Marwan Barghouti's True Colors

Over the last decade or so, many left wing Israelis have called for the release of Marwan Barghouti, who is serving five life sentences for launching deadly terrorist attacks during the Al-Aqsa Intifadah. These well meaning Israelis think this  terrorist-turned-peacenik-turned-terrorist has turned back to peace, since he has made conciliatory statements, declaring he was wrong to turn to violence. As one of the most popular Palestinian leaders, they believe he can bring peace more than Mahmoud Abbas can. The problem is that they ignore history and the likelihood that he will return to terror. Now it is no longer just likelihood.

Two years ago, Barghouti called for "popular resistance", which could be interpreted as nonviolent action. Today, in a letter marking the tenth anniversary of Yasser Arafat's death, he stopped pretending. He called for a third Intifada, including armed resistance.

Marwan Barghouti is, and always has been, a terrorist. He must not be released from jail. I hope his naive Israeli supporters realize this now.

October 2000/Cast Lead All Over Again?

It started with the heinous murders of three Israeli teenagers by Hamas-affiliated terrorists and the equally heinous suspected revenge killing of a Palestinian teenager by Israeli extremists. Now it seems to be escalating into a combination of the October 2000 Israeli-Arab riots which took place at the beginning of the Second Intifadah and the December 2008-January 2009 Cast Lead Operation in Gaza, Israel's response to Palestinian missile strikes inside Israel.

Let's start with Gaza. Israel has been very restrained, responding to the barrage of rockets on border communities with a proportional response - attacking missile launchers and a bunch of symbolic, yet empty, buildings. Rockets haven't stopped, though. Today, rockets were fired on Be'er-Sheva, 40 kilometers from Gaza, the largest city attacked so far this round. This is undoubtedly an escalation. I believe it would be hypocritical of anyone in the world to criticize Israel for going on a large scale operation (one which I hope will not be necessary, but might be if attacks continue on Sunday) after giving Hamas the opportunity to stop the missiles it and other groups have launched.

Now, to the other front of this round of the conflict. Palestinians have rioted in East Jerusalem and inside the green line, while barely anything has happened in the West Bank. Anger over the murder of Muhammad Abu Khdeir is understandable, especially in East Jerusalem, where he lived and died. However, violent riots, including the destruction of property and attacking civilians, are beyond the pale. Within Israel, Palestinian citizens of the state have blocked roads, pulled Jews out of their cars and burned the vehicles and laid siege to the village of Mei Ami. This is unacceptable. 

The Palestinians of Israel cannot join their brethren, the Palestinians of the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem, in their war against the state. This will not be tolerated. The police's harsh response in October 2000 resulted in the fact that the rest of the Second Intifadah did not include Palestinian citizens of Israel. Unfortunately, 14 Palestinian rioters (13 citizens, one non-citizen) were killed, as was one Jewish citizen who was killed by rocks thrown at his car. This time around, better riot dispersal equipment should be used so there will not be civilian casualties (Arab or Jewish) while still quickly crushing this insurrection. 

Roger Cohen Sees the Real Goals of BDS

In an op-ed in the New York Times, Roger Cohen says what I've been saying all along about the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement:

"I do not trust the B.D.S. movement. Its stated aim is to end the occupation, secure “full equality” for Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel, and fight for the right of return of all Palestinian refugees. The first objective is essential to Israel’s future. The second is laudable. The third, combined with the second, equals the end of Israel as a Jewish state. This is the hidden agenda of B.D.S., its unacceptable subterfuge: beguile, disguise and suffocate."

Why Boycotting Israeli Universities Is Wrong

Three small academic associations, the American Studies Association being the most prominent of them, have endorsed a call for academic boycott of Israeli institutions. They claim they will not target individuals, but rather Israeli universities, colleges and research centers, and people representing those institutions as deans, presidents, etc. That's bullshit, for several reasons:

• Had the boycott been enforceable, American scholars wishing to go to conferences in Israel or publish in journals published by Israeli universities would not be able to do so, because it would constitute cooperation with the institutions themselves.
• University administrators would not be able to present their academic work, unrelated to their positions as administrators.
• There is a chilling effect on all Israeli scholars. As someone who is not a university official, I am not technically the target of this boycott, but I would never go to a conference organized by the ASA or any other organization that supports the boycott of Israel. It would be a hostile environment for me as an Israeli. I would not feel welcomed there, perhaps unless I was a far left-wing anti-Zionist.

Other than that, the academic boycott, just like all other forms of BDS against Israel, is extremely simple-minded. In effect, it puts all the blame for the conflict on Israel. It does not recognize the fact that it takes both sides to solve this problem. 

And how do you solve the problem? The original Palestinian Civil Society Call for BDS takes the most anti-Israel stance possible:

"These non-violent punitive measures should be maintained until Israel meets its obligation to recognize the Palestinian people’s inalienable right to self-determination and fully complies with the precepts of international law by: 

1. Ending its occupation and colonization of all Arab lands and dismantling the Wall
2. Recognizing the fundamental rights of the Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel to full equality; and
3. Respecting, protecting and promoting the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties as stipulated in UN resolution 194."

I agree with Point 2, but 1 and 3 are problematic, to say the least. In Point 1, what constitutes "all Arab lands" - the West Bank, Gaza, East Jerusalem and Golan Heights or Israel proper as well? Point 3 is something Israelis in their right minds can never agree to.

J Street and the Right of Return

According to Tablet Magazine, delegates to the J Street Conference showed support for recognition of the Nakba and the Right of Return. J Street is a lobbying group that calls itself "Pro-Israel, Pro-Peace", and it officially says that the issue of return should be negotiated between Israel and the Palestinians, with the preferred solution being that the vast majority of refugees would not be resettled in Israel. This is also the line Jeremy Ben-Ami and other leaders of the group have been promoting.

It seems that many of J Street's members have different views. The delegates applauded when Fatah member Husam Zomlot called for the full recognition of the Nakba and giving all Palestinian refugees the option to settle in Israel. I'm fine with the first part of that, but I'm troubled by J Street members' support for return.

We should recognize the Nakba. It's a historical fact that the creation of Israel was a tragedy for Palestinians. It doesn't mean that Israelis should be ashamed or sorry that we exist, or that we are the only ones responsible for the Nakba.

Israelis should recognize the Nakba happened. Palestinians should recognize it cannot be undone. The so-called Right of Return is exactly that - an attempt to undo the Nakba. Despite the Zochrot conference in Tel-Aviv over the last two days, a vast majority of Israelis would never, in their right minds, welcome hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of hostile Palestinians.

I'm used to hearing Palestinians, Arabs and far-left groups calling for a Right of Return. The fact that this happened at the supposedly moderate left J Street conference is troubling. Is the Right of Return seeping into mainstream liberal groups in the United States or does J Street attract more extreme left-wingers than its founders would have liked? I'm guessing that the latter is true, but not ruling out the former.

Pillar of Cloud

Nothing like a new war between Hamas and Israel to wake me from my blumber (blogging slumber).

Like a majority of people, I want the violence between Hamas and Israel to end. However, a ceasefire now won't necessarily achieve that goal. I don't know what will. If the current operation ends with a return to the previous status quo, where Israeli towns near Gaza would regularly be attacked without Israel doing anything about it, we might as well reach a so-called ceasefire immediately, so at least less people will be at risk in the short run.

However, if the operation can cripple Hamas and other terrorist organizations badly enough that their ability to fire at Israel is greatly reduced, and if Hamas's ability to import weapons is also crippled, the operation should continue until those goals are met. After that, a ceasefire should be reached, and every single violation of it - every shelling of a kibbutz on the border, every Qassam on Sderot, etc. - should result in significant response by Israel, and not just shooting back at the specific squad responsible. However, together with that stick, Israel should offer a carrot of restricting the blockade on Gaza to weaponry and things that are likely to be used to manufacture weapons, letting everything else in.

Operation Cast Lead in 2008-2009 was a failure because it ended with a return to the situation that existed before. We should not let Operation Pillar of Defense (or as it is called in Hebrew, Operation Pillar of Cloud) end the same way.

Threatening Opinions

Ladies and gentlemen, look at the calendar. It is Friday the 13th. Now that the sun is down, Passover is also over (at least in Israel - in other countries it continues for an 8th day). It is time to take out the bread and cakes, and think about all the things we find scary. The first thing that comes to mind is people's views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This isn't just a difference of opinions. Opinions that are very different from our own would become existential threats if implemented - that's how we see it.

Take me, for example. I'm a moderate left-winger who supports the two state solution. People to the far right and far left of me support things that I believe will destroy my country. Right-wingers who oppose the establishment the of the State of Palestine will lead to a country in constant war with its neighbors, and quite possibly one that is no longer democratic. Far left-wingers who support a one-state solution would destroy the Jewish State, bring in our enemies into our country, and create a state united in name only, and which would erupt into civil war in no time.

These two groups, on the other hand, see my own views as a threat. The right wing thinks a free State of Palestine would be able to fight Israel and try to take over the rest of what they lost in 1948. I can't blame them. I worry about that myself sometimes. Some of them even think my solution threatens religious salvation (a concern to which I am much less sympathetic). The far left is afraid that the two-state solution would just be another step in the subjugation of Arabs, both inside Israel and in the new state (not a baseless concern, but one that can be alleviated with certain measures to guarantee minority rights, true Palestinian independence, etc).

So, what does this tell us? Well, nothing positive. It just tells us that internal Israeli negotiations are just as difficult as negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians, and perhaps just as fruitless. I assume that internal Palestinian negotiations are the same.

Flightilla 2012

Apparently, pro-Palestinian activists are planning to arrive in droves at Ben-Gurion Airport on April 15 (to celebrate US tax day?). They say they want to go from there to the West Bank, where they plan on protesting against the occupation. I'm no supporter of the occupation, but neither am I a fan of the idea of hundreds of anti-Israel protesters making a scene at the airport, marching inside Israel and clashing with soldiers in the West Bank.

Israel was quite successful in dealing with last year's "flightilla". Most of the activists couldn't even board their flights, so they didn't reach Israel at all. That should be the strategy again this year.

PennBDS Bans Yet Another Journalist

After banning Martin Himel, whose removal might have been justified due to alleged misrepresentation, PennBDS also revoked Philadelphia's Jewish Exponent's press pass. The crime? Writing stuff they didn't like, such as this article here.

Not surprising. After all, at least in part, BDS is about revoking the rights of Israelis and Zionists, including freedom of speech. If you don't support all Palestinian demands, you will not have a right to be heard anywhere (academic and cultural boycott) or to make a living (economic boycott).

PennBDS organizers claimed they welcome dissenting voices to their conference. Yeah, just don't dissent too much or you'll be kicked out.

Jewish State: Who Decides

At a pro-BDS conference at the University of Pennsylvania yesterday, the founder of Electronic Intifiada (a word which most Israelis and many Americans associate with terrorism) Ali Abunimah had a whole lecture about what it means for Israel to be a Jewish State. "Let's ask that question", he said. Well, it isn't his question to ask.

The biggest problem I have with Israeli demands that Palestinians recognize Israel as a Jewish state is that it invites the Palestinians into the debate over what a Jewish state, or Jewish and democratic state, means. They have a point when they say that they need to know the definition of the term before agreeing to it. But the thing is that this is an internal Israeli issue, an issue only Israelis - Jews, Arabs and others - can debate. The Jewish State is a very general concept, in constant flux. Some Israelis see it as a state for the Jewish people, others see it as a state based on Jewish law - and those are just two of the various possible definitions. It is a vital discussion for Israeli citizens to have, but it isn't the business of Palestinians in the West Bank, Gaza and the diaspora.

Of course, Abunimah might have discussed the Jewish State concept anyway, even without the wrongheaded Israeli demands. After all, he is a one-stater, right of return activist who would like to see Israel vanish in favor of a State of Palestine with a Jewish minority. He has also defended terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah. But then again, Israel's demand to be recognized as Jewish legitimizes his intervention in this domestic issue.

1948 vs. 1967

Prof. Asher Susser of Tel-Aviv University was interviewed on the news show "London and Kirschenbaum" last week. He said interesting things that are worth repeating. The gist of it was that there are two "cases" in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict: the Case of 1948 and the Case of 1967. The latter is easier to resolve, and indeed, the two sides have come closer on '67-related issues over the years: the two-state solution, borders, and even the question of Jerusalem. The Case of 1948, however, seems harder to resolve, if it is even possible at all. Over the last few years the gaps have even widened over the issues stemming from the very birth of the State of Israel: Palestinian refugees, the Jewish character of Israel, the question of Israeli responsibility for the Nakba, etc.

So if we realize that this is the reality, what is to be done? Susser suggested in the interview that Israel should withdraw unilaterally from most of the West Bank, except for the large settlement blocs just on the green line. I strongly disagree with this solution. I opposed the unilateral withdrawal from Gaza, and in hindsight, I was absolutely right. Unilateralism is a disaster that awards and encourages terrorism like the rocket fire from the Strip.

It is exactly this inability to resolve the Case of 1948 that makes unilateralism dangerous.  If we leave the West Bank and semi-solve some of the 1967 problems without any agreement, the Palestinians will be encouraged to keep fighting for 1948. We need an agreement - not because it will absolutely prevent Palestinians from reigniting the flames of conflict, but because it will be our insurance in case they do. If Palestinians violate the agreement, the world will hold them responsible.

So what's the solution? That's the million dollar question and I don't have an answer.

Since the interview was in Hebrew, I looked for a similar link in English. Here is a lecture Prof. Susser gave at a conference at Tel-Aviv University a few months ago, where he pretty much discusses the same issue. It's almost 20 minutes long, but it is worth it. He talks more specifically about 1948 vs. 1967 near the end, at the 1 hour 7 minute mark, if you don't want to hear the whole thing.

Denying the Existence of a People

Newt Gingrich's statement about the Palestinians being an invented people is, at the very least, unhelpful. There is no denying that the Palestinians exist now, and it doesn't really matter if they became a national group in 1948 or centuries earlier.

Palestinians are right to be angry at Gingrich. However, they need to take a moment to think about their own hypocrisy. They regularly deny the existence of the Jewish people, claiming that Jews are merely a religious group, not a national one. Even the most moderate Palestinians hold this view, and it is one of the greatest obstacles to peace in the Middle East.

Neither Palestinian or Jewish peoplehood should be denied.

Releasing More Prisoners to Strengthen Abbas?

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas said in an interview with Time Magazine that he will demand that Benjamin Netanyahu fulfill Ehud Olmert's promise to release more prisoners as a gesture to the PA. According to an article in Haaretz, he is demanding the release of archterrorists Marwan Barghouti and Ahmad Sa'adat. Olmert has confirmed that he promised to release more prisoners once the Shalit deal is reached, but if I understand correctly, Barghouti and Saadat weren't part of the promise.

So, should Israel release more prisoners to strengthen Abbas? Well, first we should ask if such a move would really bolster the Palestinian president's standing among Palestinians. I don't think so. If Israel releases Palestinians to the PA, in order to balance the achievements of Hamas, wouldn't Palestinians credit Hamas also with this additional release? After all, they will argue that it would not have happened in the first place without the Hamas deal, and they would probably be right. At best, Hamas and Abbas would get joint credit.

Let's say Abbas does get a boost from this, does he deserve it? No, he doesn't, with his UN bid and tendency to come up with new preconditions for negotiations. Be that as it may, it is in Israel's best interest to resume the peace process with a serious partner, and Abbas is the closest thing we've got.

Having said all that, I haven't come to a conclusion, one way or another. It may be a good idea to release more prisoners, and it might not be. One thing I'm certain of, though, is that if we do release more prisoners, Barghouti and Saadat should not be included.

Gilad Shalit vs. 1,027 Palestinians

Let's make a quick comparison between the people released yesterday. On the one side, there was Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit, and on the other, 1,027 Palestinians convicted of various crimes, many of them murderers and accomplices. Shalit was a soldier who never targeted Palestinian civilians. Many of the released Palestinian prisoners set out to murder civilians. That's what Ahlam Tamimi did when she drove the suicide bomber to Sbarro in 2001, where he killed 15 people. That's what Amna Muna did when she lured sixteen year old Ofir Rahum to Ramallah, where she and her accomplices killed him.

Gilad Shalit, in his first public interview, said he wished for more Palestinian prisoners to be released if they don't go back to fighting Israel. He also hoped this deal would bring Israel and the Palestinians closer to peace. On the other side, some of the released Palestinian convicts called for the abduction of more Israeli soldiers. Shalit hopes for peace, released Palestinian prisoners hope for more conflict.

The Palestinians' main argument in favor of more kidnappings is that Israel only understands force, and that this is the only way to get their prisoners released. That is simply false, considering the fact that during the last four years, the Israeli government has released 1,233 Palestinians as peace gestures to strengthen Mahmoud Abbas. Of course, there is some truth to the Palestinians' claims. The only way to release mass murderers is by kidnapping Israelis. Those terrorists are the real people Hamas cares about.

The Shalit (Real) Deal

After more than five years in captivity in Gaza, an agreement has been finalized between Israel and Hamas to release abducted soldier Gilad Shalit in exchange for 1,000 Palestinian prisoners. I'm very glad the end of Shalit's captivity is about to come within a week. I can't say I'm excited about the price, though. One thousand Palestinians is astronomical. It isn't clear yet who exactly the prisoners are going to be, and which ones will be allowed to return to the West Bank. There was some good news about some of the people who won't be released, like terrorist masterminds Marwan Barghouti and Ahmed Sa'adat.

Another troubling aspect of this deal is the release of Palestinian citizens of Israel. If this is indeed part of the agreement, as the Israeli media has reported, then it is a very dangerous precedent. Not only should the Hamas not be able to be seen as the representative of Israeli citizens, no foreign organization or state should have such a role. Terrorists with Israeli citizenship should not be the subject of negotiations.

Having said all that, I can't help but have a stupid smirk when thinking about Gilat Shalit's imminent release and the big smiles on Noam and Aviva Shalit's faces yesterday.

Avineri, Nusseibeh and the Jewish People

A few days ago I wrote about an article by Sari Nusseibeh, where he says Palestinians shouldn't recognize Israel as a Jewish state, but should recognize Judaism as Israel's official religion and and Jews as the majority. Here is some of what I had to say:

"What's the difference between recognizing Judaism as the official religion of Israel and recognizing its Jewish character? What Nusseibeh describes here is what most Jewish Israelis mean and want when they say that Israel is the Jewish State - a democracy with a Jewish majority and Judaism as the official state religion."

I overlooked the fact that Nusseibeh focuses on Judaism as a religion and seems to ignore the fact that the Jewish people is a nation (though he does mention Jews as being an ethnic group, which isn't the same as a nationality). Though Israelis want a state with a Jewish majority and Judaism as the state religion, they also want it to be the state of the Jewish people - a country Jews the world over can feel kinship with, because we're part of the same national group.

I realized my glaring omission when reading Shlomo Avineri's excellent point-by-point rebuttal of Nusseibeh's article today (Hebrew here; English here). Avineri sees the fact that one of the most moderate Palestinian intellectuals doesn't recognize Jews as a people means the gulf between the most moderate Jews and Palestinians is so wide, that it is hard to believe the conflict can be solved yet.

I don't think he is correct. While it does bother me that Palestinians don't recognize us as a people, in the end, what really matters is that we recognize ourselves. We don't need our enemies to define us. By demanding that Palestinians recognize Israel as the Jewish state we are inadvertently inviting them into the debate over what a "Jewish State" is or what it means to be Jewish. Those are internal matters, where Mahmoud Abbas and Sari Nusseibeh have no say.

So, even when taking the "Jews as a people" aspect into consideration, my conclusions remain unchanged. We don't need the Palestinians' recognition of the Jews as a people. We just need them to promise not to work against Israel's Jewish character in any way.

Sari Nusseibeh's Jewish State

Prof. Sari Nusseibeh, probably my favorite Palestinian, has written an article on Al-Jazeera's website in support of a Jewish state. Sure, its title is "Why Israel can't be a 'Jewish State'", and most of it is dedicated to explaining why this phrase gives Palestinians the hives. But then comes the final paragraph:

"So, rather than demand that Palestinians recognise Israel as a "Jewish State" as such - adding "beyond chutzpah" to insult and injury - we offer the suggestion that Israeli leaders ask instead that Palestinians recognise Israel (proper) as a civil, democratic, and pluralistic state whose official religion is Judaism, and whose majority is Jewish. Many states (including Israel's neighbours Jordan and Egypt, and countries such as Greece) have their official religion as Christianity or Islam (but grant equal civil rights to all citizens) and there is no reason why Israeli Jews should not want the religion of their state to be officially Jewish. This is a reasonable demand, and it may allay the fears of Jewish Israelis about becoming a minority in Israel, and at the same time not arouse fears among Palestinians and Arabs about being ethnically cleansed in Palestine. Demanding the recognition of Israel's official religion as Judaism, rather than the recognition of Israel as a "Jewish State", would also mean Israel continuing to be a democracy."

If it looks like a Jewish State, walks like a Jewish state, and quacks like a Jewish State, it's probably a Jewish state.

What's the difference between recognizing Judaism as the official religion of Israel and recognizing its Jewish character? What Nusseibeh describes here is what most Jewish Israelis mean and want when they say that Israel is the Jewish State - a democracy with a Jewish majority and Judaism as the official state religion.

I'm fine with Palestinians recognizing Israel's Jewishness without actually saying the words "Jewish State". I'd even settle for less, with Palestinians just agreeing that their new state would not work against this internal Israeli matter militarily, diplomatically or otherwise.

Update (October 7): More on Nusseibeh's article here.

What Obama Actually Said in 2010

Palestinians claim that when they go to the United Nations this Friday to receive recognition as an independent state, they will just be adhering to President Obama's words before the General Assembly last year. They say he called for the acceptance of Palestine as a member state within a year. Well, that isn't exactly what he said.

Here's the paragraph where he referred to Palestine as a member of the UN, with my own emphasis added:

"This time, we should draw upon the teachings of tolerance that lie at the heart of three great religions that see Jerusalem’s soil as sacred. This time we should reach for what’s best within ourselves. If we do, when we come back here next year, we can have an agreement that will lead to a new member of the United Nations — an independent, sovereign state of Palestine, living in peace with Israel."

So no, what the Palestinians plan to declare on September 23, 2011 is not in line with what Obama declared on September 23, 2010. He did not say a Palestinian state should be declared and admitted into the UN "when we come back here next year" no matter what. He hoped there would be an agreement that would lead to the establishment of Palestine. That is the exact opposite of what the Palestinians have decided to do.

Obama should quote himself in his 2011 UN address. He should emphasize that he called for an agreement bred by Israeli-Palestinian tolerance, not for a move that is counter to Israel's wishes. He can point out that during this year, neither the Palestinian or Israeli leadership acted tolerantly toward the other side. If Obama doesn't do so, Netanyahu should use the quote, not as a reminder to the American administration, which is on Israel's side on this one anyway, but as a reminder to Palestinians and to European countries.

An Eternity of Occupation

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas (Abu-Mazen) said recently that the Palestinians have been living under occupation for 63 years. Read that again - sixty three years. By my count, the Palestinians have been under Israeli occupation for only 44 years. One could try to argue that Abbas is referring to the 19 years of Egyptian occupation of Gaza and the Jordanian occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem, in addition to the Israeli occupation since 1967. That seems unlikely.

Had Abbas been referring to any foreign occupation Palestinians have been living under, he wouldn't just be counting 63 years. He'd be counting centuries, or eternity, really. Palestinians have never been independent, so how long they've lived under occupation depends on how long they've existed. Before the establishment of Israel, there was a British occupation, which had itself ended four centuries of Ottoman occupation during World War I. Before that, there were various other occupations. The last time locals in Israel/Palestine ruled themselves before 1948 was during the 1st century BC - and those were the Jewish Hasmoneans, not Palestinians.

So, when Abbas says 63 years, he's referring only to Israeli occupation. That means he still sees Israel itself as occupied territory. Every UN member should remember that when it comes time to vote.

Let's hope the Security Council buries Palestinian Statehood in committee. They should establish a committee that would recommend whether or not to accept Palestine as a member state. It would preferably wait long enough for a negotiated settlement between Israel and the Palestinians, so it wouldn't be against Israel's will anymore.

Sept. 2011: Middle Eastern Hurricane Season

Less then a month after Hurricane Irene struck New York (albeit as a downgraded tropical storm), Hurricane Abbas is scheduled to hit Manhattan around September 20. The United Nations Headquarters will be right in the eye of the Category 3 storm, which is not expected to continue north to Massachusetts and Canada, but rather to go east, gather strength over the hot Atlantic Ocean and hit the Middle East as a Category 5 hurricane at the very least.

Israeli officials fear that the fierce winds will sweep with them rockets from Gaza, as well as Palestinian refugees, who will be thrust uncontrollably onto Israel's borders from the Palestinian territories, Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and the Mediterranean Sea. Despite the fact that the government knows about the hurricane, a new report by MK Shaul Mofaz shows they are doing nothing to mitigate its consequences. Perhaps PTSD (Pre-Traumatic Stress Disorder, in this case) is paralyzing them.

Meteorologists point out that Hurricane Abbas is unlike any other cyclone in history. For one thing, it isn't forming near the western shores of Africa, but rather at its final destination - Israel and the Palestinian territories. Scientists have also observed that it is the first man-made hurricane in recorded human history. Some have even said that this wonder, though destructive, may merit the awarding of a Nobel Prize to Mahmoud Abbas, Benjamin Netanyahu, Barack Obama and several other Palestinian, Israeli, American and world leaders. The problem is that Nobel rules limit the number of people who can share a prize, and the list of people who have contributed to the formation of Hurricane Abbas is endless. Perhaps this will be the first time that "et al" wins a Nobel.

Scientists are not sure which Nobel Prize the creators of this Middle Eastern phenomenon will be awarded. Needless to say, it won't be the Peace Prize. Perhaps it will be the Chemistry (or lack thereof) prize, or a Nobel in physics. Another possibility is the Literature Prize, for all the tales politicians are expected to spin in an effort to convince people that they did not do anything wrong.