Today in Jewish History - Adar 10

Sponsored by Aish:

In 1980, Israel and Egypt exchanged ambassadors, marking a new era of cordial, if cold, diplomacy. In 1973, Egyptian President Anwar Sadat had orchestrated an attack on Israel in the Yom Kippur War, but after suffering defeat he became resigned to Israel's existence. In 1977, Sadat and Menachem Begin signed the Camp David Peace Agreement, for which they received the Nobel Peace Prize. Much of the Arab world was outraged by Sadat's overtures toward Israel, and he was assassinated by a Muslim extremist in 1981.

Fitzgerald: How can Egypt explain?

The excellent Hugh Fitzgerald dissects Egypt's mask and reveals the wolf in sheep's clothing. From Fitzgerald: How can Egypt explain?

'Unclear how, if at all, Egypt can explain this' -- from this article

How, since the Camp David Accords were signed, can Egypt explain the following:

Despite its solemn commitment to end all hostile propaganda and to encourage friendly relations with Israel, how can Egypt explain the following acts, of commission, and omission, by the Egyptian government?

1) The preventing of Israeli participation in international book and film festivals in Cairo.

2) The discouragement, including repeated monitoring, and hounding directed at a few brave Egyptians, of Egyptian tourists visiting Israel.

3) The refusal to invite the Israeli ambassador to any events, and indeed the years of virtual solitary confinement of successive Israeli ambassadors, at a time when the Egyptian ambassador was lionized by Israelis, so touchingly and naively eager to make much of their "peace with Egypt."

4) The continued enthusiastic support by Egypt at the U.N., and at all of the sub-organizations of the U.N. and meetings (i.e., at Durban), for every conceivable anti-Israel resolution, of every conceivable viciousness.

5) The refusal of the Egyptian government to prevent an anti-Israel and antisemitic campaign in the Egyptian media, that at times reaches Der Stuermer-like proportions, and when repeatedly asked why it does nothing, primly replies that "it can do nothing because we have a free press" -- which "free press," however, is immediately shut down should a single word be uttered about anything that annoys Egypt's rulers, above all any discussion of Gamal Mubarak, the slick outwardly westernized son of the thick-necked and clumsy father.

6) The past efforts of Egypt, ostensibly at "peace" with Israel, and certainly not threatened by the "might" of the Sudan or of Libya, to acquire major weaponry, including secret collaboration between Egyptian and Iraqi scientists -- which collaboration ended only because of the American invasion of Iraq.

7) The continued efforts of Egypt to acquire such weaponry, and to receive tens of billions in military aid from the United States, with no explanation as to why such aid is needed, in a country that has an impoverished and ill-ruled populace.

8) The general atmosphere of a revived Islam, that might have been dampened had Egypt done what it had promised to do to encourage a different attitude toward Israel, and had a sustained campaign of "encouraging friendly relations" -- publicizing the real behavior of the Israelis (say, about that free medical care, at the highest Western level, unstintingly offered Arabs at Israeli hospitals, and so much else that is carefully suppressed by the Arab media, as they paint Israel in the darkest colors) -- which will have long-term consequences for the possibility of avoiding open warfare with Israel.

The refusal of Egypt to meet its commitment to encourage friendly relations between the people of Egypt and Israel, and the apparent unwillingness of Israel and of the United States, (that under Carter had constantly pressured Israel into accepting every one of the demands -- some of them suggested by the Americans -- of Egypt, or rather of Saint Sadat) to take note of the continued violations.

9) Despite Egypt being obligated to end all hostilities, and to encourage friendly relations with Israel, and despite the eagerness of Israel to invite and host Egypt's ruler, Mubarak has been steadfast in one thing: he has steadfastly refused even to step on the soil of Israel, save once (for the funeral of Rabin), so intent is he on making this "peace" a cold peace, a mere formality, the absence of open warfare only because Egypt, for now, like the other Arab states, has more to lose from such a war, and not because there has been any undertaking, as there was to have been, by the Egyptian government to slowly change Egyptian hearts, Egyptian minds.

10) Just as Egypt is the sly supporter, behind the coulisses, of the vicious regime in the Sudan (pretending to play the good-faith interlocutor, or even to be putting pressure on that regime, when in fact Egypt, working on behalf of the Arab League, has prevented or delayed any effective, i.e., Western, intervention in either Darfur or the southern Sudan), so Egypt is a tireless supporter of the "Palestinians" who are the shock troops in the Lesser Jihad against Israel. It has allowed thousands of tons of weapons, and of material for bomb-making, to be smuggled all the way through the Sinai, into Gaza. For some reason the Egyptian army and police, despite being given repeated evidence of such smuggling, simply can do nothing. In fact, they have no intention of doing anything more than the intermittent minimum, designed to placate not so much the Israelis, as the Americans who supply all that aid that the Egyptian government can't quite believe it can hold onto, no matter what it does. Indeed, only once in the last decades has there even been a threat to withhold a tiny amount -- some $30 million -- of that aid, and for a reason having nothing to do with Israel, but with the attempt by an Egyptian kangaroo court to railroad Said Eddin Ibrahim. And the threat, by the way, worked -- the sentence was undone.

But there has never been a threat to cut aid because Egypt's television, for example, ran a series that was based on the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, which clearly was a violation of Egypt's commitments. Does anyone in the American government, or for that matter in the Israeli government, actually remember that Egypt had some commitments under the Camp David Accords? Can anyone, can Rice, can Bush, spell them out? No? It's easy to recall that Israel had foolishly obligated itself to hand over something tangible, which is to say the entire Sinai, with its oilfields, and its Israeli-built infrastructure, including roads, and tourist accommodations, but what about Egypt?

Oh, yes, "Peace." I almost forgot. Egypt made "peace." But did it? The Egyptian army has not attacked Israel. But the armies of Syria, of Jordan, of Saudi Arabia, of Libya and Algeria and Iraq and all the other members of the Arab League, jointly or separately, have not attacked Israel either. What does the failure of Egypt's army to make direct and open warfare on Israel tell us? It does not tell us that "the Camp David Accords are being scrupulously observed by Egypt." Not at all. It tells us only that Egypt, like every other Arab state, isn't yet ready to take on Israel directly, and as a charter member of the Slow Jihadist Group, will do what it can to keep up efforts to isolate Israel diplomatically, to weaken it economically through boycotts, and to do whatever it can to undermine the Israelis so that, little by little, the country can, over time, be undone. But meanwhile, they have pocketed $60 billion so far in American Jizyah-aid. (It is "Jizyah" because the Americans give it with a cringing attitude, as if they must, as if they are fearful of the consequences if such aid were to cease, and "Jizyah" because the Egyptians are not one whit grateful for it, but take it as by right, under Mubarak as under any conceivable successor.)

Let us remember that Israel scrupulously complied with what it undertook to do. It gave to Egypt the entire Sinai. Under customary international law, under even Resolution 242, it had no obligation to give up the entire Sinai. Under that customary international law, the successful defender of a war brought by an aggressor is not required to give up the territory that was used as the launching pad for such aggression. In May 1967 Nasser noisily declared that he would go to war against Israel. He demanded, and got, the removal of the U.N. troops in the Sinai. He blockaded the Straits of Tiran, throttling Israeli trade with Asia. He put the Egyptian army and navy and air force on a war footing, and moved troops up into the Sinai. He repeatedly and publicly described the coming war with Israel, sometimes to hysterical Cairene crowds of hundreds of thousands. Israel, by all the rules that have been observed in the aftermath to other wars -- to World War I and World War II, for example -- was perfectly entitled to hold onto some, or even all of the Sinai. And even under the "secure and defensible borders" requirement of Resolution 242, it might have made a good case for holding onto much of the Sinai (which, one needs to be reminded, only became part of Egypt in the 1920s -- it was always, before that, regarded as a corpus separatum, and the very titles of the books written by European travellers, with such titles as "Palestine and Sinai" or "Egypt and the Sinai" demonstrated this).

Now, in 2008, having ignored for nearly thirty years the long history of Egypt's systematic violation of its obligations toward Israel under the Camp David Accords, and having ignored, or not brought to the attention of Washington, Egypt's ever-compliant sugar-daddy and defender, suddenly now the questioning is not about all those other systematic violations, but about why Egypt would allow Hamas members to enter Gaza, without subjecting them to searches for either money (reputedly some were carrying vast sums) or weapons, if indeed Egypt is so interested in promoting, at least, the Slow Jihadists of Fatah rather than the Fast Jihadists of Hamas.

Perhaps it is Israel's government, or rather this one, and the one before this, and the one before that and the one before that, that should ask itself how and why they continually overlooked or failed to communicate, to its own people, to Washington, the real nature of Egypt, of its regime, and of what prompts it -- beginning with, and virtually ending with, the immutable texts of Islam.

BBC Apologizes to Muslims for Stating Jerusalem as Capital of Israel

It is outrageous to the extreme that the global community would dare to tell a sovereign nation what is - or is not - its capital. What a bunch of pandering cowards the BBC is. The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) issued an apology this week to Muslims for having referred to Jerusalem as being the capital of Israel in one of its broadcasts.

The apology came in response to complaints by four Muslim-British organizations:
Arab Media Watch,
Muslim Public Affairs Committee,
Friends of Al-Aksa and,
the Institute of Islamic Political Thought.

The reference to Jerusalem that drew the complaints occurred on March 24th, when a presenter on BBC’s Football Focus program mentioned that Jerusalem was, in fact, the capital of Israel, as well as her “historic soul."

The BBC's Editorial Complaints Unit issued an official response to the complaint, stating, "The reference was a passing one in a context where the focus was on sport, not politics. While recognizing the sensitivity of the issue of the status of Jerusalem, the ECU took the view that the program-makers had taken sufficient action by acknowledging the error and rectifying the website."

But don't nod in agreement with the Muslims, folks, Learn your history, not Muslim revisionism. Daniel Pipes, in Exploring the Strength of Ties to Jerusalem, writes:

Historically, the religious standing of Jerusalem for Muslims waxed and waned six times through 14 centuries. British rule over the city in 1917-48 galvanized a passion for Jerusalem that had been absent during the 400 years of Ottoman control. Throughout the Jordanian control of the walled city in 1948-67, Arabs largely ignored it.

Jordanian radio broadcast Friday prayers not from Al-Aqsa mosque but from a minor mosque in Amman.

The PLO's founding Covenant, which dates from 1964, contains no mention of Jerusalem.

Muslim interest in the city revived only with the Israeli conquest of Jerusalem in 1967. By 1990, the Islamic focus on Jerusalem reached such a surreal intensity that Palestinian Arabs denied the city's sacred and historical importance to Jews.

The Camp David summit of July 2000 saw the Israeli government put forward its demands for sovereignty over parts of the Temple Mount. As Dennis Ross, an American diplomat present at the summit, put it, Arafat "never offered any substantive ideas, not once" at the talks. However, "He did offer one new idea, which was that the Temple didn't exist in Jerusalem, that it was in Nablus." With this, Jerusalem's pseudo-history became formal Palestinian Authority policy.

What is actually remarkable is that Muslims know that Jerusalem is holy to Judaism and to Israel. If they didn't, they wouldn't have been busy destroying archaeological remains of the Jewish temples, mimicking the destruction of the Buddhist statutes in Bamiyan by the Taliban Islamists in Afghanistan.

See, Muslims destroyed all Jewish synagogues in the old city of Jerusalem and they were desecrated to symbolize the supremacy of Islam over Judaism. But Islam is not better than Judaism. How can Islam be better when it commits crimes against humanity and destroys historical artifacts of other religions and cultures that can never be replaced.

Jerusalem has been the heart of Judaism for three thousand years, in the same way that the Vatican is the heart for Catholics.

See, what IslamoNazis are trying to do is gain territory and they do so through lies and deceptions so that they can control the borders of Israel and then claim they are victims. Muslims are not victims; they are predators.

But Rebbetzin Esther Jungreis reminds us, the Talmud relates that after the destruction of our Holy Temple, Rabbi Akiva and the Sages of Israel were walking on the streets of Jerusalem. As they came to the Temple Mount, they beheld a devastating sight. There, where the Sanctuary had once stood in majesty and splendor, where the Holy of Holies had been, were only ruins, and wild foxes were roaming about.

The Sages broke down and wept.

"Woe is us," they wailed, "that we have seen this with our own eyes."

But Rabbi Akiva did not weep. Instead, he smiled.

"How can you smile at such a time?" his colleagues asked, shocked.

"I smile," Rabbi Akiva answered, "because today I have seen the fulfillment of prophecy, for the same prophet who foretold the destruction also foretold that the Temple shall be rebuilt. The same prophet who prophesied our exile, also prophesied that we shall return to Jerusalem in joy. And so I smile, for now that the first part of our prophecy has come to pass, the second part will surely come to be."

"Akiva," the Sages declared, "you have comforted us."

Folks, be counselled. Be comforted, those of you who love HaShem with all your heart and all your soul. Be comforted.

And to the BBC and to all Muslims and Arabists, you disgust me. I am disgusted by those of you who delegitimize non-Muslims. Who do you think you are trying to dictate to us Jews who we are and where we belong and what our borders are? It is time you learned that we reject you. We reject your views on immigration, culture, religion, ideology, law enforcement, military strategy - and God.

There is no law on earth that requires the Jewish people to accept the revision of their history and the division of Israel borders, nor their own demise merely because Muslims say we should.

As for the shills over at the BBC; you've been diapering and bottlefeeding Muslims for so long, you've prevented them from growing up. Muslims aren't exactly chained to their homicide belts and kassam rockets. Stop being so afraid of them. They're not immortal. Muslims are on the move, they are a dysfunctional body, they are on the move to take over the world. Stand up for something principled, BBC. Take the moral high ground for once.

It is time to clean house. It is time to speak up for the innocent. And this time, the Jewish people are in the right. I know, I know it takes courage. Stop being weak. Stop pandering to Muslims. It will be your pandering that will enable your city and your railways to get hit again.

Financial Times Interview: Benjamin Netanyahu

An excerpt from an interview with Benjamin Netanyahu, from Financial Times:

FT: One final question: do you see the real danger that the war that happened last summer is going to be repeated very soon?

BN: I hope not. But it could be. The result of the war is – if there's one thing I have learned is that you don't purchase peace by weakness or vacillation. If there's one lesson I have learned is that you purchase peace from strength. Israel had seven countries attack it when it was an embryonic state in 1948. That number went down to three in 1967. It went down to two in 1973, because we had this huge wall – the Samarian and Judean mountains, which prevented invasion along our thinnest part. And then it went down to one in the Lebanon war in 1982. That trajectory was the one that produced Camp David and the peace with Jordan.

Unfortunately, for the first time the perception that Israel's deterrence power is overwhelming was hurt by the mismanagement of this war, which Israel could easily have won. And the result is that we now have three live fronts: one Hizbollah, which has rearmed itself with more weapons than it had before the war and better kinds of weapons; second, Gaza, which is turning itself into a second Lebanon; and, third, Syria, which is arming itself feverishly, which is something it hasn't done in thirty years.

That underscores the point I made: if you want peace in our neighbourhood, you have to project strength. In a way the Lebanon war was a disappointment for most of the regimes in the Arab world because they too have been threatened by militant Islam and its offshoots, Iran and its offshoots. And they had actually secretly – and not so secretly – yearned for an Israeli victory.

We don't seek an additional round, but if it is forced upon us by miscalculation by our neighbours, then we have to win this time decisively, not just for the safety of our own people, but in order to roll back the enemies of coexistence of peace and give peace a chance.

40th Anniversary of the Reunification of Jerusalem

Via Israel HighWay:

Most Jews in Israel and throughout the world barely remember a time when the Old City of Jerusalem and the rest of east Jerusalem were not an important part of the fabric of the city and the country. For 19 years, from the founding of the State of Israel in 1948 until the Six Day War in 1967, Jerusalem was a city divided by barbed wire and dangerous "no-man’s land" running roughly north to south separating the Jewish people from the Old City of Jerusalem. The Old City, the City of David, was the cornerstone of 2,000 years of Jewish longing for Zion. The long-held dream of Jewish sovereignty in the Land of Israel was finally achieved, but the heart of the land was at once visibly close and miles away.

When Israel was born in 1948, its citizens and armed forces were unable to defend the Old City, and it fell to the Jordanian Legion. Jews were cut off from their holiest sites in Jerusalem, including the Kotel (Western Wall), the City of David just outside the Old City Walls, Mt. Scopus and the ancient Mount of Olives cemetery.

Throughout this time the Jewish character of the Old City was systematically destroyed by the Jordanian government. Thousands of Jewish residents of east Jerusalem and the Old City were driven from their homes. Fifty-eight Jerusalem synagogues, including some that were hundreds of years old, were destroyed or ruined and others were turned into barns for animals or public bathrooms. The entire Jewish Quarter was destroyed, houses were built immediately adjacent to the Kotel and all access to the ancient city was completely denied to Jews. Then suddenly, in the middle of the Six Day War, Israel found itself, unexpectedly, in control of the Old City.

With the news that Israel had taken control of the Old City and east Jerusalem, Israelis from all over the country began flocking to the Kotel to celebrate their young country’s miraculous victory. With Israeli sovereignty in all of Jerusalem, the holy sites of the world’s three great monotheistic faiths were opened to all, as they had never been under centuries of Muslim rule.

Now, 40 years later, many Israelis don’t know an Israel without a united Jerusalem offering free access to the Kotel and the important cultural and historic sites in the Old City. What was once "no man's land" dividing Israeli west Jerusalem from Jordanian-controlled east Jerusalem is now home to many landmarks and tourist attractions. One such place is the Haas Promenade, the first stop for many tour groups because of its scenic overlook of the entire Jerusalem panorama.

In recent years, Jerusalem has struggled as a growing and modern city. The city's narrow and winding streets are often snarled with traffic, and the city center, the site of frequent terrorist attacks during the Second Intifada, has struggled to keep shoppers and to attract people seeking entertainment who favor the modern indoor mall on the outskirts of the city. However, the city is in the midst of a major building campaign centered around the Jerusalem light rail system which will connect the outlying neighborhoods of the city with the center of town. The light rail, with its signature "Bridge of Strings" at the entrance to the city, will serve as a catalyst for new pedestrian malls, shopping areas and a reduction of traffic in and around the city center.

However, everything is not settled. To this day, 40 years after the unification of the city and almost 60 years after the founding of the State of Israel, the world refuses to fully accept Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. Children born in Jerusalem to American parents are issued U.S. passports with the country of birth left blank. For decades, only two countries, Costa Rica and El Salvador, maintained their Israeli embassies in Jerusalem, and both of those countries announced last year that they would be moving their embassies to Tel Aviv.

The issue of Jerusalem has played a significant role in various diplomatic discussions in recent years and remains a key "final status" issue in the on-again, off-again talks between Israel and the Palestinians. The Oslo Accords, the negotiations at Camp David and the other interim discussions have all touched on the future of Jerusalem but opted to postpone the discussion. This year’s controversy over the Mugrabi Gate excavations shows just how sensitive an issue Jerusalem can be. The Mugrabi Gate serves as the entry point to the Temple Mount for all non-Muslim visitors. The bridge was built after the Six Day War to bring visitors to the Temple Mount. Recently it was heavily damaged during torrential rainstorms, and Jerusalem city architects ruled that is must be replaced with a more permanent and safer structure. In February, initial excavations of the site for the new bridge brought a swirl of controversy from the Muslim world, with Muslim and Arab leaders accusing Israel of seeking to undermine mosques on the Mount. Israel defended the decision to rebuild by inviting inspectors from various countries to observe and inspect the area themselves. A UN ruling on the incident cleared Israel of wrongdoing, acknowledging that they had acted with professionalism.

What is the future of Jerusalem? Will it remain the undivided capital of Israel or will the world demand official Palestinian sovereignty in parts of the Holy City? The answers to these questions remain unclear to all; but on this, the 40th Yom Yerushalayim, we should all stop to appreciate the Eternal City.

Take Action:

* Celebrate Yom Yerushalayim on May 16.
- Put an Israeli flag on your window or porch.
- Wear an Israeli flag pin.
* Pray for the peace of Jerusalem. Attend a special service at your school or synagogue to mark the miracle of Jerusalem's reunification.
* Write a letter to your congressmen, senator, President Bush, Vice President Cheney and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice demanded that the American Embassy be moved to Jerusalem.

* Watch these video clips on Jerusalem:

- Jerusalem of Gold
- Matisyahu's Tribute to Jerusalem

Click here to listen to a live broadcast of the liberation of the Old City on June 7, 1967.

Book Review: A Palestinian Two-Step

From Book Review: A Palestinian Two-Step:

In Once Upon a Country: A Palestinian Life, Sari Nusseibeh misses no opportunity to denigrate and delegitimize Israel through sharp, short, often subtle yet always false readings of history.

His text is marred by countless factual errors and inaccuracies that cast a serious doubt on the validity of his personal narrative, not to mention the wider historical and political picture he seeks to paint.

But Mr. Nusseibeh is not someone to be bothered by the facts. His text is marred by countless factual errors and inaccuracies that cast a serious doubt on the validity of his personal narrative, not to mention the wider historical and political picture he seeks to paint.

--The British foreign secretary who made the famous declaration (in November 1917) on "the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people" was Mr. Arthur James Balfour, not " Lord Alfred Balfour," and the declaration was made in a letter to Lord Rothschild, not to Chaim Weizmann.

--Lawrence of Arabia had nothing to do with the Anglo-Hashemite correspondence that led to the "Great Arab Revolt" of World War I, and the person with whom the British plotted the revolt was Emir Hussein ibn Ali (later King Hussein of the Hijaz), not his son Emir Faisal (misrepresented by Mr. Nusseibeh as " Sheikh Faisal Hussein").

--Neither did the British ever promise Faisal (or Hussein for that matter) the headship of the Arab kingdom that would be established on the ruins of the Ottoman Empire.

--General Edmund Allenby did not occupy Palestine with his Mule Corps but rather with the powerful Egyptian Expeditionary Force, and the Ottoman potentate Djemal Pasha did not surrender to the British in 1917, as it was only in late September 1918 that Allenby scored his culminating victory, in the Battle of Megiddo.

--Sheik Izz al-din al-Qassam, the Syrian religious fanatic operating in Palestine in the mid-1930s, was not hanged by the British but killed in action.

--The Higher Arab Committee (established in 1936) comprised 10, rather than six, members and Jaffa's Arab population in 1948 didn't amount to 200,000 people, but to about a third of this figure.

--The Dome of the Rock was built by Caliph Abdel Malik ibn Marwan and not Mu'awiya, and Caliph Omar did not capture Jerusalem in 638 C.E. after the bloody conquest of Baghdad and Cairo for the simple reason that both cities were established long after the Muslim capture of Jerusalem. And so on and so forth.

If the Arabs reverted to violence, as they occasionally did, it was invariably the Jews' fault, according to Nusseibeh. The 1929 massacres, for example, in which 133 Jews were slaughtered by their Arab neighbors, and hundreds more were wounded, were but "a nasty backlash among Muslims" to Zionist nationalist aspirations regarding the Wailing Wall; just as Arafat's war of terror was a logical reaction to Ariel Sharon's short stroll along the Temple Mount. But then, why should Muslims act differently when Jews, who have no valid claim to Palestine, let alone to the Wailing Wall - "a most likely candidate for being the wall of a fortress built for Roman legions" - make outrageous demands on this holy Muslim site.

This absurd assertion — part of a lengthy historical fabrication of Jerusalem's history posted on the homepage of Al-Quds University, an institution headed by Mr. Nusseibeh — is hardly different from the countless misrepresentations and distortions contained in "Once Upon a Country." It is also congruent with the persistent Palestinian denial of the existence of King Solomon's Temple, and by extension the Jewish millennarian attachment to Jerusalem and the land of Israel. Small wonder that in 2002 he was appointed PLO Commissioner for Jerusalem affairs by Arafat, who in the Camp David summit of September 2000 had told President Clinton that the Temple had been located in Nablus rather than in Jerusalem. To judge by the gist of "Once Upon a Country," Arafat could not have made a better choice.

Leader of the Islamic Movement in Israel: Western Wall belongs to Muslims

From YnetNews:

The Western Wall - on all its various parts, structures and gates, and all the names these parts, structures and gates are called - is an inseparable part of the al-Aqsa compound," declared Islamist leader Sheikhh Raed Salah.

The Western Wall "is part of Al-Aqsa's western tower, which the Israeli establishment fallaciously and sneakily calls the 'Wailing Wall'. The wall is part of the holy al-Aqsa Mosque," added Salah, who heads the northern faction of the Islamic Movement in Israel.

However these statements were not made recently. Rather, they were made at a time when then Prime Minister Ehud Barak was sitting in a room at Camp David, trying to forge a peace agreement with Yasser Arafat's Palestinian government. But Salah still stands firmly behind them and they can be found on the Islamic Movement's website.

Today in Jewish History - Adar 10

Sponsored by Aish.com:

In 1980, Israel and Egypt exchanged ambassadors, marking a new era of cordial, if cold, diplomacy. In 1973, Egyptian President Anwar Sadat had orchestrated an attack on Israel in the Yom Kippur War, but after suffering defeat he became resigned to Israel's existence. In 1977, Sadat and Menachem Begin signed the Camp David Peace Agreement, for which they received the Nobel Peace Prize. Much of the Arab world was outraged by Sadat's overtures toward Israel, and he was assassinated by a Muslim in 1981.

Today in Jewish History - Adar 4

Sponsored by Aish.com:

Yahrtzeit of Menachem Begin (1913-1992), prime minister of Israel. Prior to the creation of the state, Begin became leader of the Irgun and used militant means to force the British government to withdraw from Palestine. In the Knesset, Begin led the opposition party for decades, before being elected prime minister in 1977. Begin negotiated the Camp David Accords with Anwar Sadat of Egypt, for which he was awarded the 1978 Nobel Peace Prize. Begin is also remembered for his conviction to Jewish tradition (he was known to consult with great rabbis and to walk to meetings on Shabbat), and his resolve to defend the Jewish people from another Holocaust (Begin had lost his parents and a brother to the Nazis), which factored greatly in his decision to bomb the Iraqi nuclear reactor in 1981.

Jewish Withdrawal from Judea and Samaria Back on the table

The Israeli government has agreed in principle to withdraw from most of Judea and Samaria ("Yesha"), in secret talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority.

Egypt and the European Union (EU) have been mediating the negotiations, according to the World Net Daily (WND) news website, which quoted high-level Egyptian diplomatic and intelligence officials, and an aide to EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana as saying they have been directly involved in the talks.

Negotiations have been quietly proceeding apace for the past two or three weeks, according to sources quoted by WND reporter Aaron Klein, after PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas suggested to Prime Minister Ehud Olmert late last month that the two men switch to “back channel talks” in order to avoid coverage by the media.

According to Egyptian and EU sources, one of the plans currently under consideration involves handing over control of central and southern Yesha to PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas’s security forces. In northern Yesha, the transfer of responsibility to Abbas’ security forces over the area would be monitored by Jordan and EU observers.

Hamas’s role in the plan remains unclear. The terrorist organization has repeatedly vowed never to formally recognize the State of Israel, renounce terrorism or uphold agreements with Israel signed by the previous, Fatah-led, PA government. That stance is not accepted by the international community.

Talks toward a unity coalition between PA Prime Minister and Hamas chairman Ismail Haniyeh and Mahmoud Abbas, who heads the Fatah faction, are all but dead, leaving Hamas in control of the PA.

A blessing, the streets of Gaza have become a battlefield as Hamas and Fatah struggle for control of the PA government, with bloody clashes that have resulted in the deaths of both terrorists and innocent PA residents alike in what has become a militia war.

The situation may intensify further and eventually lead to escalated attacks against the Jewish State as well, in the wake of an announcement by U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice last week that the Bush administration has agreed to finance, arm and train Abbas’ security force.

The force will reportedly include the Fatah-controlled Al Aksa Martyrs Brigades, one of the most vicious groups engaged in the terrorist war against Israel. Al Aksa Martyrs Brigades has shared responsibility with the Islamic Jihad terror group for every suicide bombing in Israel in the past two years.

Rice said during her visit to the region last week that the U.S. will send Abbas $86.4 million to beef up his personal security guard, Force 17, which also polices PA areas in Judea, Samaria and Gaza. The Bush administration is hoping to strengthen Fatah – which it perceives as a moderate group – in its bid to wrest control of the PA government from Hamas.

The last time the U.S. transferred arms to Fatah in order to strengthen its ability to police the PA the weapons were ultimately pointed at Israel by a myriad of terrorist factions. When asked about that experience, Rice claimed that this time would be different.

“It was envisioned (then) that the Palestinian Authority would have security forces,” she said. “The problem is those security forces broke into essentially personal militias under [former PLO chairman Yasser] Arafat. They broke into too many that were often warring with each other.”

The current plan, she added, would be carried out in a way that would “move over time.” with the idea being that the U.S. would maintain control over what is being done with the weapons.

“This plan is not just to equip [Abbas’ security forces] and train them, [but] it is also to professionalize them, to unify them [and] to put them under a single command,” she said.

Now these newly-armed forces, trained and “professionalized” by the U.S. government would be given control over most of Judea and Samaria, placing them within rocket fire range of Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, Ben Gurion International Airport. They would also be within range of Arad and other cities and smaller communities located near the pre-1967 borders.

Diplomatic sources said talks are moving rapidly as the PA wrestles with Israel over the precise location of the new borders. Solana’s aide told WND that diplomats are expected to see a “historic political evolution and movement in negotiations in the next few weeks and few months, unseen since the Camp David peace talks in 2000.”

In 2000, then-Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered to give Arafat an official PA state in Judea, Samaria, Gaza and eastern neighborhoods in Jerusalem. Arafat turned down the offer, insisting the entire Israeli capital be transferred to the PA.

Jimmy Carter: A compendium

"... I am opposed to an independent Palestinian state, because in my own judgement and in the judgement of many leaders in the Middle East, including Arab leaders, this would be a destabilizing factor in the Middle East and would certainly not serve the United States interests." --(Jimmy Carter at the United Jewish Appeal National Young Leadership Conference, February 25, 1980).

Folks, I"ve had my fill of reading about Jimmy Carter, because I think it's more important for you to read the hate speech that is in the Hamas Covenant and in the Palestinian National Charter, than ruminate how ex-president Carter sold out the Jews with his latest palestinian-propaganda-on-parade. In my opinion, Jimmy Carter and those who think like him, are dangerous because they are liars, but they are not as dangerous as Muslims who blow up Jewish toddlers in strollers. Let's be reasonable.

Nonetheless, Carter's book and the righteous criticism of it, are making the rounds and I have compiled several articles and links below for those of you who are interested in reading more on him. The links include articles from those who challenge him as well as other accounts relative to his mendacity. All links are worth reading; those links with an asterisk preceding them are especially worthwhile:

In 1980 Jimmy Carter declared his opposition to a "Palestinian" state

*Carter aside, Israel deserves total support

Carter defends Mideast book as accurate

*Dershowitz seeks to grill ex-president Carter on Israel book

The Carter trap

NY Times: Dennis Ross: Don't Play With Maps (Carter mispresents maps to hide Arafat's rejection of peace)

Jimmy Carter's Jewish Problem

*Michael B. Oren: A Religious Problem - Jimmy Carter's book: An Israeli view

*Jimmy Carter's own words

Jimmy Carter Interceded on Behalf of Nazi SS Guard

Ex-President for Sale - by Alan Dershowitz

Brandeis University to Allow Rebuttal After Carter Speech

Carter agrees to speak at Brandeis

------------------------------------
Emory Prof. Ken Stein resigned from the Carter Center. This is the note he distributed about it.

This note is to inform you that yesterday, I sent letters to President Jimmy Carter, Emory University President Jim Wagner, and Dr. John Hardman, Executive Director of the Carter Center resigning my position, effectively immediately, as Middle East Fellow of the Carter Center of Emory University. This ends my 23 year association with an institution that in some small way I helped shape and develop.

My joint academic position in Emory College in the History and Political Science Departments, and, as Director of the Emory Institute for the Study of Modern Israel remains unchanged.

Many still believe that I have an active association with the Center and, act as an adviser to President Carter, neither is the case. President Carter has intermittently continued to come to the Arab-Israeli Conflict class I teach in Emory College. He gives undergraduate students a fine first hand recollection of the Begin-Sadat negotiations of the late 1970s.

Since I left the Center physically thirteen years ago, the Middle East program of the Center has waned as has my status as a Carter Center Fellow. For the record, I had nothing to do with the research, preparation, writing, or review of President Carter's recent publication. Any material which he used from the book we did together in 1984, The Blood of Abraham, he used unilaterally. President Carter's book on the Middle East, a title too inflammatory to even print, is not based on unvarnished analyses; it is replete with factual errors, copied materials not cited, superficialities, glaring omissions, and simply invented segments. Aside from the
one-sided nature of the book, meant to provoke, there are recollections cited from meetings where I was the third person in the room, and my notes of those meetings show little similarity to points claimed in the book. Being a former President does not give one a unique privilege to invent information or to unpack it with cuts,
deftly slanted to provide a particular outlook. Having little access to Arabic and Hebrew sources, I believe, clearly handicapped his understanding and analyses of how history has unfolded over the last decade. Falsehoods, if repeated often enough become meta-truths, and they then can become the erroneous baseline for shaping and reinforcing attitudes and for policy-making. The history and interpretation of the Arab-Israeli conflict is already drowning in half-truths, suppositions, and self-serving myths; more are not necessary. In due course, I shall detail these points and reflect on their origins.

The decade I spent at the Carter Center (1983-1993) as the first permanent Executive Director and as the first Fellow were intellectually enriching for Emory as an institution, the general public, the interns who learned with us, and for me professionally. Setting standards for rigorous interchange and careful analyses spilled out to the other programs that shaped the Center's early years. There was mutual respect for all views; we carefully avoided polemics or special pleading. This book does not hold to those standards. My continued association with the Center leaves the impression that I am sanctioning a series of egregious errors and polemical conclusions which appeared in President Carter's book. I can not allow that impression to stand.

Through Emory College, I have continued my professional commitment to inform students and the general public about the history and politics of Israel, the Middle East, and American policies toward the region. I have tried to remain true to a life-time devotion to scholarly excellence based upon unvarnished analyses and intellectual integrity. I hold fast to the notion that academic settings and those in positions of influence must teach and not preach. Through Emory College, in public lectures, and in OPED writings, I have adhered to the strong belief that history must be presented in context, and understood the way it was, not the way we wish it to be.

In closing, let me thank you for your friendship, past and continuing support for ISMI, and to Emory College. Let me also wish you and your loved ones a happy holiday season, and a healthy and productive new year.

As ever,
Ken
------------------------------------
*Criticism of Carter's book (list of blatant lies) makes it into the Congressional Record by Congressman Mark Steven Kirk on the floor of the US House. The following is now a part of the Congressional Record:

Congressman Mark Steven Kirk
Special Order
Peace Not Apartheid: More Fiction than Facts
January 18, 2007

Madame Speaker: In today's Washington Post, former President Jimmy Carter defended his book, "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid." President Carter wrote: "...most critics have not seriously disputed or even mentioned the facts..."

After reading the book, I have become a critic, and today will only correct the facts purported in his book.

Regarding our policy towards Israel, there is little room for mistakes, let alone outright misstatements of fact. For that reason, I want to present to the House eight factual inaccuracies found in President Carter's book.

#1: On page 62, President Carter quotes Yasser Arafat as telling him, "The Palestine Liberation Organization has never advocated the annihilation of Israel." No evidence is provided and the book does not contain one footnote. Fact check: Article 22 of the PLO's Charter stated that "the liberation of Palestine will destroy
the Zionist and imperialist presence." Yasser Arafat supported this charter and lied to President Carter.

#2: On page 57, President Carter writes, "The 1949 armistice demarcation lines became the borders of the new nation of Israel and were accepted by Israel and the United States, and recognized officially by the United Nations." Fact check: The "1949 armistice" lines were never accepted as official borders by Israel, the United States or the United Nations. This error reflects a poor attention
to detail in the book.

#3: On page 127, President Carter writes that there was "a surprising exodus of Christians from the Holy Land." Fact check: Israel is the only Middle East nation where the Christian population has grown in the last half century. Christian communities and other faith communities like Baha'is have dropped in size in many Muslim countries.

#4: On page 152, President Carter writes, "It was later claimed that the Palestinians rejected a 'generous offer' put forward by Prime Minister Barak with Israel only keeping 5 percent of the West Bank. The fact is no such offers were ever made." Fact check: According to President Clinton's lead negotiator, Ambassador Dennis Ross, Prime Minister Barak accepted Clinton's proposal - offering to withdraw from 97% of the West Bank, dismantle isolated settlements and accept a Palestinian state with part of Jerusalem as its capital. Arafat rejected the proposal. A quick call between Presidents Carter and Clinton would have corrected this error.

#5: On page 148, President Carter presents two maps he claims were considered at Camp David. One of them is labeled "Israel's interpretation of Clinton's proposal." Fact check: There were no maps ever created at Camp David. The map President Carter labeled as "Israel's interpretation" is a copy of a map created by Dennis Ross
for his later book, "The Missing Peace." Ambassador Ross' map is a representation of the final offer agreed to by Prime Minister Barak and rejected by Arafat. President Carter violated Ambassador Ross' copyright of this map.

#6: On page 197, President Carter writes, "Confessions extracted through torture are admissible in Israeli courts." Fact check: The Israeli Supreme Court banned the use of torture in interrogations in a decision handed down on September 6, 1999 by Supreme Court President Barak.

#7: On page 188, President Carter writes, "Kadima had been expected to gain 43 seats based on its pledge of a unilateral expansion of the 'great wall.'" Fact check: Israel's Kadima Party ran on Prime Minister Sharon's platform of disengagement - a pledge to dismantle settlements and unilaterally withdraw from territory.

#8: On page 215, President Carter writes that one option for Israel is "withdrawal to the 1967 border as specified in U.N. Resolution 242." Fact check: U.N. Security Council Resolution 242 does not define a border.

Madame Speaker, these errors diminish the credibility of President Carter's book. President Carter is entitled to his own opinions, but not his own facts.

The errors I present here are only a sampling of those included in the book. Now in the twilight of his career and with many at the Carter Center resigning their posts, President Carter should recall this book and hire competent assistants to ensure his future work does not reflect poor scholarship.
------------------------------------

Correcting Carter's 242 Distortion

From Correcting Carter's 242 Distortion:

Jimmy Carter's error-ridden new book Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid includes myriad untrue statements of a kind newspapers routinely correct.

Carter writes on p. 57: "The 1949 armistice demarcation lines became the borders of the new nation of Israel and were accepted by Israel and the United States, and recognized officially by the United Nations."

This is false. The "1949 armistice" lines did not become the "accepted" borders of Israel. Nor did Camp David and Oslo specify a withdrawal to these alleged borders.

Carter writes on p. 215 that "[An option for Israel is] withdrawal to the 1967 border specified in UN Resolution 242 and as promised in the Camp David Accords and the Oslo Agreement."

Yet Britain's Lord Caradon, who introduced the resolution on November 22, 1967, after months of discussion in the wake of the Six-Day War, has explicitly emphasized the very opposite of Carter's claims: "We knew that the boundaries of '67 were not drawn as permanent frontiers; they were a cease-fire line of a couple decades earlier. We did not say the '67 boundaries must be forever."

Other publications that have made the same error, suggesting Resolution 242 calls for Israel's return to the pre-1967 armistice lines, have corrected it. The New York Times, during the Palestinian-Israeli negotiations at Camp David in the summer of 2000, did so three times, published three corrections, and has not repeated the error.

Carter writes on p. 62: "The Israelis have never granted any appreciable autonomy to the Palestinians."

But after 1993 and the Oslo agreements, Palestinians achieved "appreciable autonomy," attaining control of political, civic, security, medical and media institutions and gaining all of Gaza and 40% of the West Bank.

So pervasive is Carter's antipathy toward Israel that any expectation of redress of the factual errors by the author himself is clearly futile.

The question is why a publisher such as Simon and Schuster should be exempt from fact-checking a book billed and sold as non-fiction history - and from issuing forthright corrections when such serious errors have been printed.

The writer is Executive Director of CAMERA, Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America.

Middle East Hysterical Humor Department: Al Jazeera TV: "nobel peace price is racist", because it was awarded to 167 Jews and only 4 arabs

Received by email:
-----------------------

The following is close to hilarious: you have a region in the world which is steeped in racism, xenophobia, homophobia, stoning adulterers to death, public hangings, no judicial system to speak of, bigotry, extremism, hate literature (if one can call it literature), hell bent on destroying "the infidels of the world" - and the inhabitants of that region are surprised, i mean SURPRISED, that they don't receive more nobel peace prizes?

In addition, the ignorance in this interview is mind-boggling: the turkish writer pamuk received the literature nobel prize and not the nobel peace prize! i wonder how many of the other 167 nobel prize winners mentioned received this prize for scientific research, medical discoveries, literature, economics etc. oh blessed ignorance and stupidity.

After reading this, i am considerably less concerned that ignorant moslems will conquer the world and establish a worldwide caliphate.

We definitely need to add al-jazeera to our cable line-up!

[name deleted]
---------------------------------
from THE MIDDLE EAST MEDIA RESEARCH INSTITUTE

November 16, 2006 No.1359

Iraqi Researcher Living in Europe on Al-Jazeera TV: The Nobel Peace Prize is Racist; 'Why Has the Prize Been Awarded to 167 Jews and Only 4 Arabs... All Considered Traitors?'; The Prize Stems from the Protocols of the Elders of Zion

The following are excerpts from an interview with Samir 'Ubeid, an Iraqi researcher living in Europe, which aired on Al-Jazeera TV on October 31, 2006.

TO VIEW THIS CLIP VISIT HERE.

Samir 'Ubeid: "I don’t call it the Nobel Prize - I call it the hubal [idol] prize."

Interviewer: "Hubal?"

Samir 'Ubeid: "Yes, because it often encourages heresy. It encourages attacks against the heritage, and encourages those who scorn their people and their culture. The proof is that it was awarded recently to Pamuk, who had encouraged civil strife, which might preoccupy Turkey and the Muslims in general. He held Turkey responsible for what the Ottoman state did, when he referred to the massacre of the Armenians."

[...]

Interviewer: "In other words, if you are a traitor to your country, you deserve this prize."

Samir 'Ubeid: "If you are a traitor to your country, and a heretic, who curses his Prophet, you deserve a Nobel Prize.

[...]

"Why has the prize been awarded to 167 Jews, and to only four Arabs out of 380 million Arabs - and all four are considered traitors? For example, Al-Sadat got the prize during the normalization process, and as a price for Camp David, together with Begin, who carried out the Deir Yassin massacre, and who was in the Hagana gangs. Later, the prize was awarded to [Ahmad] Al-Zewail, in order to buy his invention, and Al-Zewail has disappeared since."

Interviewer: "You mean the Egyptian Ahmad Al-Zewail?"

Samir 'Ubeid: "Yes, the Egyptian chemist. The prize was also awarded to Muhammad ElBaradei, and in this case, it is soaked in the blood of the Iraqi children and people.

[...]

"Mother Teresa was brought, along with a group of people like her…"

Interviewer: "Some say the prize was awarded to her for her missionary activity in Africa, India, and so on..."

Samir 'Ubeid: "Let’s assume she was righteous, according to the logic of the media, which is now controlled by the Jews and Hollywood. When they awarded the prize to Teresa, they were trying to award an 'artificial hymen' or 'artificial honor' to this prize.

"My colleague said that there is democracy. What democracy is there, if out of 1.5 billion Chinese, only two or three were awarded the Nobel? If you examine the Russian scientists and writers, who shook the world with their literature and their knowledge...

"What about Sakharov, what about Tolstoy? In addition..."

Interviewer: "But Sakharov was awarded the Nobel prize."

Samir 'Ubeid: "I meant Chekhov. Chekhov! Chekhov!

[...]

"Are we Arabs not included in the transfer of the scientific genetic code? We, the descendants of Al-Khawarizmi, Al-Jahez, Al-Razi, Avicenna, and Ibn Al-Haytham - are we all born idiots? Is there not a single scientist among us? Are we not included in the genetic code? Is intelligence not transferred down among us Arabs?"

Interviewer: "Scientific creativity occurs in freedom and democracy, brother."

Samir 'Ubeid: "Democracy does not explain how it was awarded to 167 Jews, from among those 15 million scattered around the world, while abandoning 1.5 billion Chinese, a billion Indians, and 380 million Arabs. This is racism.

[...]

"The [Grameen] bank for the poor won the prize because some of its shareholders are giants like Haliburton and others.

[...]

"They infiltrated this bank, which came to be in the pocket of the Freemasons. This prize stems from the core of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion."

Why I'm Backing Israel

From Why I'm Backing Israel:

There is never a wrong time to do the right thing and if, like me, you are convinced of Israel's cause, then why not support Israel and why not now? Since its birth 58 years ago, Israel has always been prepared to compromise for peace. From Begin's agreement with Sadat in 1979 to the Arafat-Barak talks at Camp David in 2000, Israeli leaders have been prepared to challenge their own people in pursuit of peace. Last summer Israel withdrew from Gaza, angry settlers and all. Yet the terror from the Gaza Strip has continued - more than 1,000 rockets have been fired into southern Israel in the past year.

We need to think carefully about the consequences of questioning the defensive reactions of a nation-state that is constantly bombarded by an enemy calling for its destruction, especially after it has withdrawn from Lebanon and Gaza. Would we as British citizens accept a single rocket on a British town, let alone hundreds? Israel's willingness to compromise for peace has never been enough, because Israel alone cannot gain peace. The Palestinians and others in the region also have to want peace. Why not concentrate attention there, rather than on the one player in the region who has always been serious about peace?

The writer is chief executive of the Britain Israel Communications and Research Centre and the former Labour MP for Rochdale.

Palestinians Said NO to Peace 8 Times in the Last 65 Years

1) In 1937, when Britain under the Mandate offered the Peel Commission plan.

2) In 1947, when the UN proposed the establishment of two states in the region, one Jewish, one Arab.

3) In 1948, when Israel's Proclamation of Independence invited the Palestinians to remain in their homes and become equal citizens in the new state.

4) In 1967, when Israel offered to return all the territories conquered in return for peace.

5) In 1978-9, when Israel offered the acceptance of Palestinian autonomy in exchange for peace at Camp David I.

6) In 1993, when Arafat signed the Oslo accords, promised to renounce terrorism and recognize Israel, and then declared on Jordanian television that he had taken the first step "in the 1974 plan." This was a thinly veiled reference to the "phased plan" according to which any territorial gain was acceptable as a means toward the ultimate goal of Israel?s destruction.

7) In 2000, at Camp David II when Israel accepted the Clinton Plan and the Palestinians did not.

8) In 2001, when Israel's PM Ehud Barak offered Yasser Arafat East Jerusalem, 97% of the "West Bank" and 3% compensation from Israel's territory, in addition to all of Gaza (the Taba Negotiation), and Arafat turned it down without so much as a counteroffer.

Sources:
-- Israeli Embassy
-- Twenty Facts about Israel and the Middle East, By Bill Bennett, Jack Kemp, and Jeanne Kirkpatrick, empoweramerica.org, April 24, 2002;
-- Myths and Facts by Mitchell G. Bard

Article written by Israel Hasbara Committee. All links added by Smooth Stone.

Talking points

Folks, when Jew haters and terrorist apologists say Israel is not interested in living peacefully with its neighbors, tell them:

- In 1947, the Jewish people accepted the UN Partition Plan although it gave the Arabs 85% of the land originally promised to the Jews by the British. The Arabs rejected the plan.
- Israel returned the Sinai Peninsula (2 1/2 times the size of Israel) for peace with Egypt.
- At Camp David II (2000), Israeli Prime Minister Barak offered the "palestinians", a palestinian state comprising 91-97% of the territories (the remainder would be made up from Israel proper), military control of eastern Jerusalem and parts of the Old City, and repatriation of many "palestinian" refugees and compensation to those who couldn't return.

When Jew haters and terrorist apologists say the "palestinians" will embrace peace if Israeli "occupation" ends, tell them:
- Arab nations attacked Israel 2 times before there were any "occupied territories."
- The PLO was created in 1964, before there were any "occupied territories."
- 40% of the West Bank and 95% of the Gaza Strip, comprising 97% of the Palestinian population, is already under direct control of the Palestinian Authority.

When Jew haters and terrorist apologists say Israel is using excessive force in dealing with harmless "palestinian" protesters, tell them:

- "palestinian" terrorists, using bombs, mortars, and automatic weapons, hide-out amongst civilians and put children on the front line.
- Israel has placed its own soldiers in mortal danger while battling against terrorism, in order to minimize the damage to "palestinian" civilians.
- During "Black September" in the 1970s, 2,500 "palestinian" rioters were killed by Jordan in 10 days.

Exploring the Strength of Ties to Jerusalem

Daniel Pipes, in Exploring the Strength of Ties to Jerusalem:

Historically, the religious standing of Jerusalem for Muslims waxed and waned six times through 14 centuries. British rule over the city in 1917-48 galvanized a passion for Jerusalem that had been absent during the 400 years of Ottoman control. Throughout the Jordanian control of the walled city in 1948-67, Arabs largely ignored it. Jordanian radio broadcast Friday prayers not from Al-Aqsa mosque but from a minor mosque in Amman. The PLO's founding Covenant, which dates from 1964, contains no mention of Jerusalem.

Muslim interest in the city revived only with the Israeli conquest of Jerusalem in 1967. By 1990, the Islamic focus on Jerusalem reached such a surreal intensity that Palestinian Arabs denied the city's sacred and historical importance to Jews.

The Camp David summit of July 2000 saw the Israeli government put forward its demands for sovereignty over parts of the Temple Mount. As Dennis Ross, an American diplomat present at the summit, put it, Arafat "never offered any substantive ideas, not once" at the talks. However, "He did offer one new idea, which was that the Temple didn't exist in Jerusalem, that it was in Nablus." With this, Jerusalem's pseudo-history became formal Palestinian Authority policy.

More nominees for the 2006 Stupid Awards

Folks, I have often wondered how stupid people can grow to adulthood and have no idea they're stupid. Hat tip to one of my favorite advocacy sites, Boker tov, Boulder! , for this one:

Palestinian gunmen who burst into a house, apparently to kidnap the parents of Rachel Corrie, left without them after learning their daughter was the woman killed in 2003 as she protested the demolition of a house in the southern Gaza town, according to their host.

Remember, folks, that at the Camp David summit in July 2000, in the presence of the president of the United States, the palestinians were offered an end to what they called an "occupation" -- a total end, a final end -- by the prime minister of Israel. They said no. They said no because in return, they were asked to make peace. And because they are stupid. You can read more about the dopey palestinians and Craig and Cindy Corrie , here.