Are Palestinians “People of Color?”

I admit it. When I see the expression “person of color” used seriously, I stop reading. It is an indication that the writer is a fool, and probably a knave.

What does it mean? It has been around since the 1790s, but only recently has gained its present ideologically loaded meaning of “person belonging to an ethnic group that is or has been enslaved, colonized, persecuted or insulted by people of European ancestry.”

There are implications that flow from the status of being a POC. On the one hand, a POC is seen to be fragile, needing to be protected from present-day “white” oppression or compensated for prior oppression. On American college campuses, POCs demand “safe spaces” where they can be safe from demeaning micro-aggressions that “white” students, no matter how high their level of racial consciousness is, cannot seem to stop committing. Reparations, affirmative action and other benefits are also assumed to be due to POCs in order to redress historical wrongs and to overcome existing bias.

On the other hand, POCs may express their rage at being oppressed in aggressive ways, and non-POCs are expected to understand this, and even accept it.

American intellectual circles are obsessed by the concepts of oppression and victimhood, having added everything imaginable to the mix in addition to color and ethnicity. Thus it is also possible to be victimized on the basis of biological gender or the practically infinite variations of gender consciousness or sexual preference; or on the basis of religion, age, disability, poverty or employment status. I am sure I’ve missed some. The ways the various forms of oppression interact is called “intersectionality,” so papers are written about precisely how much worse it is to be an LGBT POC than an LGBT white.

The problem is that there is nothing about a person that makes them a POC except that they feel like one. I’ll start by noting that there is no scientific basis for the concept of “race,” and that even if there were, it has little to do with who gets to be a POC. Who could be closer genetically than Israeli Jews and Palestinians? The average percentage of melanin in the skin of Israeli Jews is probably higher than that of Palestinian Arabs, but skin color has nothing to do with being a POC.

To tell if someone is a POC, you ask if he is or was oppressed because of who he is. A Chinese man who came to the US in the 19th century to work on the railroad was almost certainly a POC. His great-grandchildren who make six-figure salaries in Silicon Valley, maybe not so much. But their kids, who go to Berkeley and suffer from micro-aggressions when someone insensitively asks them “where are you from?” – they are POCs.

In other words, POC is defined in terms of oppression, which means that arguing that someone is oppressed because they are a POC is a circular argument.

Palestinians insist that they are POCs, and expect solidarity from other POCs like American blacks. This is because “they are both colonized peoples” – so say the descendents of the Arab colonialists who swarmed over the Middle East and much of Europe, and of the traders that captured hundreds of thousands of Africans and shipped them off to the New World to be slaves! Interestingly the Movement for Black Lives doesn’t find this cognitively dissonant at all.

It is assumed that there is a commonality, a “whiteness,” to the oppressors of all the various groups of POCs. “Whiteness” (or white, hetero, male, cis-ness when the gender concepts are included) is as poorly defined as that of POC. It simply means the powerful other that is oppressing the various classes of victims. This supports the idea that American blacks and Palestinians have something in common, namely that they are oppressed by “white people.” When this concept is analyzed, it turns out to have no content, because “white,” like POC, is circularly defined, in this case as an oppressor.

The concepts of colonizer and colonized, popularized by Frantz Fanon’s 1961 book The Wretched of the Earth, are embedded in the concept of POC. Who else in recent times is a colonizer but a white European? It’s unfortunate that Fanon also suggested that violent resistance to colonization is justified, because this seems to have given rise to the idea that in a conflict between POCs and non-POCs, the POCs are allowed to be violent (and the colonizers not). Certainly the Palestinians claim this all the time.

But if being a POC has to do with being colonized and subjugated, who in history was more colonized than the people of Judea, invaded successively by Egyptians, Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Greeks, Romans (the ones who decided to call it “Syria Palaestina” after trying to ethnically cleanse the Jews in 135 CE), Byzantines, Arabs, Crusaders, Mamluks, Ottomans and the British?

Indeed, the idea that Palestinians are colonized depends entirely on the fake history promulgated by the Arabs and their supporters. Their narrative tells us that their “people” lived in “Palestine” for hundreds or even thousands of years, before the European Zionists came along and threw them out. In reality, with the exception of the very small number that were descendants of the Arab colonizers of the 7th century (and those who were descended from Jews that the Romans missed in 135), most Palestinian Arabs came to the land in the 19th and 20th centuries as economic migrants.

This explains why there is so little specifically “Palestinian” content to their culture, which is much the same as that of the Arabs in the surrounding region. There is no language called “Palestinian,” and no unique religion. What true Palestinianism that exists comes from their conflict with the Jewish residents of the land in the past hundred years or so. Thus the Palestinian national poet, Mahmoud Darwish, recently the subject of a controversy when his works were read at an event paid for by Israel’s Culture Ministry, was notable for his expression of Palestinian rage against the Jewish oppressors.

I submit that the American obsession with race and victimhood in general is a terrible idea, whose time should have passed long ago. The idea that POCs owe each other solidarity in the face of common “white” oppression is also nonsense. It should be obvious that there is absolutely nothing in common between the experience of American blacks and Palestinian Arabs.

The answer to the question posed by the title of this piece, therefore, is that it is a non-question. It might be a shock to students and faculty, but not everything is about race or gender.

Posted in Academia, American society, Israel and Palestinian Arabs | Leave a comment

The way to “improve our image” is to exercise our power

The UNESCO resolution which referred to Jewish holy sites in Jerusalem by their Muslim names alone that passed this week made me think that we – the State of Israel – are taking the wrong path, at least if the destination is to survive and thrive.

The implication of the resolution is to deny the connection of the Jewish people to the Temple Mount and the Western Wall. Despite our attachment to them, the resolution suggests that the sites ‘belong’ to Islam.

I am not going to discuss the historical or archaeological evidence, or the religious traditions in Judaism, Christianity or even Islam that the resolution contradicts. Rather, I am concerned with the political implications; what we can learn from it about our position in the world and our possible diplomatic and even military strategies.

There are 58 nations on UNESCO’s board, and 56 of them voted. Six opposed the resolution: Estonia, Germany, Lithuania, The Netherlands, United Kingdom and United States. 23 voted in favor, and 27 abstained (Mexico changed its vote before the final approval from in favor to abstain). All the Muslim-majority nations that voted were in favor except Chad and Guinea, which abstained. To Israel’s chagrin, the ‘advanced’ European nations of France, Italy and Spain abstained on a resolution which many saw as an expression of pure Jew-hatred.

Despite the recent improvement in relations between Israel and Egypt, including military cooperation, Egypt not only voted for the resolution but was also one of the seven Arab nations that proposed it. And apparently Israel’s “close” ties with Russia did not carry over to this arena, where Russia too voted for it.

In April, UNESCO passed a very similar resolution. The same six countries voted against it, but then there were 33 in favor and only seven abstentions. The changed votes were probably due to feverish lobbying by Israel, possibly with some help from friendly countries. I am not sure why there was less public indignation in April – probably because the vote was so unbalanced as to be embarrassing.

What are the lessons to be learned from this?

One is that while we might be successful in cooperating with some Muslim nations in limited ways on limited issues, there is unlikely to be an ideological breakthrough. Where the legitimacy of a Jewish state on ‘Muslim land’ (which happens to include all of our country) is concerned, there can be no compromise, even if there might be pragmatic – and temporary – acceptance. The day that Egypt will not be poisoned by Jew-hatred is far off.

Another is that, at least in the international forums associated with the UN, we can’t win. It is not paranoia to say that there they are “all against us” with only a few exceptions (and those exceptions are not guaranteed). This does not augur well for the UN Security Council resolution that is expected to be proposed immediately after the American elections to outlaw Israeli settlements across the Green Line.

We can also note the degree of cynicism – or perhaps extreme anti-Zionism or even Jew-hatred – that would cause a country like France, Spain or Italy, with a Christian tradition, to in essence deny the connection between the Jewish people and the historical Temple. From where do they believe Jesus threw out the money-changers? A mosque, some 600 years prior to Mohammad? It is not as though they were not aware of the implications of abstaining – our diplomats made sure that they did understand.

All this is just  more evidence, as if more is needed, against the strategy of accommodation, the idea that if Israel would be a good “world citizen,” then its conflicts will end. Ha’aretz, in a typical editorial following the vote, said that improving Israel’s standing in the world will require “meaningful steps to moderate the occupation and serious negotiations to establish Palestine.” Really? Do you think that any such “steps” short of total surrender will satisfy the Muslim world, which almost unanimously believes that Jews have no rights to any land in the Middle East? We allowed Hamas to “establish Palestine” in Gaza, and the result is plain to see.

Yes, we need a better-organized Foreign Ministry, better direct diplomacy and better hasbara. But those things will not change the basic dimensions of the problem, which can be defined as follows: they are (more or less) all against us, and the reason is that we are Jews in a world where we are a tiny minority, non-Muslims in a Muslim region; we are considered “European colonialists” despite our truly indigenous status and the fact that half of us are not from Europe; and we are nationalists in a world where nationalism is only permitted to “people of color.”

Trying to convince the world that this isn’t so, especially through international institutions where Sudan, for example, has the same vote as the US or the UK, is not a workable strategy. Trying to be a good citizen isn’t enough, because what they demand as proof of our goodness we can’t afford to give (as Ayaan Hirsi Ali is reported to have said “even if you give them Jerusalem, there will be no peace”).

But trying to do these impossible things not only fails, it has a negative impact. Begging the world to recognize that Jerusalem belongs to us implies that we aren’t strong enough to hold onto it. Keeping Jews from praying on the Temple Mount implies that it is not ours at all.

The only strategy that might succeed is one that calls for the exercise of power. We should use our power – and we have more economic, political and military power now than at any time in the past – to hurt our enemies and help our friends. A straightforward application of power is the best way to achieve our security and other goals, as well as to “improve our image” in the only way that counts: to make our friends trust us and our enemies fear us (the American President might do well to learn this lesson too).

We are not doing this when, as the strongest military power in the region, we allow Hezbollah to establish deterrence that constrains our actions. We are not doing this when, as a sovereign state, we allow our foreign enemies to pump millions of dollars into subversive organizations here, or to interfere in our elections. And we are not doing it when we allow Muslims more rights on the Temple Mount than Jews.

Updated [21 Oct 2016 1211 IDT] for clarity and to fix typos.

Posted in Information war, Middle East politics, The UN | 3 Comments

UNESCOs moral infirmity

If Algeria introduced a resolution declaring that the earth was flat and that Israel had flattened it, it would pass by a vote of 164 to 13 with 26 abstentions. – Abba Eban

What’s next? A UNESCO decision denying the connection between peanut butter and jelly? Batman and Robin? Rock and roll? – Binyamin Netanyahu

או”מ שמום  (UN, shmoo-en) – David Ben Gurion

It seems like everyone in the country is talking about the Palestinian-prompted UNESCO resolution which calls the Temple Mount and Western Wall only by their Muslim designations, implying that there is no Jewish connection to these sites. Not only does the phrase “Temple Mount” not appear, but the document refers to the “Al-Aqṣa Mosque/Al-Ḥaram Al-Sharif,” suggesting that the entire Mount is part of or identical to a mosque.

Israelis have responded with wall-to-wall condemnation of the resolution; even Israel Radio’s pre-holiday music program played numerous songs about Jerusalem, which the DJ carefully noted were “dedicated to UNESCO.” The resolution crossed a red line, the one that separates the supposed “political criticism of Israel” from outright Jew-hatred, although everybody knows that unofficially that line was crossed long ago. But people are angry, and want action. They don’t want to hear, yet again, “it’s the UN, what do you expect?” The feeling is that we don’t have to take this abuse, not the physical abuse of terrorism and not the delegitimization that pours from the “international community” on a continuous basis. We know that the purpose of delegitimization is to set the stage for the destruction of our state and the Jewish nation.

The reality and importance of the connection of Jerusalem and the holy sites to the Jewish people doesn’t need to be proven; no one halfway literate can honestly ignore the historical and archaeological evidence; no one can deny that the texts of Judaism and Christianity – and even Islam for that matter – refer to the Jewish Temple on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. Only “Palestinians,” a people that created itself with the help of Soviet psychological warfare experts some 50 or so years ago, have ever had the chutzpah to say that all this is false.

But we know what to expect from “Palestinians,” masters of the made-up narrative, inventors of “Pallywood.” We are not surprised that Pakistan, Iran, etc. voted for it. What is harder to understand is why, out of 56 nations voting on the UNESCO resolution, only 6 – Estonia, Germany, Lithuania, The Netherlands, United Kingdom and United States – voted against it. Among the 26 abstentions were Italy, France and Spain, countries surely familiar with the history and traditions surrounding the Jewish Temple. Are we to believe that these countries, with their Christian traditions, didn’t understand the significance of the resolution?

And those who voted for it, including some countries that recently had supposedly improved their relations with Israel significantly, like India, Russia and China – or Chad, where the Director-General of Israel’s Foreign Ministry traveled in July to meet with its President – don’t they understand that their vote is more than a conventional and unexceptional slap at Israel, but a viciously anti-Jewish act? Are they really historically illiterate enough to believe the implication of the resolution, which is that the Jewish people have no connection – and even more, no right – to their holiest places?

I don’t think all of the abstainers or those who voted ‘yes’ are too ignorant to understand this. Certainly they get it in France, Spain and Italy! The explanation has to be that arguments against the resolution from Israel and the US, were counteracted by pressure to vote for it. But pressure from whom?

Not the “Palestinians,” who have no persuasive leverage. I think the most likely main culprit is Iran itself, which today unashamedly carries the banner of Hitlerist Jew-hatred in the world. Iran is selling large quantities of oil in the Far East, and the slavering greed of Europe to do business in the newly-unsanctioned Iran is well-documented. Russia (the folks who gave us the word ‘pogrom’) is now allied with Iran in the Syrian war, and perhaps prefers not to strain relations with it.

Today, the delegitimization of Israel, combined with the promulgation of “traditional” Jew-hatred, is a major project of Iran, which incidentally also finances much of the physical terrorism carried out against Israel. Iran also created and supports Hizballah, today Israel’s major conventional military threat.

Regardless of the pressure that may have been exerted, the fact that many “culturally advanced” nations could take part in an expression of pure Jew-hatred, which they must have understood as such, tells us much about the lack of moral backbone of their leaders – and must be a warning to us for the future.

The resolution is scheduled to come up for final approval in UNESCO’s Executive Board today (Tuesday). Although UNESCO’s Director-General, Irina Bokova, and other staff members oppose it, it is hard to imagine enough votes changing to result in a different outcome. The pressure from Iran will not let up regardless of what “moral” arguments are made.

I expect that a few more votes might be moved from “for” to “abstain,” and a few abstainers switch to the opposition, but it will pass. We can expect similar challenges in the near future.

Why is this happening? Part of it is our failure to use our power to obtain diplomatic objectives, and part is that we have never succeeded in maintaining a positive image of Israel in the world public. Both our direct diplomacy and our “public diplomacy” or “hasbara” efforts have been failing for years.

This is a massive screw-up, and there isn’t a simple solution. Our Foreign Ministry is in disarray. The Director-General just quit for unspecified “personal reasons,” and we haven’t had a Foreign Minister in some time (the PM is in charge of it in addition to his other duties). The Europeans and Iran spend heavily on anti-Israel propaganda and subversion, while our public diplomacy budget is minuscule.

Fixing this is a long-term task, which will require attention at the highest levels of government. But a response to UNESCO’s challenge is needed now. Israel has a responsibility, not just to itself, but to the Jewish people of whom it aspires to be the protector, to force  UNESCO members to override this resolution with another that explicitly recognizes the Jewish connection to Jerusalem and its holy sites.

Israel has leverage – what about the technology that the PM has recently promised to African nations? What about the natural gas that is about to become available? What about security and counterterrorism cooperation? Egypt, that is struggling with our help against Da’esh and the Muslim Brotherhood, is taking a leading role in promoting this resolution. Why shouldn’t it have to pay a price?

The muscles are there. Flex them. And then begin to make the changes to our diplomatic apparatus that will prevent us from being blindsided like this in the future.

Posted in Information war, Israel and Palestinian Arabs, The UN | 3 Comments

No more carrots

Two Israelis – a beloved grandmother and a young policeman, married only a few months – were murdered and six wounded in Jerusalem on Sunday, by a Palestinian terrorist. This isn’t surprising, since 42 Israelis have been killed and some 500 wounded in similar attacks over the past year. Jerusalem has been the focus of many of these attacks, only exceeded by Judea and Samaria.

For some reason, this particular attack made us furious. People have had enough, not that murder is ever acceptable. That’s it, we are saying, we won’t take it anymore. It must not be that Jews can’t walk the streets of our cities without fearing that they will be shot, stabbed or run down. We want something done, something more than just placing more police and soldiers on the street.

Meir Turgeman, Deputy Mayor of Jerusalem spoke for many:

“We have reached the moment of truth. Let’s put all the cards on the table: the people in eastern Jerusalem want to kill us and destroy us. Why should we give them yet another opportunity?” Turgeman said in an interview with Radio Jerusalem, calling on Jerusalem Arabs to take responsibility.

“We lived under the false hopes that these people would change their animal-like behavior if we help them. But it turns out that nothing helps. Why do people have to die in Jerusalem? Where is that written? Who said it?” he added.

“We need to take responsibility here. And I’m going to set an example. I removed all construction plans in eastern Jerusalem from the agenda [of the planning and building committee]. I cancelled all the plans. They say stick and carrot, but there are no more carrots, only sticks,” Turgeman said.

Mayor Nir Barkat said that he hadn’t been consulted and that the statement didn’t represent city policy, but my guess is that the Jewish population of Jerusalem overwhelmingly agrees with Turgeman.

One of the key aspects of the wave of terrorism is the degree of support for it by the Palestinian leadership and the population, both in the territories and in Jerusalem:

Hamas referred to the terrorist as its “son” who “died a martyr.” The group called the attack “heroic” and “a normal reply to the crimes of the Israeli occupation.” In a Facebook post, Fatah, the party of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, also praised Abu Sbeih: “The one who carried out the operation today in Jerusalem is a pilgrim [to Mecca] martyr, one of the most prominent people in Jerusalem and the blessed Al-Aqsa Mosque, and a released prisoner.” The Jerusalem branch of Fatah called for a general strike “in Jerusalem in memory of the souls of the martyrs of Palestine and this morning’s martyr.” Abu Sbeih’s teenage daughter said in a video, “We deem my father as martyr…I am proud of what my father did. We’re very happy and proud of our father.” Hamas handed out candy and baklava in celebration of the attack and sweets were passed out in East Jerusalem as well.

Incitement to violence by the Palestinian leadership has driven an ongoing wave of terrorism for the past year, which has killed 42 Israelis and wounded more than 500. Fatah boasted in August that it has “killed 11,000 Israelis.” Abbas praised a Jordanian who was shot while attempting to stab Israeli Border Police officers as a “martyr” in a condolence letter to his family last month. He has consistently refused to condemn acts of terrorism. A senior adviser to Abbas stated this past June, “Wherever you find an Israeli, slit his throat.” When a Palestinian terrorist went on a stabbing spree in Jaffa that killed American army veteran Taylor Force in March, the PA’s official TV news station called the terrorist responsible a “martyr” and on Twitter, Abbas’s Fatah party hailed him as a “martyr” and a “hero.” Last February, Abbas met with families of terrorists who carried out attacks against Israelis, telling them: “Your sons are martyrs.

Social media is even more aggressive and insistent with its incitement. In fact, Sunday’s terrorist (who, I am happy to report, died in the firefight with police he provoked) had been imprisoned for inciting murder on Facebook.

The PA also does its part by paying large salaries to the families of jailed terrorists. Bomb-maker Abdallah Barghouti, serving 67 life sentences for the bombing of the Sbarro pizza restaurant and others, has received about $150,000. Amjad Awad, one of the cousins who slaughtered the Fogel family, received $23,000. This has become such a scandal that even the usually supportive government of the UK is having second thoughts about continuing to fund the PA.

So what to do? Deputy Mayor Turgeman had some ideas, including deporting supporters of terrorism to Gaza and unilaterally divesting of some of the Arab neighborhoods of Jerusalem. Public Security Minister Gilad Erdan says that the social networks must do more to remove inciting posts. Others have suggested blocking social media in the PA and Arab neighborhoods (I don’t know if this is technically feasible).

It seems to me that before anything else, the educational and media system set up by Yasser Arafat that produces generation after generation of Palestinians who are little more than walking, protoplasmic containers for the most vicious anger and hatred – e.g., Abu Sbeih’s daughter or any of the several 13-year olds that have tried to murder Israelis – must be ended. The PA has promised to stop incitement on several occasions since the Oslo accords created it, but they have never done anything, since they understand that “popular resistance” – murder carried out by ordinary citizens with no centralized control – is one of their best weapons. Perhaps this will require ending the reigns of the PA and Hamas.

In the face of this, the Israeli Left, as personified by the Ha’aretz newspaper, displays its remarkable, even psychotic, disconnect with reality. “Instead of understanding that only bold moves to end the occupation are likely to reduce the violence, Netanyahu is turning Israel into a hopeless place that endangers the lives of its people,” they write, in an editorial published Monday. It continues,

The government’s consistent blocking of any option for a diplomatic process, at the end of which a glimmer of hope for an agreement might emerge, is what’s causing the feelings of suffocation and frustration, and later the barbaric acts like Sunday’s attack.

If you ask them, the Palestinians will tell you that what suffocates and frustrates them is the presence of Jews between the Jordan and the Mediterranean. Nothing makes this clearer than their refusal to accept offers of almost all the land outside of the Green Line for a sovereign state, while they refuse to admit that even the pre-1967 Israel belongs to the Jewish people, and demand to flood it with Arab ‘refugees’. Anyone who doubts this need only look at their maps of ‘Palestine’, pay attention to what their leaders say in Arabic, or the Palestinian in the street tells pollsters. What would an “agreement,” as Ha’aretz demands, with these people be worth?

This should have been obvious to everyone since the terror attacks of the mid-1990’s, and if not then, from the Second Intifada, and if not then, from the Hamas takeover of Gaza and consequent rocket attacks, and if not then, from the currently ongoing “popular resistance.” But for Ha’aretz and its ilk, all the violence just means that we havn’t been bold enough in our concessions, even though every concession has brought more violence.

I don’t know precisely what the solution is, but I can say for certain that it won’t be found in trying to make things better for the Palestinians or giving them hope, because what they hope for is our destruction. The answer lies in the opposite direction, in “bold moves” to increase, not decrease, our control of the land of Israel, and to reduce its Arab population.

As far as ending terrorism is concerned, Turgeman had the right idea: no more carrots, only sticks.

Posted in Israel and Palestinian Arabs, Terrorism | Leave a comment

Goodbye, Barack

At last, after eight long years during which Barack Obama a) applied almost unrelenting pressure on Israel, much more obsessively than anything else he did, and b) taught us the painful truth about American liberal Jews – that for them, Israel is just another foreign country – he is leaving the White House. What comes next could be better or worse, but who here won’t be happy to see his particularly offensive brand of hypocrisy and hostility disappear?

But the game isn’t over until January 20, and soon there will be nothing to restrain him from acting on his obsession.

Last Wednesday, the State Department issued a press release in which it “strongly condemn[ed]” Israel’s plan to build 98 homes inside an existing settlement in order to house families that will be displaced by the demolition of another settlement, which has been ordered by Israel’s Supreme Court.

“Strongly condemn” is language normally used for terrorism or, for example, Russian and Syrian air strikes on hospitals in which dozens of civilians die.

The State Department claimed that Israel was violating its assurances to the US that it would not build “new settlements.” Israeli officials called the statement “disproportionate” and argued that it was neither a “new settlement” nor an obstacle to peace.

Administration lackeys like the New York Times and J Street echoed the criticism. The Times, in language that could have been (and probably was) written by NSC staffer and Obama confidant Ben Rhodes, blasted Israel and called for a Security Council resolution to “set guidelines” for Israeli withdrawal from Judea and Samaria. An administration official said that “the White House boiled with anger” (more Rhodesian rhetoric) over Israel’s plan.

The flap created anxiety in Israel that Obama plans to refrain from vetoing a Security Council resolution declaring Israeli settlements illegal or take some other anti-Israel action once the election is over and he is insulated from any electoral consequences.

Dear Barack Obama,

I am tired of your crap and so is my country.

This isn’t the first time – maybe the fourth or fifth – that you and your friends have manufactured a crisis, some horrible “insult” so that you can “boil with anger” and then pressure Israel in one way or another. Do you really think anyone outside of your echo chamber actually believes that freezing construction in Judea, Samaria and eastern Jerusalem will cause the Palestinians to suddenly agree to the existence of a Jewish state anywhere from the Jordan to the Mediterranean? Poor old Mahmoud Abbas merely attended the funeral of a Jewish leader, indeed, the one that brought him and his vicious PLO back from exile to go on the murder spree that continues even today, and his people are ready to lynch him.

Anyway, 81-year old Abbas, who just underwent a heart procedure, is about to leave the stage and his unpopular Palestinian Authority is disintegrating. Hamas is waiting in the wings. So we should trade land for paper with these people?

The other day Bibi Netyanyahu finally called a spade a spade and noted that the Palestinians were calling for ethnic cleansing, like the Jordanians carried out in Judea and Samaria and Jerusalem in 1948. Oh, you went ballistic, “livid” and “seething.” How dare we, colonialist Jews, appropriate the language owned by “people of color?”

Your continuing unjustified obsession with Jews living across the Green Line illustrates the blatant double standard that you apply to Israel. And not just about settlements. I am still waiting to hear that you are “boiling” or “furious” or “seething” or “livid” or whatever at real war criminals Putin and Assad, not to mention your Iranian friends who play you for the fool day in and day out. Where are your anger-management issues when we need them?

I don’t think that you believe your own talking points. You know damn well that they are bullshit. You want Israel as weak and vulnerable as possible so that she can’t fight back when they try to wipe her off the map. Your dislike of Israel is both personal and political. You are happy trying to help your Palestinian friends achieve their hearts’ desire of finally getting rid of the Jews. Back in 2003 your friend, former PLO operative Rashid Khalidi, promised Palestinian-Americans at a dinner party where you spoke that “You will not have a better senator under any circumstances.” Did you also promise them something?

Your anger is obviously carefully scripted, but it won’t make us do what you want. Maybe some psychologist told you that that’s how to deal with Jews, but that approach has been outdated for the past 68 years or so. And don’t bother yelling at our PM, a former combat soldier twice wounded in action. You don’t scare him, and Israel is not interested in committing suicide in order to help you keep your promises.

The State Department’s condemnation of Israel mentioned the $38 billion military aid package and suggested a linkage between it and Israel’s “decision [to build 98 homes] so contrary to its long term security interest in a peaceful resolution of its conflict with the Palestinians.” You should know that many of us think that accepting aid creates an unhealthy dependence, and would like to see it phased out. But if you get really boiling mad, livid, furious and seething, then go ahead and cut us off (if Congress and your defense contractors will let you). It will be painful like any cold turkey detox treatment, but we’ll survive and come out stronger and safer.

It will be a fine day here in the Middle East when you climb into that helicopter on the White House lawn for the last time and fly off into retirement. My advice is not to get too angry at your golf clubs, because it will only hurt your game.

Abu Yehuda

Posted in American politics, US-Israel Relations | 2 Comments