RUTHFULLY YOURS

“ISRAEL WILL NEVER AGAIN BE NINE MILES WIDE”

[Note by Tom Gross]

Tomorrow marks the fiftieth anniversary of the outbreak of the 1967 Six Day War – a war that some say changed the Middle East. In the run up to the anniversary, there have been a number of attempts at historical revisionism by some academics and journalists, distorting the facts in a bid to turn the Arabs into victims and Israel into an aggressor. For example, a new BBC online “backgrounder on the Six Day War” suggests that Egypt’s President Nasser had no intention of fighting Israel.

I attach three articles below which help counter these distortions. The first is by Israeli commentator Ben-Dror Yemini, who points out, citing examples, that Arab leaders announced unequivocally that their plan for Israel was annihilation. For instance Syria’s Hafez Assad declared: “Pave the Arab roads with the skulls of Jews… We are determined to saturate this earth with your (Israeli) blood, to throw you into the sea.” The second piece is by Michael Oren, the former Israeli ambassador to Washington, who writes confidently that “Israel will never again be nine miles wide”. And the third is by Bret Stephens, who recently moved from the Wall Street Journal to the New York Times to become their token non-anti-Israeli columnist, who says that “for the crime of self-preservation, Israel remains a nation unforgiven”. (All three writers are subscribers to this Middle East dispatch list.)

“DOES ANYONE THINK THAT THERE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN A MASS SLAUGHTER?”

Ben-Dror Yemini (Yediot Ahronot, Tel Aviv):

There is a mega-narrative that exempts the Arabs from responsibility for the Six-Day War. Yet both the Arab League and the leaders of all neighboring states announced in an unequivocal manner that their plan for Israel was annihilation. Considering the fact that the Arab and Muslim world was engaged in endless massacres – which are still going on – it was pretty clear that what they were doing to themselves they would also do to Israel.

The Arab states never accepted the State of Israel’s existence, not for a moment. There was no occupation from 1949 to 1967, but a Palestinian state wasn’t established because the leaders of the Arab world didn’t want another state. They wanted Israel. In 1964 the Arab League convened in Cairo and announced: “collective Arab military preparations, when they are completed, will constitute the ultimate practical means for the final liquidation of Israel.”

In 1966, then-Syrian defense minister Hafez Assad declared: “Pave the Arab roads with the skulls of Jews… We are determined to saturate this earth with your (Israeli) blood, to throw you into the sea.”

Nine days before the war broke out, Egypt’s Nasser said: “The Arab people want to fight. Our basic aim is the destruction of the State of Israel.”

Iraqi president Abdul Rahman Arif said: “This is our chance… our goal is clear: To wipe Israel off the map.”
There are extracts first for those who don’t have time to read the articles in full.

The October 1973 war was equally decisive. It was a surprise attack on Yom Kippur by the combined Arab forces of Egypt and Syria. Golda Meir was Israel’s P.M. and Anwar Sadat was Egypt’s leader.The combined forces of Egypt and Syria totalled the same number of men as NATO had in Western Europe. On the Golan Heights alone, 150 Israeli tanks faced 1,400 Syria tanks and in the Suez region just 500 Israeli soldiers faced 80,000 Egyptian soldiers. After severe initial losses and casualties, Israel won, but terrorism did not stop. Egypt’s military humiliation and failure led to the Camp David Accords, and that territorial surrender of 92% of territory gained in 1967, changed the course of history….rsk

Fifty years ago, the State of Israel won a decisive military victory over the Arab world in the fastest major campaign in the history of warfare. The Six-Day War transformed the relationship between Israel and the world, permanently altered the balance of power in the region, and made the world a safer place.

The forces arrayed against Israel appeared overwhelming. Egypt alone outnumbered Israel by many times, and both Syria and Jordan had armies that appeared on paper to be robust. Beyond that, Arab nations stretching across West Asia and North Africa were added on the scales against Israel, and most of these nations contributed some forces to the conflict.

Israel had fought two wars, in 1948 and in 1956, against its enemies in the region, and Israel had won victories far from conclusive but which preserved, at least, the survival of the Jewish State. Almost from the beginning of the Six-Day War, it was clear that the Israelis were going to fight for an unmistakable and crippling defeat of those who had sworn to destroy their homeland.

Air strikes destroyed the Egyptian Air Force, which was large and had the newest Soviet fighters, in a surprise attack that set the tenor of the whole war. Sharp armored thrusts into Sinai pushed the Egyptian Army all the way back to the Suez Canal.

Jordan lost the West Bank of the Jordan River, despite possessing with the Arab Legion perhaps the finest of the Arab armies in the world. Syria lost the Golan Heights in savage fighting that cost the Israelis dearly but that the Israelis won in a few days.

Accelerated radicalization and recruitment as well as an effective disinformation campaign spearheaded and funded by Turkey, the main supporter of Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood, is threatening Israel’s sovereignty in east Jerusalem. The Salafist Hizbut Tahrir is also gaining influence in the area.Jordan’s role as Guardian of the Holy Places and protector of Arabs in the city is being usurped by Turkish-backed Islamists. Janet Levy

Turkish takeover in Jerusalem

The fireworks and fanfare of the Jerusalem liberation jubilee have shoved under the radar a blockbuster expose about the unruly situation in east Jerusalem. Alarm bells should be ringing about the nefarious intensifying involvement of Erdogan’s Turkey and other radical Islamist groups in Jerusalem political and social affairs.

Dr. David Koren and Ben Avrahami are the advisors on east Jerusalem affairs for the Jerusalem Municipality. They lead the municipal team that oversees all of Jerusalem City Hall’s interactions with the Muslim and Christian populations of the city. They are intimately familiar with the thicket of contradictory interests, tensions, and disagreements that inform daily life in earthly Jerusalem.

The two experts have just published a rare, breathtaking and shocking description of political trends in east Jerusalem. Their article, “East Jerusalem Arabs Between Erdogan and Israel,” published in the new, important Hebrew intellectual journal Hashiloach (Vol. 4, May 2017), offers a brief account of the fruits of normalization and Arab east Jerusalemites’ increasing integration into the Israeli scene, But mainly it serves as a wake-up call regarding countervailing toxic trends.

According to Koren and Avrahami there has been very significant erosion in the status of the veteran east Jerusalem mukhtars and the influence of Fatah political infrastructures and Palestinian Authority leaders. Into the vacuum have stepped elements identified with Hamas, with the northern faction of the Islamic Movement in Israel, and with the Muslim Brotherhood in its wider context.

Through a series of civic associations, nonprofits, and grassroots organizations, sometimes at the neighborhood level and sometimes more extensive, they are investing tens of millions of dollars per year in dawa (missionary) activities, mainly charitable enterprises and educational programs to attract the young to Islamic values.

There is a direct line, say the article authors, from civic dawa to radicalization and active enlistment in the armed struggle against Israel. This includes active social networking which glorifies terrorists, martyrs, and prisoners, and explicitly calls for violent resistance to Israel. These networks were also the source for the libel that Al-Aqsa mosque is endangered by the Jews/Zionists, and for dissemination of an incredible volume of disinformation related to Israeli actions on the Temple Mount.

The authors ask for particular attention to the mounting involvement of Erdogan’s Turkey, which is the worldwide Brotherhood’s main patron. Turkey now enjoys unprecedented popularity among the Arab residents of east Jerusalem, the authors write. The Turks’ public support of the Palestinian cause and adoption of the Al-Aqsa issue, and their decision to inject millions of dollars into east Jerusalem, have won them great sympathy and support.

The Turks fund a great part of the dawa activities in the city, with Sheikh Ekrima Sa’id Sabri as the lead Turkish agent. (He is a former grand mufti of Jerusalem appointed by the PA and today the most prominent representative of the Muslim Brotherhood in the city.) The Turkish consulate in Jerusalem, the Turkish government assistance agency, and a string of Turkish organizations that have local branches in Israel or the West Bank, are directly implicated in this subversive activity too. As a result, Turkish flags today fly everywhere in east Jerusalem and prominently on the Temple Mount as well.

The Turks also have injected significant sums to those who do their bidding on the Temple Mount, for various activities such as Quran-recitation groups, transportation of worshipers to and from the mosque, iftar feasts in Ramadan, renovation and cleaning campaigns, and the like. In general, the Islamist forces on the Temple Mount operate, intentionally or not, to Turkey’s benefit and the detriment of Jordan. They may believe that the replacement of the Jordanian presence by a Turkish presence would be a positive and welcome development.

The main loser here is Jordan, which long enjoyed the status of Guardian of the Holy Places and protector of the Arabs of Jerusalem. This also is the context of the PA’s intensive activity in the international arena, and especially at UNESCO, ostensibly intended to protect the Islamic holy places against an Israeli takeover. This tactic allows the PA to convey to its critics that it is the true defender of Al-Aqsa and Jerusalem against the threat of “Judaization,” while at the same time gnawing at Jordan’s historic role as guardian of the Mount and seeking to counteract the emerging Turkish dominance in Temple Mount affairs.

This week, I was contacted by a young woman conducting background research for an Israeli documentary on the socio-political fabric of the country.

“We are seeking average Israelis of all stripes and sectors for the program,” she said, asking me if it is true, as she had been told by the person who gave her my phone number, that I am a right-winger. The delicate way in which she broached the subject — as though careful not to cause offense — made me giggle.

“Yes,” I answered, stifling a full-blown laugh. After all, she was merely performing a task she had been assigned.

“I mean, like, really? You’re actually on the Right? I just have to know, so I can chat with you to find out whether you’re appropriate for the program,” she said, revealing she had never heard of me and had not thought to do a Google search before calling.

I replied again in the affirmative, adding that I am secular rather than religious.

“Even better for our purposes,” she said, noting my supposedly sui generis status with satisfaction.

This is not the first time that I have been approached by media outlets to fill the “conservative woman” slot. Nor is it unusual for millennials in journalism to ask me to explain who I am and what I think, rather than doing a bit of investigating on their own.

This particular “interview,” however, was noteworthy, because it gave me an additional glimpse into the secluded intellectual and cultural castle that many Israelis inhabit without even realizing it, let alone venturing beyond its carefully constructed moat. The woman with whom I spoke — let’s call her Maya — is such a person. Like an anthropologist studying a primitive tribe member considered dangerous by the rest of the civilized world, she advanced with caution.

“How do Israelis view right-wingers?” Maya began, apparently unaware that a majority of the country keeps electing what the Left refers to as a “far-right” government. “How are you different from left-wingers?”

She continued: “Is there any left-wing position that you would be willing to consider as valid? Have you ever attempted to look at the world through left-wing eyes?”

I could hear Maya jotting down fragments of my replies, mostly without rebutting them. After about 15 minutes, however, she was unable to refrain from protesting the positions she had requested I articulate. Key among these were my assertion that political conservatives tend to oppose big government, high taxes and the notion that the West is responsible for Islamist terrorism, while championing individual liberty and a free-market economy.

Maya was stunned. It clearly had not occurred to her that she was in favor of interference from the government, particularly not one headed by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Nor would she ever have said she was happy to take home only half of every shekel she earns to fund such a government’s activities and priorities. Above all, she was certain that only the Left cared about individual liberty, which is why she practically gasped when I referred her to the gay caucus of Netanyahu’s Likud party.

Just look at the sentiments expressed by the organisation’s CEO’s Facebook friend and drivel merchant “Harriet,” who runs a scurrilous website called Harriet’s Place:

FROM A SCURRILOUS BRITISH BLOG https://hurryupharriet.wordpress.com/

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Israel is not facing a dilemma about how much, if any, land to give up from the West Bank, because the Palestinians will not agree to take land and cannot be forced to do so. The Palestinian community sees peace with Israel as defeat in their 100-year struggle. Continued Israeli occupation is one of the Palestinians’ best weapons against Israel, and they will not give it up while their war to eliminate Israel continues. Israelis should recognize that since the Palestinians are forcing Israel to continue the temporary but long-term occupation, Israelis need to a) cooperate in reducing the moral and other costs of that occupation; and b) stop telling the world that Israel could choose to end the occupation. The occupation, like the need for military strength and to absorb casualties, is part of the price Israel has to pay to live here. Maturity means being able to go forward with no solution in sight.https://besacenter.org/perspectives-papers/overdramatization-israel-dilemma/

Ehud Barak recently had a long review in Haaretz of Micah Goodman’s important new book, Catch 67, to which Goodman responded the following week. Goodman argues that Israel’s 1967 victory created a “catch” or trap reflected in Israel’s current dilemma, in which both sides (the Israeli political left and right) are correct. Barak disagrees. In his view, the choice is clear: the left is correct.

Both Barak’s own view and his telling of Goodman’s ignore the reality of Israel’s actual choices today. We are not facing a dilemma about giving up territory. We are facing a distasteful task, and a need for patience over a period of decades.

Israel does not now have a choice about giving the Palestinians land or creating a Palestinian state; Israel is therefore not facing a dilemma.

While there are undoubtedly peace-seeking Palestinians, as a community, the Palestinians have not even begun to discuss the possibility of making a peace that accepts Israel and ends the Palestinian effort to gain all the land “from the river to the sea.” Nor have they begun public discussion of the possibility of most of the “refugees” settling outside Israel. Without debate among Palestinians, there is no way they can give up their determination to destroy Israel and make a genuine peace.

There is zero chance that there could be a real peace agreement now regardless of how much land Israel would be willing to give up.. A true two-state solution would finally defeat Palestinian and Arab efforts of a century, and they are not yet ready to accept defeat. Whatever disagreement there is among Israelis about how much land, if any, Israel should give up to get peace, that disagreement is not what is standing in the way of peace.

Theoretically, there are two other possibilities that might create a dilemma for Israel about giving up land. The first would be an agreement with the Palestinians to take over some of Judea and Samaria without making a full peace with Israel. The second would be a unilateral action by Israel to separate the peoples and end the occupation without Palestinian agreement.

For the reasons discussed below, neither of these is a realistic possibility regardless of how much of Judea and Samaria Israel is willing to give up. Again, no real dilemma.

The Palestinians have a voice in what happens. The choice they have made is to force Israel to “occupy” them, because they want to keep up the struggle to destroy Israel. Being a victim, an “occupied people,” improves their diplomatic position, causes Israel pain, and provokes internal conflict within Israel. These effects are bad for Israel and good for the Palestinians. Indeed, the more harmful they are for Israel, the more desirable they are for the Palestinians.

There would have to be a lot more disadvantages to the status quo for the Palestinians before they would give up such a weapon against Israel to improve their living conditions. This is especially true for the Palestinian leadership, which suffers less from the status quo than most Palestinians and benefits more from the continuation of the conflict.

But if the Palestinians will not make an agreement that would sacrifice the advantage of forcing Israel to be an “occupier”, is there any way that Israel can force them to do so by taking unilateral action to separate the peoples? This idea appealed to Sharon, and so he organized Israel’s “disengagement” from Gaza. Some Israelis say the withdrawal was a good idea that only worked out badly because it was done unilaterally. But why should we think the Palestinians would have agreed to arrangements that would have been better for Israel? They consider themselves to be at war with us. They want to cause us pain and put us at a disadvantage, and are willing to accept casualties and suffering to do so.

Here is what is being said on the Palestinian street: Today Israel runs away from the West Bank or the Gaza Strip; tomorrow Israel will run away from Ashkelon, then from Tel Aviv and from there to the sea, and we have achieved our goal of destroying Israel. Therefore, we need to continue attacking Israel.

As with the Gaza Strip, the withdrawal from Lebanon taught the Palestinians that terrorism could drive Israelis out of their country.

Never have the Palestinians given Israel credit for its goodwill steps. On the contrary, they scoff at these moves and describe them as “cosmetic changes”. The Palestinian line is that Israel’s steps are “insufficient” and “unhelpful.” Its concessions are regarded as gestures of a terrified people and as the rightful reward for terrorism. Far from satiating the appetite of the terrorists, such steps prompt them to step up their attacks against Israelis.

The West suffers under a major misconception concerning the Israeli-Palestinian conflict: that “goodwill gestures” and territorial concessions on the part of Israel boost the prospects of peace in the Middle East. The facts, suggest that precisely the opposite is true.

Last week, Israel’s Channel 10 television station reported that the U.S. administration was pushing Israel to transfer parts of Area C — areas under full Israeli security and civilian control in the West Bank — to the control of Mahmoud Abbas’s Palestinian Authority (PA). According to the report, the U.S. believes that the transfer of the territory to the PA would be a “goodwill step” towards the Palestinians, paving the way for the revival of the stalled peace process with Israel.

This assumption, of course, has already proven wrong. The experiences of the past few decades have shown clearly that Israeli concessions have always sent the wrong message to the Palestinians.

In fact, Palestinians read Israeli goodwill steps as signs of weakness and retreat. This misinterpretation on the part of the Palestinians then leads to more violence against Israel. It would be hard for anyone not to conclude that if pressure works, keep on pressuring.

The past 24 years are littered with examples of how the Palestinians react to Israeli concessions.

The Oslo Accords that were signed between Israel and the PLO in 1993 were seen by Palestinians as a first step by Israel towards total capitulation.

The accords, which brought the PLO from several Arab countries to the West Bank and Gaza Strip, came after five years of the first Palestinian Intifada. By allowing the PLO to assume control over large parts of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, Israel sent a message that it was caving in to the violence and terrorism of the First Intifada.

Barely a breath after Oslo, Israel was again asked to conciliate the Palestinians: this time, hundreds of prisoners, many with Jewish (and Arab) blood on their hands, were released from Israeli prison in order to create an atmosphere “conducive” to the peace process.

Instead of viewing the prisoner release for what it was, namely a generous gesture, many Palestinians considered it a “victory” for terrorism and violence. Worse, it was not long before many of the released prisoners were rearrested for their role in further terrorism against Israel. The release of prisoners also sent a message of recidivism to Palestinians: terror does indeed pay! A short stint in an Israeli prison is sure to lead to release in some Israeli “confidence-building measure” or other.

According to statistics, at least half of released Palestinian prisoners have returned to terrorism.

Despite the grim statistics, the international community regularly demands that Israel release more convicted terrorists as a “gesture” towards Mahmoud Abbas and other Palestinians.

Palestinian terrorists who were released from prison by Israel as a “goodwill gesture” are honored at Mahmoud Abbas’ presidential compound in Ramallah, on October 30, 2013. According to statistics, at least half of released Palestinian prisoners have returned to terrorism. (Photo by Oren Ziv/Getty Images)

Since 1993, Israel has complied again and again with such international pressure, only to reinforce the message to Palestinians: terrorism is indeed worth the trouble.

Let us consider, for a moment, Gaza. In 2005, Israel unilaterally withdrew from the Gaza Strip, after destroying 21 Jewish settlements and expelling more than 8,000 Jews from their homes there.

In Palestinian eyes, however, the Israeli “disengagement” from the Gaza Strip was anything but an olive branch of peace. The withdrawal came after five years of the bloody Second Intifada, when Palestinians waged a massive campaign of suicide bombings and rocket attacks against Israelis.

Thus, for Palestinians, Israel was once again retreating in the face of unremitting bloodshed.

Here is what is being said on the Palestinian street: Today Israel runs away from the West Bank or the Gaza Strip, tomorrow Israel will run away from Ashkelon, then from Ashdod and Tel Aviv and from there to the sea, and we have achieved our goal of destroying Israel. Therefore, we need to continue attacking Israel.