No Pain = All Gain

In a very astute blog post on the Times of Israel, Marc Goldberg analyzes the pros and cons of Israel having a right or left wing government, pointing out the significant fact that “When Likud is in power fewer Israelis die... [because] there is less chance of war when Likud is running the show.”

This may seem contrary to the left leaning MSM, who relish portraying Netanyahu as an extreme right wing hawkish warmonger – but the fact is there have been no wars under Netanyahu.

Goldberg explains:

“Likudniks aren’t interested in rocking the boat by changing anything. They will approve more settlements — more than the left would like to see and less than their own partners in government want. They will not try to make peace with anyone — they won’t even sit down with the Palestinians — and in the meantime, everyone, on both sides of the wall and in Gaza, will get on with their lives, firm in the knowledge that their daily routine won’t come under threat…It is when the left is in power and politicians attempt to actually make things better in the long run that the attacks begin.”

Goldberg is correct but he misses out one thing: in August 2010 (the same month Abbas made statements that he’d support a war on Israel if other Arab countries joined in, and eulogized one of the terrorists behind the Munich Olympics massacre), Netanyahu and Abbas agreed to begin direct peace talks together – however this resulted in Palestinian extremists responding with a campaign of terror attacks on Israeli citizens. It would have been understandable if Israel had pulled out of the talks then, but Netanyahu didn’t. The talks petered out when Abbas refused to recognize Israel as a Jewish state, in return for a settlement freeze. Attempted terror attacks also decreased.

So whilst under Likud the situation could remain relatively calm (as in not engaged in an actual war), according to Goldberg “In the long term, the left may offer the eventual possibility of normalization of relations with the rest of the Middle East, a state of Palestine alongside ours, and a corresponding improvement of our standing in the international community. But in the short term, that spells nothing but more hardship.”

Call me a cynic/psychic/crazy religious Jew, but Mashiach will come before that scenario plays out – and I don’t just mean that as a figure of speech! 

It doesn’t seem worth it to take the risks for an impossible solution, just to see if it will make people like us better. Elder of Ziyon has written a great piece explaining why the status quo is not actually as ‘unsustainable’ as people think:

“A genuine peace is one where Israel's neighbours do not even fantasize about attacking Israel. Not one where they are coerced into not attacking by an ephemeral government, not one where they do not attack because of the military consequences - but one where they simply have no desire to...”

Currently the Palestinians have not demonstrated why this would be possible, with no serious efforts made to end incitement to hatred and terrorism, and the brainwashing of children with this.

“The best we can ever hope for realistically is a detente where the weaker party has no desire to stir things up, even if it covets everything owned by the other” - because the repercussions outweigh the benefits. “This means that the best that Israel can hope for is a "Palestine" that keeps a short leash on its terrorists out of fear. Not love, not friendship, but fear. And this is exactly the status quo today... Anything that upsets this status quo will inevitably increase the danger to Israel's citizens.”

Responding To Terrorism

I should probably just change the title of my whole blog to ‘Better Late Than Never’, but here goes anyway.

A month ago on Friday 9^th March, Israel decided it’d had enough of the continuous yet intermittent rocket fire from Gaza (50 over the last two months), and responded to the two rockets launched that morning.

As well as targetting Palestinian terrorists about to fire more rockets into Israel, the IDF killed the leader of the PRC Zuhir al-Qaisi, and another member, who were involved in the kidnapping of Gilad Shalit. The IDF had intelligence that al-Qaisi was planning a terror attack along the Israel-Gaza border, similar to one the PRC had carried out last August along Israel’s border with Egypt. In that multiple-stage attack, eight Israelis were killed when Palestinian terrorists attacked them in their cars and buses with guns, missiles and a suicide-bombing. In the days following, two more Israelis were killed by rocket fire.

After Israel killed the PRC leader last month, terrorists bombarded Southern Israel with over 300 rockets in the space of just four days. Myself and friends and family would flock to Facebook to find updates from friends and family in South Israel on their status, inbetween them flocking to their bomb shelters. In response the IDF targetted weapons depots, manufacturing facilities and rocket launching sites in Gaza. 24 Palestinians were killed, 20 of whom were terrorists, most whilst actually in the process of preparing to launch more rockets.

At the funeral of one of the terrorists, Palestinian gunmen fired into the air, with one bullet striking an eight year old boy in the head. This was of course blamed on Israel, although Palestinians later revealed the truth. Two days later the child died, and the day after that two more Palestinian teenagers died from trigger-happy Palestinians’ gunfire at another terrorist’s funeral.

A picture of a young Palestinian girl was circulated online, originally tweeted by Khulood Badawi, who claimed it was “another child killed by Israel”. It was discovered that the picture was from 2006, and the girl had died in an accident. Meanwhile it transpired that Badawi works for the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs as an ‘Information and Media Coordinator’, with Honest Reporting calling for her dismissal:

“it is absolutely unacceptable that a UN employee working specifically on dissemination of information to the media and public tweets malicious and false information to libel Israel... [when it] is trying desperately to defend more than 1 million of its civilians from the incessant murderous rain of Gazan rocket terror”.

Ron Prosor, Israel’s ambassador to the UN also called for her dismissal, pointing out that she was “actively engaged in the demonization of Israel, a member state of the United Nations. Such actions contribute to incitement, conflict and, ultimately, violence.”

A week later in an indescribably horrific terrorist attack at a Jewish school in France, an Islamist fanatic rode up on a motorbike and murdered a Rabbi, Jonathan Sandler, his 3 and 6 year old sons Gabriel and Arieh, and 8 year old Miriam Monsonego, the daughter of the school principle.

Strangely, the EU Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and Vice President of the European Commission, Catherine Ashton appeared to compare the attack to “what is happening in Gaza”.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, the French-Algerian terrorist Mohammed Merah, who was a member of Al Qaeda, claimed that his actions, which also included the murder of three unarmed French soldiers was to “avenge Palestinian children”. He was killed after a 32 hour siege on his apartment, in which he injured several French police officers, preventing him not only committing further attacks but also from spewing any more excuses for his barbaric, evil acts. Possibly the best response to Merah’s comment about Palestinians came from the Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Salaam Fayyad, who stated:

"This terrorist crime is condemned in the strongest terms by the Palestinian people and their children... No Palestinian child can accept a crime that targets innocent people. It is time for these criminals to stop marketing their terrorist acts in the name of Palestine and to stop pretending to stand up for the rights of Palestinian children who only ask for a decent life”.

In any case which Palestinian children was Merah referring to? Which children in Gaza was Baroness Ashton talking about? The ones brainwashed into wasting their lives by becoming terrorists? The ones oppressed by their own government? The children killed when they’re exploited by terrorists and used as human shields, who launch rockets into Israel from civilian areas? Or the ones killed in accidents because they’re surrounded by militants building weapons or ‘symbolically’ firing guns at terrorists’ funerals?

It has been pointed out again and again by pro-Israel activists that the actions of most supposedly ‘pro-Palestinian’ activists do nothing to help the Palestinians, in fact do the opposite. There seems to be a link; and somewhere between all these incidents there are lies, distortions and exaggerations about Israel’s actions that far from helping solve the Israel-Palestinian conflict simply trigger cycles of violence, not only manifested in antisemitism against Jews and Israel but with the much wider target of ‘the West’.

Our battle for support for Israel and the truth may sometimes seem unwinnable, but there are constant reminders of successes and the importance of this battle, and who knows the effect that each of these instances can have. So whether it’s blogging or tweeting or demonstrating, we have to keep spreading the truth.

Most importantly, everyone should see the words of Eva Sandler, who lost her husband Rabbi Jonathan and her two young sons Gabriel and Ariel in the France school shooting. In a heart-wrenching article on the Chabad website, she referred to Pesach, which Jews worldwide are currently celebrating, and wrote:

“Along with our tearful remembrance of our trials in Egypt so many years ago, we still tell how ‘in each and every generation, they have stood against us to destroy us.’ We all will announce in a loud and clear voice: ‘G-d saves us from their hands.’…  The spirit of the Jewish people can never be extinguished; its connection with Torah and its commandments can never be destroyed.”

On The Palestinians' Bid For A Terror-State

In a speech filled with lies, hatred for Israel, and a refusal to accept any responsibility whatsoever for the Palestinians' part in the conflict, Abbas on Friday made his bid to the UN for a Palestinian state, without negotiations, and without Palestinian concessions. 

It is interesting to note who is for and who is against the bid. Against includes The Times and J Street, because although obviously both are pro a 2 state solution, J Street explain “we do not believe that, in the current context, it [the bid for statehood without negotiations] will advance peace, enhance security and improve conditions on the ground.” Which sums up why most rational people are against it.

Meanwhile the UK version of J Street (but evidently a lot more stupid naive), the questionably “pro-Israel, pro-peace” group Yachad are for it, because they “believe it represents a historic opportunity to advance and expedite the peace process... to be recognised as a state will require the Palestinian leadership to take on the obligations of behaving like a state.” The Guardian of course, is also for it, as they appear not to want the Palestinians to have to make any concessions at all, whether engaging in land swaps, recognising Israel as the Jewish state, or tearing up their agreement with Hamas - you know, the antisemitic, genocidal terror organisation.

So let’s have a look at just some of the reasons why the Palestinian state Abbas asked for is, to put it lightly, a bad idea.

Robin Shepherd observes that:

“There is one party to this dispute that most emphatically does not support a Palestinian state, if that means long-term acceptance of the State of Israel: the Palestinians themselves… opinion polls have consistently shown that the Palestinians only support the idea of a Palestinian state sitting side by side with Israel as a stepping stone to a future one state solution in which they rule over the Jews (assuming they are ruled over and not slaughtered or “driven into the sea” as they are wont to say)… a comprehensive poll by the Israel Project in November 2010 showed 60 percent of Palestinians agreeing with the proposition that: ‘The real goal should be to start with two states but then move to it all being one Palestinian state’”.

On the day of the bid, a member of the Fatah Central Committee, Abbas Zaki, told Al Jazeera that regarding Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas’ bid for 2 states, “Abbas understands... everybody knows that the greater goal cannot be accomplished in one go. If Israel withdraws from Jerusalem, evacuates the 650,000 settlers, and dismantles the wall – what will become of Israel? It will come to an end. If we say that we want to wipe Israel out... It's not [acceptable] policy to say so. Don't say these things to the world. Keep it to yourself.” This might seem like a stupid thing to say to an internationally aired news channel, but the truth is the mainstream media either don't make the effort to know, or don't care about the difference between what Palestinian officials say in Arabic and what they say in English.

Palestinians often depict a map of the whole of Israel as representing “Palestine”, whether in newspaper cartoons, or Fatah’s own logo, which was on Abbas' official document to the UN. 

Abbas himself, speaking for the Palestinians, will not recognise Israel as the Jewish state, as he has said numerous time, including on 27^th August to the PLO Central Council: “Present to us something sensible, don’t present to us ‘The Jewish State’, we will never accept it... The Quartet cannot force upon us the character of the state [of Israel], or that we should recognize the nature of the Israeli state”.

And he didn’t change his mind between then and 22^rd September, the day before the bid, when he told 200 representatives of American Arabs of Palestinian descent “we will not recognise the Jewish state...  we will only accept that Palestine be free of settlers and soldiers [i.e. Jews]”.

Which is what the PLO’s ambassador to the US, Maen Areikat, said on 13^th September, that any future Palestinian state it seeks with help from the United Nations and the United States should be free of Jews. He later explained he meant settlers and soldiers (so, still Jews then), but last year he made a similar statement during an interview with Tablet magazine. Asked whether “Any Jew who is inside the borders of Palestine will have to leave”, he responded “absolutely”.

Let’s not forget that Abbas is a Holocaust denier, he denies the Jewish historical connection to Israel, rewrites the history of the conflict, and is responsible for his government’s incitement of hatred and violence towards Israelis and Jews, through Palestinian childrens’ tv programmes, honouring and glorifying terrorists with processions, video tributes, naming streets, schools, town squares and youth groups after them; and rewarding the families ofterrorists with payment. 

About a year ago, the PA Minister of Prisoners’ affairs Issa Karake honoured a Palestinian woman, Latifa Abu Hmeid, with a plaque inscribed with the names of four of her sons who are serving sentences in Israeli prisons, all of them for their involvement in the murder of Israeli civilians in numerous terror attacks. Karake stated: “The Palestinian mother is a central partner in the struggle... It is she who gave birth to the fighters, and she deserves that we bow to her in salute and in honour.”

Two weeks ago, Karake stated that "The recognition of the [Palestinian] state means... that the struggles of the prisoners [i.e. terrorists] are legitimized and legal according to UN Resolutions”.

So it isn’t surprising that last week the Palestinians’ statehood campaign began with Abu Hmeid, the mother honoured for giving birth to murderers, leading the procession to the UN offices in Ramallah, where she handed over a letter to the representative there of UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon calling for the UN to recognise a Palestinian state.

Probably the most obvious reason why the statehood bid is a bad idea, yet people still need to be reminded of it, is that Israel left Gaza in 2005, uprooting thousands of Israeli citizens from their homes there. Hamas then took over, throwing out Fatah and firing over 10,000 rockets on Israeli civilians. Israel would need to ensure that the West Bank would be under the control of moderates, and that weapons would not be smuggled in, which would mean that practically every city in Israel would be in range.

Why could Abbas possibly object to negotiations with Netanyahu that would address these problems? And why would people, people who call themselves pro-peace and pro-Israel, support Abbas in this?

Obama's Speech And The 1967 Lines

The senior editor of MEMO (the pro-Hamas group who are tonight, hosted by Amnesty holding a debate called "Complicity in Oppression: Does the Media Aid Israel?"), Ibrahim Hewitt, wrote in to The Guardian complaining about Obama's speech; that negotiations on land would "reward Israel for its illegal settlement policy" (disputed, not illegal), that a non-militarised Palestinian state would be "at the mercy of the Israel Defence Forces" (not such a bad thing; it's an indisputable fact that if the Palestinians put down their weapons the conflict would end but if Israel put theirs down they would be destroyed); that Israel is a Jewish state and that the US is committed to Israel's security. How terrible. 

It's not surprising that the Israel-bashers are disturbed by Obama's professed support for Israel, but the speech wasn't all good. Hewitt says that since Israel accepted the two-state proposal in 1947, (which the Palestinians rejected, as Abbas forgot to mention in his NYT op-ed), Israel should have no case not to go back to what Hewitt calls the "1967 borders", which is similar to what Obama suggested: "We believe the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps". 

Obama correctly called it lines, unlike Hewitt, because they were never borders. But if Israel did go back to the pre-'67 lines, Gaza would be part of Egypt, and the West Bank in Jordan. There never was a Palestinian state. The most obvious point to make, which Netanyahu did, brilliantly, is that those lines are indefensible, leaving Israel only nine miles wide - "these were not the boundaries of peace, they were the boundaries of repeated wars". They were unsustainable, and the only reason Israel is (bli ayin hara) more stable now than it was then is because it can defend itself, because it won that land when the Arabs started the '67 war. 

Just Journalism point out that the coverage of Obamas' speeches about Israel (in The White House, and at the AIPAC conference) focuses almost exclusively on his demands on Israel rather than his condemnation and demands of the Palestinians, such as that 

"the recent agreement between Fatah and Hamas poses an enormous obstacle to peace. No country can be expected to negotiate with a terrorist organization sworn to its destruction. We will continue to demand that Hamas accept the basic responsibilities of peace: recognizing Israel's right to exist, rejecting violence, and adhering to all existing agreements. And we once again call on Hamas to release Gilad Shalit, who has been kept from his family for five long years."

Meanwhile Honest Reporting observe that whilst Netanyahu's response to Obama was reported in the New York Times as "Netanyahu Responds Icily to Obama remarks", what didn't get that sort of coverage was Abbas' response, his complete rejection of Obama calling the Hamas-Fatah reconciliation an obstacle to peace, saying that after all, "Hamas is a part of Palestinian society".

It's quite frightening how since Abbas joined Hamas he's abandoning any pretence of wanting peace. He is just one step away from openly advocating terror attacks on Israeli civilians.

Abbas Goes More Hamas

The Fatah-Hamas reconciliation is not good for anyone who wants peace, as it just means Fatah siding with Hamas, who still want Israel's destruction and refuse to negotiate*. It's not surprising then that the Guardian is fully behind the reconciliation, especially considering that when they released the Palestine Papers in February, they demonstrated that they were actively against the very idea of the Palestinians making any concessions for peace - what the Guardian actually called weakness - and they legitimised Hamas.

But Hamas are not the only problem. In the New York Times op-ed this week, Fatah's leader Abbas wrote an outrageously distorted op-ed, rewriting the history of Israel, and, apart from all Fatah's incitement to terrorism*, the op-ed suddenly makes it so clear why Abbas hasn't negotiated: he's not only in denial about the history of Israel, he lies about his own history.

He wrote that in 1947, after it was proposed that Israel be divided into two states, "Zionist forces expelled Palestinian Arabs... and Arab armies intervened. War and further expulsions ensued... Minutes after the State of Israel was established on May 14, 1948, the United States granted it recognition. Out Palestinian state, however, remains a promise unfulfilled."

Of course he wouldn't mention that the Palestinians rejected the proposal, and that the armies of Egypt, Syria, Iraq and Jordan invaded Israel with the sole intention of killing all the Jews, to get us out of the way. Really, the Nakba is just mourning the failure of finishing the Holocaust.

He claims "we have been negotiating with the State of Israel for 20 years without coming any closer to realizing a state of our own... Negotiations remain our first option".

Again, Abbas ignores the facts - that over the years the Palestinians have refused a 2 state solution seven times, including Abbas himself only in 2008.

Whilst Hamas may be the terrorists, Abbas sure isn't interested in peace either. His issue is with the very existence of Israel, not settlements. He couldn't be more clear about that than if he joined Hamas. Oh, wait.

UPDATE:

* And who reiterated that they will never recognise Israel in response to Obama's Middle East speech

* And a new Fatah law granting terrorists in Israeli prisons a monthly salary.

Terrorism On Nakba Day

Nakba Day, when the Palestinians mourn the establishment of the State of Israel, kicked off yesterday morning with a terror attack in Tel Aviv. An Arab truck driver deliberately crashed into several cars, shouting "Allahu Akbar". He injured 17 and killed one, a 29 year old recently engaged man, Aviv Morag.

In another incident, in East Jerusalem two Israeli policeman were deliberately run over by a car at a checkpoint.

Two terrorists were arrested as they were caught trying to enter a Jewish settlement, armed with knives, no doubt wanting to carry out an attack similar to that on the Fogel family in March.

Later, thousands of Syrians and Lebanese broke through the borders into Israel and violently rioted against the IDF, injuring some of them. When tear gas and other riot dispersal methods didn't work, the IDF fired warning shots but were finally forced to open fire. About 12 "protestors" were killed overall, some by Lebanese forces, some by mines on their own side of the border.

In other riots around the country, hundreds of Palestinians threw rocks, molotov cocktails, flares, firebombs, burnt tires, damaged the Gaza border and other property, and hid behind ambulances as they launched their attacks.

It is highly likely that Syrian President Assad actively encouraged the invasion to divert attention from his forces' killing of 800 Syrian protestors. Ironically, some of those who entered Israel weren't protesting but were fleeing the danger in Syria. One said:

"I'm tired of living in Syria, we'd rather die than see more bloodshed. We've crossed the border in order to stay with our families, away from all the killing in Syria. We ask the powers that be in Israel to help us stay and not send us back."

Surely there's got to be a smarter option than illegally breaking into a country along with a violent mob of hundreds.

The protests weren't just about commemorating Nakba day though; a while ago hundreds of thousands joined a Facebook group calling for a third intifada - and for Arabs from the surrounding countries to march into Israel, which is exactly what they did.

Around the world, Palestinian supporters held demonstrations in support of a third intifada, including in London where there was also a counter-demo, a pro-Israel, pro-peace rally.

The third intifada demonstration was supported by the "peaceful" BDS, but at the demo itself there was no pretence of peaceful aims. The pro-Palis chanted "victory for the intifada", called for jihad against Israel and for Israel's destruction, waved the flag of the terrorist organisation Hezbollah, and chanted "khyber al-Yahud", which means "slaughter the Jews". Well, at least they were honest!



UPDATE: One Syrian confessed that he was shot in the legs in the Nakba Day protests after he tried to kidnap an Israeli soldier. There were probably other similar incidents. Either way, for only 12 of the hundreds who swarmed into Israel to be killed, whilst attacking soldiers, or by mistakes from their own side,  reflects the extraordinary restraint taken by the IDF.

Boy In Hamas Schoolbus Attack Dies Of Wounds

The Israeli boy injured in the Hamas rocket attack on his schoolbus has died of his wounds.
May his loved ones be comforted. Baruch Dayan HaEmet.

Meanwhile two of the Palestinians arrested over the murder of the Fogels have been found guilty.

Anti-Israel Activist Murdered In Gaza

Islamic fanatics kidnapped and then murdered yesterday an Italian journalist and anti-Israel activist in Gaza.

Bizarrely, before they killed Vittorio Arrigoni, they tried to negotiate a prisoner swap with Hamas for his release; Hamas have condemned the murder.

Just Journalism highlight that the BBC claims that "Hamas had been credited with eliminating the threat of kidnapping in Gaza until his abduction", and the Financial Times claims that "Gaza has been widely regarded as a safe destination for foreign journalists, aid workers and diplomats since then." But JJ point out instances of Hamas violence against journalists in Gaza, including only last month when they stormed Reuters' office, threatened the journalists with guns, attacked one with a metal bar and threatened to throw another out the window. JJ also point out that the media are also ignoring that Israeli intelligence is frequently warning Israelis against kidnap threats, and, of course, that Hamas have been holding Gilad Shalit hostage in Gaza, his condition unknown, for the last four years.

Arrigoni was a member of the International Solidarity Movement, an extremely anti-Israel group. Incidentally Rachel Corrie, killed while standing in front of an Israeli bulldozer from which the driver couldn't see her, was also a member of ISM, but the fact that Arrigoni was killed by Palestinians and not by Israelis means he won't become an icon like Corrie did.

EoZ explains why Arrigoni was not a peact activist, or human rights activist, or even a pro-Palestinian activist, as the media have referred to him. None of his actions reflect love or care for the Palestinians, only hate for Israel: "He never had anything bad to say about Hamas. He never campaigned for Arab countries to stop their discrimination against Palestinian Arabs. He never spoke a word demanding that 'refugee camps' in Gaza be dismantled and real homes built."

Just as is evident from the murder of the Israeil anti-Israel activist and actor Juliano Mer-Khamis a couple of weeks ago, "The anti-Israel left might consider themselves 'Palestinian', but clearly some Palestinian Arabs don't."

And despite this, these murders, "done by the people they supposedly love - will not make a dent in far leftist 'support' for PalArabs, because they don't support them in any real way."

All the confirmation you need for this is the nonsensical Tweet by ISM that, just like the world did in their mourning for Mer-Khamis, completely ignores who is responsible for the murder as they refuse to address that the Palestinians' own worst enemy is themselves and not Israel: "While we mourn Vittorio, let’s remember that he died resisting the Israel Occupation."




UPDATE: Hamas have blamed the murder on Israel (of course), claiming that it was to dissuade other foreign activists from heading to Gaza on another flotilla. I didn't even think of it from that angle!

Terror Attack In Jerusalem (Not "Terror Attack")

One woman has been killed and 40 injured in a bombing in central Jerusalem today. The bomb was reportedly left in a bag on the street just outside the bus station.

When the shock began to wear off, I wondered how the media would try and twist this to belittle and justify Palestinian attacks on Israelis. After all, if "illegal settlers" aren't the victims, you'd have to be very creative to find another way to blame Israel for this.

Two patterns have emerged in the coverage. The first, predictably, is to avoid the word "terror" and even "attack". Most likely as well as other media outlets, The Independent, Reuters, and CNN all had this to say: "Police described the explosion as a 'terrorist attack' - Israel's term for a Palestinian strike", as though it was a military exercise.

Which is a funny thing to say considering that Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad's statement on the bombing was "I harshly condemn this act of terror".

The second pattern is to portray the bombing as part of a "cycle of violence", and I'm pretty sure most of the media have done this. For example the Guardian completely twisted the events of the last few days, not explaining that the reason civilians died in Israel's strikes on Gaza was because they were used as human shields by terrorists; and calling Hamas' firing of 50 rockets into Israel in the space of a couple of hours "sporadic".

A BBC interviewer asked Jerusalem Post Editor-in-Chief David Horowitz if the bombing would have been a response to the strikes on Gaza. Horowitz had to explain that the murder of the Fogels was followed by rocket attacks on Israel which was followed by Israel striking legitimate terror targets, unintentionally killing some civilians who were on the site where rockets had been fired from.

Melanie Phillips points out that with this huge upsurge in violence from the Palestinians,

"It therefore takes a particular degree of bone-headed malevolence to view this latest attack instead as a ‘tit-for-tat' response to Israeli violence. But then, the BBC and other British and western media have all but ignored the rocket attacks, and minimised the Fogel massacre. As usual, Israeli victimisation is thus denied in an obscene moral equivalence – which invariably turns Israel from a victim attempting to defend itself into the aggressor."

Incidentally, only two weeks ago there was another explosion in Jerusalem in which one Israeli was wounded.

Shortly after today's bomb, terrorists in Gaza fired another barrage of rockets into Israel.

Meanwhile, Israel sent into Gaza over 200 trucks of aid.

I pray for the speedy recovery of all the victims.

They Kill, We Build

Th reaction of most Jews and Israelis' to the terror attack in Itamar probably will have been a deep, sickened feeling of grief and horror followed by defiance and determination to carry on.

Some reacted differently though - condemning settlers through their crocodile tears. Yitzchak Laor writes in Haaretz that the brother of Udi Fogel, murdered in the terror attack in Itamar “sought to remove the murder from any context other than the pain over his brother's death... [but] No one allowed for the murder to be rescued from the sole context in which the right wing placed it.”

But the right have placed the death and the world’s reaction exactly in context – because the brother wouldn’t feel the pain of Udi Fogel’s death if it weren’t for the incitement to murder Jews that takes place in Palestinian society – and the rest of the world that ignores – if not encourages - antisemitism. It’s not about revenge and anger, but to move forward from these things it helps a little to try and understand them. To the surviving family it might feel like the end of the world, but viewed in context it is part of the Jews’ long timeline of persecution and suffering – and our reaction to this is “Am Yisrael Chai”. They have tried again and again to stamp us out but with G-d’s help we still survive. 12 year old Tamar Fogel, who saw the bodies of her parents and three siblings, has shown amazing strength and understanding of this:

But Laor just views this as the right as ‘exploiting’ “its 15 minutes of media exposure to impose its version of ‘history’." On the decision to publish photos of the bodies – the decision which was actively encouraged by the surviving family – Laor calls it “so explicit it is practically pornographic” – yet it is only when Israelis are the victims that the media are so hesitant to give details, in case people might actually feel sympathy.

Laor accused the right of displaying “joy in pouring salt on our wounds, all in the name of Israel's hasbara. But this isn't hasbara; it's a desperate need to impose ‘our’ version of events, under cover of the horror.”

What he just said is Hasbara. Giving the real version of events because the world constantly ignores our side of the story. In the days following the attack, the media has made it very clear what they view as the “obstacle to peace” – and it is not the murder of sleeping Jewish babies. “Israel approves more settlements”, the headlines read – adding, as an afterthought “oh and by the way this might have something to do with the mysterious deaths of hardline extremist Jewish settlers who asked for it”.

As I have already demonstrated here, the settlements are irrelevant. Someone who murders babies, and those who celebrate this act, are not looking for peace or negotiations. There are no excuses. Daniel Greenfield wrote a great piece on this for Arutz Sheva.

Meanwhile in Itamar in the week of the Shiva, a Palestinian woman went into labour. IDF soldiers together with settler paramedics delivered the baby, taking care of her and the mother. You would never read this sort of thing in the Western media, because there the IDF and settlers are constantly dehumanised. But IDF decency to Palestinians is not at all an unusual occurence in Israel.

Incitement And Violence

The BBC and Guardian reported that many Palestinians were "shocked" by the Itamar attack, with no evidence for this, and conveniently forgetting about the handing out of sweets in Gaza, and Hamas spoksman Samu Abu Zuhri saying they "completely support the resistance against settlers".

Abbas did condemn the attack, but his words are meaningless whilst his government continues to incite hatred and violence against Jews and Israelis, glorify terrorists and spread antisemitic propaganda in Palestinian schools, media, mosques and on the streets.

Here are just a few examples of this incitement from recent weeks:

- On the day that the Fogels were buried, Fatah members named a town square after the female terrorist Dalal Mughrabi, who led a bus hijacking in 1978 that killed 37 Israelis – including 13 children. Summer camps in 2008 and this past summer have also been named after her.

- Two days before the Fogels were murdered, Abbas’ advisor Sabri Saidam said in a speech that Palestinian weapons must be turned towards Israel.

- The day before that, the PA announced a youth football tournament named after Wafa Idris, the first female Palestinian suicide bomber. Among other things, a student group and a UNICEF-funded summer camp have also been named after her.

- On March 4th, Fatah held a procession commemorating suicide bombers including Muhammad Daraghmeh who killed nine Israelis in a suicide bombing in Jerusalem, and Ayyat Al-Akhras, the youngest female suicide bombing at 17, who killed two Israelis.

- Three weeks ago, Palestinian Authority TV (under control of Abbas’ office) broadcast a video tribute to “martyrs” – including Habash Hanani, who in May 2002 entered Itamar (where the Fogels were killed), and murdered three Israeli students at the local high school.

- In December, Abbas awarded $2000 to the family of a terrorist who tried to attack Israeli soldiers with pipe bombs.

Details on more similar incidents here.

The Palestinian leadership are raising another generation of children to believe that their religion calls for the murder of Jews and that this will bring wealth and honour for them and their families.

For too long the world has been ignoring this, focusing incessantly on Israel building houses – but suicide bombings and rockets aren't aimed solely at settlers - and there is absolutely nothing that makes it ok to slash the throat of a three month old sleeping baby, killing her, her 4 and 11 year old brothers, and their parents.

The issue of settlements is irrelevant until the Palestinians stop teaching their children to hate and murder, and teach peace instead.

Meanwhile yesterday the IDF discovered tonnes of Iranian-made weapons on a ship that was headed from Turkey to Egypt, with Hamas being the intended recipient.

Also yesterday, Egyptian security forces intercepted five vehicles loaded with weapons that were headed from Sudan to Gaza.

Palestinians Murder Jewish Family And Children In Their Beds

Palestinian terrorists have stabbed to death five Jews of the same family as they slept in their beds. The victims are Udi Fogel (36), his wife Ruth (35) and three of their children: Yoav (11), Elad (4) and Hadas (3 months old).

Fatah's Al Aqsa Brigade claimed responsibility; Hamas handed out sweets in Gaza to celebrate the murder.

The Fogel family lived in the West Bank town of Itamar, with sick irony after having been forced out of their home in Gush Katif in the 2005 disengagement from Gaza. Giving up land brings peace? Really?

The Guardian does not once mention that Palestinians committed this terrorist attack, but calls the town "home to some of the West Bank's most fervent settlers" and "intensely naiontalist-religious" as though that makes it ok for Palestinians (who The Guardian do not refer to as hard-line or intensely naionalist-religious) to stab a three-month old baby to death while she sleeps.

Meanwhile the BBC claims that the attack "has shocked many Palestinians", ignoring the fact that actually the Palestinians' reaction was default: handing out sweets in Gaza, calling it "heroic and courageous", and justifying their joy as "a natural response".

Netanyahu has observed: "I noticed that some of the states who rushed to the Security Council to condemn Israel, the Jewish State, for planning to build a home somewhere are slow in issuing a harsh condemnation over the murder of Jewish babies."

Slow is an understatement. If all the people that ever criticised the settlements had an ounce of compassion and morality in their bones, they would unequivocally condemn this sickening murder and the incitement of violence and hatred towards Jews that takes place in the Palestinian schools and mosques, bringing up a new generation of Jew-hating terrorists.

The Promise: "Die, Evil Jews!"

The fourth and final part of The Promise, if possible, was even worse than the previous three put together in it’s demonisation of the Jews.

Anyone who defends the programme as “balanced” and really believes that all Jews are as evil as they are portrayed in it, must either be a. ignorant, or b. antisemitic.

This is just beyond anti-Zionism and any defence of it as such, as opposed to antisemitic, is just laughable.

I am not at all saying that some of what the Israelis and Jews did in The Promise didn’t happen; it did, and I would not defend the actions of the Irgun, some of what they did was disgusting.

But looking at The Promise from the perspective of someone who has no knowledge of Israel now or then, what they would think is that the Jews are totally evil.

In modern-day Israel, the Israeli brother tells Erin that “you can do anything you want to the Palestinians” with no consequences, and we see Israeli soldiers stand by as Jews scream abuse and throw glass and rocks at defenceless Palestinians - and this is portrayed as the norm – whilst the Palestinians in The Promise never do anything like this.

The reality is very different, not least because much as people like to pretend it isn’t, Israel is a democracy and Jews, just like Arabs will face the consequences if they are involved in violent behaviour. And that includes Israeli soldiers who are punished if they act against the IDF's strict code of conduct.

Meanwhile in The Promise’s version of the late 1940s the Jews are not only murderers but traitors as well – Clara, the Jewish woman who Erin’s grandfather was involved with, and his British-Jewish soldier friend both betrayed him leading to the deaths of British soldiers and Arabs.

The Promise completely ignores the other side to all this: that a. the majority of the Jews condemned these attacks – and not only condemned, but the Haganah, the original Israeli Defence Forces who worked alongside the British, captured and turned in Irgun members to the British; and b. at that time the Arabs attacked and killed hundreds of unarmed Jewish civilians.

The Promise fails to mention that the UN proposed the partition plan to create a Jewish state and a Palestinian state, and that the Jews accepted this but the Arabs rejected it.

It also throws in a large dose of sympathy to a Palestinian family whose daughter was a suicide bomber, and whose brother, a member of Hamas “says it’s his job to protect the family” – as though that’s in their charter and not to kill all the Jews or anything like that.

Finally, at the end of the programme, the director dictates to the viewers exactly what he aimed for them to think:

- About the creation of the state of Israel, Erin’s grandfather: “embarrassed and ashamed”.

- About present day Israel, Erin on the idea of returning: “Why, what’s the point?”

I have never seen such an obvious attack of delegitimisation of Israel on every level like this. With it's sympathy of Palestinian terrorists, and deliberate distortions and omissions of Israelis' and Jews' actions, The Promise is against both Israel’s right to existence and it’s right to self-defence, without both of which all the Jews would die. If that’s not antisemitism I don’t know what is.

The Promise: The Ultimate Defence Of Antisemitism

Amir Ofek of the Israeli embassy said that with regards to the anti-Israel Western media, The Promise is "worse than anything I've seen" and has "created a new category of hostility towards Israel".

I would go further, and say that of anything I've ever read or seen, The Promise is the most antisemitic and antisemitic-inducing of all. Whatever comes out of the Arab media is only to be expected and I haven't seen any Nazi propaganda films, but for Western media standards, The Promise is pretty shocking, and I am not easily shocked.

We meet a lot of Jews and Israelis in The Promise, and pretty much all of them are evil or portrayed as evil, barring the self-hating lefty Israeli brother, whose Christian-Arab terrorist-turned-"peace"-activist friend is, for a Christian, surprisingly hostile to Israel. Also I didn't know that the Al Aqsa Martyrs employed Christians, I thought it was just an Islamic thing.

Anyway Channel 4 defended The Promise saying that the characters

"'consistently and sympathetically present a contemporary Israeli perspective' and the Holocaust was 'powerfully evoked' to explain the longing for a Jewish homeland... 'Nobody escapes scrutiny in this film; different parts of the story reflect well and badly on the Palestinians, the Israelis and the British'."

Uh, really? Let's first count the ways the Israelis are reflected well:

1. Jews died and suffered in the Holocaust.

A round of applause for The Promise and Channel 4 for not being Holocaust deniers (even though Channel 4 have given a platform to Ahmadinejad The Holocaust Denier).

2. Some Israelis (namely Lefty Israeli Brother) hate Israel, which makes them good and peace loving, even though they think Israeli civilians deserve to be blown up by Palestinian suicide bombers.

Ok, now let's count the way the Palestinians are reflected badly (because the ways they're reflected well are too many to count):

1.

Yeah, there are none. There was a Palestinian suicide bombing which was just because, according to the self-hating brother "they can't make their point any other way" - but it definitely wasn't animalistic, as the 'Racist' Israeli Mother called it - and even though suicide bombings decreased by over 90% after the security fence was built, this fact is ignored in The Promise, and the fence is cited as having nothing to do with preventing terrorism; instead it is just to humiliate the Palestinians, so really the suicide bombings are the Israelis' own fault.

Despite this, Christina Patterson of the Independent (who has an issue with Jews) calls The Promise "extremely balanced".

The programme according to which typical Israeli children scream and throw stones at Palestinian girls whilst Israeli soldiers watch. In The Promise, Palestinians don't do these things, but they are "held and humiliated for the hell of it" by the IDF, not because Palestinians have ever been known to be violent towards Israelis or anything like that.

Patterson of course ignores Jewish history and links to Israel and sees the Holocaust as the only reason Jews wanted Israel as a homeland. She then ignores all the Palestinian persecution of Jews and pogroms against them before the Holocaust and claims that "you can see why their [the Palestinians'] sympathy for their newish neighbours might have worn a bit thin". Sympathy 'worn a bit thin' possibly being the biggest understatement ever made on Palestinian terrorism.

Patterson then seems to equate Palestinian terrorists with settlers and thinks that all that needs to be done for peace is for Israel to acknowledge "what Arabs around the world are reminding us: that there comes a time when bullying backfires."

Can Christina Patterson do simple maths?

If security fence = 90% decrease in suicide bombings

and giving away land (i.e. Gaza) = increased rockets on Israeli towns,

then what the hell is she talking about?

Palestine Papers: Negotiations, Lies, And The Guardian's Relief

The Guardian, in conjunction with Al Jazeera have leaked papers relating to Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations from the last 10 years. Strangely, even with their exclusive access, the Guardian can't actually seem to comprehend the meaning and significance of the documents. One of their headlines claims "Palestinian negotiators accept Jewish state, papers reveal", leaving out what PA negotiator Saeb Erakat actually said in the memos, which was "call it what you want... this is their issue, not mine". In response to the leaks, JPost reports that Erakat denied that the PA has ever offered to give away any of East Jerusalem, and "denied that the PA had agreed to recognize Israel as a Jewish state. He said that when asked by Israel to accept this demand, he replied that it was tantamount to asking a Palestinian to join the Zionist movement." Erakat has also reinforced that the position has always been that the

"Palestinian Authority would never give up any of our rights. If we did indeed offer Israel the Jewish and Armenian quarters of Jerusalem, and the biggest Yerushalayim as they claim, then why did Israel not sign a final status agreement?... Is it not strange that we would offer all these concessions which Israel demands, yet there is still no peace deal?"

Meanwhile PA president Mahmoud Abbas claims that it has been distorted so that the position of dividing the Old City, taking in 100,000 Palestinian refugees, and recognising Israel as the Jewish state is portrayed as the Palestinian position by Al Jazeera and the Guardian, when actually this is what is widely known as the Israeli position: "What is intended is a mix-up. I have seen them yesterday present things as Palestinian but they were Israeli... this is therefore intentional". So Abbas is now using Israel's transparency in these matters to defend himself.

In Hamas' view, this shows the "ugly face of the [Palestinian] authority, and the level of its co-operation with the occupation... and involvement in attempts to liquidate the Palestinian cause, particularly on the issue of Jerusalem and refugees, and its involvement against the resistance in the West Bank and Gaza Strip".

Unsurprisingly, but sickening all the same, is that this is the Guardian's take on it as well. Robin Shepherd observes that it shows that the political establishments, NGOs and media, particularly the Guardian, "have been adopting a position which was significantly more uncompromising on 'settlements'... more hardline against Israel than the Palestinian leadership itself."

CifWatch point out how, even worse, the Guardian's editorial in scorning the Palestinians' flexibility as "weakness" has actively

"egged on the Palestinians to reject even the slightest territorial compromise, encouraged them to accept nothing less than new maximalist demands, and, most dangerously, legitimized and empowered the most radical movement in their society: Hamas".

"Not content to merely cheer lead for the Palestinian side, and demonize Israel, they now seem to view their role as inciting the Palestinians to reject moderation and accommodation... in framing the compromises which may have been considered by the Palestinian leadership, as a cowardly surrender to the cause, Guardian editors have now emboldened Hamas, and have abandoned even the pretense of advocating for peace."

In stark contrast to the Guardian - who, originally shocked and dismayed at the Palestinians' apparent willingness to talk, are at the same time relishing their role in how the leaks will prolong the conflict* - the Times take an optimistic view of hopes for peace in the future:

"At last, Palestinian leaders appear to acknowledge that peace requires giving up things that they would otherwise wish to keep. They have provoked denunciation from theocratic absolutists [like the Guardian!] for whom compromise is betrayal. And that is reason enough to be hopeful."

We can be hopeful, but should also be realistic. Elder of Ziyon points out that whilst the documents do seem to be true, the Palestinian leaders' reactions to it are what is most telling about the difficulties in solving the conflict. The fact that they kept it all so secret, never explaining to their people their efforts to make peace, and now the way in which they're denying the truth of the documents, indicates that peace is not their priority. They have demonstrated they they are fully aware that the majority of the Palestinian people would not accept any of the suggested concessions, and they have done nothing to try and educate their people to change this stance.

*Excellent article on 'How The Guardian Helped Kill The Peace Process'.

Terrorists Attack; Terrorists Arrested

Yesterday IDF soldiers found Hamas terrorists planting explosives near the Gaza security fence. In the fighting that followed, four Israeli soldiers were wounded and one killed.

Today a Palestinian armed with two pipe bombs and a knife was shot and killed at a checkpoint as he approached IDF soldiers, shouting "Allahu Akbar".

Terrorists in Gaza fired a barrage of mortars into Southern Israel today, injuring three Thai kibbutz workers, one seriously.

Last week Israeli soldiers accidentally killed a Palestinian man in a raid to re-arrest six Palestinian terrorists that had been released by Abbas. One of them, released just four months after his arrest, was involved in the shooting and murder of four Israeli civilians last August, and a 2008 suicide bombing that killed one Israeli and wounded 10. The accidental killing of the innocent Palestinian is tragic, but there is a bigger picture that the media most likely ignore: the corruption of the Palestinian "justice" system, the fact that the murderer of four Israeli civilians was released four months after his crime, and the obligation of the IDF to re-arrest these terrorists before they murder even more Jews. Not something Israel haters are really bothered by.

Palestinian "Justice"

- A young Palestinian has been jailed for criticising and mocking Islam on his blog and on Facebook groups that he created, claiming to be G-d. The blogger faces a potential life prison sentence, whilst residents of his West Bank town say he should be publicly executed. Somehow I don't think any of this will change his opinions on Islam.

- Meanwhile on Gaza's new "five-star" prison, the director said "We do not practice any torture here. That takes place at the interrogation centre, before people are convicted." Once convicted though, those accused of collaborating with Israel are hanged in the basement. But before that, they can enjoy tv and radio in their rooms, and to visit and be visited by their families.

- In other news, last month the Working Group Against the Trafficking of Women set up a window display in Tel Aviv's Dizengoff mall, where real women posed with price tags attached, under a banner saying "Women for Sale". The aim was obviously to create awareness of the issue, and to gather signatures for their petition, but Iranian media reported it as "Prostitution in Israel", describing it as a "slavery mall". Thankfully the Western mainstream media isn't quite at that stage yet, although there have been instances where it's not very far off.

Hider: Rockets Are Minor Annoyance

Just Journalism look at the Times' latest editorial, that is "the first since the start of the peace talks to focus on Hamas’ refusal to accept either the legitimacy of the peace talks, or the existence of the Jewish state." (Which the Times, unlike the other papers, have acknowledged previously). The editorial refers to Hamas' recent murder of four innocent Israelis and states that although some settlers and ultra-Orthodox Jews might oppose Israel giving away land (for religious and security reasons), "any equation between such groups and Hamas is crass, mistaken and grossly offensive." It is in its editorials that the Times shows its journalistic integrity, in stark contrast to papers like the Guardian and Independent, who seem to view the settlers as a bigger obstacle to peace than Hamas terrorists.

In it's reporting though, The Times often demonstrates an anti-Israel slant that is common in the rest of the media. The culprit is their Middle East correspondent, James Hider. Last week he wrote an opinion piece that gives more of an insight into his anti-Israel attitudes than is already evident in his news reporting. To be fair - as I always am! - Hider does not seem to be an extremist left-wing Hamas and terror supporter. He occasionally acknowledges Hamas' murderous intent, but does tend to follow the rest of the media in focusing more on the settlers.

The op-ed opens with a ridiculous exchange with a Tel Aviv waiter, who learns that Hider lives in Jerusalem: "'Jerusalem?' he gasped. 'It's full of violence and police checkpoints. I never go there. What's it like now?'" I know people say Tel Aviv is a bubble, but I don't believe a typical citizen there is that ignorant. This must be the only Tel Aviv-ian who is, and trust Hider to find him. There are violence and checkpoints in and around both Jerusalem and Tel Aviv - but neither city is "full of" them. Jerusalem is not what you'd call a war zone, and nor is it the hole that Hider tries to imply it is. It is a thriving, bustling, modern town, with residents of all religions and backgrounds - and richer and poorer areas, just like every city in the world has.

Hider describes the divisions and differences between on the one hand Fatah in the West bank and Hamas in Gaza, and on the other hand the secular Israelis and the "rising influence of the ultra-Orthodox" in Jerusalem. But he claims that "what unites most Israelis is a sense of indifference":

"Most Israelis don't think about the millions of Palestinians on the other side of the walls and fences, unless Hamas is firing its rockets into the communities in the south. But since Israel's devastating offensive into Gaza in late 2008, even those have slowed to a minor annoyance."

10,000 rockets is a "minor annoyance"? Bomb shelters, trauma, damages, injuries, deaths, a minor annoyance? Is that what Hider would call it if a kassam fell on him?

Following that article, Hider was back to news reporting on Tuesday, with a piece on, yes, the settlers, and the "Countdown to construction that could doom peace".

Meanwhile, there have been more Palestinian terror incidents that didn't make the news. On Monday Palestinians shot at two plain-clothed Israeli policemen, lightly wounding them. A two year old baby was hospitalised after Palestinians threw rocks at the car her family was driving. In another Palestinian rock-throwing incident, an Israeli vehicle was damaged but no one was injured.

Hamas continue to fire rockets into Southern Israel on an almost daily basis, including two today, miraculously causing no injuries. An eight year old Israeli boy was injured when Palestinians threw rocks at his face. Also today, Palestinians armed with guns and a rocket launcher were killed by the IDF after approaching the Gaza fence despite warning shots from the IDF.

The twelve year old girl wounded by Palestinians last Thursday is in intensive care following head surgery - her family request that people pray for Herut bat Timor.