence oil trade in our favor.

The clear American need is to promote alternative sources and become independent of Arab-controlled oil supplies and in that way end a situation where the repressive Arab regimes wield enormous power over American foreign policy, to the detriment of America and our friends and allies.

Wednesday, October 7, 2009

Ethan Bronner and השמיניסטים - Demonstrating the Difference

October 6 was an interesting day in Connecticut. I went to two different programs related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, one a typical anti-Israel program at Central Connecticut State University and the other hosted by the Greenberg Center for Judaic Studies at the University of Hartford. The contrast illuminated the differences between those who are pro-Israel and those who are anti-Israel and the reasons why anti-Israel is a far more accurate description than pro-Palestinian.

The day after these two programs, my wife and I had some friends over to look at the Alan Dershowitz "The Case for Israel" video. One of the questions a friend asked brought the contrast further into focus and led to some thinking about encouraging people to recognize the need to treat the assertions of the Israel-haters with a healthy degree of skepticism.

The program at CCSU was organized by Jewish defamers of Israel and featured Israeli defamers of Israel. The speakers were Maya Wind and Netta Mishly, shown in the photo, two "Shministim" on an anti-Israel tour of the United States.

They showed an incredible naivete and eagerness to accept and spread the lies and distortions about Israel which are the mainstay of those trying to destroy the only free and democratic state in the MIddle East.

The Shministim are a small group of disenchanted high school seniors who wrote a disgraceful letter in 2008 declaring their unwillingness to serve in the Israeli army and defend their fellow Israelis, including their own families, from brutal Arab terror attacks.

Wind and Mishly are now touring America and promoting anti-Israel activity. In a way, they are poster children for why Israel deserves our support: they are effectively traitors, promoting the war against Israel. Most countries would probably throw them in jail, but Israel is so liberal they are free to work against their own country during a war and suffer nothing more than the well deserved disdain of their saner countrymen. They found a willing audience at CCSU, where many naive students have already been misled by a group of irresponsible faculty.

Their presentation was a combination of distortions, baseless accusations and outright falsehoods. In this, they were abetted by the anti-Israel moderator, who also did his best to stifle any expressions of skepticism.

One example: After the presentation, there was time for questions and answers along with statements from those in the audience. The moderator explained the questions/comments would be restricted to a minute per person, a restriction that was ignored as the first few people he called on did their best to reinforce the misrepresentations in the presentations.

I was actually surprised when he recognized me. I briefly talked about one forcefully stated but clearly false assertion: One of the presenters had talked about the Green Line being an "internationally recognized border" that was recognized by every country in the world but two, the United States and Israel. I pointed out the Green Line clearly was no such "border," noting the armistice agreements clearly stated they were not borders and United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 called for the negotiation of borders, something that obviously would be unnecessary if borders already existed.

I then referred to the way Israel had completely left Gaza to the Palestinian Authority only to have the Arabs there launch thousands of missiles at Israeli citizens, a situation no country can accept.

When one of the presenters responded by insisting there was an occupation of Gaza even if there were no soldiers in Gaza and that Israel blockaded Gaza, I tried to point out that Gaza also shared a border with Egypt and that arrangements had been made with the European Union to assure supplies reaching Gaza, but the moderator suddenly decided there could be no back-and-forth discussion -- after he had permitted such discussion as long as it was confined to Israel-bashing.

Later, another person in the audience who was not anti-Israel pointed out some important facts that had been ignored, was asked a question by one of the presenters, and the moderator actually tried to prevent the participant from answering the question!

If one was naive, one might expect the program put on by a Center for Judaic Studies to be a mirror-image, with the pro-Israel positions supported by lies and distortions and the anti-Israel positions stifled. But, contrary to the mantra of Jimmy Carter and his ilk, supporters of Israel are not afraid of the truth and don't feel the need to censor opposing viewpoints.

The program featured a single speaker, Ethan Bronner, the Jerusalem Bureau Chief for The New York Times.

Bronner has been criticized by some as being biased against Israel. My impression, based on his speech rather than his articles, is that if he did not feel bound by journalistic ethics he would be accepted as a moderately dovish supporter of Israel.

A major theme of his speech was that partisans of the Arab-Israeli conflict tried to paint things in black-and-white but reality is mostly grey. He would take an assertion or position from one side and balance it with one from the other side, invariably giving each both equal weight and treating each as if they were equally valid or invalid.

There were some items he mentioned which a knowledgeable listener would recognize showed the asymmetry of the conflict, showing the unwillingness of the Arabs to accept the existence of Israel no matter how forthcoming Israel was, but that required inferences derived by the listener.

One example was the way the Palestinian Arabs, even the so-called moderates, insist there has never been any Jewish connection to Jerusalem!

An intelligent, impartial observer who listened to Bronner's speech out of context, without an introduction pointing out its connection to the Greenberg Center for Judaic Studies and without understanding the asymmetry between the reasonableness of the pro-Israel community and the unreasonableness of the anti-Israel community would probably have thought it was hosted by an organization with no emotional tie to the conflict.

Unfortunately, this asymmetry does a disservice both to Israel, to the pursuit of truth and to the pursuit of peace.

Giving equal weight to truth and false distorts the truth. Always trying to find a middle ground between the outrageous, uncompromising demands of the Arabs and the already moderate proposals of Israel encourages the Arabs in their intransigence. (This was one of the fatal flaws leading to the disastrous failure of the Oslo Experiment .)

In "The Case for Israel," Dershowitz describes himself as pro-Israel, but also pro-Palestine and pointed out that if one divided a population into supporters of Israel and supporters of the Palestinian Arabs, most of the supporters of Israel would also be pro-Palestine but almost all the supporters of the Palestinian Arabs would be anti-Israel.

In other words, the conflict is between one side (Israel) which wants to live in peace with its neighbor and another side (the Palestinian Arabs) that wants to live without its neighbor. Choosing a middle ground between such adversaries is inherently unfair to the reasonable side.

There is a similar asymmetry between the ways the advocates of the two sides present their positions. The contrast between the programs at CCSU and the University of Hartford illustrates that contrast.

The supporters of Israel strive for balance and try to make their case based on the truth while recognizing the concerns and needs of the Palestinian Arabs. The anti-Israel activists, perhaps out of necessity, ride roughshod over the truth and do their best to stifle any efforts to inject reality balance.

The question a friend asked after viewing "The Case for Israel" was how could she get her friends to recognize those in that video were telling the truth.

Supporters of Israel generally try to stick to a positive message, pointing out the shared values of America and Israel, the democratic nature of Israel and the sacrifices and compromises it has made in pursuit of peace. They generally try to trust in the intelligence of people leading them to recognize the justice in the case for Israel and the lies and distortions of the Israel-haters.

This may be a little too naive. Perhaps supporters of Israel have to be more active in pointing out the lies and distortions of the Israel-haters.

There is the general tendency of people who listen to two views to believe the truth lies somewhere in the middle. That's generally the case, but not when it comes to the Arab-Israeli conflict.