Lessons from the weekend protest you won't read about

Over the weekend, some 10,000 people protested over social issues in Tel Aviv. Unlike the violent protests the week before, where riots broke out and banks were broken into, this one was largely peaceful and as far as I can tell, no one was arrested

There was another, much smaller protest over the weekend that reveals a lot more about the Israeli/Arab conflict, however. And if it was covered at all by world media, it was barely a footnote.

From Ma'an:

Dozens of young Palestinians clashed with PA security forces in Ramallah on Saturday at a protest against the leadership's scheduling of a meeting with Israeli vice premier Shaul Mofaz.

The youth gathered in central Ramallah and tried to march on the headquarters of the leadership, the Muqataa, where they were blocked by riot police and some plain clothes agents.

"They beat them badly," a witness who asked not to be identified told Ma'an, adding that three people were taken to hospital but the extent of their injuries was not immediately clear. They were identified as journalist Muhammad Jaradat, Hassan Faraj and Waed Barghouti.

So at a much smaller protest with only dozens of people, we have six arrests and some serious beatings, including that of a journalist.

And their protest wasn't for social justice or for Palestinian Arab unity or anything like that. It was a protest against even talking with any Israeli.

And here's the kicker: It worked.

President Mahmoud Abbas was slated to meet Mofaz in Ramallah on Sunday, but officials announced Saturday the summit had been postponed indefinitely.

A senior Fatah official, speaking on condition of anonymity, told Ma'an the meeting was postponed for several reasons including public opposition under the current circumstances.

Imagine a world where Palestinian Arabs would protest to make peace with Israel. Has that ever happened, even once, in history?

It will never happen. Because only one side has shown any real interest in any sort of real peace, the kind where both sides compromise to reach a permanent solution. And the other side has been raised to believe that if they just wait long enough, they'll get everything they demand no matter what, so there is no reason to compromise, ever.

The American Girl in the Bunker (Tablet)

From Talia Lefkowitz in Tablet:

[...]I am a volunteer IDF soldier from New York City serving in an elite paratroopers unit. I am the only girl in a unit with 85 combat soldiers. Over the past year, we have served all over the country. Now we are based on the border of Gaza and Sinai, and things have started to get hairy.

The rocket attacks always stop at some point. I know there will eventually be a temporary ceasefire, and life on base will go back to normal. I'm surprised, frankly, that the current attacks even made it onto Facebook, because outside of Israel, no one seems to think they're newsworthy, much less an act of war. No big deal, right?

It doesn't feel that way inside the bunker. When you are on the other end of these rockets'hearing their high-pitched squeal as they fly past, feeling the room shake as they hit ground, and smelling the acrid smoke plumes that rise from the craters'it feels like war.

Our rooms on the base are similar to a caravan. The walls are thin, and the ceiling is just weak metal. Our beds are made of thin pieces of steel, and the mattress is a smelly egg-crate that has probably been slept on for over 20 years. When soldiers are not on missions, they are doing exactly what the movies portray: playing cards, smoking cigarettes, lifting dumbbells, making coffee on a little gas stove. Three days ago we were just minding our business when we heard a huge explosion that literally shook the ground. I know the floor moved because our coffee spilled.

I didn't think it could be a rocket or bomb because the warning siren, the tzeva adom, had not sounded. We all ran out to see what the noise was all about, and in the distance, maybe 2 kilometers away, we could see the telltale plume of smoke.

Seconds later, the siren rang and we all ran to the nearest shelter. The shelter is windowless. The room is built to hold 30 people, but somehow we managed to squeeze 70 inside.

[...]
Hours go by without a rocket, and I start to relax. Maybe it's over. The media, even the Israeli newspapers, are saying that it is no big deal. I start to believe them. But then another bomb hits without warning, and this one falls just feet from us. It's like an earthquake. The room sways, and I fall out of my bed. The next few minutes seem to move in slow motion. Screaming, frenzy, smoke. Everyone running. Hands covering their ears. Wiping their eyes. Holding tissues over their mouths and noses.

As I run, trying to get to safety, I flash back to my family's apartment in Manhattan, or to the house in which I grew up in Maryland. It's inconceivable to me that something like this could happen there. There would be shock, outrage, even international condemnation. Or maybe such a massive American response that the rocket attacks would finally stop'forever. Instead, I am sure tomorrow's Facebook page will be filled with more criticism of Israel and more justification for the attacks.

I am a New York City girl who came to Israel to defend the Jewish state. I am proud of my service and of all the remarkable young men I have met who risk their lives every day to keep this country safe. I am the girl in the bunker, and I can tell you that these rocket attacks are a big deal.

The danger to the Church of the Nativity sure isn't from Israel

From YNet:

UNESCO's World Heritage committee has voted to approve a Palestinian bid to place the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem on its list of sites of World Heritage in Danger.

The Palestinians had pressed to have the church and pilgrimage route inscribed as an emergency candidate at the meeting of the World Heritage 21-nation committee in St. Petersburg, Russia.

UNESCO spokeswoman Sue Williams said the committee voted 13-6 on Thursday to put the iconic Christian site on the list. Two nations abstained.

Emergency status for the candidacy meant the Palestinians could take a shortcut to getting the church on the list.

Some nations saw the move as an attempt by the Palestinians to mix politics and culture.

The United States and Israel, neither of which is on the committee, were among nations opposed to the Palestinian proposal of an emergency candidacy for the iconic Christian site, shortcutting what is usually an 18-month-long process to apply for World Heritage recognition.

So is the Church of the Nativity in real danger, or is this a cynical political move?

PA officials are unambiguous:

Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad welcomed UNESCO's decision, saying it strengthens the Palestinians' determination to act toward the establishment of an independent state within the 1967 borders.

"It's time for the UN and its organizations to take a political, legal, cultural and moral stance to put an end to the suffering of the Palestinian people, and prevent the risk posed to its cultural heritage due to the actions of the Israeli occupation," he said.

"This global recognition of the rights of the Palestinian people is a victory for our cause and for justice," Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas's spokesman Nabil Abu Rudeina told AFP, as Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erakat called it "a historic day."

"These sites are threatened with total destruction through the Israeli occupation, through the building of the separation wall, because of all the Israeli sanctions and the measures that have been taken to stifle the Palestinian identity," the Palestinian delegate said after the vote.

But the application to UNESCO the PA didn't say that the danger to the church was because of Israel - but because of water leaks.

Birthplace of Jesus: the Church of the Nativity and the Pilgrimage Route, Bethlehem (Palestine) was also placed on the List of World Heritage in Danger as it is suffering from damages due to water leaks.

Hmmm..the Palestinian Arabs saying one thing to one audience and a completely different thing to another. Sounds familiar.

Amazing how the church survived when Israel actually was in charge of the Church of the Nativity on a day to day basis.

The problem of the church roof leaking is an old one - and one that Israel offered to fix when Bethlehem was under full Israeli control. From AP, November 21, 1990 (click to enlarge):


The roof problem obviously has nothing to do with Israel, and priceless artifacts in the church have been getting damaged by leaks for a very long time. And the Palestinian Christians opposed Israel fixing the problem that is now regarded as an "emergency," at least in the application to UNESCO.

The biggest irony, of course, is that the Palestinian Arab leaders are saying that they want to preserve a holy Christian site at the exact same time that the Christians under their rule have been fleeing. From Gatestone Institute:

The drive to have the Church of the Nativity recognized as a global heritage site is nothing short of offensive. Christians have been driven out of their ancestral lands; Palestinians have shown nothing but hostility to both Christians and Jews. Moreover, Christ himself was a Jew.

Upon the birth of the State of Israel in 1948, Bethlehem had a Christian population of over 80 percent. With the rise of the Muslim population, Christians dwindled in numbers. Yasser Arafat and the Palestinian Authority took over the town in 1995, thanks to the Oslo Accords. Along with the PA, came a tribal political system which caused Bethlehem's Christian population, already at 15%, to further sink to 2% today. Under this political system Christians are targeted, seen as inferiors, and subjected to threats, violence, discrimination and acts of terrorism.

Upon entering Bethlehem Yasser Arafat was strategic in overtaking the Christian populace. He first expanded municipal boundaries to include 30,000 Muslims living in refugee camps, as well as Muslim Bedouins who lived east of the town.

The first and second intifadas further drove Christians out of their ancestral town as they became trapped in the crossfire between the Palestinians and Israelis. The violent struggle predictably drew international attention, and created the ideal platform for Palestinian sympathizers to levy blame on the so-called Israeli "occupation."

Israel's so-called "occupation" and "aggression" were solely based on self defense: both the Palestinian and Hamas Charters call for Israel's obliteration; Israel's southern cities is still live under nearly daily attack by hostile Arab States and forces seeking its destruction.

The Muslim aggression on the other hand is based on a conditioned, generational hatred against the Jews (and Christians) evidently determined to see the Jews of the State of Israel, a country the size of Vancouver Island, pushed into the sea, while an Islamic Caliphate is formed to rule the Middle East.

(h/t Leo Daf Hofshi)

UPDATE: Don't forget that the terrorists who cynically used the church to protect them from being captured by Israel in 2002, and who did great damage to the church itself, are considered heroes by the majority of Palestinian Arabs.

The myth of "Jewish only roads" (Presspectiva/CAMERA)

From CAMERA:

Yishai Goldflam, editor-in-chief of Presspectiva, CAMERA's Hebrew Web site, published an Op-Ed column in Ha'aretz, faulting that paper and other Israeli media for spreading the falsehood that Israel maintains "Jewish-only" roads in the West Bank. This is significant, especially since the fiction of "Jewish-only" roads features prominently in "Israel apartheid" mythology and is frequently cited by anti-Israel and pro-BDS (boycott, divest, sanction) agitators.

Here's the English translation:

Do there exist roads in Judea and Samaria that are designated for "Jews only"? Are Christians and Muslims really prohibited from traveling on roads across the Green Line? This charge, which is often voiced in these parts, including in this newspaper, provokes condemnation of Israel's alleged racism-- and is simply untrue. There appears to be a terminology confusion that produces a factual error that harms legitimate discussion and criticism of Israeli actions.

Here are the facts: the state did, indeed, impose restrictions on certain roads in Judea and Samaria several years ago and did not allow Palestinians to travel on them, especially after the eruption of the second intifada. But most of the restrictions were already removed in 2009. Today, most West Bank roads are open to the majority of the Palestinian population. And even at the time those roads were restricted for Israeli use, they were never restricted to Israeli Jews alone. The roads were open to all Israeli citizens -- Muslims, Christians, Druze and Circassians. There was never a religious or ethnic-based separation on the roads of Judea and Samaria.

Actually this fact is crystal clear to anyone who has ever been to the area. Only someone who has never traveled in territory over the Green Line could possibly believe the claim that there exist roads for only Jews. Today, one can see license plates of Palestinians from Jenin to Hebron, on bypass roads that were allegedly built for Jews only, for example, the Qalqilya bypass, the southern Nablus bypass, and the Ramallah bypass roads, as well as on main roads like Route 505 leading to Ariel -- a road that was labeled at least twice in this paper "an apartheid road for Jews only."

The Associated Press published a correction in January 2010 stating, "These roads are open to all Israeli citizens, including Arabs, foreigners and tourists." Similar corrections were published on CNN, The Washington Post, and The Boston Globe. But the journalistic responsibility and professionalism demonstrated by the world's leading media outlets apparently made no impression on the Israeli media, which even today continues to air this false charge.

Beyond the error itself, the claim of "Jews-only" roads impairs reasonable discussion about Israeli actions. While it is possible to debate and criticize the (real) restrictions imposed on Palestinians (all Palestinians, not just Muslims) on some West Bank roads during a specific time period, Israel and her supporters are forced to address the bogus claim of ethnic-religious separation on these roads.

Raising this claim, particularly in the Israeli media, grants it validity. Anti-Israel activists, too ignorant and lazy to substantiate their own charges, wave around "facts" they find in Israeli newspapers that supposedly "prove" the racism of the State of Israel and justify their own attacks on her. It's hardly surprising this mendacious claim has become a major weapon in the attempt to brand Israel an "apartheid state." Thus, irresponsible journalists and publicists contribute to the distortion of the domestic and international discussion about Israel.

Many media outlets in the world have already acknowledged their mistake and corrected it. Is the Israeli media capable of meeting the accepted standards of journalistic integrity?