Under Siege, from Israel's Riviera (#2 of 4)

(Published May 23, 2021) 

Waterbury Republican-American

Media bias pervades Israeli airwaves

BY ALAN STEIN

I was supposed to play tennis Friday morning, May 14, the day after I had to leave Winter Pond Park in Netanya because the Israeli army was coming to retrieve debris from a Hamas rocket that had landed in the pond. (According to our friends who live near it, the park was open again on May 14, filled with people as if nothing had happened there, but was again closed on Saturday, "because of the security situation.") One of the many things I loved about Waterbury was living just a few blocks from the public tennis courts at Fulton Park. I could walk over to them in about five minutes, and they were free. I have to drive to the courts I use in Netanya, which are about 5 miles away and even closer to Gaza than Winter Pond Park. This made my wife so nervous, she couldn't sleep Thursday night, so to calm her down, I agreed to skip playing and found myself sending a WhatApp to my partner at 4 a.m., telling her I couldn't play. That calmed my wife down, but then I couldn't sleep anymore, and wound up checking email and watching the news.

News is a big thing in Israel. I'm at a disadvantage because I'm not fluent enough to understand the news in Hebrew, whether on television or in newspapers. But we have plenty of news networks in English on cable, including CNN, Fox, BBC, Sky News, France24, MSNBC, DW News (from Germany), Euronews, CGTN (Chinese Global Television Network) and i24 (from Israel). I find all of them heavily biased and often cannot watch any one of them for more than five minutes before switching to another.

One morning the previous week, I stopped switching when I hit CNN and caught an interview of Israeli Knesset (parliament) member Naftali Bennett by Becky Anderson. I've gotten a little jaded, especially regarding the blatant anti-Israel bias pervading so much of the media today, but even I was astounded by Anderson's rudeness and truculence.

I suggest watching the whole interview, which may be found at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v =YUASDZhUVuU with the transcript at https://transcripts.cnn.com /TRANSCRIPTS/2105/12/ctw.02 .html.

One particularly telling exchange occurs at the 3:20 mark. Here's the official CNN transcript of what Anderson said at that point, although the transcript doesn't refer to her smirk, or the unprofessional nastiness and hostility in her voice: ANDERSON: Sir, the U.N. is (sic) called on Israel to "Respect international humanitarian law," which stipulates airstrikes should only be directed at military objectives. How can any strikes on Gaza which is such a densely populated area be targeted at military sites only? It doesn't suggest that Israel is respecting international law or that perhaps will you admit that these airstrikes have been indiscriminate? Consider that carefully. She's arguing that it's a violation of international law for Israel to do anything to protect its citizens from the thousands of rockets Palestinian terrorists are launching at them! Bennett responded with his own question: "Perhaps you suggest that we just lay back, let them shoot rockets at us not shoot back because they're hiding the rockets behind women and children. Would you do that, Becky?" Anderson quickly changed the subject.

In her defense, she has plenty of company. Justices of the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court have blatantly and deliberately misinterpreted international law to misuse it against Israel, as has the United Nations General Assembly and members of the United Nations Security Council. It makes Israelis justifiably feel paranoid.

The good news: Anderson's hostile question can be used to defend Israel when one of those agencies inevitably tries to lynch Israel in another kangaroo court.

More anon.

Alan Stein was a longtime resident of Waterbury, where he taught in the Mathematics Department of the University of Connecticut for 37 years. During that period, he was active in the Jewish community and the general community. After retiring from UConn, he and his wife Marsha began spending the cold months in Israel and the warm months in Massachusetts, where their daughter resides.

Under Siege, from Israel's Riviera (#1 of 4)

(A version of this was published in the Waterbury Republican-American on May 19, 2021. This was the first of a series of four send during and immediately after the Hamas rocket war. Three were published. All four are being posted here.) 

Under Siege, from Israel's Riviera

Alan Stein

After becoming Israel's prime minister in the midst of the Palestinian Arab terror offensive known as the second intifada, Ariel Sharon famously said "What you see from here you don't see from there."

Sitting in my living room in Netanya and observing the American media write about the current Palestinian Arab terror offensive centered around the massive launching of rockets at Israeli cities and towns, I could express exactly the same sentiments. In fact, a few days ago, I experienced something "here" that I would never experience "there."

I was in a park in Netanya, called Winter Pond Park because it has what passes for a pond, albeit only in the winter, in water-challenged Israel. I was with a friend, riding our bikes around the pond, the way one might ride around the twin ponds in Fulton Park. While taking a short break, we were told we had to leave: the Home Front Command had ordered the park closed because of the rockets Hamas was raining down on Israel.

I found out a little more the next day. I had and still feel relatively safe in Netanya. We're generally not the target of rocket attacks and I'm told the bomb shelter just outside the door to our apartment has never been used for anything other than to store junk. But it turns out the park was closed so the army could come in and retrieve rocket debris that had landed in the pond after the Iron Dome had intercepted it. That also answered the question of why friends had asked if I'd heard a siren or a boom the other night. I hadn't, but the siren was the "Red Alert," the warning to quickly get to a bomb shelter - in Netanya, we have 90 seconds, far more time than the 15 seconds afforded people living near Gaza - and the boom was the sound of the Iron Dome intercepting the rocket.

Without realizing it, I'd experienced my first rocket attack, something I had never dreamed of experiencing while living in Waterbury.

It's also something Ariel Sharon believed he would be putting an end to when he took Israel completely out of Gaza in 2005, giving Palestinian Arabs complete control of territory and their own lives for the first time in their brief history. 

Hamas and other terror groups in Gaza had been launching rockets at Israel for a few years, learning how Saddam Hussein had increased his popularity among Palestinian Arabs by launching SCUD missiles at Jerusalem, Tel Aviv and other Israeli cities in 1991 during the Gulf War. Sharon believed pulling out of Gaza would take away any conceivable excuse for Hamas to continue its terror attacks. He also expected the rest of the world would be shocked if the rockets kept coming and support Israel when it had to defend itself. Instead, with the Palestinian Arabs in complete control of Gaza, Hamas expanded its importation and production of terror rockets, has launched tens of thousands at Israeli civilians, and the world has harshly criticized Israel every time it has done anything to protect its people.

Consider the following analogy:

Rhode Island has a government dedicated to the destruction of Connecticut. The people there have been attacking Connecticut Yankees for a century and have launched tens of thousands of rockets at Connecticut over the last decade. In the last few days alone, it has launched a thousand rockets at Connecticut (roughly the same number, per capita, that Hamas has launched at Israel in the last few days).

Think about what you would expect your government, led by Prime Minister Ned Lamont, to do.

Now suppose your government tried to stop the barrage of rockets by having its defense forces use precision guided weapons to target the terrorists launching the rockets and their facilities. Being among the most moral forces in the world, it did its best to avoid harming any civilians in Rhode Island - a difficult task because the terrorists in Rhode Island used women and children as human shields, stored its rockets and other weapons in homes, schools and hospitals, and its leaders even set up their main command post in the basement of a hospital. But Connecticut's defense forces actually gave warnings before attacking those facilities, in order to give innocent people plenty of time to avoid being harmed, even though it also gave the terrorists time to escape.

Now imagine that, instead of the world praising Connecticut, your government was almost universally condemned, urged to "de-escalate" - even as rockets continued to rain down on Hartford, New Haven, Stamford and Waterbury - and a special session of the United Nations Security Council was convened to condemn and put pressure on Connecticut.

Think about what your reaction would be. It may give you an idea of how Israelis are feeling right now.

The Claim that Israeli Jews are Colonialists

By Barry Leonard Werner

Let's talk about the claim that the Israeli Jews are colonialists who invaded and took Palestine away from the Palestinians. 

The Roman Empire turned Judea, which was the country of the Jews, into a Roman province in 6 CE. Judea staged major revolts against the Roman Empire twice. The second revolt, in 132–136 CE, started well. Then the Roman Empire brought in six full legions with auxiliaries and elements from up to six additional legions and exiled the Jews from their land. The Roman Empire also changed the name of the land to Syria Palaestina because Palestina was the name of an ancient biblical enemy of the Jews. Although the Roman Empire eventually allowed Jews to return, the land continued to be called by its new name. To Christians and Jews, the land was also called the Holy Land. 

There was never an Arab country called Palestine. The land now called Palestine was a part of the Ottoman Empire until WWI. The lands in which Arabs lived in the Ottoman Empire had no country-like divisions except Egypt, a country with a long history. 

After WWI, the British had the Mandate to administer the Palestine area, and the Jews there called themselves Palestinians. In 1948, when Israel became a state, the Jews called themselves Israelis, and only the Arabs called themselves Palestinians. 

The Jews were not colonialists who invaded to take Palestine away from the Palestinians. Consider the history. 

Before 1800, the land we call Palestine was so poor it could support very few people. The Ottoman Empire didn't even bother to count the number of people living there. Many of the people were Bedouin nomads, and it would have been too hard to count them even if the Ottomans tried to. 

In the 1800s, the Ottoman Empire realized they had to ask Europeans to help them modernize. Part of the deal was to allow Europeans to live in the Holy Land for the first time since the Crusades. Most Europeans who came to the Holy Land were Christians, and they built grand churches and monasteries. Some of the Europeans who came were Jews.

By the mid to late 1800s, the economy of Palestine grew considerably. Many Arabs from around the Ottoman Empire came to work for the Europeans. The few Arab families who lived there before 1800 and the many Arab families who moved there to work for the Europeans after 1800 now call themselves native Palestinians with a Palestinian history that goes back thousands of years. The people who claim that the Israeli Jews colonized Arab Palestinian land recount history starting at around 1900 when the Arab population of Palestine was greater than that of the Jews. 

Jews were experiencing horrible pogroms in Eastern Europe in the 1800s, during the same time Europeans were rebuilding the Holy Land. (Pogroms are violent, often government-inspired, attacks on Jews intended to kill them and intimidate them into leaving. The history of antisemitism in Europe is a whole other story.) European Jews, with the help of Christians, established the Zionist movement in the late 1800s to rescue the Jews of Europe and give them refuge in their ancient homeland, the Holy Land. 

It is important to emphasize that the Zionists were politically progressive. The Zionist program specifically stated that they did not intend to harm the Arabs living there. The Zionists believed that if European Jews moved to Palestine, it would bring prosperity to everyone. Palestine had a lot of sparsely inhabited land that could support the immigrants and the local Arabs if they restored the land. The Zionists expected the Arabs to welcome Jewish immigration, and indeed, some Arab leaders agreed with that idea. But, the main body of the Arabs turned to leaders who violently opposed further Jewish immigration. 

Two groups opposed Zionism. One group was the Muslim religious extremists, who believe that only Muslims should rule because Muslims had conquered the land in the 7th Century. Muslim religious extremists believe God gave them the right to dominate non-Muslims. They opposed the idea of Jews coming to Palestine and becoming a ruling majority. 

The other group, the Arabists, believed that only Arabs are allowed to rule because Arabs had conquered the land in the 7th Century. Arabists are racists against non-Arabs. (There is a long history to this form of racism.) Since the Arabists were willing to allow Christian Arabs to rule alongside Muslim Arabs, the Christian missionaries in the Middle East supported the Arabists. The Christian missionaries considered the movement to be a legitimate form of Arab Nationalism. (Nationalism was a progressive concept in Europe in those days. The Ottoman Empire had allowed Christian missionaries to convert Christian Arabs to Western forms of Christianity in the 1800s.)

First, the Arabs united behind the Arabists, especially under President Gamal Abdel Nasser of Egypt. But when the Arabists failed to destroy Israel, they united behind the religious extremists, like the Muslim Brotherhood. The religious extremists were also unable to destroy Israel, but they are still trying. The PLO has its roots in Arabism, and Hamas has its roots in the Muslim Brotherhood. But even the PLO uses religious rioting as a political tool. 

Radical Islamists claim the Jews of Isreal are responsible for the violence in Palestine and ask the Muslims of the world to defend them from the Jews. But in reality, they want the Muslims of the world to help them kill the Jews. 

Radical Islamists are trying to take over the Muslim world. Their version of Islam is not the same religion as that of most Muslims of the world. It leads to such perversions as ISIS and Boko Haram. They are spreading their influence in Africa and Asia and recruiting Muslims worldwide into their jihad. The Western world recognizes their authority over the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza and even wants to officially recognize a state for them, thinking that this will satisfy them. 

Radical Islamists have a lot of money. Wealthy religious fanatics in the Persian Gulf region and other rich religious fanatics worldwide support them. One way they use their wealth is to make persuasive propaganda videos targeting Muslims worldwide. 

Radical Islamists seek out Muslims whether they go to their mosques or not. They send texts and videos to the Muslims they know and to their children to persuade them to join the global jihad. They give gifts to poor people, and poor Muslims run to them for help. That makes it easy for them to persuade poor Muslims to accept their ideas. 

Unless the moderate Muslim community makes a united effort to stop the extremists, the extremists will recruit jihadis and turn the Muslim world into an enemy of the non-Muslim world. 

The Islamists are also trying to get the non-Muslim Western world to support their jihad against the Jews. They falsely claim that Palestine is an ancient Arab Palestinian country and that the Jews are colonialists who invaded and took their country. And they falsely claim that Israel is an apartheid country, like South Africa used to be. These false claims play to the politics of the Western world, where some people see every global problem as a consequence of Western colonialism. 

Confronting Iran

Confronting Iran

By Barry Leonard Werner

What's worse than fighting a war you don't need to fight is not fighting a war you do need to fight.

I remember when the West, or at least the Western media, sighed a great sigh of relief when they figured out how to rationalize not confronting Iran. Somebody said that they are rational players, and everybody else piled on in agreement. Well, they said that Iran is rational enough to rationally protect its core. And then, the West, or at least the Western media, took that idea to mean that we can make a rational deal with Iran instead of confronting them militarily.

The question is what to do about Iran. People often think in terms of models that they consider to be standards to judge new situations. My model is the appeasement of Hitler before WWII and the late entry into that war by the US. (Maybe the US would not have entered that war at all had it not been that Germany declared war on the US first.) The result of appeasement and non-participation by the US in the subsequent war was that Nazi Germany used the time and resources it thereby gained to construct "Fortress Europe." Every time I hear people lamenting the sacrifices we made on the beaches of Normandy when we were finally forced to invade Fortress Europe, I feel anger at the short-sighted policymakers who allowed Nazi Germany to get so strong. But today, a different model is commonly used. Some people think that the Vietnam war is the model by which to judge new situations. According to modern, "progressive" thinking, we can win no war at all ever, and there are no wars that we should ever fight. A long time ago, that sort of thinking was summarized in the phrase "better Red than dead" to argue that we should not defend ourselves against any possible hostile act by the USSR. 

So what did the US do to keep Iran from getting the bomb anytime soon? We sacrificed millions of human beings in the Middle East who suffered from the evil efforts of Iran to make Shia Islam dominant over Sunni Islam and to destroy Israel, which Iran considers to be an affront to Islam. Americans under president Obama sacrificed many (I don't know how many) of their fellow Americans and people around the world by interfering with the operation of US agents in South America to stop Hezbollah's drug trafficking and other criminal activities. We did that only to appease Iran so that we could get the JCPOA. 

Iran is using nuclear blackmail against us. We think we have to allow them to get away with everything they do so that we can have the JCPOA. Agreeing to that sort of blackmail is wrong. Iran has been given sufficient warning. Iran's intentions are clear. There was a time when we could have bombed the Iranian nuclear weapons and missile program. Perhaps we have given them enough time to harden their nuclear weapons and missile programs against our bombs. If we made that mistake, then the use of sanctions is all that is left unless we physically invade that country. 

Now that Iran has entered into an agreement with China, our situation is even worse. It's only going to get worse, not better. Polite diplomacy is not an option.

Using the JCPOA to keep Iran from getting the bomb anytime soon cost the lives of millions of people in the Middle East, allowed Hezbollah to build its criminal empire, and may have made it impossible for us to eliminate Iran's nuclear weapons facilities with surgical air strikes. And, it only delayed the inevitable confrontation with Iran. So, we should act now to shut down Iran's military ambitions before Iran comes under Chinese protection. 

What's Wrong with Israel's Annexation Plans?

What's Wrong with Israel's Annexation Plans?
By Alan Stein

Variations of this column have been published in the MetroWest Daily News and the Manchester Journal Inquirer.

The first problem with Israel's "annexation" plans is that they have nothing to do with annexation." Annexation applies to the acquisition of territory belonging to another country, which is not the case here. The territory in question, part of what historically was called Judea (in the south) and Samaria (in the north) but was renamed the "West Bank" when it was occupied by Jordan after invading Israel in 1948 and capturing it. Indeed, a strong argument can and has been made by experts in international law that the disputed territory has been sovereign Israeli territory all along.

So, what is actually being considered?

Rather than immediately applying Israeli law to the territory it regained after being attacked again by Jordan in 1967, the Israeli government viewed it as a bargaining chip, offering to give it to Jordan in exchange for peace. Israel set up a military government there and in Gaza, anticipating this artificial arrangement would be short term.

Unfortunately, the Arabs then, like the Palestinian Arabs of today, weren't interested in peace with Israel. Less than three months after the 1967 war, the Arab League met in Khartoum and infamously issued what became known as the "three no's:" no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with Israel and no peace with Israel.

Some of the Jewish families which had been kicked out of their homes by Jordan and Egypt rebuilt them and some Jewish communities returned to Judea and Samaria. A new people, the Palestinians, were created and King Hussein of Jordan renounced any claim to Judea and Samaria. More than a quarter century ago, Israel turned over governance of roughly 95 percent of the Arabs in the disputed territories to the Palestinian Authority and in 2000, 2001 and 2008 offered to give the PA virtually all the disputed territory. Instead of establishing the state the Palestinian Arabs claim they want, the PA effectively revived the infamous three no's of the Arab League and has declared it will never again negotiate directly with Israel.

Meanwhile, the Israeli communities in the disputed territories continue to exist in limbo, subject to the military rule set up in 1967.

All that Israel is really planning is to belatedly end that artificial, temporary situation by applying Israeli law, so that Israelis living in places they'd been kicked out of by Jordan will finally be subject to the laws passed by the Israeli parliament, the Knesset, rather than to military decrees. This is certainly more democratic and cuts down on bureaucracy, since the Israelis living under military rule have double the red tape when dealing with the government.

Concerns have been expressed that if Israel follows through with these changes it will preclude the so-called "two-state solution,"  which has not just been repeatedly rejected by the Palestinian Arabs whom it's designed to benefit, but whose very core concept - two states for two peoples - is something to which Mahmoud Abbas has insisted he will never agree. However, the reality is that nothing Israel does would preclude giving away some of that territory - most of which almost every knowledgeable observer recognizes will remain with Israel under any conceivable peace agreement.

Look at the record.

Israel "annexed" the previously Jordanian-occupied portions of Jerusalem, Israel's capital. Yet that didn't stop at least two prime ministers, Ehud Barak and Ehud Olmert, from offering parts of Jerusalem to the Palestinian Authority.

Israel "annexed" its portion of the Golan Heights. Yet that didn't prevent at least two prime ministers, Yitzhak Rabin and Benjamin Netanyahu, from offering all of the Golan Heights to Syria. 

And, of course, Jordan "annexed" the entire West Bank when it captured it from Israel. Yet King Hussein subsequently renounced all claims to it.

The Trump peace plan envisions Israel giving away other territory that has indisputably been part of Israel since 1948. Yet that plan has been embraced both by Israel's current and future prime ministers, Benjamin Netanyahu and Benny Gantz.

If the Palestinian Arabs ever seriously negotiate with Israel, having portions of the disputed territory being governed by Israeli civilian law will be a non-issue.

In fact, Judea and Samaria have been sovereign Israeli territory since 1948. This is based on at least two separate provisions of international law.

At the San Remo Conference following World War I, the boundaries for territories captured by allies in the war were determined.  The pledges in Britain's Balfour Declaration, calling for a Jewish state in Palestine, were confirmed and later approved by the League of Nations, turning them into international law. They were also incorporated into the founding documents of the United Nations, as successor to the League of Nations. Israel is that Jewish state and the boundaries confirmed at San Remo include all the currently disputed territories and have never been superseded under international law.

Additionally, there is the sacrosanct principle of international law known as uti possidetis juris. Under this principle, when a new state is formed, it retains the internal borders of its previous administrative region. Before Israel was reestablished in 1948, it had been administered by Britain under its League of Nations mandate, all of the western portion of Palestine, including Judea and Samaria, had been treated as a single administrative region, and thus that entire territory legally belonged to Israel.

Regardless of having international law on its side, Israel doesn't want responsibility for the Arabs in the disputed territories. That's why it offered to give them all to Egypt and Jordan in 1967, turned over governance to the Palestinian Authority in 1994 and has repeatedly offered to give the Palestinian Arabs almost all the disputed territory. Any application of Israeli civilian law will not change that and should be treated by others as a non-issue. We should not give the rejectionist Palestinian Authority a veto power over the normalization of life for Israelis living in the disputed territories. Indeed, catering to that intransigence encourages their continued rejection of peace, whether through the so-called "two-state solution" or some other path.

Another way of putting it: the knee-jerk criticism we keep hearing is an obstacle to peace.

Response by Steve Kramer to Criticism of Israeli Sovereignty in Judea and Samaria

Response to Criticism of Israeli Sovereignty in Judea and Samaria - Steve Kramer

I found Ilan Goldenberg’s Washington Post op-ed (7/2/20) posted on Facebook by J Street, an organization representing itself as pro-Israel (it isn’t). The article’s publication by the Washington Post and dissemination by J Street tells me that Goldenberg’s opinions will almost certainly contradict what I and many others profess regarding Israel’s extension of sovereignty in its heartland, Judea and Samaria (J&S).

Because both the Washington Post and Facebook are influential opinion-makers for many American Jews, I must point out where I think Goldenberg goes wrong. How much, if any, sovereignty Israel will apply is not yet known. But I believe that replacing Israeli military law with civil law in J&S (tantamount to sovereignty), in whole or in part, is absolutely crucial at this time. Below are excerpts from Goldenberg’s article, with my retort following. 

Ilan Goldenberg is the director of the Middle East Security Program at the Center for a New American Security; he served on the State Department negotiating team on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and his impressive credentials.

“Recognizing the state of Palestine is the only appropriate response to Israeli annexation”

G: The Israeli government may begin taking steps toward unilaterally annexing portions of the West Bank soon. 

K: Israel is not annexing portions of the West Bank (J&S). Annexation refers to taking territory from another country. The defeat of the Ottoman Empire in WWI created a vacuum with no country sovereign in J&S. Jordan briefly and illegally ruled the area from 1948 to 1967, when Israel pushed the Jordanian Legion back across the Jordan River. 

According to international law (which is always and at all times equivocal and not precise), Israel’s authority in J&S coincides with the boundaries of the British Mandate for Palestine. That paradigm was the model for establishing the borders of Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq, all of which were also League of Nations’ Mandates. Therefore, Israel has the legal right to extend sovereignty throughout the former Mandate, if it wishes to do so. 

G: This move [what Goldenberg terms annexation] would present a grave threat to any possibility of a future two-state outcome that allows Israelis and Palestinians to live in freedom and security, each in a state of their own. It would also shatter the paradigm that has governed resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict for decades. Annexation would be an unmistakable sign that Israelis are moving away from two states.

K: On the contrary, extending Israeli civil law - replacing Israel military law for its citizens in J&S - is not a threat to the two-state outcome; it’s the only way such an outcome could come about. It sets a more realistic paradigm for “peace” than exists now. The Palestinian Authority (PA) would recognize that the more it remains  intransigent, the worse off its position becomes. The maximalist demand of the Palestinian Arabs that Israel cease to exist has preempted PA-Israel negotiations for the last decade. 

G: Israeli annexation would herald a new era of unilateralism, the consequences of which would be a policy shift on the Palestinian side of the equation as well.

K: Unilateral acts by Israel is not new. In 1949, Prime Minister Ben-Gurion proclaimed Jerusalem to be Israel’s eternal capital, which was finally validated by the Trump administration. In 1981, Prime Minister Begin extended Israeli sovereignty to the Golan Heights. Today, no one would want it to be under Syrian sovereignty. In 2005, Israel unilaterally pulled all Israeli soldiers and civilians from the Gaza Strip, naively thinking that the PA would allow a government there to benefit its people. That didn’t happen. Instead, the Hamas movement ousted the PA and begin it terroristic rule over Gaza.

G: Unilateral Israeli annexation, designed to demonstrate to Palestinians that Israel will not be held hostage to a Palestinian veto over its borders and territory, would have a far more expansive effect. It would hasten the process of deterioration of Palestinian institutions toward further dysfunction and authoritarianism, as they would be increasingly be seen by Palestinians as tools for Israeli occupation, not preparation for statehood. Eventually, this lack of legitimacy would cause the Palestinian Authority to collapse.

K: Not all PA residents favor the government’s policies, making questionable how much legitimacy the PA has to begin with. The PA has never seriously tried to prepare to be an independent nation. It falls back on its ultimate goal of eliminating Israel, taking over its territory, and proclaiming all of Palestine “from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea.”

G: Recognition of a Palestinian state [by the US after Israeli “annexation”] would be a huge political boost to Palestinian supporters of two states by providing symbolic achievement of a long-desired national aspiration. U.S. recognition should make clear that while the final borders of Israel and Palestine must be negotiated between the parties, they should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed on land swaps, grounding U.S. policy in 50 years of precedent.

K: The West’s dream of an Israel contained within the 1967 ceasefire lines (NEVER borders) is a fantasy that will not occur. Israelis now account for more than 20% of the population of J&S and will not be ethnically cleansed from their heartland. (Arab Israelis are more than 20% of Israel’s population.)

G: U.S. recognition [of a State of Palestine] would almost certainly cause most partners in Europe, who have thus far refrained from recognizing a Palestinian state, to follow. But even if a U.S. administration chose not to recognize Palestine, simply signaling to European countries that the United States would not oppose them taking this action could trigger a wave of international recognition that would boost Palestinians at a moment of despondency.

K: Many European states have already recognized the State of Palestine, despite the fact that it possesses none of the most important attributes of statehood. It is also recognized as tantamount to a state by global organizations such as the UN, ICC, and others.

Ilan Goldenberg possesses all of the requisites to be a Middle East pundit. But he lacks common sense. The Palestinian Arabs were not even in the running to have a state when the British Mandate for Palestine was established in 1922. In 1948, when Israel declared its independence, the Egyptians, Jordanians, and Syrians coveted its territory. Not until 1964, with the emergence of the PLO (Palestine Liberation Organization), did a call for a statehood begin to emerge. 

The Palestinian Arabs have refused every opportunity to build a real state for themselves, even turning down overly generous offers by two Israeli prime ministers after the Oslo Accords of 1993, which envisaged some kind of status for the Palestinian Arabs within five years. 

Will the PA acknowledge that it’s no longer a central factor in Arab politics, especially for Egypt and the Gulf Arabs? Even Jordan’s King Abdullah favors (and requires) Israel to be sovereign on the western side of the Jordan River, though he is unable to say it. Abdullah’s tenuous hold on power over Jordan’s mostly Palestinian Arab population depends on Israel’s backing, as does the viability of the PA. Without Israel’s backing, both would be overthrown.

The Washington Post is an influential paper which today has a leftist agenda which it disguises as “objective.” It shares that direction with The New York Times. Don’t be fooled by barely hidden attempts to emasculate Israel and elevate another Palestinian terror entity, such as Gaza, alongside of Israel.

Yale Zussman's Latest Recommendations May 28, 2020

Hi Folks,

Here are my latest recommendations for following the issues of the Middle East.  There is no coverage of Israel's internal politics, which can require daily updates.  Rather, the focus is on looking back and looking forward, and some clues that the future may look better than the present.

Israel-China Ties: The ‘Sticking Point’ with the US?
BY TYLER KOTLER
JULY 11, 2019

https://honestreporting.com/israel-china-ties-the-sticking-point-with-the-us/

Note the date.  SARS-COV-2 will complicate this situation even further because Chinese aid includes large numbers of Chinese nationals coming and going on a fairly regular basis. It is believed that this is how the virus came to Iran.
----------
San Remo: The original ‘deal of the century’
YISHAI FLEISHER
April 26, 2020

https://www.jns.org/opinion/san-remo-the-original-deal-of-the-century/

Contrasts the visions of the San Remo agreement, the 1947 Partition resolution, and current discussion about a "Two-state" solution.
----------
Saudi Opposition to a Palestinian State
Ambassador (ret.) Yoram Ettinger
May 17, 2020
https://bit.ly/2ZnY231

The Saudi leadership and public are largely fed up with the Palestinians, and have moved on.
----------
Israel’s Control of Judea & Samaria -- a Prerequisite for Security
Ambassador (ret.) Yoram Ettinger
May 21, 2020
https://bit.ly/2LPFZKZ

Provides a strategic rationale for Israeli annexation of certain parts of Judea and Samaria.
----------
Israel: The Settlements Are Not Illegal
The annexation of lands in Judea and Samaria is not contrary to international law
by Michael Calvo
May 19, 2020

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/16032/israel-settlements-not-illegal

Focuses on the political and propagandistic claims about settlements rather than the actual legal issues.  (The article of the Geneva Convention generally cited as prohibiting the settlements actually addresses establishing concentration camps in occupied territories.  Also included in the Convention are sections seeking to enable commerce to continue during wartime.  There is no section addressing real estate deals, which is basically what the settlement issue is about, i.e., international law doesn't address the issue at all.)
----------
Video on life in Gaza

https://unitedwithisrael.org/life-in-gaza-the-video-israels-haters-tried-to-hide/

It's not a ZOOM, thank G-d, but may be useful as background material.

Moadim L'Simcha to my Jewish readers,

Until next time, stay safe, stay well,

Yales

Do people really support the "two-state solution?"

Do people really support the "two-state solution?"

The Forward recently published an op-ed by Brad Brooks-Rubin with the title "If Israel proceeds with annexation, American Jews will socially distance - from Israel."  It contained the commonly made but actually meaningless assertion "American Jews overwhelmingly support a two-state solution." Meaningless for many reasons, only one of which is that what's called a "two-state solution" isn't actually a two-state solution. I responded with the following letter. If The Forward actually publishes it, I will modify this post to so indicate.

Re If Israel proceeds with annexation, American Jews will socially distance - from Israel

As an introductory observation, any Jews who "socially distance" from Israel because the Jewish state annexes some of the disputed territory did not have any strong connection to Israel in the first place and their action is more a reflection of the failure of the organized American Jewish community than of any reasoned, informed reaction to what Israel may have done.

It should also be noted that, although it's commonly used even by its proponents, the term annexation is inappropriate, since under the principle of international law known as "uti possidetis juris," all the currently disputed territory fell within Israel's legal borders when Ben Gurion proclaimed Israel's independence in 1948.

The assertion in Brad Brooks-Rubin's op-ed that what he calls annexation would "end any prospects for peace" is patently absurd.

Currently, there are no prospects for peace, because not only does the Palestinian Arab leadership show no interest, but it has asserted it will never again negotiate directly with Israel. Obviously, there can't be peace without such negotiations. One can't end prospects for peace when none exist.

If the Palestinian Arabs reverse themselves and, for the first time in their short history, decide to seriously consider making peace, "annexation" won't be a serious issue. Israel "annexed" Jerusalem, but that didn't stop Israeli prime ministers Barak and Olmert from offering much of it to the Palestinian Arabs. Similarly, Israel "annexed" its portion of the Golan Heights, but that didn't stop several prime ministers from offering all of it to Syria. And, of course, Jordan annexed Judea and Samaria during the period it occupied it and that obviously made no difference.

Finally, I must comment on the absurdity of the meaningless statement "American Jews overwhelmingly support a two-state solution."

American Jews, like Israeli Jews, overwhelmingly support peace.

To the best of my knowledge, no reliable survey has ever been taken asking whether American Jews, or Israeli Jews, want a Palestinian Arab state or under what conditions they would agree to a Palestinian Arab state.

To even speak of a "two-state solution" is an exercise in taking advantage of ignorance, given that there are already two states in historic Palestine, with the Arab state, now called Jordan, comprising more than three-quarters of it. Thus, taken literally, a "two-state solution" would not include the creation of an additional Arab state; it would really entail a partition of the disputed territories, including Judea, Samaria and Gaza, into Israel, Jordan and Egypt.

Put another way, those who literally support a "two-state solution" actually oppose what's usually but incorrectly called a "two-state solution."

What Brooks-Rubin really means when he writes "American Jews overwhelmingly support a two-state solution" is that American Jews overwhelmingly support the establishment of second Arab state in Palestine, in part or all of the disputed territories. But even that is nonsensical, since there's a huge difference between supporting the establishment of such a state under current conditions, which would create a state dedicated to the destruction of Israel, or under reasonable conditions at some future time under the assumption the Arabs will be willing to live peacefully. Support would obviously also depend on the division of the disputed territory. How many would support Israel giving up the Old City, including the Temple Mount, the holiest site in Judaism? How many would support withdrawing from the settlement blocs, either forcing hundreds of thousands of Jews from their homes or forcing them to live under a Palestinian Arab government which would turn them into dhimmis?

Even among those who might say they would support such a solution, is it one they would support enthusiastically, or is it one they would reluctantly accept while believing a far better outcome should have been achieved?

Brooks-Rubin begins by explaining he "recently participated in a conversation about Israel with a group of five very thoughtful 20-something Jews."

If these obvious questions, and others, such as is there anything Israel can do to help bring about the revolutionary change in Palestinian Arab society needed before any peace becomes possible, weren't discussed, then that conversation wasn't a very thoughtful one.

Sincerely,

Alan Stein

Netanya, Israel and Natick, Massachusetts

What doesn't it mean to be pro-Israel?

On March 6, the Jerusalem Post published an article by Hillel Schenker entitled "What does being 'pro-Israel' actually mean?" That naturally brings to mind the question "What doesn't it mean to be pro-Israel?" The following is a partial answer. - Alan Stein

Being pro-Israel doesn't mean blaming Israel for the lack of negotiations when it was Mahmoud Abbas who walked away in 2008 and it was Abbas' foreign minister who more than three years ago proudly announced the Palestinian Arabs would never again negotiate directly with Israel.

Being pro-Israel doesn't mean criticizing the American president for acknowledging Israel's capital is Israel's capital and ending the perverse situation where only in Israel was the American embassy not in the host country's capital.

Being pro-Israel doesn't mean insisting Israel make even more one-sided, unreciprocated and counterproductive concessions to the Palestinian Arabs.

Being pro-Israel doesn't mean criticizing an American peace plan as unrealistic because it doesn't recycle all the others that have so dismally failed over the last quarter century.

Being pro-Israel doesn't mean welcoming and giving a platform to those supporting the BDS movement aimed at destroying Israel.

Being pro-Israel doesn't mean pretending boycotting Israel is a matter of free speech rather than malicious action.

Being pro-Israel doesn't mean reserving almost all your criticism for Israel while giving the Palestinian Arabs a free pass even as they blatantly violate almost all their commitments under the Oslo accords, continue to refuse to negotiate, incite against Israel and reward terrorists for murdering Israelis.

Jewish Students Receive Protection from Aggression

Jewish Students Receive Protection from Aggression

by Steve Kramer

The BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions) movement began on N. American college campuses during the previous administration. It’s just one of a number of campus campaigns aimed against Israel and Jewish students (others include Jewish Voice for Peace and Students for Justice in Palestine). They poison the minds of impressionable college students against Israel, Jews, and non-Jewish supporters of Israel. It uses programs and spectacles like the infamous campus “Apartheid week,” events which flood college campuses with Jew/Israel-hating propaganda. On a regular basis proponents of campus BDS disrupt or manage to prohibit “controversial” pro-Israel speakers, paradoxically using the 1st Amendment as justification. 

Among those whose speeches were disrupted or canceled are former ambassador to the US, Michael Oren; well-known lawyer and Constitutional scholar, Alan Dershowitz; and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Somali-born Dutch American activist, writer, and politician.

Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act protects people from discrimination based on race, color or national origin in programs or activities that receive Federal financial assistance - but it left a loophole by not mentioning religion. As such, Jews and supporters of Israel were not protected. On December 11, President Trump signed an Executive Order which includes Jews under existing Title VI protections against increasingly rampant campus aggression.

The President’s legally grounded declaration instantly received many condemnations, including from Jewish individuals and organizations. It has even been termed “racist.” In his succinct directive, Mr. Trump said antisemitism would henceforth be covered by the Civil Rights Ac, which “prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color and national origin.” (Trump’s action doesn’t define Judaism as a nationality.)

Antisemitism (Jew/Israel-hatred) on campuses has become so prolific that Jewish students feel threatened, are threatened, or hide their Jewishness. A recent example: “Indiana University (IU) announced on Dec. 15 that the Pi Kappa Phi fraternity has been suspended after video footage emerged over the weekend of their members beating three Jewish students. The video footage shows 11 men beating up the three Jewish students — all of whom are members of IU’s Alpha Epsilon Pi (AEPi) chapter — in front of a house on the evening of Dec. 13. The students suffered concussions from  the incident.” 

(https://jewishjournal.com/)

Immediately after the President’s initiative was announced, critics pounced: “Today, anti-Zionist Jewish and Palestinian groups hostile to Israel have mobilized to fight the White House’s expanded protections against anti-Semitism. It will now be more difficult for these groups to hide behind the ‘shield’ of human rights and free speech. That is why there is a long list lining up to denounce the Trump action and the IHRA (The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance) definition of anti- Semitism. They include far-Left groups such as Jewish Voice for Peace, If Not Now, J Street, campus groups such as Students for Justice in Palestine, the Palestine Solidarity Committee, Palestinian BDS Apartheid networks incited by the online Electronic Intifada, Palestinian expat academics, and student BDS warfare leaders.” (Dan Diker, 12/15/19, https://jcpa.org/president-trumps-executive-order-on-anti-semitism/) 

There are also many examples of liberal Jewish criticism, many resulting, in my opinion, from the deep-seated rejection of anything promoted by President Trump. 

A few examples: 

“This is deeply objectionable, going back centuries in anti-Semitic thinking,” said Rabbi Daniel G. Zemel, who leads Temple Micah, a Reform congregation in Washington. (https://www.viportal.co/) … in Chicago, Rabbi Hara Person, the chief executive of the Central Conference of American Rabbis [Reform Rabbinic leadership organization], said, “I’ve heard people say this feels like the first step toward us wearing yellow stars.” (https://www.enmnews.com)

…the left-leaning J Street lobby group said in a statement that, “Trump’s executive order is a cynical, harmful measure designed to suppress free speech on college campuses, not fight anti-Semitism. This executive order, like the stalled congressional legislation it is based on, appears designed less to combat anti-Semitism than to have a chilling effect on free speech and to crack down on campus critics of Israel.”(https://jstreet.org/press-releases/trumps-executive-order )

Other critics complain that coverage by Title VI implies that Jews are not American. This is rubbish. Are African Americans not American? If born to an American parent, a  black person is automatically an American too. The same can be said of any others born to an American parent. Therefore, if a Jewish person has an American parent, then American citizenship automatically applies, without reference to race, religion, or nationality. 

In its Twitter feed, the New York Times reported Trump’s action thus: "President Trump will sign an executive order defining Judaism as a nationality [sic], not just a religion, thus bolstering the Education Department's efforts to stamp out ‘Boycott Israel’ movements on college campuses."

Israeli columnist Carolyn Glick says that the New York Times’ tweet is, “… so off-base that it is impossible to view it as a mere misunderstanding by the paper of record for the liberal establishment. The assertion that Trump’s move "defined Judaism" smacks of cultural appropriation, and as such, it sounds like an act of aggression against Jews. By falsely claiming Trump defined Judaism as a nationality, the Times made it sound like Trump was saying that Jews aren’t American.”

https://wwwisraelhayom.com/opinions/why-american-jews-slander-president.-trump/

In the Times of Israel’s summary article of the protection afforded to Jewish students by Trump’s declaration, it’s stated that in too many instances Jewish Americans, especially college students, are compelled to keep their heads down, or face abuse and harassment due to intimidation of Israelis, Israel, and by extension, Jews.

The most direct way to handle the problem is by applying the protections of the 1964 Civil Rights Act to Jews, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of color, race and national origin in programs and activities receiving Federal financial assistance - which is almost every American college or university.

“Over the past several years, Congress made several attempts to amend Title VI to include anti-Jewish discrimination. These efforts enjoyed broad bipartisan support. But they were all blocked by members of the progressive camp inside the Democratic congressional caucus. Like the anti-Semitic boycott activists ostracizing Jews on campuses, the progressive lawmakers claimed that expansion of the protections of Title VI to include anti-Jewish discrimination would undermine the free speech rights of anti-Israel activists on campuses. That is, they said the rights of anti-Semites to preach anti-Semitism superseded the rights of Jewish students not to be harassed.”

Trump’s order makes it clear that Title VI applies to anti-Semitism as defined by the IHRA. That definition says anti-Semitism may include “targeting of the state of Israel conceived as a Jewish collectivity.” (https://www.timesofisrael.com/jewish-groups-divided-)

Shmuel Rosner, an editor at the Jewish Journal and a senior fellow at the Jewish People Policy Institute, insists: “Jews were never merely the followers of a certain religion, they were always – both in their consciousness and the eyes of others – a people, which some would describe as a nation. Jewishness was always a combination of many things – religion, culture, and a sense of peoplehood and nationhood that binds them together.”

https://www.jpost.com/Diaspora/

Jews are a people who identify with the religious and/or moral percepts of Judaism. Some Jews are secular, considering themselves “Jewish” only in the cultural sense. Regardless, today any Jew may be subject to harassment, especially during college years. The inclusion of Jews under Title VI’s protective umbrella is a welcome event, not some sort of calamity.