FresnoZionism.org — ציונות פרסנו

Oday Aboushi at El Bireh Convention

Palestinian-American lineman Oday Aboushi was drafted by the (American football) NY Jets this year. He has become a center of controversy because of his out-front support for the Palestinian cause.

Aboushi was criticized for speaking at the convention of the El Bireh Palestine Society, a group which has had other speakers with connections to terrorism, and whose Facebook pages include pictures of terrorists and other “horrifically anti-Semitic, anti-Christian and terrorist propaganda.” The organization’s logo shows the entire state of Israel covered by a Palestinian flag. Aboushi’s own Facebook page contained what was called ‘objectionable’ material, which was removed after a previous exposé. Joe Kaufman, the author of the articles, asks “what will the Jets do?”

Probably very little, given that Aboushi is being criticized for political beliefs, something which doesn’t usually fly in the US unless it’s possible to establish that a person’s beliefs are racist (as in the case of poor Paula Deen), in which case he or she can be ostracized from public life, terminated from employment, etc. But nobody caught Aboushi calling anyone a ‘kike’.

He is only a patriotic Palestinian, and what could be wrong with that?

Abraham Foxman of the ADL supported Aboushi against what he called “smearing:”

Absolutely nothing in the public record suggests that Aboushi is anything other than a young American athlete who takes pride in his Palestinian heritage.  His participation in a conference organized by the El-Bireh Society, a Palestinian community organization that was until recently defunct, should not be used to tar him as an extremist.  Allegations claiming that he is affiliated with other extreme groups are similarly unsubstantiated and appear to be exaggerated for the express purpose of smearing Aboushi.

There is nothing wrong with someone being proud of their ethnic or religious background, and this should be true regardless of one’s chosen profession.  Even if one disagrees with the agenda of the groups whose events he has attended, it is unfair and farfetched to cite those as evidence that he is an extremist.

Being pro-Palestinian does not mean you’re an anti-Semite or an extremist.

I have no idea of what organizations Aboushi is affiliated with and what his degree of affiliation is, or if he is in any sense a racist or Jew-hater. Probably not.

But Foxman is dead wrong: “Being pro-Palestinian” does make you an extremist, and anti-Jewish.

The Palestinian cause is nothing more than the negation of Jewish self-determination and sovereignty in their land. Supporting the Palestinian cause means that you accept the Palestinian narrative that they are an indigenous people whose land was taken from them by colonialist usurpers in a violent nakba, and that you favor the ultimate redemption of that land — all of it — from the hands of the Jews.

As Aboushi tweeted,

Today there is no Palestinian leadership that does not take as its ultimate objective the replacement of the Jewish state with an Arab one, from Hamas and the various extreme factions in Gaza, to the PLO and multiple Fatah factions in Judea and Samaria. They differ on strategies, tactics and timetables, as well as the nature of the state that will replace Israel. But they do not differ on this point.

Sometimes they will even say, in English, that they would agree to coexist with a Jewish state. But permanent coexistence is not part of any of their ideologies, as they express them in Arabic. This is also evidenced, on the part of the supposedly moderate PLO, by their insistence on negotiating terms that are incompatible with the continued existence of a Jewish state, such as the demand for a right of return for the descendants of Arab refugees.

Being pro-Palestinian means that you want to see the end of Jewish self-determination, and probably — according to the policies of the various Palestinian factions — the dispersal and/or death of that half of world Jewry which lives in Israel today. I would call this an ‘extremist’ point of view, and one that is anti-Jewish.

Many Americans who call themselves ‘pro-Palestinian’ would indignantly deny this. They would say that they are for peace and coexistence. But if there are virtually no Palestinian Arab leaders that think the same way, then support for their cause translates into support for terrorism and war.

Oday Aboushi recently said “As for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict … I hope that both sides make peace and live in prosperity.” If he believes this, it places him outside the mainstream of the Palestinian movement. I hope that he does.

But this post isn’t about Aboushi — it’s about the Palestinian cause and what it implies.

Technorati Tags: Oday Aboushi, Palestinian cause, Israel

News item:

Christian Arab citizens of Israel are forming a new political party that calls for Arab enlistment into the IDF. The party’s Hebrew name — B’nei Brit Hahadasha — means “Sons of the New Testament,” although the word “allies” is hidden in the title as well.

The effort is part of a growing assertiveness on the part of Christian Arabs in the wake of the Arab Spring, as they increasingly sound calls for an identity distinct from Israel’s broader Arab society, which is around 90% Muslim.

This is an interesting development. In the early part of the 20th century, the first stirrings of Palestinian nationalism were found among the Christian community, which was generally better-educated and more politically sophisticated than the Muslims. But the majority Muslims, led by the Nazi al-Husseini, soon picked up the banner, although it was more an anti-Jewish or Arab supremacist one than a ‘Palestinian’ one. That had to wait for Arafat and his creation of the ‘Palestinian people’ as a colonized third-world nation fighting a ‘war of liberation’.

In any event, today’s worldwide civil war between the Sunni and Shiite camps and the ascendance of more aggressive interpretations of Islam has been very hard on Christians in the Middle East. Churches have been destroyed and Christians murdered in Egypt, Gaza, Syria and even Lebanon. Possibly these Israeli Arab Christians realize that their interests are closer to those of the Jewish state than to a Muslim one.

If you believe, as I do, that the world is experiencing an increasingly violent flare-up of the long struggle between Islam and the mostly Christian or secular West, then it makes sense for both Jews and Christians to understand that they are on the same side.

Among those who do not understand this are the liberal Protestant denominations who have been carefully cultivated by Israel’s enemies, both via their concern for ‘human rights’ (greatly misplaced here), and by anti-Jewish theological arguments — so-called ‘replacement theology.

A fascinating case study in liberal protestant anti-Zionism, and its descent into — or exposure as — old-fashioned illiberal Jew-hating is James M. Wall, a contributing editor for the respected publication The Christian Century. Researcher Dexter Van Zile chronicles his journey here, from a mildly pro-Palestinian point of view to flaming Hitlerism in roughly 15 years.

Some Jews, especially intellectuals, have taken a similar path. Of course they are not influenced by replacement theology, but progressive politics and a sense of guilt serve the same function — turning them into Jewish Jew-haters (and they have no love for Christian Zionists, either).

I used to think that the problem was that Arab propaganda was devilishly effective. But actually it is not. The fake ‘history’ of the revisionist historians has holes big enough for real scholars to drive a truck through. The theatrical productions like the ‘death’ of Mohammed al-Dura can be shown to be transparent fakery, for anyone who is willing to listen. And you really have to be stupid to believe the medieval blood libels peddled today in the Middle East.

No, what I think today is that there are three kinds of anti-Zionists: Arabs and Muslims who find the idea of Jewish sovereignty unacceptable either for religious reasons or because it threatens their honor; ignorant or uninterested people who unquestionably accept the anti-Zionist story from others; and some thoughtful and intelligent individuals who are nevertheless conditioned, predisposed by some dark element in their character, to believe evil about Jews and their state. James Wall is one of these, as is the Jewish Max Blumenthal.

There is nothing that can be done about the first and third categories. But most of the world’s Christians do not hate Jews or Israel. In the Middle East they are becoming aware, in the most concrete way possible, of the worldwide struggle that is developing and their place in it.

Perhaps now is the time for Jews in the rest of the world to overcome their reticence — admittedly developed over the years as a result of the anti-Jewish attitudes and behavior of some Christians — and reach out to them. It’s not simple — there are still pockets of Christian Jew-hatred, even in places (like Eastern Europe) that are under siege by Islam.

But there’s no alternative. The Jewish people is a tiny minority in the world, in part due to centuries of hatred, pogroms, forced conversions and prejudice-driven assimilation. We will not survive without allies, and our natural allies are not and will never be found among the Muslims.

Technorati Tags: Jews, Christians, Israel

Palestinians often complain that the US is “biased” toward Israel. This could be because their fundamental belief is that all of the land between the Jordan and the Mediterranean belongs to them. So they see any recognition of Israel’s legitimacy as ‘biased’.

But if we stipulate that Israel is is not going away, then we can make a good argument that the US position — particularly as articulated by the Obama Administration — is strongly biased toward the Arabs.

Here’s a recent account of Secretary of State Kerry’s diplomatic effort:

“Kerry is trying to pave the way for relaunching the peace process. He is serious and we encouraged him. He made progress and we hope he can conclude a deal in the coming week,” said one [Palestinian] official.

While Israel would not explicitly commit to returning to its 1967 lines, negotiations would be based on a May 2011 policy speech by President Barack Obama. That speech called for a border based on the 1967 lines, with modifications based on mutually agreed “land swaps,” while also urging the Palestinians to recognize Israel as the homeland of the Jewish people. Abbas has repeatedly rejected Israeli calls to recognize the country as the Jewish state, fearing it would undermine the rights of Palestinian refugees displaced from properties inside Israel.

Kerry’s plan also calls on Israel to release about 100 of the longest-held Palestinian prisoners in its jails in several stages, and envisions a $4 billion international investment plan, conducted in various stages, to develop the struggling Palestinian economy.

The idea would be that within six to nine months the sides could pursue an agreement on all outstanding matters, including final borders, the fate of Palestinian refugees and resolving the competing claims to east Jerusalem.

Let’s leave aside all of the practical problems, like the fact that Abbas can’t speak for Hamas, the fact that there is no way to ensure that the Arabs would keep any bargain once Israel withdraws, the fact that  Palestinian ideology calls for continued ‘resistance’ until ‘all of Palestine’ is ‘liberated’ (and ideology trumps development), the continued Arab insistence that the descendants of Arab refugees are Israel’s problem, and last but definitely not least, the instability of Syria and Egypt. Let’s just look at the implications of Kerry and Obama’s approach to borders.

Historically, Israel — or rather, the Jewish people — had a prima facie claim to the land in question, as expressed by the Palestine Mandate. The land remained disputed while under Jordanian control after 1948, when both sides agreed that the armistice lines had no political significance.

But after 1967, when it finally came to physically possess the land, Israel agreed to relinquish some of the disputed area to the Arab nations in return for a peace treaty, by accepting UNSC resolution 242.

One can argue, and one might be right, that Israel should have told the UN to go to hell, annexed all of Judea and Samaria, and expelled those Arabs who would not agree to be loyal to the state. But that didn’t happen.

Somewhere in the years since 1967, the intent of UNSC 242 that an Israel-Arab peace settlement would include “secure” boundaries for all states, and that Israel is not required to withdraw from all territory captured in 1967, seems to have been forgotten.

The Obama Administration has taken the radical position that all of Judea and Samaria belongs to the Arabs, and that they must be compensated for any land outside the 1949 line that becomes part of Israel! This contradicts the commitment the international community made to the Jews when the Ottoman Empire was dismantled, the consensus that the 1949 lines were not borders, and the intent of UNSC 242. This is what I mean when I say that the US is biased in favor of the Arabs.

The administration position is much more pro-Arab than that of the Bush Administration, which recognized that any border agreement had to be based on the Jewish and Arab populations, and not arbitrary lines (and which also rejected ‘right of return’). Unfortunately, the State Department, in a significant betrayal of its ally, has walked back statements to this effect made by President Bush.

So much for living up to commitments.

Technorati Tags: Israel, Arabs, John Kerry, Israeli-Arab conflict

Egyptian demonstrator sends a message about US support of Morsy

President Obama’s statement in response to the military coup in Egypt is remarkable:

As I have said since the Egyptian Revolution, the United States supports a set of core principles, including opposition to violence, protection of universal human rights, and reform that meets the legitimate aspirations of the people.  The United States does not support particular individuals or political parties, but we are committed to the democratic process and respect for the rule of law.  Since the current unrest in Egypt began, we have called on all parties to work together to address the legitimate grievances of the Egyptian people, in accordance with the democratic process, and without recourse to violence or the use of force.

The United States is monitoring the very fluid situation in Egypt, and we believe that ultimately the future of Egypt can only be determined by the Egyptian people. Nevertheless, we are deeply concerned by the decision of the Egyptian Armed Forces to remove President Morsy and suspend the Egyptian constitution. I now call on the Egyptian military to move quickly and responsibly to return full authority back to a democratically elected civilian government as soon as possible through an inclusive and transparent process, and to avoid any arbitrary arrests of President Morsy and his supporters. Given today’s developments, I have also directed the relevant departments and agencies to review the implications under U.S. law for our assistance to the Government of Egypt.

Although the diplomatic language doesn’t specifically say that it would please the US if the military were to turn around and restore Morsy to power — it says “a democratically elected civilian government,” not “the … government” and asks the army to avoid “arbitrary” arrests, presumably allowing ones for which the army can give reasons — it clearly expresses the idea that the coup is an unwarranted intrusion of authoritarianism to overthrow a democratic and legitimate regime.

Apparently for Obama, the fact that the Muslim Brotherhood attained power after a more-or-less free election outweighs the considerations that the Brotherhood’s own political principles are thoroughly anti-democratic, with the constitution it sponsored calling for clerical rule via shari’a, and inferior status for women and non-Muslims. It also condoned, if it it did not encourage, violence and murder against Christians, as well as employing torture and rape to suppress popular opposition. In addition, the impetus for the army’s action was nothing less than what has been called the largest political demonstration in human history.

All this can be ignored, it seems, because the regime came to power through an election, a distinction shared with Adolph Hitler and Hamas. Does anyone think that having achieved power, the Brotherhood would ever expose itself to a fair election again?

Although the official line is that the US was neutral, Barry Rubin explains what the Obama Administration did to help the Brotherhood:

Let us remember that four years ago Obama gave his Cairo speech sitting the Muslim Brotherhood leaders in the front row. President Husni Mubarak was insulted and it was the first hint that the Obama Administration would support Islamist regimes in the Arab world. Then Obama vetoed the State Department plan for a continuation of the old regime without Mubarak. Then Obama publicly announced — before anyone asked him — that the United States would not mind if the Brotherhood was in government. Then Obama did not give disproportionate help to the moderates. Then Obama pressed the army to get out of power quickly, which the moderates opposed since they needed more time than the Islamists to organize.

Many will say that the president of the United States cannot of course control events in Egypt. That’s true. But he did everything possible to lead to this crisis.

Rubin suggested this question for defenders of administration policy:

Does it bother you that the United States is backing a regime led by anti-American, anti-Christian, antisemitic, anti-women, and anti-gay rulers who are unrepentant former Nazi collaborators?

Now that the regime is overthrown, there will need to be a new policy. Let’s hope that this time it agrees with the president’s stated goal of “opposition to violence, protection of universal human rights, and reform that meets the legitimate aspirations of the people.”

Technorati Tags: Egypt, Morsy, coup, Barack Obama

“Price Tag” graffiti in an Arab village. The inscription says “a good Arab is a dead Arab” and “price tag”

L. Cassius ille quem populus Romanus verissimum et sapientissimum iudicem putabat identidem in causis quaerere solebat ‘cui bono’ fuisset. — Cicero
[The famous Lucius Cassius, whom the Roman people used to regard as a very honest and wise judge, was in the habit of asking, time and again, ‘To whose benefit?’]

News item:

JERUSALEM (JTA) — Planning and carrying out “price tag” attacks in Israel will now be defined as “illegal organizing,” which puts the acts on the same level as Islamic terror groups.

The new designation announced Monday by Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Yaalon means that the Jewish perpetrators of such violence [sic] would face the same legal repercussions as Palestinian terrorists.

The new designation will allow Israeli security services and police to hold suspects in jail longer, keep them under arrest until the end of legal proceedings and investigate without the presence of an attorney. Those who plan and fund price tag attacks will be subject to the same proceedings.

I would be the last to say that harsh treatment for Price Tag vandals isn’t justified, although calling it ‘violence’ is a bit exaggerated. It certainly doesn’t compare to throwing grapefruit-sized rocks through the windshields of moving cars.

It is interesting that there have been very few arrests, despite a huge amount of publicity and official hand-wringing.

But like Lucius Cassius and Lt. Colombo, I ask, cui bono, who benefits?

Certainly not the Jewish population of Judea and Samaria, when the incidents are used to demonize them as, for example, here:

“Price tag” crimes are attacks on Palestinians and Palestinian property by Israeli settlers, which are meant to both intimidate Palestinians into leaving Palestine and serve as payback for perceived setbacks to Israel’s colonization efforts. Officially promulgated by Israeli settlers in 2011, the price tag movement follows more than six decades of official and unofficial attempts to terrorize Palestinians into leaving their homeland. …

But the hooligan Israelis who carry out these price tag attacks are striving for the same goals as Messrs. Peres, Bennett, and Netanyahu: namely, the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from Israel/Palestine.  They merely use different means to accomplish that goal.  In fact, price tag vandalism, while indeed reprehensible, pales in comparison to the far more insidious and far more powerful policies that the Israeli government has long enacted and enforced.

Let me just say that if there is ethnic cleansing being carried out, it is highly ineffective, insofar as the Arab population of pre-1967 Israel and the territories have increased several times over since 1948. So much for the “insidious” and “powerful” machinations of the government!

But to return to the question: price tag activities, in fact, benefit no one more than those who wish to see ‘settlers’ portrayed as criminals, and who wish to see them, not the Arabs, removed from their homeland.

The recent vandalism in Abu Ghosh, a village that has been remarkably friendly to the state since 1948, was particularly damaging. Indeed, former Lehi activist and right-wing member of the Knesset Geula Cohen recently recalled that Arabs from Abu Ghosh helped her escape from a British prison in the 1940’s.

I’m sure that there are some Jewish vandals who don’t understand that what they are doing is beyond stupid. But I also am confident that some of these incidents, if fully investigated, would turn out to have been perpetrated by anti-state actors — leftists, anarchists or Arab extremists.

There are some cases in which there is evidence that the perpetrators were not right-wing Jews. For example, take the case of the mosque in the Israeli Arab village of Tuba Zangaria, which was damaged by fire in 2011. A local Arab later came forward and accused village residents of setting the fire and spraying the words “price tag” on the building to deflect suspicion. For his trouble, his house was sprayed with bullets.

One straightforward reason that there are few arrests could be that the police are looking in the wrong places. In the Tuba Zangaria case, a Jewish student was initially arrested (with a great deal of fanfare) and then released for lack of evidence.

But there is another possibility, a somewhat ugly one. It has recently become known that the Internal Security Service (the Shabak) has infiltrated right-wing Jewish groups and agents even took part in anti-Arab attacks:

The Esh Kodesh man reportedly gathered his friends and admitted to them that he had been working with the Shin Bet for some time, and had passed on much information on anti-Arab activity to the agency, including information that helped the group to thwart attacks. The man himself was complicit in several of the attacks he reported.

It wouldn’t be beyond imagination that elements in the Shabak who wanted to discredit the settlement enterprise encouraged this behavior in unstable members of extreme nationalist groups.

The tactic of provoking, or even faking, extreme behavior in order to discredit political opponents is not unknown in Israel. Shortly before the murder of Yitzhak Rabin, a Shabak agent invented a right-wing extremist group called ‘Eyal’, which did such things as display posters of Rabin in an SS uniform. The group received massive media publicity. All this was established by the Shamgar Commission, which investigated Rabin’s murder. Some Israelis think that the assassination of Rabin was actually intended to be a staged attack using blank cartridges that went wrong when the murderer, Yigal Amir, replaced the blanks with live ammunition.

This was far more serious than spraying slogans on mosques and flattening tires.

Is it possible that the vandalism in Abu Ghosh, for example, was not initiated by right-wing anti-Arab ‘settlers’? Yes, there is a precedent. Did it happen this way? Ask yourself: cui bono?

Technorati Tags: price-tag vandalism, Israel, Abu Ghosh, Shabak