Palestinian Schoolbooks: An Updated Conclusion

Arnon Groiss1

www.impact-se.org

29 October 2009

In the final report on the PA schoolbooks issued by IMPACT-SE in March 2008

under the title “Palestinian Textbooks: From Arafat to Abbas and Hamas” we checked

the attitude reflected in these books to the “other,” Jews and Israel in particular, and to

peace, especially within the Middle Eastern conflict. We reached the conclusion that

the fundamentals of the Palestinian Authority schoolbooks regarding these issues:

– Delegitimize the Jewish and Israeli “other” by denying the historical and

religious presence of Jews in Palestine and non-recognition of the State of

Israel

– Demonize the “other” by ascribing dubious and nefarious characteristics to

Jews (never portrayed as individuals) and the State of Israel

– Present a biased view of the Middle Eastern conflict by assigning Israel

exclusive blame and absolving the Palestinians of any responsibility for it.

– Stress the ideal of a violent struggle of liberation rather than advocating the

ideal of a peaceful solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The said report discerned some changes in that attitude for the better following PA

Chairman Arafat’s death in November 2004 and the ascendancy of Mahmud Abbas to

power, as well as a reversal of that development following the formation of the

Hamas-led PA government in early 2006. Nevertheless, all in all, the PA seven-year

schoolbook publishing project was described as dissatisfactory in this respect. Hope

was then raised that the situation would improve through the mechanism of

schoolbook reprinting which began in 2007.

Now, a year and a half later, we can sum up the reprinting process up to this point,

taking into account a relatively large number of books that have undergone some

change. Indeed, in three cases a term or even a whole quotation, brought forth in our

said report as proof of a Palestinian negative attitude, no longer exists in the books.

Thus, a book for grade 11 which described Jewish immigration to Palestine in modern

1 Dr. Arnon Groiss is Director of Research at IMPACT-SE. The bulk of the update research was

conducted by Mr. Ido Mizrahi, a researcher at the Institute. IMPACT-SE is a registered nonprofit, nonpartisan

research institute dedicated to peacemaking between peoples and nations by encouraging

acceptance of the “other” and rejection of violent conflict resolution. To this end, it analyzes school

curricula in the Middle East and worldwide to ascertain whether the material conforms to international

educational standards in the fields of education for tolerance and peace, whether the “other” is

recognized and accepted or stereotyped and demonized, and, if a conflict exists, whether peaceful

conflict resolution is advocated. This is done using strict academic research criteria, based on

UNESCO resolutions and declarations. The findings of its research are published and used to affect

change in curricula through policy makers, international organizations, civil society and public opinion.

2

times as “infiltration” has been removed from the curriculum,2 probably for serious

didactic reasons and not necessarily because of this description. In two other cases,

poetic verses expressing readiness to fight and self-sacrifice were omitted in the 2009

reprints.3

Other cases of omission included some statements which expressed hatred, of which

the most noted one is a poetic verse saying “They think out of their transgression that

the Euphrates [River] is theirs and the Nile [River] and the noble Kaaba are their

borders.”4 A case in point is Islamic Education textbook for grade 12 of which the

2009 edition omitted several pieces such as a reference to the precept of befriending

Muslims and alienating oneself from non-Muslims and criticism of “Orientalists”

(that is, Western scholars of Muslim civilization).5

But this is only part of the overall picture and by no means does it reflect a significant

shift in attitude. In fact, one can discern in the reprints a relatively “balanced” pattern

of changes in both directions, which leaves the core fundamentals unaltered.

Examples:

A text, which mentioned in 2002 the three monotheistic faiths in relation to the

land of Palestine and was followed by a question in which the student was

requested to name them, omitted in 2009 both the word “three” and the

question.6

An exercise, which employed the terms “mosque,” “church” and “synagogue”

in a book published in 2004, dropped the synagogue in 2009 and replaced it

with another term denoting a mosque.7 This case and the former indicate a

growing tendency, which is also reflected in the media, to play down the role

of Judaism in the history of Palestine.

Short references to events related to ancient Jewish history in Palestine have

also been omitted in 2009.8

A poem has been added to a reprint which talks about loyalty to Jerusalem

against those who “sneak” into it, which questions the legitimacy of Jews as

that city’s inhabitants.9

Several additions of demonizing descriptions of Israelis such as “the

occupation has deprived the children of Palestine of happiness and smiles.”10

2 The Palestinian Society – Demographic Education, Grade 11 (2000). The quotation appeared on p.

21 (p. 4 in our report).

3 Our Beautiful Language, Grade 1, Part 1 (2000) p. 132 (p. 10 in our report); Arabic Language –

Linguistic Sciences, Grade 12 (2006) p. 85 (p. 16 in our report)

4 Arabic Language – Linguistic Sciences, Grade 12 (2007) p. 80 – omitted in the 2009 reprint p. 74

5 Compare Islamic Education, Grade 12 (2006) pp. 64, 116-117, respectively, to the 2009 reprint of the

same book.

6 Our Beautiful Language, Grade 3, Part 1 (2002) pp. 14-15; ibid (2009) pp. 10-11

7 Our Beautiful Language, Grade 4, Part 1 (2004) p.17; ibid (2009) p. 14

8 History of the Ancient Civilizations, Grade 5 (2004) p. 19: Queen of Seba’s visit to Jerusalem; ibid,

p. 46: Nebuchadnezzar’s campaign against Jerusalem in 586 BCE

9 Our Beautiful Language, Grade 6, Part 2 (2009) p. 19, and see also other references to the city of

Jerusalem as exclusively Arab since the days of its “Arab” founders, with no mentioning of the Jews’

national and religious connection to it throughout history in Our Beautiful Language, Grade 6, Part 2

(2008) pp. 14-17.

10 Arabic Language – Linguistic Sciences, Grade 12 (2009) p. 46, and see also Civic Education, Grade

6 (2009) pp. 52 (“the [Israeli] settlements exemplify the logic of force”), 55 (“What is it that enables

Israel to pollute the [Palestinian] environment?”)

3

There are several cases of addition of belligerent statements to the

schoolbooks in reprints.11

Martyrdom and martyrs are again mentioned in language exercises.12

Although a language exercise which included the sentence “I swear that I shall

continue acting on the path of the martyrs” was also omitted,13 another piece

was introduced in another book saying: “…the Palestinian mothers have

become unlike all other mothers in this world and continue for the sixth

decade to bury their children with trilling cries of joy!…the Palestinian

fathers continue to bury their sons calmly and promise to give the rest!…the

Palestinian of whatever age, religion, gender and affiliation becomes a martyr

project!”14

In conclusion, although positive changes have occurred in the reprinted books during

the last two years, they still do not amount to forming a clear departure from the

above-mentioned Palestinian negative fundamentals regarding the attitude to the

Jewish and Israeli “other” and to peaceful resolution of the Middle Eastern conflict.

11 “Thousands of victims shall return; the victims of oppression shall open every door” Our Beautiful

Language, Grade 7, Part 1 (2007) p. 37; “It seems to me that a treacherous dagger will dig in my back”

Linguistics Sciences, Grade 8, Part 1 (2009) p. 29; “Say to those who cry for home out of love that

battles do not want weeping” Arabic Language – Linguistic Sciences, Grade 12 (2009) p. 31, and see

also the Intifada poem in Our Beautiful Language, Grade 6, Part 1 (2009) pp. 51-52.

12 Reading and Texts, Grade 9, Part 1 (2008) p. 144; Reading and Texts, Grade 9, Part 2 (2008) pp.

117, 187

13 Arabic Language – Linguistic Sciences, Grade 12 (2006) pp. 81, 85 – omitted in the 2009 reprint.

14 Our Beautiful Language, Grade 7, Part 2 (2008) p. 67

Gaza Tunnels Significantly Increase In 2009

The Middle East Newsline reports and confirms that the Hamas regime has approved a huge increase in the number of smuggling tunnels from the Gaza Strip to neighboring Egypt.

Palestinian sources said tunnels that span the Gaza Strip to Egypt’s
Sinai Peninsula have more than doubled in 2009. They cited the Israeli and
Egyptian closure of their borders as well as increasing Gazan demand for
consumer goods.

“We can get anything for anybody at almost any time,” a Palestinian
involved in the tunnel industry said.

The Hamas regime approved the sharp increase of tunnels in wake of the war with Israel in January 2009. They said the number of tunnels skyrocketed from about 700 to 1,500 over the last eight months.

“Hamas directly controls about 100 tunnels and this supplies the
government and security forces,” the Palestinian said. “Whenever they need
something fast, they turn to private tunnel operators.”

In August, tunnel operators began smuggling luxury cars from Egypt to
the Gaza Strip. Over the last two months, the sources said, about 100 late
model cars were dismantled in Egypt, transported through the tunnels in
parts and reassembled in the Gaza Strip. The price per car was reported at
$20,000.

Tunnels marked the largest industry in the Gaza Strip.

About 30,000 people are employed in the smuggling industry, with diggers earning about $30 day.

The number of tunnels discovered and destroyed by Egypt or Israel marked less than one percent of the smuggling network.

Ten Obstacles to Middle East Peace

1. November 2, 2009 marked the 92nd anniversary of Balfour day, which led to the 1922 San Remo Treaty and to the 1924 League of Nations ratification of the San Remo Treaty, which recognized the right of Jews to purchase land in the Jewish national homeland, defined as anywhere west of the Jordan River. Ratified by the UN in 1945, that is the basis of international law by which Israel can, indeed, settle the land of Israel with Jews who come from the four corners of the earth. The internationally ratified legal basis for Israel has been forgotten.

2. The Arab league rejected the idea of a Jewish national home, declaring a war of extermination in 1945 and actualizing that declaration in 1948. That declaration which is still extant, and the Arab League’s war to exterminate Israel continues. Egypt was then the dominant factor of the Arab League. The Saudis, however, remain the dominant factor of the Arab League today, as the only nation contiguous to Israel to have never signed any armistice or peace treaty with the Jewish state.

3. Perhaps the most effective tactic of the Arab League was to spawn the PLO under its aegis, whose task it would be to coordinate indigenous Palestinian Arabs to join the Arab States in their war to conquer and displace the Jewish state. To this day, the PLO, led by the Fatah reports to the Arab League, which has never changed its charter to destroy Israel. For that matter, neither has the PLO changed its charter to destroy Israel. At the same time, the Fatah conveys the false impression to the world that it is the product of a grass roots Palestinian national movement. Yet the PLO, course, changed the map and the perception of the Arab war to exterminate Israel, to make the war look like some kind of war of national liberation.

4. The Arab League continued its war of extermination by confining Palestinian Arab refugees from 1948 to the squalor of refugee camps, under the premise and promise of the right of return. Their presence in UNRWA refugee camps continues to this day, under the aegis of the UN, through UNRWA, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency.

5. The purpose of UNRWA is to fulfill successive UN resolutions that promote the supposed “inalienable right” of Palestinian Arab refugees and their descendent’s to return to villages from before 1948. Palestinian Arab refugees and their descendants in the UNRWA camps learn that the 531 Israeli villages, kibbutzim, moshavim and neighborhoods that replaced the Arab villages are the illegal Israeli settlements, which are located in Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, Haifa, Ashkelon, BeerSheva, Ashdod, Sderot and hundreds of other Israeli communities that were established on the ruins of Arab villages after 1948. While the popular imagination posits that the Palestinian Arab national ambition is only to replace the Israeli communities in Judea, Samaria and Katif, the Palestinian Arab ambition as dictated by the PLO and its patron in the Arab League, is to take back the lands lost in 1948. UNRWA, financed by the US and other western nations, reinforces that ambition. UNRWA has recently been taken over by Hamas, to ensure that the ambition to actualize the right of return has gained a new, Islamic emphasis. Just look at how many Palestinian Arab refugees have left the teeming UNRWA Arab refugee camps in Gaza to live on the lands of the expelled Jewish communities from Katif. Not one. Why? Because the dictate of the PA, the PLO and Hamas is that Palestinian Arab refugees and their descendants must return to the homes and villages that they left after 1948 – to Jaffa, Beer Sheva, Ashdod, Ashkelon, etc.

6. The Palestinian Authority, established in 1994, instead of spurring the newly recognized Palestinian national entity to establish a nation state alongside Israel, has instead launched a base from where they can liberate the rest of of Palestine.

7. Meanwhile, the PA has established an educational system to educate the next generation that Israel must not exist. The new PA school books and the new PA maps speak for themselves, as the first school curriculum since the Third Reich that inculcates the idea that you must make war on the Jews and that Jews are less than human. The PA school books go one step beyond the Nazis, however, as they introduce lesson plans which praise those who murder Jews. While the Nazis murdered Jews, the Nazis always tried to obfuscate their acts. The Palestinian Authority instead teaches their children to take pride in the act of murdering a Jew.

8. To further reinforce the Palestinian entity around a renewed religious determination of the continued war to liberate all of Palestine, the Palestinian Authority adopted the draft of an Islamic constitution, based on the Sharia law. This was revealed to the public by a senior official in the Vatican who addressed visiting US congressmen in March 2003. This radical constitution was sponsored by the US government, through US AID.

9. Meanwhile, the Hamas Islamic movement took control of the PA legislature in democratic elections that were held under the sponsorship of the American government, in January 2006, which led to a Fatah-Hamas power sharing agreement known as the Mecca Accord, signed between the Fatah and the Hamas in March 2007. When the Fatah began to hesitate in carrying out the Mecca Accord, Hamas took over Gaza in its entirety in June, 2007.

10. The PA has made it clear that it will make no deal with Israel that does not assure the right of return of Palestinian Arab refugees, the PA control over Jerusalem, and the establishment of full and total sovereignty, which includes an army.

Museum Receives Horrifying Offer From Nazi Relative

JERUSALEM – The offices of Yad Vashem, the Israeli agency that memorializes the six million Jews murdered by their Nazis and their allies, received an extraordinary and even infuriating proposal recently. The grandson of Rudolf Hoess, the notorious commander of the Auschwitz death camp, offered to sell some of his grandfather’s personal effects to the museum.

The letter to the museum, which was sent several months ago and entitled “Rare objects, Auschwitz, Commander Hoess,” was short and succinct, saying: “These are several objects from the estate of Rudolf Hoess, the commander of Auschwitz: A massive, fireproof box with official insignia – a gift from Henrich Himmler, the commander of the SS, weighing 50 kilograms, a letter opener and folders, slides from Auschwitz that have never been seen publicly, letters from his period of imprisonment in Krakow. I would be very grateful for a brief answer. Sincerely, Reiner Hoess.”

The management of Yad Vashem responded with shock to the proposal and rejected it out of hand. The management of the museum expressed disgust over the desire of the criminal’s relative to profit from Holocaust memorabilia.

A high-ranking official of Yad Vashem said, “Here we must ask: did you murder and profit as well?” (The reference is to 1 Kings 21:19-INT)

However, museum officials told Rudolf Hoess’s grandson, Reiner, that he may donate the original items to the museum in order to commemorate the Nazi horror.

In an interview with Yedioth Ahronoth last night, Mr. Hoess, 44, said the idea of selling the items to Yad Vashem came up following a conversation that he had with a friend, the grandson of Baldur von Schirach, who was the leader of the Nazi youth movement, the Hitler Youth.

“These items were in the family’s possession,” Hoess said in a telephone conversation.

“We knew about them, people outside the family knew about them for a long time as well. Quite a few organizations wanted to buy them from us, including well-known media such as Der Spiegel and the Axel Springer publishing company. In the wake of Mr. von Schirach’s recommendation, I thought that it would be appropriate to sell the items to Yad Vashem. I do not want these items to get into the wrong hands.”

We asked Mr. Hoess: “Would you be willing to donate the items to Yad Vashem?”

He answered, “That is a good question. I can’t make a decision like that on my own. My tendency is to agree to donate the items, but I will need to consult the rest of the family. We want the items to go to a museum that deals with history.”

David Bedein can be reached at dbedein@israelbehindthenews.com.

Vienna Agreement Has Israelis Uneasy

Jerusalem – The talks at the headquarters of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna ended in a draft agreement according to which Iran would transfer most of the uranium in its possession for enrichment outside its borders.

The fact that this refers to “most of the uranium” and not all of it, leaves a breach for a thief to slip through. Who can know for certain and who in Iran can force the regime to adhere to the Vienna agreement? The “small quantity” of uranium can be moved from one nuclear site to another and, at most by an optimistic forecast, the implementation of the agreement can somewhat delay the production of the doomsday weapon.

The news that Iran would hand over most of the low-grade enriched uranium in its possession for enrichment outside its borders was received by Israel as another Iranian victory, which would bring Tehran another step closer to the bomb.

It has not been lost on all Middle Eastern observers that Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s strategic objective is to develop nuclear weapons in order to become a regional power that can dictate the course of events in the Middle East.

His regime is serious, determined and cunning and will not give up such a supreme objective just because the enlightened world demands that it honor a previous commitment, which was given when Iran joined the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Officially, Israel has refrained from commenting on reports about a possible agreement with Iran, but behind the scenes, Jerusalem is following developments with concern and suspicion.

Israeli officials consider such an agreement as no more than an Iranian tactical move to buy more time and relieve the pressure.

Israel does not believe that Iran will agree to the conditions that the U.S., Russia and France have set, and believes that it will continue its effort to become a nuclear superpower. Israelis have little trust in the chairman of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed El-Baradei, who is involved in the talks.

Evidence of this suspicion could be heard in the statements that Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak made yesterday during their meeting with Ms. Susan Rice, the United States ambassador to the United Nations.

Mr. Barak claimed that the superpowers must continue to keep track of Iran’s efforts to obtain nuclear weapons.

“The Iranians have misled the West in the past,” Barak said, pointing out preparations must continue for the imposition of severe sanctions on the Ayatollahs’ regime if it should turn out within several months that the Iranians are not cooperating fully with the international community.

Mr. Barak suggested to Ms. Rice that no alternative, including a military attack, could be ruled out, even if an agreement should be signed in the end, but it is found that Iran has tricked the West once again.

Israeli officials also remind the world that a uranium-enrichment compound, which was discovered in Qom. This stems from the belief, which the U.S. intelligence community shares, that these installations are only part of a more comprehensive network that the Iranians are hiding.

Barak added, in any case, Israel is not taking any option off the table.

Israel Kept Out Of Egyptian Cancer Conference

Jerusalem – This week, Egypt’s First Lady, Suzanne Mubarak, is hosting a major international conference on breast cancer.

The conference is to be held in Alexandria and great medical minds from all around the world are expected to take part in a march that is geared to raise public awareness about the deadly disease. But not all the great medical minds are welcome. The Egyptian health minister issued last-minute instructions not to include doctors from Israel in the conference.

The event is being organized by Dr. Susan G. Komen, an American doctor considered to be a leader in the war on breast cancer, who runs an agency that funds research, treatment and regional cooperative efforts.

Israeli physicians were supposed to attend the conference. They were to have shared with doctors from around the world Israel’s experience in coping with breast cancer.

<!–
AdSys ad not found for news/world:instory –>

But after all of the security arrangements had already been made and after they even had a meeting scheduled with Mrs. Mubarak, the cancellation came down.

Among the Israelis who were boycotted are members of the Tishkofet organization, which treats terminal patients. The organization is founded by Dr. Dvora Koren and her husband, Professor Ben Koren, an oncologist.

Dr. Dvora Koren told the Israeli media about the last-minute boycott.

“At the last minute we received a phone call from Egypt in which we were told that the Egyptian health minister had decided that we weren’t going to participate,” she said.

“It isn’t a security issue,” said Koren, “since the Egyptian authorities approved our arrival and the fact of the meeting at the conference with Suzanne Mubarak. At first, we’d planned on entering with foreign passports, but as soon as they realized that we were Israelis – along came the cancellation.”

What is ironic in this story is the attempt by senior Egyptian officials to praise the regional cooperation evinced in this conference, the boycott notwithstanding.

“This is an excellent example of cooperation among the various governments, survivors of the disease and the rest of the global community. This is proof of the world’s unity in the war on breast cancer,” said Dr. Muhammad Shaalem, who is the head of the Egyptian cancer association.

Israel, at least in the view of the people organizing the conference in Egypt, isn’t part of the global community.

Israeli Foreign Ministry officials are furious about the Egyptian decision.

“If the information is accurate,” said a spokesman for the Foreign Ministry “then, at issue is, without doubt, a very grave refusal by the regime in Egypt to grant visas.”

David Bedein can be reached at dbedein@israelbehindthenews.com

IAF Holds Joint Aerial Exercise With Italy

Jerusalem – What did not work out with the Turks, worked out with the Italians: The Israeli Air Force (IAF) held a joint exercise last week with the Italian Air Force in the Sardinia area.

Twelve IAF planes took part in the exercise, which was planned several months ago, including five F-15i planes, five F-16i planes, a Boeing 707 refueling plane and a Hercules that flew teams and technical equipment.

In the exercise, the Israeli and Italian Air Forces practiced dogfights between the two armies. The exercise was held at the Decimomannu Air Base on Sardinia, which has an advanced system for documenting and studying aerial combat exercises, making it possible to examine the effectiveness of one’s combat doctrine after the exercise.

Israeli Air Force sources said that the exercise was held as part of the IAF’s readiness for coping with long-range threats, as well as keeping the IAF planes operational. The cooperation between Italy and Israel began about a decade ago and, since then, joint training is carried out from time to time by the two air forces.

The tendency in the Israeli Air Force in the recent period has been to expand the IAF’s participation in international exercises. This is with the aim of practicing long-range flights and battles against pilots from other countries, who employ different combat doctrines than the IDF.

For example, three months ago the IAF participated in the Red Flag exercise in the U.S., in which long sorties, refueling and dogfights were practiced. The exercise was declared a success by Israeli officials, and that Israeli pilots usually achieve good results in exercises of this kind.

In addition, the French weekly L’Express reported this past May that the IAF carried out an exercise over Gibraltar, at a distance of 3,800 kilometers from Israel. The report stated this showed Israel was practicing the possibility of a strike on Iran.

David Bedein can be reached at dbedein@israelbehindthenews.com

Showdown on J Street: As J Street’s major conference approaches, some pointed questions for director Jeremy Ben-Ami.

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/showdown-on-j-street

J Street’s director, Jeremy Ben-Ami, published an open letter to Israel’s Ambassador Michael Oren in The Jerusalem Post this week insisting that he appear at the J Street Conference at the end of the month. Hopefully, Ambassador Oren will continue to deny the supposed “pro-Israel” organization the legitimacy of his presence.

J Street’s goals and policies were revealed when Stephen Walt, co-author of the venomous The Israel Lobby, recently proclaimed, “This is a key moment in the debate. It will be important whether Obama gets enough cover from J Street and the Israel Policy Forum so Obama can say, ‘AIPAC is not representative of the American Jewish community.'”

It’s time to call out Jeremy Ben-Ami, J Street’s director, to answer the following questions:

1: You served as Fenton Communications’ Senior Vice President until you established J Street, launched in 2008. In early 2009, Fenton signed contracts with a Qatari foundation to lead an 18-month long anti-Israel campaign in the United States with a special focus on campuses. The actual text of the contract called for: “An international public opinion awareness campaign that advocates for the accountability of those who participated in attacks against schools in Gaza.”

Did you sever your ties with Fenton when you began J Street? Do you retain any role or holdings in Fenton today? Did you play any role in introducing Fenton to the Qatari agents or play any role in facilitating the contract? Were you aware of the negotiations or the contract signed on March 12, 2009?

These questions are relevant because it’s important to know if J Street’s refusal to support Israel’s anti-Hamas military campaign was influenced by your ties with Fenton, whose promotional material claims: “We only represent people and projects we believe in.”

Were there discussions with Fenton prior to J Street’s refusal to condemn the Goldstone Report on Gaza, a report that certainly serves the Fenton/Qatari interests? Were there communications with Fenton surrounding J Street’s support for Rep. Donna Edwards who refused to sign a congressional resolution supporting Israeli actions in Gaza?

2: You were recently asked in an interview about funds J Street received from Palestinians, Arab-Americans, and Iranian-Americans, to which you answered: “J Street does have some Arab and Muslim donors – about five. These are individuals, not organizations, corporations or foreign countries. Well over 90 percent of our money comes from Jewish Americans and Christians.”

Did you really say J Street has only five Arab and Muslim donors? A partial listing quickly extracted from the U.S. Federal Election Commission shows more than 30 contributors, many with ties to Arab-American organizations.

So far, only J Street’s Political Action Committee has disclosed its contributors, as mandated by federal law. But who are the donors to the main J Street organization? Make that list public, and these pesky inquiries will probably go away.

When asked about J Street’s funding by the Jerusalem Post – the newspaper that ran the original exposé – you responded “at most 3 percent” of contributors were Muslim or Arab. Now you state that the figure may be closer to 10 percent. One tenth of J Street’s budget of $3 million, or $300,000, is a substantial sum. Why do so many Arabs contribute to an organization that purports to be “pro-Israel?”

3: Do any Israelis support J Street’s agenda? How many? Look at the list of Israeli speakers appearing at J Street’s Conference, all losers in Israel’s political arena: Ami Ayalon, Colette Avital, Amir Peretz, Shlomo Ben-Ami, Yuli Tamir, Amnon Lipkin-Shahak. They have all failed to secure support from the Israeli electorate or even from their own parties, so they take their messages to the U.S. and plead with the U.S. government to pressure Israel’s government, make the Israelis do things that their citizens have already rejected. The tactic is patently anti-democratic.

Two retired senior IDF officers, well-known members of the peace camp, recently went to the U.S. to speak on J Street’s behalf. When they got there they discovered that J Street opposed sanctions against Iran. According to a JTA account, Brig. Gen.(res) Israeli Oron called for a “timetable that would be tied to punishing sanctions.”

“The thing that worries me and that worries other Israelis is that [current negotiations are] not limited in time,” Oron said as the faces of her J Street hosts turned anxious, adding “I’m not sure I’m expressing the J Street opinion.”

Maj. Gen. (res) Danny Rothschild discovered that he differed with J Street’s policies on an immediate freezing of settlements, the halting of settlements’ natural growth, and opposing tough sanctions against Iran.

And then Labor MK Ophir Pines-Paz spoke to a Washington gathering in early October sponsored by J Street’s co-founder, Daniel Levy, today of the New America Foundation. When Pines-Paz was told he was wrong in “assuming that everyone on the left is aligned on Iran’s nuclear capabilities and threat, [and in agreement] with Israel’s assessment,” he exploded. “Wake up!” he shouted.

J Street produced a film clip for its site and for YouTube showing prominent Israelis who “speak out in support of a two-state solution and J Street.” But do they actually support J Street? View the clip carefully and discover that only three out of 11 Israelis mention J Street at all – former minister Ami Ayalon and Uri Savir. The third is former MK Colette Avital who is a J Street employee in Israel. Not quite the ringing endorsement J Street had in mind.

Even the leaders of Israel’s opposition have refused to appear at the Conference, according to sources in Jerusalem.

4: How extensive is your interlocking directorship? I believe that is the correct characterization of J Street and its allied organizations. J Street’s contributions from the heads of the Arab American Institute and Iranian lobby NIAC have been documented in these pages. They serve on J Street’s Finance Committee which has a minimum requirement of $10,000. As research continues in the files of various federal agencies, we found that the interlocking relations continue into the second tiers as well.

Take for example, the case of Rebecca Abou-Chedid. She appears in the federal elections records as contributing to J Street’s PAC. Her occupation is listed as “consultant” for “USUS LLC.” But until recently, she was also the national political director at the Arab American Institute where she “was responsible for formulating AAI’s positions on foreign policy. and represented the Arab American community with Congress as well as the Departments of Homeland Security, Justice, and State.” Today, Abou-Chedid is the director of outreach at the New America Foundation’s Middle East Task Force.

J Street co-founder and Advisory Council member Daniel Levy serves as Co-Director of the Middle East Task Force at the New America Foundation, an institute that benefits from George Soros’ largess and membership on its board.

Heads of other pro-Arab organizations, such as AMIDEAST, and Arab foreign agents are contributors to the PAC. But Mr. Ben-Ami claims that no organizations or foreign governments contribute. They don’t need do; their representatives do.

5: Who drives policy at J Street? It’s difficult to imagine that the unwieldy J-Street 160-member board of advisors directs policy. Some of those members are also foreign agents who worked for Egypt and Saudi Arabia. It also seems unlikely that your big bucks, 50-member Finance Committee provides decision-making guidance. That’s where the heads of the pro-Iranian and Arab-American lobbies sit.

So who directs policy? A hint was provided by a left-wing blogger, Richard Silverstein, who heard the pre-launch spiel in Seattle given by you and “co-founder” Daniel Levy 18 months ago.

“It’s always important with efforts like this to examine the board member names,” Silverman wrote. “There are of course leaders of the main American Jewish peace groups. There are rabbis and academics. But most important there are heavy hitter political donors (Alan Solomont), policy wonks (Rob Malley), U.S. ambassadors to Israel (Samuel Lewis), high level political operatives (Eli Pariser of Moveon), Hollywood liberals (Robert Greenwald), business leaders, George Soros’ top aide (Morton Halperin), and even a former Republican senator (Lincoln Chafee) and former Congressman (Tom Downey).. The group founders believe that Barack Obama and his staff “get” J Street’s perspective while they believe a Clinton candidacy might not advance J Street’s mission as aggressively.” [Note, the briefing was given at the height of the Democratic primaries.]

Soros, the National Journal reported, was present at J Street’s initial strategy sessions.

Anyone reading Soros’ 2007 manifesto, On Israel, America and AIPAC, will understand that he is the spiritual godfather of J Street, if not its silent sugardaddy.

“I believe that a much-needed self-examination of American policy in the Middle East has started in this country,” Soros proclaimed, “but it can’t make much headway as long as AIPAC retains powerful influence in both the Democratic and Republican parties. Some leaders of the Democratic Party have promised to bring about a change of direction but they cannot deliver on that promise until they are able to resist the dictates of AIPAC. Palestine is a place of critical importance where positive change is still possible. Iraq is largely beyond our control; but if we succeeded in settling the Palestinian problem we would be in a much better position to engage in negotiations with Iran and extricate ourselves from Iraq. The need for a peace settlement in Palestine is greater than ever. Both for the sake of Israel and the United States, it is highly desirable that the Saudi peace initiative should succeed; but AIPAC stands in the way. It continues to oppose dealing with a Palestinian government that includes Hamas.”

So, it appears that Soros has created an organization that competes with AIPAC, calls for inclusion of Hamas, and opposes sanctions against Iran. His people sit on J Street’s board, and his other offspring from the New America Foundation and the National Iranian American Council, work in lockstep. It’s a scary scenario that should attract the attention of the best investigative reporters from national news outlets, but the modern day Lotus Eaters have been lulled and ensnared by J Street.

But just because they won’t ask the tough questions doesn’t mean that they don’t have to be answered.

Secrets of Beit Hanina: Salam Fayyad’s residence and former Hebrew University land

In exploring East Jerusalem recently, I come upon a house watched over by a tall Palestinian security guard dressed in black, who would only say that he was guarding the house of someone ‘very important.’

It turns out that the house belongs to none other than Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad, who travels from there to his office in Ramallah everyday. Fayyad’s wife is a resident of Jerusalem. According to Ha’ aretz, neighbors reported that Fayyad has been living there full time only since last year after becoming the PA’s Prime Minister.

I contacted Danny Ben-Simon, director of the Israeli government press office to ask him whether Fayyad’s living in Beit Hanina undermines Israel’s claim of sovereignty over all of Jerusalem. He responded, “It is quite understood within the context of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, that there are going to be small ironies and this is one of them….in negotiations, everyone has opening positions. We [the Israelis] have our opening positions. We don’t expect all of our opening positions are ones that will be finally agreed upon…”

When contacted, Kadima Knesset member, Otniel Schneller, an orthodox Jew, said, “When there will be negotiations over Jerusalem…if [Beit Hanina] becomes a Palestinian state, then Fayyad will continue to live there, and if not, he can live under Israeli sovereignty and be the Prime Minister of a Palestinian state. On our side [Israel’s], there is no apartheid.”

Prior to 1948, many Jews owned property in Beit Hanina. As Aryeh King, director of the Israel Land Fund, said, “Hundreds of dunams of land in Beit Hanina belonged to Shmuel Salant, the Chief Rabbi of Jerusalem, and when the Jordanians had control over it [between 1948-1967], they built on it. Since ‘67, the land has been controlled by the Israeli government, and it has let Arabs build homes on it, many without permits…Today there is only one apartment building with Jews living in Beit Hanina”

The Hebrew University of Jerusalem on Mount Scopus once also owned land in Beit Hanina. But, in 2004, Hebrew University sold almost 96 dunams (24 acres) of land in Beit Hanina and the neighboring Shuafat to a Palestinian company owned by a Palestinian bank.

Schneller added that the fact that Fayyad lives in Beit Hanina, and Hebrew University sold its land there, “may in fact influence the final status of Beit Hanina.”

Schneller, who is a former secretary general of the Yesha Council of Jewish settlers in Judea and Samaria, also said, “Beit Hanina is not part of the heart of Jewish historical Jerusalem.” Theoretically, he noted, one day it could become part of Al Quds, a Palestinian capital in East Jerusalem.

“Over Beit Hanina, I am willing to compromise,” Shneller said.

Schneller differentiated between Beit Hanina and neighborhoods in the holy basin, such as the Old City,and Sheikk Jarrah. “The neighborhoods in the holy basin must always be under Israeli sovereignty, even if there are special municipal and other jurisdictional arrangements made for Arabs living in the holy basin,” he said.

However, Schneller doesn’t see any chance of reaching an agreement with the Palestinians in the near future as “Israel will insist on sovereignty over the holy basin in Jerusalem,” and, additionally, there are legitimate concerns “that a Palestinian state would become a terrorist state.”

In an interview, Robert Ilatov, Knesset member for Israel Beiteinu, said it was a mistake for Hebrew University to sell its land in Beit Hanina to Palestinians, not Jews. “We have made a lot of mistakes around Hebrew University. We should have been building all around it.”

He added, “the fact that Israel lets Salam Fayyad live in Beit Hanina only shows how liberal we Israelis are.”

Of course, if Beit Hanina ever fell under Palestinian sovereignty and became a terrorist base, the Hebrew University would become just like Sderot.

U.S. National Security Advisor Reiterates US Commitment to Palestinian State Without Preconditions

http://www.americantaskforce.org/in_media/pr/2009/10/16/1255665600

Washington, DC, Oct. 16 — At the Oct. 15 Fourth Annual Gala of the American Task Force on Palestine (ATFP), the National Security Advisor, General James L. Jones, reiterated [2] the Administration’s commitment to establishing a Palestinian state and determination to move forward with peace talks.

“We are clear, unambiguous and consistent,” said Gen. Jones, “The time has come to relaunch negotiations without preconditions to reach a final status agreement on two states.” The National Security Advisor emphasized that, “President Obama’s dedication to achieve these goals is unshaken, is committed, and we will be relentless in our pursuit of achieving these.” He said that ending the conflict and the occupation is essential because what is at stake is “nothing less than the dignity and the security of all human beings.” “We must move beyond talking about talks and get to the hard work of addressing the core issues that separate Israelis and Palestinians,” Jones said.

ATFP Fourth Annual Gala

In his introduction [3] to Gen. Jones, ATFP President Ziad J. Asali praised the National Security Advisor’s “profound grasp of the integral relationship between politics, security and economic development, and his fairness in being able to see the perspectives, and understand the requirements, of both Israel and the Palestinians. ” In his welcoming remarks [4] to the Gala, Dr. Asali said that, ” The occupation simply must end. Yet many peoples have attained independence only to fall prey to despotism, chaos, bad or even failed governance, or close-minded obscurantism. For their own sake, courageous Palestinians have begun a new policy to build, in spite of the occupation, the foundations of a society and state in which every citizen is afforded both the rights and responsibilities of liberty.”

At the black-tie Gala in Washington, DC, ATFP honored three prominent Palestinian Americans: Dr. Najat Arafat Khelil [5], Prof. Shibley Telhami [6], and Dr. Fuad Jubran [7]. It also presented a Special Recognition commemorating 20 Years of US-Palestinian diplomacy to Amb. Robert H. Pelletreau [8], the American official who initiated the first formal contacts with the PLO 20 years ago, which was presented by the head of the PLO mission to the United States, Amb. Maen Areikat. The Gala was also presented with letters of support and commendation from Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas [9] and House Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Rep. Howard Berman [10] (D-CA). Maysoon Zayid’s comedy performance [11] delighted the audience of over 650, which included members of Congress, current and former senior administration officials, ministers and ambassadors from numerous states, prominent policy analysts and journalists, and noted Palestinian and Arab Americans.

To experience ATFP’s Fourth Annual Gala please click on the corresponding links in the gala program below.

Reception

Master of Ceremonies
Hussein Ibish, Ph.D.
Senior Fellow, ATFP

Welcome [4]
Ziad J. Asali, M.D.
President, ATFP

* * *

Presentation of Awards

ATFP Award for Lifetime Achievement [5]
Dr. Najat Arafat Khelil
Presented by
H.E. Dr. Chekib Khelil
Minister of Energy and Mines of Algeria

Letter from T.H. Representative Howard Berman [10]
Delivered by
Hussein Ibish

* * *

Dinner

Comedy Performance [11]
Maysoon Zayid

* * *

Presentation of Awards

ATFP Award for Excellence in Scholarship [6]
Dr. Shibley Telhami
Presented by
T.H. Ambassador Richard Murphy

ATFP Award for Excellence in Science and Medication Education [7]
Dr. Fuad Jubran
Presented by
Mr. Samer Khoury
Executive Vice President of Operatons, Consolidated Contractors Company

Special Recognition: 20 Years of U.S.-Palestinian Diplomacy [8]
T.H. Robert H. Pelletreau Jr.
Presented by
T.H. Ambassador Maen Areikat [9]

* * *

Keynote Address

Ziad J. Asali [3]
Introduces
General James L. Jones, USMC (Ret) [2]
National Security Advisor

* * *

S