Think-Israel Logo
THINK-ISRAEL

THINK-ISRAEL features essays and commentaries that provide context for current events in Israel. The war Islam is waging against Israel and the West is top priority. We report on global anti-Semitism, Islamism and creeping Sharia. We aim to make sense of what's going on.  

Use the box below to search THINK-ISRAEL. Don't use partial words or wildcard expressions. If you type in several words separated by spaces, Google will find articles containing all these words in any order. If you put double quote marks before and after some words, Google will treat them as a single phrase. If the searchwords are judea samaria "san remo" golan, Judea, Samaria and Golan are independent and may be anywhere in the article. San Remo is treated as a single word. Case is ignored.
(Click the Star icon on the right top of an Google output page for more ways to search for results.)

Older articles are being processed and an accessible archive is in development. Meantime, all the articles and information can be found here.
Or use the main menu to access the archives.

We are told that there is a difference between extremist Islam and peaceloving normal Islam.
     Judging by their behavior, Muslims are anti-West, anti-Democracy, anti-Christian, anti-Jewish, anti-Buddhist, and anti-Hindu. Muslims are involved in 25 of some 30 conflicts going on in the world: in Afghanistan, Algeria, Bangladesh, Bosnia, Congo, Cote d'Ivoire, Cyprus, East Timor, India, Indonesia (2 provinces), Kashmir, Kazakastan, Kosovo, Kurdistan, Macedonia, the Middle East, Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines, Somalia, Sudan, Russia-Chechnya, Tajikistan, Thailand, Uganda and Uzbekistan.
     Doesn't this mean that extremist Islam is the norm and normal Islam is extremely rare?
"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct 'Palestinian people' to oppose Zionism.
      "For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa. While as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."   (PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein, March 31, 1977, interview with the Dutch newspaper Trouw.)

The Palestinian leadership, including Ahmed Shukar and Yasser Arafat, has openly admitted Palestinian "peoplehood" is a fraud; See here.

 
timap
 

"It should be remembered that in 1918, with the fall of the Ottoman Empire, Britain and France were handed more than 5,000,000 square miles to divvy up and 99% was given to the Arabs to create countries that did not exist previously. Less than 1% was given as a Mandate for the re-establishment of a state for the Jews on both banks of the Jordan River. In 1921, to appease the Arabs once again, another three quarters of that less than 1% was given to a fictitious state called Trans-Jordan."   (Jack Berger, May 31, 2004.)

The total for all the 22 Arab League countries is 6,145,389 square miles (SM). By comparison, all 50 states of the United States have a total of 3,787,318 SM. Israel has 8,463 SM, about one-sixth of that of the State of Michigan. Iran, Turkey, Pakistan and Afghanistan are Muslim but not Arab and are not included.
     World Arab population: 300 million; World Jewish population: 13.6 million; Israel's Jewish population: 5.4 million.  (Dr. Wilbert Simkovitz, http://dehai.org/archives/dehai_news_archive/apr04/0223.html)
"... during the late 1940s, more than 40 million refuges around the world were resettled, except for one people. They [Palestinian arabs] remain defined as refugees, wallowing 60 years later in 59 UNRWA refugee camps, financed by $400 million contributed annually by nations of the world to nurture the promise of the "right of return" to Arab neighborhoods and Arab villages from 1948 that no longer exist."  (Noam Bedein, Jerusalem Post, January 6, 2009.)
Some 900,000 Jews left behind $300 billion in assets when they were forced to flee for their lives from the Arab countries in the 1940s. They hold deeds for five times Israel's size.  (Independent Media Centre, Winnipeg)
Re Israel's irrevocable ownership of Israel, Samaria, Judea, the Golan and Gaza: "Nothing that Israel's legal system says can change the facts that: (1) the legal binding document is the Mandate of the League of Nations and (2) the obligations of the Mandate are valid in perpetuity."  (Professor Julius Stone)
"By 1920 the Ottoman Empire had exercised undisputed sovereignty over Palestine for 400 years. In Article 95 of the treaty of Sevres, that sovereignty was transferred to England in trust for a national homeland for the Jews. The local Arabs had never exercised sovereignty over Palestine and so they lost nothing. Their rights were fully protected by a provisio in the grant: '...it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine...' The proviso has been fully observed by the Israelis. Since 1950 the Arabs have built some 261 new settlements in Judea and Samaria — more than twice as many as the Jews, but you never hear of them. They fill them with Arabs from Lebanon, Egypt and Jordan and by the grace of God they become Palestinians. Allahu Akbar! The Arabs call Judea "the West Bank' because they would look silly claiming that Jews are illegally living in Judea."  (Comment by Wallace Brand on Martin Peretz "Narrative Dissonance" The New Republic, July 1, 2009)
"More Americans need to become familiar with the concept of baseline budgeting. In simple terms, if an agency's budget is $100, and they are expecting an increase of $10.00 next year, but they only get $8.00, politicians characterize that as a $2.00 cut in spending. Concerning the entire $1.2 trillion in 'cuts' engendered by the sequester, it must be understood that they are not really cuts at all. They are really a lowering of the projected increase in federal spending going forward. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) cuts through the fog. 'For the 2014-2023 period, deficits in CBO's baseline projections total $7.0 trillion. With such deficits, federal debt would remain above 73 percent of GDP — far higher than the 39 percent average seen over the past four decades,' it reports. Thus, over the next decade, we are 'cutting' our way to adding another $7 trillion of debt to the $16-plus trillion we have already amassed. As far as the administration, Democrats and their media enablers are concerned, any attempt to mitigate that 'paying-for problem' will turn America into a Third World nation of vegetable eaters. Yet the simple truth remains inarguable: absent the genuine entitlement reform critically necessary to get our spending under control, we are headed for national bankruptcy. At that point, even vegetables may be a luxury item. [..] over the next decade, we are 'cutting' our way to adding another $7 trillion of debt to the $16-plus trillion we have already amassed.' (Arnold Ahlert, February 19, 2013)
Read More Quotes Here
FEATURED STORIES

January-June 2016


THE OCCUPIED LAND OF ISRAEL

This issue examines the legal and historic rights of the Jews of Israel to the Land of Israel.

What we are talking about in the January–June 2016 Issue

  1. INTRODUCTION (Lipkin)
  2. PART 1: GENERAL ARTICLES
  3. QUESTION 1. THE PALESTINIANS: 
  4. Who Are the Palestinian People? (Sagamori, Hertz, Dann, Sharpe, Kaufman, Mandelbaum)
  5. What Is The History Of the Ancient Kingdom Of Palestine? (Simpson, Ronen, Berlyn, Brand, Gottheil)
  6. Why Invent The Palestinian People? (Reilly, Steele, Brand, Yee, Bukay)
  7. QUESTION 2. THE HISTORY OF AND THE CLAIMS TO THE LAND OF ISRAEL: 
  8. What Is The History Of The Palestinian Arabs In Israel? (Plaut, Cherson&Molschky, Bukay, Goldreich, Galili, Green, Lipkin)
  9. What Is The History Of The Jews In The Land Of Israel? (Chweidan, Fishman-Duker, Grigg, Fitleberg, Katz, Marcus, Green, Elder of Ziyon, Margolit)
  10. What Are The Palestinian Arab Claims To The Land Of Israel? (Auster, Korol, Rabinowitz, Auerbach, Berlyn)
  11. What Are The Jewish Claims To The Land Of Israel?  (Mehlman, Rose, Gannon, Gold&Helmreich, Duke)
  12. What Are The Specific Jewish Claims To Samaria And Judea, where the settlers live?) (Neuwirth, Yid-With-Lid, Ettinger, Katz, Dunn, Cravetts, Kaganovich&Butler, Iannone)
  13. QUESTION 3. ARAB MEDIA PROPAGANDA: 
  14. What Are The Techniques Used To Demonize Israel And The Jews? (Cravetts, Meir-Levi, Lademain, Lademain, Miller, Shulman, Lipkin, Levy, zombie, Lipkin, Solomon)
  15. Answering Those That Denigrate Zionism (Benzimra, Anbar. Grobman, Terry, Devolin, Merkley, Gimpel)
  16. Answering The Canard That Jews Stole And Are Occupying Arab Land (Shusteff, Kasnett, Karsh, Zebulon, Plaut, Baker, Ha'ivri)
  17. Arguments Derived From The 'Jews Stole Arab Land' Assertion (Brand, Gilsan, Leiter, batMelech, Bukay, Muir, Lipkin)
  18. QUESTION 4. ISRAELIS WANT A PERMANENT SEPARATION FROM THE ARABS. ARABS WANT TO DESTROY ISRAEL: 
  19. Will Current Peace Processes Bring Peace? (Aumann, Neuwirth, Berlyn, Rose, Bialkin, Tzoref, Lipkin, Sharon, Sagamori)
  20. The Destabilizing Impact of the Perpetual Arab Refugees (Halevi, Bernstam, Rosett, Dann, Abrahams)
  21. Alternative Ways to Reduce Hostilities Between Arabs and Jews (Brand, Lipkin, Sherman, Barnes, Lipkin&Lipkin, Shulman, Neuwirth, Faybyshenko, Shamrak, Hausman, Honig)
  22. What's Holding Up An Effective Solution? (Hinderaker, Shifftan, Gordon, Sharpe, Carew, Sherman, Jacobson, Lerner, Hacohen)
  23. PART 2: APPLICABLE LEGAL CONCEPTS AND PERTINENT LEGAL DOCUMENTS
  24. Relationships Among Pertinent Legal Documents Confirming Jewish Ownership Of Land Of Israel (Hertz, Belman, CILR, Grief, Rose, Auerbach)
  25. Applicable Legal Concepts And Terminology (Grief, Brand, Zebulon, Diker)
  26. Israel's Legal Ownership Of The Land of Israel: Significance And Implications (Hausman, Green, Brand, Benzimra, Shifftan, Shifftan, Belman, Hertz)
  27. Does Israel Own Judea And Samaria? Are The Settlements Legal? (Lacey, Brand, Rostow, Benzimra, Brand, Belman, Shragai, Grief)
  28. International Law and the 4th Geneva Convention (Kontorovich, Shulman, Grief, Kontorovich, Dann, Isaac, Shifftan, Shifftan, Hertz)
  29. Later UN Resolutions (Benzimra, Brand, Hertz, Grief, Baker)
  30. Israelis Are Occupying Jewish Land, Not Arab Land  (Stone, Grief, Grief, Belman, Shifftan)
  31. A FINAL THOUGHT (Lipkin)


Editor's Note:

Think-Israel tends to use salafist rather than extremist or Islamist or militant or fundamentalist or activist to describe generically a pious Muslim, one who sticks as closely as possible to the unfiltered words and actions of Mohammad and the first three generations of Muslims, including, especially, the Companions of the Prophet. In modeling himself as closely as he can on the preachings and practices of Mohammad, a salafist can in modern terms be precisely described as an uninhibited terrorist, a theological supersessionist, a political supremacist who believes Islam and sharia law must dominate and a social barbarian, who wages jihad with whatever tools are available. Thanks to the high quality of whitewash supplied by sympathetic propagandists, he seldom is so described.



INTRODUCTION: THE OCCUPIED LAND OF ISRAEL


by Bernice Lipkin

Resurgent Islam wants to dominate the world. Israel is in the way. So Israel has to be taken out of the game. Outright invasion and conventional war haven't worked, so the salafists are doing other things — everything from demonizing Israel in the press and in academia to terrorizing Israeli citizens using Arab women and children, a clever adaptation of lone-wolf tactics. Neo-Marxists, globalists, multiculturalists and some main-line churches are big supporters, either because of their own intrinsic Jew-hate or hate of Israel for showing how successful an independent nation-state can be. NGOs and media people, academics and politicians, including those running the European Union, have been more than worth their hire. Self-hating Jews, many of whom identify with Utopian visions — Marxism or globalism or some other anti-Jewish ideology — use their Jewish credentials to persuade the ignorant they know what they're talking about. It hasn't helped those resisting Muslim domination that the USA twice elected a Muslim who is openly helping Iran take over the Middle East.

In the first World War, the Ottomans, who ruled all of the Middle East, sided with Germany, which lost the war. Consequently, backed by the League of Nations, the Ottoman land was divided up by the victors, mainly England and France. These actions were authorized by the League of Nations in the form of contractual mandates. Britain received a Mandate for Mesopotamia (Iraq). France handled Syria and the Lebanon. The third Mandate, the Palestine Mandate, put the region of the Bible into an irrevocable trust for the Jewish people. When the League was dissolved, its legal authorizations remained unchanged but were handed over to the United Nations.

The Arabs were gifted with 99.9% of the area. The original intent was to have a single Arab state, but this proved impractical. After some iterations, the Arab States of Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Kuwait, TransJordan, Bahrain and Qatar were created. Turkey was set. Many of these states had artificial borders, ignoring the dominant relations — family, clan and tribal — in the area (Gabriel Scheinmann, 2013).

The third Mandate, the Palestine Mandate, was unique in that it took heed of the special relationship of the Jews and their ancient homeland. This amounted to less than one percent of the Middle East for a future state. And then, before the League could vote on the land division, the Brits gave 78% of the land destined to be the Jewish State — the region on the east bank of the Jordan River — to be administered by Abdullah, son of Hussein, the Sharif of Mecca. It was initially called Transjordan and now is the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.

In 1948, after the end of the Second World War, Egypt, Syria, Transjordan, Iraq and Lebanon declared war and invaded the just-born State of Israel. Most of the Arabs living in Israel fled — the total is estimated at anywhere from 300,000 to 400,000 up to 700,000 Arabs, with the low end being most probable (Samuel Katz, Eretzyisroel.org). The 1949 Census counted 160,000 Arabs still living in Israel.

The Arab refugees were given a UN relief agency all to themselves, the UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA). Any one who had lived in Mandated Palestine for at least two years before fleeing in 1948 could register. The refugees were called "Palestine refugees", not Palestinian refugees. They served as a wonderful propaganda ploy. Posters of sad-faced refugee children hung in the UN building in NYC; they received more sympathy than the victims of Nazism and Fascism. In 1967, Arabs fleeing the Territories when the Arabs again attacked Israel were added to the refugee register. UNRWA also supports "internally displaced persons" living in Israel, Samaria or Judea. Unlike all other refugees who are mostly settled within a decade, the UNRWA Arabs and their descendants became, and continue to be, refugees in perpetuum.

All other refugees over the whole world that are helped by the UN share a single agency, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). UNHCR supports every refugee world-wide, including the Palestinian refugees UNRWA doesn't handle, and on a smaller per capital budget. In 2013, UNHCR cared for over 42.9 million people, including the refugees from the current war in Syria and elsewhere in the Middle East (Brett D. Schaefer and James Phillips, 2015).

UNRWA only supports those Arab refugees that live in Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Judea and Samaria (aka the West Bank) and Gaza. As of 2012, UNRWA supported approximately 4,950,000 registered patrilineal descendants, and 30,000-50,000 original UNRWA refugees from 1948 (WikkiPedia, 2016). There are said to be more than 7 million Palestinian Arab refugees in toto world-wide. This is an amazing demographic, considering that there was a total population (Muslims — Turks, Arabs, Circassians, Bosnians, Syrians, etc. — Christians, Jews) estimated anywhere from 200,000 to 350,000 in 1860 in the area that is now Israel, the Territories and Jordan! UNRWA no longer has a compelling reason to exist (Emanuel Marx, Middle East Quarterly, 2012). UNRWA's staff no longer serves the typical immediate needs of refugees. There is no reason why it is still the major supplier of food, housing, education and medical care for the "refugees." It also has become a major source for teaching hostility and hate towards Israel. It instills in the local Arabs the belief they own Mandated Palestine and have the right to return to Israel.

In 1950, the UN General Assembly considered that "the reintegration of the refugees into the economic life of the Near East, either by repatriation or resettlement" [emphasis added] was "essential in preparation for the time when international assistance is no longer available, and for the realization of conditions of peace and stability in the area;" (U.N. General Assembly (UNGA) res. 393 (V), Dec. 2, 1950, (1).) So it should be a good thing that, as of 2013, 40% of the refugees supported by UNRWA have full citizenship in Jordan, Syria and Lebanon. However, they have not had to relinquish their refugee benefits and status, and they continue to swell the refugee count. Other reasons for the spectacular increase in the number of Palestinian "refugees" in 60 years are these: many Arabs living close to refugee camps have registered as refugees for the extensive refugee benefits (Samuel Katz, Eretzyisroel.org), deaths are not reported and the birthrate of the Palestinian refugees is many times the rate in Western countries.


 

IN 1964, YASSIR ARAFAT, HEAD OF THE PALESTINE LIBERATION ORGANIZATION (PLO) created a people, calling them the "Palestinian Arab People". Initially, the Palestinian people were the Arabs living in Israel. The local Arabs living in the Territories — Samaria, Judea and Gaza, which were then under Jordanian and Egyptian control — were excluded, as were the Arabs in Jordan. Israel gained back the Territories in 1967 and when the Palestinian Charter was revised in 1968, the Arabs in the Territories became "Palestinians." As Article 5 of the Palestinian National Charter (PNC) of 1968 states:

"The Palestinians are those Arab nationals who, until 1947, normally resided in Palestine regardless of whether they were evicted from it or have stayed there. Anyone born, after that date, of a Palestinian father - whether inside Palestine or outside it - is also a Palestinian." (Avalon. Palestinian National Charter)

This is much the same as the definition of a UNRWA Palestine refugee, except there's no minimum residency specified, yet neither the original Palestine National Charter of 1964 nor the Palestinian National Charter of 1968 mentions the Palestine refugees as such. Jews who lived in Palestine "before the Zionist invasion" (year unspecified) would be allowed to stay.

On behalf of the new entity, the PLO claimed all the land of the Palestine Mandate as a homeland; i.e., it included all of Israel (including all of Jerusalem), Samaria, Judea, the Golan and Gaza. Thus, Palestine became the Arab name for Biblical Israel; it was coextensive with Mandated Palestine, i.e., the land that was by international law in 1922 intended as the future Jewish Homeland. Articles 19 and 20 (PNC, 1968) are of interest in how the Covenant dealt with facts both legal and existential.

Article 19: "The partition of Palestine in 1947 and the establishment of the state of Israel are entirely illegal, regardless of the passage of time, because they were contrary to the will of the Palestinian people and to their natural right in their homeland, and inconsistent with the principles embodied in the Charter of the United Nations; particularly the right to self-determination."

Article 20: explained why the Jews could not make a similar claim.

"The Balfour Declaration, the Mandate for Palestine, and everything that has been based upon them, are deemed null and void. Claims of historical or religious ties of Jews with Palestine are incompatible with the facts of history and the true conception of what constitutes statehood. Judaism, being a religion, is not an independent nationality. Nor do Jews constitute a single nation with an identity of its own; they are citizens of the states to which they belong."

This ignores that the Arab States in the 1940's and 1950's had forced out their Jews because of their supposed national affiliation with the new state of Israel. Nor does it explain why Palestinians Arabs, who are member of the religion of Islam and claim to be an integral part of the Arab nation, can have an "independent nationality."

The Covenant pledges the Palestinian Arabs to "armed struggle" — with "commando action" as their modus operandi to win back their homeland. Article 27 promises the Palestinian Arabs won't "interfere in the internal affairs of any Arab state" — an unkept promise, considering that the PLO has thuggishly attempted to take over the government in Jordan (1970) and Lebanon (1975). Continuing a trend, in 1990 it supported Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. In fact, while they modestly see themselves as the vanguard that will liberate their homeland, their ultimate objective is to become a part of a comprehensive unity among the Arab states (Article 13).

Not coincidentally, the PLO Covenant was adopted just four years before a second Arab invasion of Israel, which ended with Israel taking or taking back — depending on your point of view — Samaria, Judea and the eastern part of Jerusalem, territory that Jordan had conquered in 1948. Until then, most of the local Arabs had accurately seen themselves as the descendants of Arabs who had come to Israel in the 20th Century, after the British and the Jews created a lively economy. They were well aware, by family names and family history, of the Arab States from which they had migrated. Thanks to propaganda that ignored facts, their children and the world belatedly discovered — and wholeheartedly believed — that the Palestinians were an ancient people, whose land was stolen by the Nazi-like Jewish invaders, who mistreated the indigenous natives, the Arabs. Western pro-Palestinians, including many a churchman, suggested that the Palestinians had few resources to fight mighty Israel, hence they were to be excused for resorting to what in any other group would be considered barbaric and brutal terrorism.

Despite the propaganda, many Arabs seem to know the actual condition of an Arab in Israel. Even after Israel became a State, Arabs have kept coming into Israel by hook and by crook — coming in to work and staying, coming in to marry a cousin and never leaving, sneaking in, or using a passport its original owner no longer needs.


 

USING THE REFUGEES TO CREATE SYMPATHY FOR THE ARAB CAUSE was the first success the Arabs had in their military and media campaigns to kick the Jews out of the Land of Israel. Nevertheless, and despite the words of the Covenant, the Palestine refugees have specifically been excluded from becoming citizens of the envisioned future State of Palestine. The Daily Star reported that the Palestinian ambassador to the United Nations, Abdullah Abdullah, confirming Mahmoud Abbas's words, has stated that "This would not only apply to refugees in countries such as Lebanon, Egypt, Syria and Jordan or the other 132 countries where ... Palestinians reside... [but] even Palestinian refugees who are living in [refugee camps] inside the [Palestinian] state, they are still refugees. They will not be considered citizens." (Daily Star, September 15, 2011). The Palestinian Authority expects UNRWA to continue footing the bill. Nor will the State allow a Jew to live there, no matter when his ancestors came to Israel.

Since 1967, the core of anti-Israel propaganda is the assertion that the Palestinian Arabs own Palestine. For now, they are willing to take control just of what they call the Palestinian Territories. The Arabs use a simple mantra: the Jews stole Palestinian land and are occupying it. There are many colorful and inventive side streams (David Meir-Levi, May 2006) but the major thrust is the contention that the Arabs are the true owners of the land. In the face of the blasting hostility from the world presses and political leaders, Israel has responded with timidity and appears to have lost confidence in the rightness of its claim (Michael Devolin, January 2014). It doesn't speak up about its ownership of its land. It doesn't voice its history of symbiosis with its ancient homeland. Afraid to fight the enemy to the point of winning, the Israeli elite have turned their anger inward and bully very religious Jews, many of them inhabitants of "settlements," a term that should remind people that they are the closest thing Israel has to the early settlers of modern Israel, the pioneers who came in waves from the 19th century on to redeem the Jewish homeland and who succeeded in creating a state. Ironically, these demonized "settlers" are among the most patriotic segment of the population and many serve in the IDF, requesting assignment to the infantry, the tank corps and other dangerous jobs.

Perhaps because they still hope to process a peaceful settlement with some segment of the Arab world, Israeli leaders have refused to speak up and tell the world about Israel's right to the land. The land belongs to the Jews by right of God's promise to the Jews. The land belongs to the Jews because the moral foundation of the Western world was developed by the Jews in their homeland. The land belongs to the Jews because of the continued presence of Jewish inhabitants in the Land of Israel throughout the centuries. The land belongs to the Jews because of the symbiosis of Jews and the Jewish homeland — the land went to rack and ruin when they weren't there in sufficient numbers to tend to it. The land belongs to the Jews because of the devotion of the Jews, who, over the centuries, have remembered their homeland daily in their prayers where ever they were. The land belongs to the Jews because international law, recognizing the special relationship of the Jews and their homeland, put the Jewish homeland in an irrevocable trust for the Jews, which continues to this very day. The land belongs to the Jews by right of conquest — the Jews bested the Arab invaders who came to destroy them.

The world needs a strong Israel to fight the war resurgent Islam is waging. Israel's elected officials need to regain confidence to fight global terrorism appropriately in their part of the world. The emphasis on a peace process, which is designed to take nibbles out of the tiny Jewish state, is going in the wrong direction. The Oslo Accords and the Gaza Retreat have already placed organized, hostile and unmonitored groups of Arabs inside Israeli land, where they can easily sustain an effective terror campaign and where they put Israel's water supply at risk. It is time to consider realistic alternatives to the "peace process", which saps Israel's strength and goes nowhere.

"Arab and Jewish Refugees — The Contrast" (Eli E. Hertz, MythsandFacts.org, 2007) is a well-detailed article on how the Arab leaders caused the creation of both Arab and Jewish refugees when the modern State of Israel came into being. Most of the more than 800,000 Jews that were forced to flee from the Arab countries were absorbed in the new Jewish state even though it had few resources, and got no help from the UN. The Arabs that fled from Israel when ordered to leave by the Arab countries that invaded Israel in 1948 are still not permanently resettled after more than sixty years in the Arab countries that host them. There are almost no Jews left in Arab countries. Why not implement the second half of an ordinary population transfer, and resettle the Arab refugees in some part of the vast Arab land holdings, where they can live on their own, rather than as dependents of the UN?


 

THIS ISSUE OF THINK-ISRAEL EXAMINES ONE TOPIC AND ITS IMPLICATIONS: the claim that Israel is occupying land that belongs to the Palestinian People. Obviously, we have a point of view. We assert that by any valid measure the Land of Israel belongs to the Jews. We further assert that it is the Arabs who are trying to dispossess the Jews.

In this undertaking, we used articles from Think-Israel, starting from 2002 when Think-Israel was established until the present. Viewed in the aggregate, it is spooky how many stories from way back could have been written today in 2016, with little or no change. Are we in an early decade of another hundred year war? Or is it because our recent and current leaders have insisted that Islam is a peaceful religion and refuse to say Jihad and Islam in the same sentence? In either case, we have not started to fight back seriously.

There is overlap in content among the article, in part because we tried to pick a variety of presentations, from those suitable for the casual reader that wants to get the 'gist' of the matter to those with the information required by someone charged with the responsibility of presenting an accurate and detailed lecture to a classroom or a jury. Altogether, they constitute a very small part of the large number of articles, both relevant and excellent, that we have presented over the years. Look them up. Read them. It will be an enriching experience.

The articles below divide into two parts: general articles and legal arguments:

PART 1: General Articles That Address Several Questions:

1) Who are the Palestinians people and what is the history of their ancient kingdom of Palestine?

2) What is the history of the Palestinian Arabs and what is the history of the Jews in the Land of Israel? What are the claims of the Palestinian Arabs and what are the claims of the Jews in Israel?

3) Question 3 describes Arab and media propaganda tricks and suggests how to counter them. Most of the papers provide facts and insights. Perhaps when Jews learn to present these truths with the vivid imagery that Arabs and their sympathizers do so well, people will finally understand the facts of the matter.

4) Israelis want a permanent separation from the Arabs. Arabs take their mission to destroy Israel seriously. So a peace process that has Israel giving up land while keeping an expanding Arab population in Israel is ineffective, if not suicidal. Are there better alternatives?

PART 2: Applicable Legal Concepts And Pertinent Legal Documents:

Relationships among the pertinent legal documents confirming the Jewish ownership of the Land of Israel

Applicable legal concepts and terminology

Israel's legal ownership of the Land of Israel: significance and implications

Does Israel own Judea and Samaria? Are the settlements legal?

International law and the 4th Geneva Convention

Later UN Resolutions

Israelis Are Occupying Jewish Land, Not Arab Land


SUMMARY:

There Is No Palestinian People. The so-called Palestinians are part of the Middle East's Arab population, with no difference in ethnicity, culture, religion or foundational history. Their life-style in any Muslim country depends strongly on how closely their leaders (the country's "president" or king, their clerics, their tribal rulers, the heads of their clans) subscribe to trying to imitate the mores and practices of early Islam. They came into Israel, as in many other countries, as invaders; the sum total of their contribution to civilization has been to carry out multi-level jihad to reduce non-Muslims to dhimmi status under the rule of sharia law.

Sovereignty. After the Romans destroyed the sovereign Jewish State of Israel, the homeland of the Jewish people, the area was conquered and under the rule of Arabs, Christians, Persians and an assortment of Muslim groups for the next two millenia. Currently, the instant-mix assortment of Arabs and other Muslims who call themselves the Palestinian People claim the Territories are their country, and, when talking among themselves, they claim Israel itself as their country. But they are neither ancient nor indigenous. There has never been an independent sovereign entity called Palestine. Even more generally, from Roman times on, at no time did any people (re)establish a national homeland under Arab rule or any one else's sovereign rule, until the Jews returned to redeem their land.

The Jews Own The Land Of Israel. They own the land by irrevocable International Law; by Bible; by History; by creating the Moral Foundation for the Western World there; by always Maintaining a Presence there; by their Devotion; by teaching their children to Never Forget Their Ties To The Land; by Talking about it and Including it in their Prayers (they prayed seasonally for rain in Israel when they had been living thousands of miles away for hundreds of years); by steadfastly Keeping the Commandments under changing conditions; by Celebrating its Festivals And Fast Days And Holy Days without pause; by creating a meaningful substitute for service to the Temple on the Mount; by finally Redeeming a Land that had fallen on hard times; by Creating a Vibrant Society; by Retaking on the Burden of figuring out how humans can balance personal growth and community responsibility; and if these reasons don't convince, by the way most all other people have gained land: by the Right of Conquest.

In Short: the Jews of Israel own the Land of Israel: Israel, Samaria, Judea, Gaza and the Golan. The Arab invaders are illegally occupying this land. This issue of Think-Israel provides substantiation and clarification, using facts, observations, history and analysis.



PART 1: GENERAL ARTICLES

QUESTION 1: THE PALESTINIANS

Who are the Palestinian People?

What is the history of their ancient kingdom of Palestine?

Why invent the Palestinian People?


Who are the Palestinian People?

The invention of the Palestinian people is the keystone of the successful propaganda campaign that insists that Israel is occupying the homeland of the Palestinian people, inheritors of the ancient land of Palestine. It is so pervasive and commonplace a notion that it goes unquestioned. It's one of the store of items that millions of people take for granted. Successive Israeli governments know better, but desperate to paper together some sort of peace between Jew and Arab, they don't challenge this factoid. Their silence has brought them more and more unbridled terrorism by the local Arabs; and more and more overt hate displayed by Palestinian sympathizers around the world.


Return to What We Are Talking About


WHO ARE THE PALESTINIANS?

Yashiko Sagamori, November 25, 2002

Yashiko Sagamori asks the right questions about the obscure birth of the Palestinian people. This was one of the first articles to puncture the false claim that the local Arabs were a people, separate from other Arabs. Arab propagandists have spun a web of lies, bestowing a fictitious history to a mixed bag of Arabs, 95% of whom had come into Israel in the 20th century legally and illegally because of the new economic opportunities made possible by the British and the Jews. Yashiko Sagamori asked reasonable questions that would apply to any place calling itself a state. The pro-Arab weavers of fantasy may persuade the ignorant and those prone to see evil in anything Jews do. But they can't answer these questions truthfully because the pseudo-people, the Palestinians, have no country of origin called Palestine. There may be minor differences in accent or style of life because of where they came from but in the main they are indistinguishable from other Arabs in religion, history, food, and culture.

READ MORE
hrrule

THE PALESTINIANS: A PEOPLEHOOD BASED ON A BIG LIE

by Eli E. Hertz, March 31, 2008

This is a very excellent review of the facts about the "Palestinian People" and their short but violent history. Eli E. Hertz notes that "[m]ost so-called Palestinians are relative newcomers to the Land of Israel." How true. If they were truly indigenous, their huge jump in population in a relatively short time under poor environmental conditions would be the biggest demographic miracle in history. Also, why was there no mention of a (indigenous) "Palestinian people" until Israel captured the Territories after it was invaded by the neighboring Arab countries? As Hertz writes, "Suddenly a separate Palestinian peoplehood appeared and claimed it deserved nationhood — and 21 other Arab states went along with it."

READ MORE
hrrule

A DIRTY LITTLE SECRET

by Moshe Dann, September 30, 2009

Crafty Yasser Arafat is the one credited with deciding that the Arabs weren't going to destroy Israel by fighting the Jews head on. So he invented the Palestinian people, who, he claimed, were native to Palestine (a state that had never existed). Ignoring that this "people" were mostly natives of the neighboring Arab countries, he declared Israel was occupying Palestinian land. Ergo, these newly-branded Palestinians were justified — and here the media and many a mainline church agreed with him — in doing anything and everything to regain their land. As Moshe Dann points out, "the fraud worked!" "The success of 'Palestinianism' is a tribute to what money, influence and Jew-hatred will buy and attract." It's time this hoax was exposed.

READ MORE
hrrule

THE COUNTERFEIT ARABS

by Victor Sharpe, November 18, 2013

Victor Sharpe provides us with an excellent and concise history of "the Arabs who call themselves Palestinians." Far from being a unique people, they are no different from the Arabs in the states that neighbor Israel. And, in fact, almost all of their ancestors came into present-day Israel and the Territories after 1900 from these countries, after the Jews began returning to their homeland in large numbers. "[T]here is no such thing as a Palestinian people; no such thing as a Palestinian history; and no Palestinian language exists. There has never been any independent, sovereign Palestinian state in all of recorded history — let alone an Arab independent state of Palestine." What is remarkable is that, without a shred of evidence, they have convinced so many that they are the original inhabitant of the land and that the Jews, who are the indigenous natives, are occupying Palestinian land. Lest you discount this history because the author is Jewish, Sharpe provides statements by Arabs and other non-Jews that the Palestinians are not a people and descriptions of how desolate and underpopulated the land was before the Jews came to redeem their homeland.

READ MORE
hrrule

OF COURSE THE "PALESTINIANS" ARE AN INVENTED PEOPLE

by Jerome S. Kaufman, December 11, 2011

In this article, Jerry Kaufman sums up what Newt Gringrich said a week before. In actuality, the Palestinians are a fake people. They had not developed into a people over the centuries. Those we called Palestinians have no identity distinct from the general Arab population. In fact, as Kaufman records, prior to the birth of the State of Israel during Britain's control of the area, it was the Jews that were the 'Palestinians", not the Arabs. They published the Palestinian Post (later changed to the Jerusalem Post); and they formed the all-Jewish Palestinian Brigade that fought as part of the British Army in World War 1.

In fact, even the separation of the population as Arab or Jew is inaccurate; Arabic is a major language spoken in the area, but the people were of many ethnic groups. The 1911 edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica lists half a hundred groups living in Mandated Palestine — Beduins, Circassians, Jews, Christians, Arabs, Assyrians, Chaldeans, etc. There was no group called Palestinian or one that called itself Palestinian. Michael Curtis of the BESA Center puts it this way in an essay entitled "Palestinians: Invented People" (BESA Center Perspectives Paper # 157, December 20, 2011. Available here.)

"...no independent Palestinian state has ever existed, let alone one that manifested a 'Palestinian identity.' A few examples can illustrate this. The first Congress of Muslim-Christian Associations in the area met in February 1919 to consider the future of the territory formerly ruled by the Ottoman Empire, which dissolved after World War I. The Congress declared: "We consider Palestine as part of Arab Syria as it has never been separated from it at any time. We are connected with it by national, religious, linguistic, moral, economic, and geographical bonds." The celebrated scholar Philip Hitti, testifying before the Anglo-American Committee in 1946, stated there was no such thing as Palestine in history, "absolutely not." The United Nations Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP), in its September 3, 1947 report, remarked that Palestinian nationalism, as distinct from Arab nationalism, was a relatively new phenomenon. It concluded that Palestinian identity was part of a rich tapestry of identities, mostly predicated on Arab and Islamic solidarity.

"The Palestinians themselves reached the same conclusion. Palestinian spokesperson Ahmad Shuqeiri told the UN Security Council in 1956 that Palestine was nothing more than southern Syria. The head of the Military Operations Department of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), Zuheir Muhsein, declared on March 31, 1977, "Only for political reasons do we carefully underline our Palestinian identity. ...the existence of a separate Palestinian identity is there for tactical reasons." The PLO, in its own Charter or amended Basic Law (article 1), states that Palestine is an integral part of the Arab nation. That "Arab nation" never included a state known as "Palestine." Indeed, the inhabitants of the general Palestinian area were not subjects of an Arab nation but of the Ottoman Empire, which ruled the area from 1516-1918. This was the last recognized sovereign power in the area. The area of Palestine was a district of the Empire, officially a vilayet (province), not a political entity. No independent Palestinian state has ever been established, nor was there a single administrative or cultural unit of Palestinians. Arabs in the area were not different in any way from other Arabs in the Middle East. Nor was Israel established on the ashes of any state other than the Ottoman Empire.

"On the other hand, a sovereign Jewish state existed prior to the rise of the Roman Empire. While the Romans destroyed the Second Temple, changed the name of the land to Syria Palestina, and banished the Jews from Jerusalem, this did not eradicate all Jewish presence in the area. Moreover, the Jews in the Diaspora maintained a strong consciousness of the historical connection of the Jewish people to Palestine — a connection that was acknowledged in the League of Nations mandate."

READ MORE
hrrule

THE ARABS IN THE HOLY LAND — NATIVES OR ALIENS?

by Dr. Harry Mandelbaum, May 25, 2009

This is a much-amplified version of an essay first posted in March 2003. Using information from various sources, many of them Arab, this essay makes clear that the Palestinians are not native to Palestine. They are not an ancient people. They are not a people. Advertised as the original natives of a (never-existent) state of Palestine, they are the most successful scam the Arabs have ever run in their obsession to destroy Israel.

READ MORE
hrrule

What is The History Of The Ancient Kingdom Of Palestine

It's impossible to write actual details about the existence of an ancient kingdom that never existed. At least it is for anyone who respects facts. The Arabs have a gift for appropriating Jewish history and filling in the blank spaces with moon dust. We don't have that talent, so we offer, instead, these articles which contain in-your-face facts on history and migration patterns that indirectly confirm this statement: the "Palestinian people" did not arise from a Palestinian homeland in Israel or anywhere else. For the most part, they are Arabs that came, legally and illegally, in large numbers from the neighboring Arab countries after settler Jews opened up new economic opportunities and especially between 1917 and 1948 when the British ignored their entry but suppressed Jewish immigration.


Return to What We Are Talking About

THE TRUTH ABOUT "PALESTINE"

by Steven Simpson, July 13, 2010

Nowadays many a propagandist talks about Palestine as if such a sovereign political entity exists anywhere except in the fancy-filled illogic of Jew-haters. It doesn't exist. What's more — it never did. The fallback position of these Jew-haters when forced to admit the facts is: but the land belongs to the natives that were driven out or marginalized when Israel became a state. Again, this is wrong. Most of these "natives" came into the land after the Jews and the Brits created economic opportunities — or are the descendants of those that did. Steven Simpson provides us with an excellent history of the development of the "Palestine" myth, which has become one of the more important ways to attack the legitimacy of the Jewish state. Unlike the notion that the Palestinian Arab homeland is Palestine, the legitimacy of Israel is warranted by history, morality, international law and the rules of conquest.

READ MORE
hrrule

HADRIAN'S CURSE — THE INVENTION OF PALESTINE

by Tsafrir Ronen, May 14, 2008

Tsafrir Ronen bluntly provides us with some historic facts that are usually ignored by diplomats formulating a fantasy of two people living side by side in peace, when the reality is that one of these people — the Palestinian Arabs — is not an authentic people. They were invented as a way to challenge the Jewish people's return to their land. As Ronen writes, "[t]his is the essence of the Arab propaganda war, which is intended to steal the identity of Eretz Yisrael and to transform it into Palestine, and by such means to turn the Jewish people into occupiers of Eretz Yisrael. That's the whole story." Who says so? The Palestinian Arabs. Their very own leadership says so. Openly. And in print. Read some of their statements in this article.

READ MORE
hrrule

THE HISTORY AND MEANING OF "PALESTINE" AND "PALESTINIAN"

by Patricia Berlyn, February 15, 2004

This is a tightly woven excellent review of the badly-misused terms: Palestine and Palestinians. Having no history to speak of — the families of most of the Arab inhabitants of Israel and the Territories came there after 1900 — the Arab leadership claimed the geographic (not political) region of the Ottoman Empire called Syrian Palestine was actually once their kingdom.

READ MORE
hrrule

WAS THERE A PALESTINIAN ARAB NATIONAL MOVEMENT AT THE END OF THE OTTOMAN PERIOD?

by Wallace Edward Brand, September-October 2011

During the 400 years in which the Ottomans ruled what later was known as Mandated Palestine, there was no Palestinian state, no Palestinian people and no Palestinian Arab nationalist movement among the local Arabs and other Muslims and non-Muslims. Yet some 40 years later, Yasir Arafat proclaimed there was a Palestinian people and Palestine had always been their land. Wallace Edward Brand examines whether there is evidence of a nationalist movement in the period between the end of Ottoman rule after World War 1 and the artificial creation of Palestinian peoplehood, during the time that the Jews were building the infrastructure of a State and redeeming their ancient homeland.

READ MORE
hrrule

THE SMOKING GUN: ARAB IMMIGRATION INTO PALESTINE, 1922-1931

by Fred M. Gottheil, Winter, 2003

Palestinian Arabs base their claim to Israeli land on "deep and timeless roots in that geography and that their own immigration into that geography has at no time been consequential. To challenge that contention, then, is to challenge their self-selected criterion for sovereignty." Fred Gottheil not only challenges that assertion but demonstrates the likelihood that many of the Palestinian Arabs migrated — or are descendants of those who migrated — to Mandated Palestine and continue to this day to migrate to Israel to take advantage of economic conditions made available by the British Mandatory Government and the Jews. His facts and figures are in line with what Winston Churchill — well-informed about the British Mandate — said about the Arab influx into Israel: "far from being persecuted, the Arabs have crowded into the country and multiplied."

READ MORE
hrrule

Why Invent The Palestinian People?

Once the question is raised, the "because" becomes evident: these people are called Palestinians, so obviously Palestine must belong to them. Knives and rocks and hideous murders of Jewish women and children are the only weapons these poor victims have to oust the Israeli invaders. So whatever they do to regain their land, the world forgives them. Articles in this section add a more basic reason for the continued antagonism to the Jews, no matter how much Israel caters to the local Arabs. According to the Qu'ran, the Jews have no right to the Land. So any way of destroying Jewish credibility and their physical presence is virtuous.


Return to What We Are Talking About

WHY INVENT THE PALESTINIANS?

by Robert R Reilly, January 17, 2012

Robert Reilly asks a critical question: why were the Palestinian people invented? The short answer is they serve as a political ploy, as visual aids to keep us focused on the unfairness of a nascent Israel surviving invasion by her neighbors. Their suffering becomes justification for the Arab doing any loathsome deed to drive the Jews out. The assertions that the Arabs Palestinians own the land, that they were driven from their homes, that they are Cinderella and Israel is cruel step-mother are latter-day accretions. The basic issue is that by the rules of Islamic theology, Jews have lost their right to the Holy Land. As Reilly puts it, "... Jewish sovereignty in Israel is incompatible with the Qu'ran..." Therefore they must not be allowed to be a sovereign power.

READ MORE
hrrule

THE NARRATIVE OF PERPETUAL PALESTINIAN VICTIMHOOD

by Shelby Steele, September 22, 2011

Shelby Steele discusses the Arab war against the Jews, in which the Arab aggressors have successfully persuaded themselves and others that they are "victims of colonialism, ... victims of white supremacy." What is so thought-provoking about this essay is that Steele homes in on the power of a "poetic truth", a fantasy powerful enough to counter factual reality. As he points out, "Poetic truths ... are marvelous because no facts and no reason can ever penetrate. Supporters of Israel are up against a poetic truth," one that is supported by the West, which "lacks the moral authority" to speak the truth. We must counter the Arab narrative and Steele indicates some procedures for restating the narrative.

READ MORE
hrrule

SOVIET RUSSIA, THE CREATORS OF THE PLO AND THE PALESTINIAN PEOPLE

by Wallace Edward Brand, January-February 2010

If Yasser Arafat was the father of the Palestinian People, Russia was its mother. Wallace Edward Brand writes about the role Soviet Russia played in literally creating the Palestinian People in 1964 and in establishing Yassir Arafat as its leader. He bases much of this on the revelations of Major General Ion Mihai Pacepa, who has been vetted and certified as a credible source. Creating the "Palestinian" people as a propaganda weapon to counter Israel's ownership of Mandated Palestine has also been confirmed by many Arab sources (cf. here.)

READ MORE
hrrule

WHAT IS "PALESTINIAN LAND" AND WHO ARE THE "PALESTINIANS"?

by Dafna Yee, January-February, 2007

People casually use the terms "Palestinian" and "Palestinian Lands" without realizing they are adopting a lie conceived by the P.L.O. and perpetuated by a pro-Arab media. They are subscribing to the notion that Israel exists on Palestinian land. It is, as Yee writes, "aiding Israel's sworn enemies in their goal to replace Israel with 'Palestine.'" In this essay Dafna Yee untangles some of the history of how some local Arabs became the "Palestinians." And why historically and geographically there is no such thing as Palestinian land.

READ MORE
hrrule

ISLAM AND THE OTHER: THE AL-WALA' WAL-BARA' DOCTRINE

by David Bukay, February 23, 2014

Steele's article above on the Palestinian cultivation of victimhood is a special case of how Muslims view their relationship to all other religions and groups. What powers the Muslims' shameless attempts to destroy non-Muslims physically and culturally rather than live peaceably with them is the al-Wala' wal-Bara' doctrine. Muslims see themselves as peaceful and non-Muslims as aggressors. So Muslims must defend themselves. David Bukay describes it this way: "...Muslims can viciously attack at almost every possible opportunity while crying out they are victims of oppression and aggression. They can perpetuate obscene inhuman acts of violence, terrorize and intimidate, while they accuse the other of colonialism, apartheid, racism, and Islamophobia." In this binary world, "... it is the right against wrong; and it is the pious against the evil-doers; it is Paradise or Hell. There are no legitimacy, consensual recognition and acceptance of the other, unless he becomes Muslim or he is subdued to Islamic rule."

READ MORE
hrrule
QUESTION 2: THE HISTORY OF AND CLAIMS TO THE LAND OF ISRAEL

What is the history of the Palestinian Arabs in Israel?

What is the history of the Jews in Israel?

What are the Palestinian Arab claims to the Land of Israel?

What are the Jewish claims to the Land of Israel?

What are the Jewish claims specifically to Samaria and Judea (aka the West Bank)?


What is The History Of The Palestinian Arabs in the Land of Israel?

"Palestinian" history is fabrication on a grand scale. Much of it is an appropriation of the Jewish connection to the Land of Israel. When they can't sell the notion that the Palestinian Arabs are a discrete people, Arab fabricators dust off another fantasy: after the Arabs conquered the land in Mohammad's time, they intermarried with the locals, who voluntarily converted to Islam, and all lived happily in a fruitful and peaceful land until the Jews came. The closest applicable history is this: the Arab followers of Mohammad (NOT Palestinians) conquered Palestine in 636 CE. They held it until 661 CE, when the Umayyad Caliphate of Damascus took control. The Abbasids took control in 750 CE and then the region was governed by a number of Arab semi-autonomous rulers until the Fatimids gained control in 1098, to lose the land almost immediately to the Crusaders. That was the end of any sort of Arab rule. From then until World War 2, the area was ruled by different Muslim and Christian groups, with the Ottoman Turks ruling it from 1516 until World War 1. We could extend the term Arab to include any Muslim rule, but then we get further and further from any Palestinian specificity. The Arabs from Arabia were one of some 50 ethnic groups that lived in the area, which deteriorated more and more into a moribund land of rocks and sand by the 20th century, when waves of Jews came to redeem their homeland.


Return to What We Are Talking About

A FEW UNFASHIONABLE FACTS WORTH KNOWING ABOUT THE MIDDLE EAST

by Steven Plaut, January-February, 2005

This essay is strictly facts — no interpretation. Steven Plaut accurately makes the point that "Palestine was stolen from the Jews by the Arabs and not the other way around." Articles in Think-Israel — as well as much of the background page — have made the same points in different ways. And we will keep repeating the truth until the Arabs and their buddies stop lying.

READ MORE
hrrule

PALESTINIANS: THE INVENTED PEOPLE

by Y.K.Cherson and Rachel Molschky, appendix by Dr. Rivka Shpak Lissak, January 9, 2014

Y.K Cherson and Rachel Molschky recount the non-history of the Palestinian Arabs. They seem to have been known to no one in earlier civilizations. The Assyrians knew the Jews. They didn't know the Palestinians. The Babylonians didn't write about them. In Roman writing and sculptures and friezes, there's no mention of Palestinians. Isn't that odd, considering that the Romans and the Jews mixed it up in exactly the same spot for years? And then one day, Yasser Arafat said, "Let there be Palestinians." And the world immediately believed in this miraculous birth. There is an addendum by Dr Rivka Shpak Lissak that deals with the question: when did the Arabs come into "Palestine." Note, we said Arabs, not Palestinians.

READ MORE
hrrule

FOUNDING NATIONAL MYTHS: FABRICATING PALESTINIAN HISTORY

by David Bukay, May-June, 2012

  As David Bukay points out, "By appropriating to themselves the values, traditions, and historical facts that belong to the Jews, Palestinians have managed to fabricate a 'legitimate' history and political traditions out of nothing while denying those of Israel." Quite an achievement, particularly when so much of their version is absurd, using historic and geographic facts in a farcical fashion. For example, they claim with a straight face that Jesus the Jew — born well before Islam was invented and the Arabs invaded the area — was their first shahid (martyr). And make no mistake. They have convinced many purportedly educated and knowledgeable people that this is so. At least, their Western comrades, including churchmen, have raised no objections.

 READ MORE
hrrule

A TOUR OF PALESTINE; THE YEAR IS 1695

by Avi Goldreich, August 4, 2007

When you read this, you might — as I did — hear a pin popping an over-inflated balloon. The global main stream media, the leftists of Israel, including some who govern the country, and the (un)paid Arab-aiders have hidden the facts under reams of false information. And here comes irrefutable evidence from the very long period which started whe the Muslims conquered the Land of Israel in the 7th Century C.E. until the Jews in the late 19th century returned in droves to redeem the Land, joining the Jews who had never left Israel. During this period, the Arabs had taken a thriving and productive land and turned it into an unproductive rock-strewn wilderness (rather like what they are doing in Gaza today). Avi Goldreich writes of a 17th century book which, simply by describing the reality of the time makes us aware that the Land of Israel was then unfruitful and had few inhabitants. And of those inhabitants, the Muslims were a minority, a small minority. As Winston Churchill noted many years later, some 95% of the Arabs in Israel and the Territories migrated into Palestine in the 20th century to coattail on the Jewish enterprise.

READ MORE
hrrule

THE BIG MAP OF THE EMPTY LAND

by Zeev Galili, February 10, 2009

In 1878, less than a hundred and fifty years ago, what is now Israel, Gaza, Samaria, Judea, the Golan and Jordan was a "desolate arid wilderness, almost empty." It was barely able to sustain the estimated 100,000 to 250,000 Arabs, Bosnians, Circassians, Jews, Christians and other scattered groups who lived there. Zeev Galili writes of a map done at the time, showing all the settlements and their sizes. It is a guide to a realistic estimate of the population at that time.

READ MORE
hrrule

THE LAND OF ISRAEL AND JERUSALEM IN 1900

by Elliott A. Green, November-December 2004

Elliot Green writes of a time — all of a hundred years ago — when there was no such entity as Palestine, let alone a Palestinian people. There was not even such a thing as Arab nationalism. As they had from Biblical times, Jews lived in the Land — then an undifferentiated part of the Ottoman Empire — and were not called occupiers. Arabs lived there and were not called owners.

READ MORE
hrrule

A FRAUDULENT HISTORY OF PALESTINE

by Bernice Lipkin. September 29, 2002

This is an examination of a history text disseminated on many Arab websites and some neutral sites that provide historical documents on the Middle East. It is said to have been produced by a group of Jewish scholars, an anonymous group that calls itself Jews for Justice in the Middle East. We think it's a fraud.

 READ MORE

hrrule

What is The History Of The Jews in the Land of Israel?

"Whereas there is irrefutable archeological, ethnographic and literary proof that Jews have inhabited Israel since time immemorial, there is no similar evidence of an ancient, indigenous Palestinian people. To compensate for their lack of historicity, the Palestinian Arabs deprecate the Jewish connection to Israel with lies and distortions that are often repeated by their supporters on the left.

"They contend, for example, that the Jewish People originated in Europe and that the Temple never stood in Jerusalem. They claim that the Jews were complicit in the Crusades, although Jews suffered far worse than anyone else at the hands of the Crusaders. They argue that the archeological record, which is so rich in linguistic, cultural and architectural evidence of ancient Jewish life in Israel, is simply the product of Zionist propaganda. In so doing, they project their own lack of national bona fides onto the only people with a continuous link to the land. "The audacity of such claims is truly Orwellian." (Matthew Hausman, May 2013, here.)

This set of articles reviews the history of Jews in the Land of Israel and their treatment in Arab countries.


Return to What We Are Talking About

HISTORY OF JEWISH SOVEREIGNTY OVER ISRAEL OVER 3000 YEARS

by Roy Chweidan, March-April, 2010

This article was written to counter the pernicious and widespread myth that the Arabs pre-date the Jews in Israel. Depending on the gullibility of the audience they claim to be the early Canaanites; or Philistines; or they claim that in Temple times it was a Palestinian state filled with Palestinians like Jesus and his mother Mary; or they claim they intermarried with the natives when they conquered the land in Mohammed's time, and this is the next best thing to being native themselves. They ignore that 90-95% of them came after 1900 into what is now Israel and the Territories. Roy Chweidan presents a short summary of the actual history of Israel starting in the period of the Judges. There are also two appendices: European Coalition for Israel, "90th Anniversary Of The San Remo Conference," April 25, 2010; and Eli E. Hertz, "Jerusalem," March 17, 2010.

READ MORE
hrrule

JERUSALEM, CAPITAL OF THE JEWS: THE JEWISH IDENTITY OF JERUSALEM IN GREEK AND ROMAN SOURCES

by Rivkah Fishman-Duker, November 2008

As Rivkah Fishman-Duker writes, by the early second century CE, when Tacitus wrote his history, it is clear that the narrative of the circumstances of Jerusalem's foundation had become standardized among Greeks and Roman writers. Descriptions of the Temple are always part of the accounts of Jerusalem and Judaism. In addition to physical descriptions, Fishman-Duker describes the religious aspect of the Temple, which differed radically from Greek and Roman paganism. Their accounts range from the factual to the libelous and bizarre. As Fishman-Duker writes, "The references to Jerusalem in these classical texts not only demonstrate the historical attachment of the Jewish people to Jerusalem, but also contribute to our knowledge of Jews and Judaism in the ancient world."

READ MORE
hrrule

IN DISCUSSING JERUSALEM, HISTORY MATTERS

by Jenny Grigg, May-June 2005

Jenny Grigg highlights the major periods in the history of the city of Jerusalem, pointing out that not only is it Judaism's holiest site and capital of Jewish states both in ancient times and in modern times, but there has been a Jewish presence there for some 3000 years. As for the Palestinian Arabs, their claim to the city "seems to be based solely on their desire to possess it." Paradoxically, to ensure that people of all religions can worship in Jerusalem freely requires that Jerusalem remain under Israel's sole rule.

READ MORE
hrrule

GAZA'S HISTORY AND THE JEWS

by Gary Fitleberg, July 8, 2005

Many feel Gaza has little connection with the Jews. Gary Fitleberg recounts the history of Gaza, including some material from that well-known reference book: the Bible. It was part of the territory allocated to the tribe of Judah. Samson brought down the Temple of Dagon in Gaza. After Jerusalem fell, it was an important Jewish center during many invasions and changes of ruler. It certainly has more affiliation with the Jewish people than many people realize.

READ MORE
hrrule

THE JEWISH PRESENCE IN PALESTINE

by Shmuel Katz, November-December, 2010

This essay — a chapter from Shmuel Katz' Battleground: Fact and Fantasy in Palestine — makes the point that the Jews didn't create a homeland in recent times. Israel has been their homeland for thousands of years. They needed to regain it and redeem it. And that too took thousands of years, though during that time, no matter how hard the local conditions and how oppressive the rulers, there were always some Jews living in the Jewish homeland. By the mid-1800s while still under Ottoman rule, the entire region that was to become Mandated Palestine after World War 1 was Darfur-poor, economically a derelict and practically empty of people. Katz writes that the total population — Jews and non-Jews — at that time is estimated at 50,000-100,000 people. The millions of Arabs currently in Israel and the territories are mostly 20th century immigrants and their descendents. Katz makes it clear that the "historic ownership [of Palestine] by the Arab people or by a 'Palestinian entity' is a fiction fabricated in our own day." It is about time the Arab propaganda that claims the Palestinians/Arabs are the natives and/or a "Palestinian/Arab nation" who have been dispossessed by the invasion of the Jews is recognized to be the fantasy that it is.

READ MORE
hrrule

ISLAM AND THE JEWS: THE STATUS OF JEWS AND CHRISTIANS IN MUSLIM LANDS, 1772 CE

by Jacob Marcus, January-Febraury, 2008

"In 1772," Jacob Marcus wrote, "a Muslim scholar in Cairo was asked how Jews and Christians should be treated." This text is his reply. It is in keeping with earlier Muslim practices (see, e.g., Andrew G. Bostom (ed.), The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism: From Sacred Texts to Solemn History) and indicates a continuity in discrimination against Christians and Jews throughout Islamic history. It certainly calls into question modern spins on Muslim intolerance — that it is due to their unhappiness with what Israel and America are doing; that it is due to a few irrational fanatics on the fringe of the religion; that it is due to Muslim shame at being left behind by western technology and science; and that it is due to modern dictatorships and would disappear if democracy — usually defined as the right to vote, which many Muslim dictatorships already have — was adopted in Muslim countries.

READ MORE
hrrule

THE FORGOTTEN OPPRESSION OF JEWS UNDER ISLAM AND IN THE LAND OF ISRAEL

by Elliott A. Green, December 1, 2008

Elliott Green writes, "Contrary to what many Jews and other people have believed, conditions in Muslim lands were often worse for Jews than in Christendom". They were subject to the extortion tax levied on all infidels, but they were singled out as the enemy and as inferior beings in the Quran and ever after were ranked at the bottom of the social structure, living in fear and humiliation over the centuries. It was particularly poignant to see this in Jerusalem, where, as Chateaubriand wrote, "these legitimate owners of Judea [are] slaves and strangers in their own land." Ignoring history, or perhaps banking on the general ignorance of their readers, writers such as Professors Walt and Mearsheimer speak of the innocent Arabs hounded by the Jews, a neat inversion of reality.


 READ MORE
hrrule

THE RICHEST JEW IN DAMASCUS, 1816

by Elder of Ziyon, October 31, 2008

Another myth is that until the Jews came back in numbers to their homeland, Jews had lived harmoniously under Arab rule. Circumstances varied but, as in this article, he was always a dhimmi. What The Elder of Ziyon describes is a page out of the diary kept by James Silk Buckingham on his travels. He was entertained in Damascus by the local prime minister. The guests included a Jew, described by Buckingham "as the wealthiest and the most powerful of all present", a personage who managed the machinery of government. Yet as a Jew, he was dhimmi. The other guest sat or stood; the Jew sat on the ground.

READ MORE
hrrule

LETTER FROM JERUSALEM, 1947

by Chedva Margolit; foreword by Steve Kramer, April 28, 2008

As Steve Kramer writes in his foreword: "Nothing is more appropriate on the 60th anniversary of Israel's Declaration of Independence than reading the words of a young Jewish wife who left America and came to Israel for love of Eretz Yisrael." This essay is to be treasured.

READ MORE
hrrule

Arab Claims To The Land Of Israel

Palestinian Arabs claim the land because they claim they are the descendants of the Philistines and/or the Canaanites. But the Arabs didn't conquer the area until the 7th Century CE and by then the ancient Philistines and Canaanites were dead thousands of years. They also claim they own the area specifically designated by the British as Palestine and once the southern part of the Ottoman province of Greater Syria. But there were few Arabs living there (see here). The area was economically depressed and there were relatively few people living there, counting everyone. The inhabitants were some fifty ethnic groups, practicing some half dozen religions. The official language was Turkish. Arabic, the language of the Koran, was, according to Wikipedia, used mainly for religious practices. Moreover, much of the land was owned by absentee landowners, not the locals. The present-day Arabs in Israel and the Territories can't even claim to have married the long-time inhabitants, because most of today's Arabs or their great granddaddies came into the area after 1900. So their major claim is that it's their land because they say so. That may enough for the U.N., the E.U. and other such fair-minded groups, but it's not much of an argument.

If a Palestinian sympathizer tells you Jesus was a Palestinian, remind him Jesus was born a hundred years or so before the Romans conquered Israel and renamed it "Syria Palaestina", hoping, as do the Arabs today, to eradicate the attachment of the Jews to their homeland. From then through the Ottoman period, it was geographically the southern part of the Syrian province. Politically, it was nothing. The Brits revived the name Palestine for the area, and the Jews called themselves Palestinians, until the creation of the State of Israel. If the Palestinian sympathizer tells you that there was a country/state/kingdom called Palestine that is now occupied by Jews, understand that he thinks you are ignorant enough to believe anything.


Return to What We Are Talking

HOW STRONG IS THE ARAB CLAIM TO PALESTINE

by Lawrence Auster, August 30, 2004

Lawrence Auster examines the Arab claim to Palestine. He points out that the Arabs — and that includes the 'Palestinians' — are not native to Palestine and their control of Palestine has long been over. Besides, Arab control was sandwiched in among conquests by other ethnic groups that also were not indigenous to the region. Auster also demolishes the Arab claim that the Jews stole their land. As he writes, "The claim is laughable coming from the Arabs, who conquered and reduced to slavery and penury ancient peoples and civilizations stretching from Persia to the Atlantic; who rejected an Arab state in Palestine alongside the Jewish state under the 1947 partition plan and then sought - unsuccessfully - to obliterate that nascent Jewish state; and who never even spoke of a distinct Arab state in Palestine until the founding of the terrorist Palestinian Liberation Organization in 1964, sixteen years after the founding of the state of Israel."

READ MORE
hrrule

A CASE OF MYTH-TAKEN IDENTITY

by Tabitha Korol, April 30, 2012

  Muslims haven't tried to change their barbaric ways. Instead, as Tabitha Korol writes, they have concealed them; whitewashed them; spoken bald-faced lies; intimated critics by yelling Islamophobia at any negative remark about Islam, no matter how accurate, no matter how mild; vandalized and destroyed religious emblems and places and renamed areas (calling Judea and Samaria the West Bank) in order to delegitimize their victims and deprive them of visual and verbal confirmation of their history. Like parasites they present other people's histories as theirs — which, I suppose, is understandable, given their own history. Korol presents some of their fantastic claims and refutes them with facts.

 READ MORE
hrrule

PEQUOTS, PEKI'IN AND PALESTINIANISM

by William Rabinowitz, September-October, 2011

William Rabinowitz paints a searing picture of a not-too-bright current-day Jewish college student, who has absorbed a pro-Palestinian attitude from his teachers, the local Muslim students and the TV and newspapers and can faultlessly repeat the party line. Rabinowitz responds with very different answers to someone who had been indoctrinated to believe that the Palestinians are indigenous to Israel and own the land. Rabinowitz seems to specialize in humor-coated history, wrapping little-known historic facts in whimsy. In this essay, he points out that after the Jews were defeated by the Romans and through the thousands of years of the diaspora, there was always a Jewish presence in Israel He writes about the Jews of Pek'in, Israel, a community where Jews have been in continual residence for the last 2 and 1/2 millenia. It is a fact that has been obscured as attention is usually focused on the immigration of Jews starting in the 19th century to redeem their ancient homeland.

READ MORE
hrrule

PALESTINIAN IDENTITY THEFT

by Jerold S. Auerbach, November, 2011

With the connivance of the United Nations, the Palestinian Arabs have had free reign to attempt "to rob Israel of its history, heritage, and homeland." As Jerold S. Auerbach points out, "Plundering Jewish history and claiming Israeli land is, of course, the raison d'être of Palestinian existence." They have claimed Abraham was a Muslim, as was Jesus and presumably all the Jews living in Israel at the time of the Second Temple. They have claimed they have been in Palestine for eons, ignoring that most of the "Palestinians" came to what is now Israel and the Territories after 1900. The latest outrage is claiming "the Dead Sea as Palestine's own 'heritage site.'" While attempting to steal Israel's identity and history, they go well beyond the usual identity theft. They also claim Israelis have no history; Jews never had a Temple; they never had sovereignty in Israel

READ MORE
hrrule

TWELVE BAD ARGUMENTS FOR A STATE OF PALESTINE

by Patricia J. Berlyn, December 12, 2002

There is always the argument thrown up — so ok, there's nothing special about the Arabs who are living in Israel and the Territories. But they deserve their own place, don't they? Even the U.S. went from a position of not negotiating with the PLO in 1991 — which was and is and will be a terrorist organization committed to destroying Israel — to its current promotion of such a state in just 10 years. In this article, Patricia Berlyn critically examines the current reasonable-sounding arguments that are put forth by the well-meaning and not so well-meaning as reasons to establish a PLO state for the Palestinian Arabs.

READ MORE
hrrule

Jewish Claims To The Land Of Israel

The homeland of the Arabs and the Arabs who call themselves Palestinians is the Arabian Desert. The Homeland of the Jews is the Land of Israel. When England and France wrote up the Mandates that started the process of creating many of the current Arab states as well as the State of Israel, it was understood that the Mandate for the Jewish Land was simply confirming a long-time truth: the Land of Israel was the Jewish homeland. Through the centuries of the diaspora, there was always some Jewish presence in the land. The unique and unwavering attachment of the Jew to his homeland over the two millennia of the diaspora is supported by the Bible, by history, by international law and by conquest.


Return to What We Are Talking About

A LANDMARK WORK

by William Mehlman, September-October 2009

William Mehlman begins his review of Howard Grief's recent book, The Legal Foundation and Borders of Israel under International Law: A Treatise on Jewish Sovereignty over the Land of Israel this way:

With The Legal Foundation and Borders of Israel under International Law (Mazo Publishers, Jerusalem) Canadian-born Israeli constitutional scholar and lawyer Howard Grief has given us a book that shatters every myth, lie, misrepresentation and distortion employed over the 61 years of Israel's existence to negate the sovereign rights of the Jewish People to their national home." This is exactly right. It should be required reading for every self-styled maven, journalist, politician, ethicist and humanist — including the Jewish leaders of Israel — who thinks he knows Middle Eastern political history, when his information is, more often than not, anectodal and received from dubious sources.

READ MORE
hrrule

THE JEWISH RIGHT TO THE LAND OF ISRAEL

by Alex Rose, November 6, 2003

Alex Rose writes of the time of the Balfour Declaration, when the resolve of the English to create a Jewish state was strongly asserted by influential members of the British Cabinet. He also examines the Arab case against the creation of the Jewish State, showing that their arguments were and are invalid. Jews have claims to their land biblically, by their unbroken ties to the land historically, and by their reclamation of their homeland.

READ MORE
hrrule

ISRAEL'S RIGHT TO THE LAND

by Sean Gannon, November 30, 2007

November 2 marks the anniversary of the Balfour Declaration, the letter that laid out Britain's intent to help establish a Jewish State. Sean Gannon writes about the Declaration in context of the Arab argument that the Jewish claims have no legitimacy. Its language was later incorporated into the League of Nations' Mandate, which put the land irrevocably in trust for the Jewish people. The Trust was passed on to the League's successor, the United Nation. It has not been abrogated.

READ MORE
hrrule

AN ANSWER TO THE NEW ANTI-ZIONISTS: The Rights Of The Jewish People To A Sovereign State In Their Historic Homeland

by Dore Gold and Jeff Helmreich, November 16, 2003

Dore Gold and Jeff Helmreich's article touches many of the concerns raised in ignorance or out of hate by those who reject the notion that the Jews, long a people forced out of their home and subject to the wills of others, have returned home. And are doing remarkably well.

I have some quibbles with Gold and Helmreich's otherwise accurate account. It is true that many Arabs have done less well than other groups. But the authors could accurately have noted that Arabs are favored in civil suits by the judiciary. And they have a larger share of many service budgets, sometimes because of conditions they themselves have created. For example, due to the generation after generation marriages of close cousins, many Arab children have genetic defects. What this means is that spending by well-baby clinics is for kidney dialysis machines for the Arab children and lolly pops for the Jews. And the statement that "Israel was built as a haven for Jewish refugees fleeing persecution" is an inadequate explanation. It is true that if the state of Israel had existed in the early 1940s, more Jews would have escaped the Holocaust. And persecution and pogroms in the Diaspora were a fact of life (or more often, death) over the centuries. But the primal instinct that led Jews to come to their ancient homeland was to fulfill their identity as a people. As Gold and Helmreich write, "Throughout Jewish history, national independence was perceived as a condition for Jewish self-fulfillment. Redemption was tied to the idea of return."

READ MORE
hrrule

JERUSALEM: OUR REDEEMABLE RIGHT: JEWS HOLD LEGAL SOVEREIGNTY OVER ISRAEL'S ENTIRE CAPITAL CITY

by Michael C. Duke, December 2, 2010

Michael Duke writes about the legal foundation stone of Israel's right to Israel and the Territories — including all of Jerusalem — and about a lawyer who spent a quarter of a century determining precisely that the Jews are the legal owners of all of Jerusalem. The document is the San Remo Resolution of 1920; the lawyer is Jacques Gauthier, an expert in international law. San Remo did not just set the future for Mandated Palestine — which the Jews have redeemed and partially reconstituted — but it also mandated the future Arab states of Iraq, Lebanon and Syria. Later, other modern Arab states were carved out of the vast expanse of the Middle East by the same authority. That trust passed to the U.N. when the League of Nations was dissolved. The U.N. has not gained respect for its embarrassing embrace of the Arab attempt to delegitimize Israel but even the U.N. must realize it can not break an irrevocable trust with Israel as beneficiary by trying to give away Biblical Israel and some of Jerusalem to the Palestinian Arabs without simultaneously destroying the basis for the Arab Middle East.

READ MORE
hrrule

Specific Jewish Claims To Judea And Samaria, Where The Settlers Live

Samaria and Judea and the Golan, as well as Gaza, are integral parts of the Land of Israel. However, because so much venom has been spent denying the legitimacy of Jewish towns (AKA settlements) in the Territories, we include some specific information about the Settlements and the Settlers.

(From the May-June 2009 Introduction to articles on the Territories, slightly revised)

These articles are about the bravest of the brave: the settlers, Israel's staunch nationalists. They know it's their land and they plan to live there, despite the dangers and the hardships, during the times their government encourages them and during the times the government, at the bidding of foreigners, harasses them.

Thanks to years of conditioning, the Po' Palestinians have the sympathy of the West and their terrorism is excused, while almost everyone is emotionally certain that the villains, the main obstacles to peace, are the Jewish settlers (a sneer is obligatory when you say settlers).

Jordan conquered Samaria and Judea and the eastern part of Jerusalem in 1948, when the Jews fought off the first Arab invasion of Israel. Many of the settlers are Jews who returned to the area when the Jews took the area back after the second Arab invasion of Israel in 1967. The settlements are their towns and villages and cities and trailer camps and compounds. Why are these patriotic Jews demonized? Perhaps because they can't be persuaded by Arab-aiding nonsense. They know that this land is Jewish: by God's will, by the Bible, by history, by devotion, by never completely leaving the land over the centuries, by international law that established an irrevocable trust for the Jewish people, and by conquest after fighting off the invading Arabs.

With all the facts on Israel's side, how does one promote the claims of a non-people, the Palestinians? Simple. First: Demonize the "settlers". Then no one will complain when you steal Jewish land. Second: Call Judea and Samaria the West Bank. It's easier to pretend that a place called the West Bank belongs to the Palestinians than to try to claim that the Palestinians own Biblical Israel.


Return to What We Are Talking About

JUDENREIN PALESTINE?

by Rachel Neuwirth, November-December 2004

Rachel Neuwirth briefly traces the history of Judea and Samaria over the centuries. She points out that "[t]he Jewish presence there has been continuous, except for 19 years from 1948 to 1967 when the area became judenrein" under Jordan's rule. "After the 1967 war, the Jewish people have simply been returning to the land from which they were forcibly expelled during the first Arab-Israeli war of 1948-49."

READ MORE
hrrule

HOW HEBRON BECAME OCCUPIED TERRITORY

by Yid-With-Lid, December 29, 2007

The 4000-year old city of Hebron in Judea, Judaism's second most holy city, is the site of the Machpelah, the Cave of the Patriachs, where Abraham and Sarah are buried. The Jews lived there no matter what the political climate throughout the centuries. In 1929, when rumors started to spread that the Arabs were planning to attack the Jews, many Jews refused to believe it. Sammy Benoit (Yid with Lid) writes of the massacre in August, 1929. Arabs, who for years had been friendly neighbors, turned vicious and, encouraged by the mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini, slaughtered the Jewish population. The British removed the Jews from the city, not the Arabs — an early example of rewarding terrorism. The Jews were denied permission to return to Hebron. After 1967, when Israel regained the city and against the opposition of the local Arabs and their own government, Jews began to resettle in Hebron. Since then, the Jews continue to be harassed by the Arabs and by the Israeli government, which make no secret of the fact that it favors the Arab population of Hebron in any dispute.

READ MORE
hrrule

JUDEA AND SAMARIA — A WAKEUP CALL

by Yoram Ettinger, August 8, 2009

Yoram Ettinger devotes this article to a recap of some important historical facts about Samaria and Judea — Biblical Israel — and to explaining the region's importance to Israel's security needs as articulated by American military leaders. As he pointed out in a previous paper that to talk about: "[d]efensible borders for the Jewish State on the one hand, and a giveaway of the mountain ridges of Judea and Samaria on the other hand, constitutes a deadly oxymoron." The current paper adds substance to that conclusion.

READ MORE
hrrule

ON THE RIGHTS OF 'SETTLERS'

by Shmuel Katz, December 27, 2007

When Shmuel Katz writes history, he writes from his own knowledge and experience — he's been there, done that. Here he cuts through the claims by the Arabs and their sympathizers that the major obstacles to peace are the Jewish settlements in the Territories. Very simply and very accurately, Katz explains that these settlements are indeed legitimate: "the Mandate remained the defining document for governing Palestine." As he puts it, "From the point of view of international law these settlers are as legal as any resident of Manhattan or of Shreveport, Louisiana." He points out that the second clause of the Geneva Convention of 1949 — the one that dealt with occupied territories — makes it clear that it does not apply to the Jewish presence in Judea and Samaria: "because Jordan was not a sovereign possessor but an illegal invader, and similarly was Egypt an illegal invader of Gaza. Israel liberated both areas, restoring them to the territory of the Palestine Mandate of 1922."

READ MORE
hrrule

OUTPOSTS: RULE OF LAW, OR LAW WITHOUT RULES?

by Moshe Dann, June 10, 2009

Thanks to the groundwork laid by Peace Now and other anti-Jewish groups like them, many descendants of Jewish settlers of European stetlach and Christian descendants of settlers of the Wild West are convinced that Israeli settlers are the major reason there's been no peaceful resolution between Jews and Arab States Arabs Palestinians Mahmoud Abbas. They are certain the settlers in the Territories are chronically and stubbornly in violation of the Law. The lowly outpost is perceived as particularly evil, perhaps because it is easier to demolish than Ariel, a settlement city of some 20,000. So the outpost — often a single trailer or two — has come to stand as a symbol of all Israeli building on supposedly Arab land. Moshe Dann points out that when the State shows bias against Jewish Israelis, "when government officials don't apply the law equitably, the authority of the state is undermined." His examination is particularly appropriate when one realizes that Arabs are taking over land and building illegally with enormous help from the European Union and Arab countries and without a murmur of disapproval from a cowed Israeli government.

READ MORE
hrrule

THE COGNITIVE WAR AGAINST ISRAEL IN THE SETTLEMENT DEBATE

by Richard L. Cravatts, September-October, 2012

Do the Jewish state and the Territories belong to the Jews? The question was brought into prominence in 2012 by a report issued by a committee of Israeli legal experts, chaired by Supreme Court Justice Edmund Levy. The jurists focused narrowly upon the legality of Jewish settlements in Samaria and Judea — affirming that towns and villages in Samaria and Judea are indeed legal, thus undermining the demonization of "settlements" by those who fear that Jews living in the "West Bank" (as they ahistorically call it) will make it harder to give away Jewish land to the Arabs. In place of the capricious and often malicious treatment of Jewish citizens living in the towns and villages of Samaria and Judea, it recommends easing regulations, halting scheduled demolitions and planning building as the population grows.

Richard Cravetts spells out some collateral implications of the Levy Report. It makes clear that the world has been fed a fanciful tale by the Arabs. It calls an intellectual halt to the fallacious anti-Israel propaganda promulgated by hostile Western politicians, diplomats and media for whom "the perennial victim status of the long-suffering Palestinians trumps any sovereign rights of Israel regarding its borders, security, and even its survival in a sea of jihadist foes who yearn for its destruction." Thus, Samaria and Judea (aka the West Bank), Gaza, and the eastern part of Jerusalem have been untruthfully called "Arab" land and Israel the "occupier", oppressing the po' Palestinians, who have no way to fight for their rights except with rocks, knives and explosives against the enemy, in the person of Jewish babies asleep in their cribs, Jewish toddlers in their beds and Jewish children at school.

As of 2016, the Jews of Samaria and Judea are still not treated as first-class citizens. Nor has the Israeli government popularized the Levy report, which addresses what Israeli leaders have known since Israel acquired permanent title to Samaria and Judea almost a hundred years ago. I hope it doesn't take as long for Western leaders to accept the truth of the Levy report as it took for the Vatican to admit officially that the earth revolves around the sun — it finally conceded this in 1992, 359 years after Galileo was condemned for speaking the truth.

READ MORE
hrrule

WHY WE SUPPORT ISRAELI SETTLEMENTS

by Daniel Kaganovich and Michael Butler, March, 2004

When all the arab-promulgated arguments are shot down, the nuisance-value one remains: "Yeah, so they're not legally or historically entitled to it, so maybe some of them came in illegally just yesterday, but if you give the territories to these 'Palestinians' there will be peace." This presupposes that removing Jewish settlements will reduce friction. Daniel Kaganovich and Michael Butler argue that removing the source of the "friction" (Jews) will not make a dent in the ideology that causes it. It will only encourage its spread."

READ MORE
hrrule

AT PEACE IN ISRAEL

by Carol Iannone, January 25, 2006

Shiloh, north of Jerusalem, is another town destined to be given as a free gift to the Arab terrorists, should Ehud Olmert have his way in the next few weeks. Carol Iannone writes of a chance visit she made to Shiloh some years back. She captures its atmosphere perfectly. Of her first sight of the town, she writes, ".. there was something extraordinary about its placement against the emptiness of the landscape, something dreamlike about the way it stood shimmering in the open, sun-filled air." She describes her visit to the young settler couple thus, "... there was just a pervasive contentment. So far from being belligerent fanatics hysterically claiming their entitlements, this couple possessed modesty and humility, and conveyed a sense of quietness and assuredness and peace." "I felt strangely at home there as well. The land of the Bible is my country too, I felt. There is even a Shiloh in America, where men also staked their lives on their vision of nationhood."

READ MORE
hrrule
QUESTION 3: ARAB MEDIA PROPAGANDA

What are the techniques used to demonize Israel and the Jews?

Answering Those That Denigrate Zionism

Answering The Canard That The Jews Stole And Are Occupying Arab Land

Arguments Derived From The 'Jews Stole Arab Land' Assertion


From Lies Of Omission To Theatrical Hoaxes

This section focuses on media tricks and techniques.

A major technique is suppressing pertinent facts that put a different coloration on assertions by Arabs and their media buddies. In the Quotation Section above, there is an item about Zahir Muhsein of the PLO executive committee, who admitted that Palestinian "peoplehood" was a fraud. The newly created people were a collection of Arabs from different clans in the Arab countries. What was claimed to be the ancient kingdom of Palestine had been, for hundreds of years, the geographical name for the southern part of the Syrian province of the Ottoman Empire. The usual pro-Arab rebuttal to Muhsein's devastating admission is to point out that he happened to prefer being counted among the Syrians Muslims — as if he were an outlier. What the rebuttal ignores, as pointed out by Tsafrir Ronen here, is that he was not unique. Many, if not most, of the Palestinian leadership, at the inception of the Palestinian people, felt the same way.

As another example, the Israeli Arab leader, Mohamed Kanana, makes much of the statement, "Twenty percent of the population [mostly Arabs] own only 3 percent of the land." Perfectly true. But as Jared Israel writes (see here), "He [Kanana] leaves out a crucial fact: Jews make up 80% of the population of Israel but own only 3.5% of the land!"

Bald-faced lies are often used. They range from the libelous — claiming Gazans are impoverished (here) and claiming that Israel is responsible for the physical and psychological problems suffered by Palestinian children (here) — to the ludicrous, such as the claim that Mossad uses animals and birds to spy on their neighbors (here.) A couple of the articles point out some of the major ways used to mislead the uninformed. We also document some of the more serious hoaxes perpetrated by the Arabs and/or their media aiders — from doctored tourism to manufactured massacres.


Return to What We Are Talking About

HOW TO GET THE WORLD TO HATE ISRAEL

by Richard Cravatts, August 4, 2008

When an event or a process defies logic — it couldn't happen but it has — it is often helpful to ask: were this a planned manipulation, how could it have come about. Richard Cravetts sequences a set of propaganda procedures that would explain how Israel came to be seen as an apartheid occupier of another people's land — a statement that is contrary to fact. He does all but ask who might be pushing the buttons. I'd vote for the Muslim Brotherhood and/or Saudi Arabia.

READ MORE
hrrule

THE ARAB PROPAGANDA WAR AGAINST HISTORY

by David Meir-Levi, May-June 2006

Arab propaganda is simple but effective. It makes easy-to-digest assertions in a convinced and convincing manner and then repeats them ad nauseum until they become generally accepted. David Meir-Levi has prepared a list of these lies — lies that have been exposed as lies time and again. Yet the Arabs and the pro-Arab media continue to promulgate these lies, despite the fact that they should know better. Maybe they do. Certainly, we should be wary about accepting the word of any Middle-East "expert" who talks about Israeli "occupation" of "Palestinian" land.

READ MORE
hrrule

BE YE THE ENEMY'S FOOL?

by Paul Lademain, January 14, 2012

[2016 NOTE: The two articles, this and the next one below, by Paul Lademain complement each other and provide excellent advise for countering the skillful way the pro-Arab media create the framework for inculcates negative attitudes about Israel.]

Here be words of wisdom on how to designate areas, places and people, when labels are sensitized political statements. Paul Lademain provides us with simple rules that allow us to fight Israel's fight when we speak of events in the Middle East. Lademain's instructions have the added bonus that we will be speaking accurately and won't have adopted the meretricious language used by Israel's enemies. You will find ways to add to the list. I, for one, was alerted when a well-meaning supposed advocate for Israel said, "He is a Hamas activist." I corrected him, pointing out that the correct term is Hamas terrorist. As Lademain says, "Be ye not fools, O Israel." Master his examples. You'll be surprised how soon they become automatic, and other people repeat your language choices.

READ MORE
hrrule

ON THE USES OF LANGUAGE IN CONFLICTS AND WARS

by Paul Lademain, February 7, 2014

Paul Lademain has some sensible advise for those who do public relations for Israel. They may seem obvious but Israelis don't seem to understand how they reinforce Arab propaganda, when for example, they call Judea and Samaria "disputed territory." Jews shouldn't be disputing that the "West Bank" is Jewish (which, by the way, should always be called by its proper name: Samaria and Judea). They should know it is Jewish and say so. In this essay, Lademain suggests Jews stop using Arab terms that have the wrong denotation: occupiers, illegal settlements, extremist when terrorist will do nicely. Settler has become a pejorative term. Don't use it. Simple, isn't it? He also suggests learning actual history. For instance, Yasser Arafat "confessed that he had no intention of complying with the terms of the Oslo Accords when he signed them. That being the case, his signature means nothing because he rejected the agreement while pretending to agree to its terms and this pretense renders the agreement void." Simple, isn't it? And oh yes, when someone expects you to collapse in defeat by yelling international law, make them define whhich one they are talking about. And make them try to link their argument to it. That's not so simple.

READ MORE
hrrule

THE ART OF MISLEADING

by Yvette Alt Miller, May-June, 2010

Short, direct, informative, this essay by Yvette Alt Miller lays out common ways the media avoid telling the truth. Presenting it in such a way that is easily dismissed. Or telling it partially. Her examples are actual instances of bias against Israel. Miller suggests readers practice finding instances of these tricks, to better understand what they are being fed by the media. My prime example would be the New York Times, which managed to downplay the ongoing Holocaust in World War 2. Most newspapers may not be as clever hiding such a big story but the omission and trivialization of Prez Obama's close friendships with a slew of Marxists before he was nominated come close. This is a very useful reference.

READ MORE
hrrule

THE NEW YORKER ON ISRAEL

by Richard H. Shulman, July-August, 2004

In May, The New Yorker published an article by Jeffrey Goldberg demonizing the Jews who live in the territories. It slanders the Jews and absolves the Arabs by its choice of value words and selective details — details that give us a distorted picture instead of an understanding of what's going on in Israel's heartland. Richard H. Shulman analyzes Goldberg's article in detail.

READ MORE
hrrule

HOAXES

by Bernice Lipkin, November-December, 2010

Bernice Lipkin writes that "...the Arabs and their pro-peace marxist Pals are excellent at creating realistic hoaxes. With the help of the lackey-media, these hold up, at least until someone looks at them carefully. Or until someone takes a photo of the directors setting up the hoax.

"What is also becoming clear is that apparently it is as easy for the hoaxsters to fool themselves as it is to fool anyone else. They begin to believe their own lies. The world then can not be trusted. Whoever doesn't agree with them must be lying. Whoever denies Arab claims is conspiring against the Arab world. It can't possibly be that they themselves are not credible. This is not a mentality that is attuned to progress or new knowledge. It won't reject ideas that don't stand up to experience. Indeed, the opposite is true. The world and all within it must conform to the notions the Arab know to be true. There is no room for argument."

READ MORE
hrrule

AN ANTI-ISRAEL TOURISM SUBTERFUGE

by Janet Levy, April 9, 2014

Snookering Rachel Corrie into believing she was in "Palestine" to protect the locals was small potatoes compared to the current Tourist Flimflam. Combine the respectability of Harvard; the illusion that the tourist is taking the trek that Abraham or maybe it was Jesus or somebody like that there took; eye-rolling pious wishes to promote peace between Abraham's children (as if Mohammad were an uncircumcised Jew); and an efficient tourist agency that organizes comfortable trips with congenial fellow-travelers directly to authentic Arabs on the West Bank and even, titter, titter, Gaza — how can an ordinary middle-class tourist on the yokel-level information-wise not believe that what he sees and what he hears must be the straight story. And that's the cleverness that beats all. A marvelous illusion, where some truth and a big helping of lies are put together to encourage the visitor to become a supporter of the Arab narrative: the "Palestinians" own the West Bank (and the rest of Israel), which the Jews are currently occupying — real history and geography be damned. Janel Levy provides us with the details of a current scam, worked by the seemingly respectable and having all the cleverness of an excellent con. The returnees will become live 'witnesses' to a great injustice, never realizing they've been had.

READ MORE
hrrule

A TAXONOMY OF FRAUD: THE REUTERS' PHOTO SCANDAL

by zombie, July-August 2006

This is a compilation of doctored and fraudulent pictures taken recently in Lebanon by different cameramen and utilized as anti-Israel propaganda. They have been classified and analyzed by zombie of the zombietime website. This article is both fascinating and instructive.

READ MORE
hrrule

THE BLOGGERS TAKE ON THE QANA "MASSACRE"

by Bernice Lipkin, July-August 2006

On July 30th, Israel returned fire against Hezbollah rockets launched from Qana in Lebanon. Civilians were killed, including children. Hezbollah declared it a massacre; the pitiful pictures of dead children were shown around the world; and Israel was once again castigated. But within hours, people began suspecting what happened at Qana was a hoax, not a "massacre." Some bloggers examined the photos of the massacre carefully; others noticed other bloopers and inconsistencies. And the careful plot to discredit Israel began to unravel.

READ MORE
hrrule

THE BLACKOUT — A HAMAS-ALJAZEERA CO-PRODUCTION / STAGED GAZA BLACKOUT PICTURES

by Martin Solomon, January-February, 2008

These pictures of the Gaza blackout are instructive. There is no way that the pathos-filled pictures could have made their way to print without the collusion of Arab photographers, who took them at angles that hid the light and the truth. The news editors are equally culpable. They presumably knew that the Gazans were not in an electricity blackout. They knew that creating hoaxes is an often-used tool in Arab propaganda. Why did they print the Israel-demonizing pictures without verification?

READ MORE
hrrule

Answering Those That Denigrate Zionism

Zionism=Judaism
Anti-Zionism=Anti-Judaism


Return to What We Are Talking About

THE JEWS: A PEOPLE, A NATION, A STATE

by Salomon Benzimra, March 7, 2006

Considering how often Zionism is used as a derogatory epithet by bigots, it is sad how little these people actually know about "Zionism, its origins and its natural achievement in the birth of the State of Israel." In this excellent essay, Salomon Benzimra explains the multi-faceted nature of Zionism and its centrality for Jewish peoplehood.

READ MORE
hrrule

MISOJUDAISM AND ANTI-ZIONISM

by Michael Anbar, March-April, 2005

Zionism is often thought to be a recent movement and, according to some, no longer of significance. In this insightful essay, Michael Anbar argues that "Zionism is a non-separable, fundamental aspect of Judaism — an aspect without which Judaism loses its meaning as a national culture. Eliminating Zionism and the hope for the Messiah leaves Judaism without its soul, leaving a dead skeleton of bare rituals." Perhaps that is why Jew-haters try so hard to rid Judaism of its Zionist convictions.

READ MORE
hrrule

INTRODUCTION TO NATIONS UNITED: HOW THE UNITED NATIONS IS UNDERMINING ISRAEL

by Alex Grobmam, Jul-Aug, 2009.

Dr. Alex Grobman is a historian who writes on contemporary issues affecting the Jewish community. In his book, Nations United: How The UN Undermines Israel and the West (2006) he focuses on the gross hostility the U.N. has shown toward Israel. This essay is the Introduction to the book. It lays out the context — the centuries-long Jewish attachment to Israel and the Jewish return to reclaim and restore its land, the mission we call Zionism. And it characterizes Anti-Zionism, which, promulgated by obsessive Arab bloc voting in the U.N., became international in scope. As in the rest of the book, the writing is direct and the ideas comprehensive.

READ MORE
hrrule

ZIONISTS AND THE LAND

by Hilda Terry, April, 2004

This article could be entitled Zionism in Action. In a few lines, Hilda Terry sketches out a picture of what life was like in way back then, when Jews started coming in large numbers to Palestine in the late 19th century to redeem their homeland. Drawing on family stories and letters, she writes about the early Zionists and their battle to bring the Land of Israel back to life from the place of swamps, sand and rocks it had become. They purchased "unlivable land nobody else wanted" and that only at outrageous prices. Their enterprise boosted a near-dead economy and attracted Arabs from the neighboring country. When Israel gained Samaria and Judea and Gaza in 1968, Israel improved the quality of life of the local Arabs, until the Arab leaders stopped her. As Terry writes, "Gaza was a place where even the earlier Egyptian soldiers had been shocked by the shabby barefooted natives wading in freely flowing open sewage. Stuck with the unexpected custody of this sorry Arab town, Israel immediately began building new homes with electricity and plumbing for their new charges." Israel reduced infant mortality in the Territories and taught the Arabs more efficient and more productive ways to farm. But the Arab leadership, then as now, was interested in destroying Israel, not improving the lives of the ordinary Arabs.

READ MORE
hrrule

ANTI-ZIONISTS: A MAJORITY FOR EVIL

by Michael Devolin, April 21, 2013

Michael Devolin explains the animus against Zionism as well as ever I've seen it done. As he writes,

"Western journalists have portrayed religious observance, especially Jewish observance, as something shameful and an embarrassment for their envisioned type of intellectual. ... Zionism has become their Exempli gratia in the war they have made against all things Jewish. Therefore Zionism is never mentioned as a practical and ancient commandment of the Torah, a commandment as conspicuous and practical as the prohibitions against stealing and murder; instead it is transmogrified as a Jewish evil simply because the political and expansionist objectives of Islam and Christianity have always been given more precedent in the press than the right of the Jew to live safely and securely in the land of Israel."

Zionism is nothing more or less than our ancient connection to our land. We are obligated to redeem it, should it — as it did during centuries of foreign and Ottoman rule — fall on hard times. It's a matter of family affiliation and affection. It isn't a symbol. It is symbiosis. To thrive, Jews need their Land. The Land of Israel needs them.

READ MORE
hrrule

THE ANTI-HISTORY THAT SUSTAINS ANTI-ZIONISM.

by Paul Merkley, July 29, 2015

In recent years, the mainline Protestant churches — joined by the niche Quakers and Mennonites — have wholeheartedly subscribed to the political BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions) campaign intended to destroy Israel. Simultaneously, ignoring history, Bible and cultural differences, their theology now asserts that it is not the Jews but the Palestinian Arabs, a 'people' that, in 1964, sprung full-grown and in an instant from Yasir Arafat's brow, that are the ancient Israelites. Paul Merkley writes of this bizarre inversion of factual history. There is one other notable correlation with the churches adopting this Arabian counter-history. As Merkley pointed out previously (here), the United Churches of Christ "has lost approximately 300,000 members (about 20% of its membership) since 2005, the year when its convention passed its first divestment resolution." Indeed, the rate at which the Methodist, Episcopal and Lutheran churches have also lost members makes the designation "Mainline Protestantism" questionable.

READ MORE
hrrule

ISRAEL ADVOCACY OR ZIONIST EDUCATION?

by Jeremy Gimpel, July-August, 2013

Elliott, a reader of the original article, said, "Great article! This really gets to the heart of the PR issue. We have a great product, we just need to sell it as well as we do Intel chips and Israeli tech know-how..." If we were to continue to describe what Jeremy Gimpel says in marketing terms, it would be that what is needed is not just being pro-Israel but being a passionate Zionist and making that clear to everyone. Israeli politicians talk about security when they should telling the world about their enthusiastic commitment to redeem their ancient homeland. Some promoters have even gone totally ahistoric and promote bikinis, beaches and surfing, as if those were Israel's reason for being. It is the passion that Israelis have for their Land that people need to hear. Then they will understand why Israelis are, despite the religion-based hatred of their neighbors and the mindless propaganda to demonize Israel, a people happy to be living in the Jewish state.

READ MORE
hrrule

Answering The Canard That The Jews Stole And Are Occupying Arab Land

If there's anything most people are sure about regarding the Arab-Israeli hostilities, it is that the Arabs own the Land. Therefore it follows that, somehow or other, the Jews illegally got hold of it. How exactly this came about is seldom explored. That the neighboring Arab countries invaded Israel time and again is not emphasized. That when the Jews fought back successfully, they took back land that already was legally theirs is ignored. On the contrary, once the belief that the Jews were in the wrong was solidly embedded in 'global consciousness', other derogatory ideas became plausible: the Jews must have taken the land by illegal aggression; the Arabs are refugees and it must be because of the Jews; the Jews must be treating the conquered people badly because that's what conquerors do, etc., etc. As Max Singer put it in his article "Thieves Get No Sympathy," here:

In emotional terms, thieves don't have rights, even to security. How could we expect support for a "thief's" assertion that the victim shouldn't use illegal means to recover his land, that he, the "thief," needs stolen property to protect his security, or that consideration should be given to the citizens the usurper has settled on the stolen land?

Our demand for "defensible borders," for example, is heard as "Israel needs to keep Palestinian land in order to defend itself." This doesn't grab Europeans who don't even worry much about being able to defend themselves, much less Israel.

The Palestinians, by contrast, are heard as saying, "we are a proud and ancient people; our land was stolen by colonialist foreigners, and we will fight until we get it back." The reply that they are fighting too dirty, or that Israel needs the land to protect its security, doesn't carry much emotional weight.

Given the core indictment, it didn't take much to charge the Jews with additional crimes. They didn't just steal the land and milk its resources, as the Europeans did in the West and in the Far East. They stayed and made their home there, or as the Arabs would have it, they turned the Arabs into refugees and are occupying the land they stole.

In 2003, during George W. Bush's administration, the peace process was refurbished by the Quartet (the US, some members of the UN, the European Union and Russia) and renamed the Roadmap. For the first time, the US Gov't itself called the Territories (Samaria and Judea — aka the West Bank — and Gaza) "occupied." This implied that the Arabs in the Territories were long-time inhabitants, a conclusion that ran counter to the facts. Serious Arab immigration has started after the Jews began coming back in large numbers to redeem their homeland. Some 95% of the Arab inhabitants had come as immigrants after 1905 — they had never had roots in the land. In fact, despite pro-Palestinian claims that Israel was treating the "Palestinians" terribly, Arabs have been pushing their way into Israel and the Territories to live. Well over 400,000 Arabs had entered the Territories since the Oslo Accord of 1993 as tourists, workers and spouses and never left. Few questioned why people would want to live in a country that treated them badly. Few asked how the Jews could be occupying Palestinian land, when not even the Arabs had ever owned the land, except for some years after the Muslim invasion of 672 CE.

Singer's solution for fighting the keystone Arab's argument is a good one:

[...] Entrenched anti-Israel sentiment will not be moved until we state that we are a proud and ancient people; that the disputed land is our homeland, and was ours historically; that the land was assigned to us by the League of Nations, and we will fight to protect our country.


Return to What We Are Talking About

THE MYTH OF "OCCUPIED" TERRITORIES

by Boris Shusteff, May-June, 2009

Boycotters and all those who sympathize with the po' Palestinians because Israel is "occupying" Palestine should read this essay by Boris Shusteff. In simple terms, he makes clear that the Land of Israel belongs to the Jews. The San Remo Conference of 1920, confirmed by the League of Nations in 1922, "gave" the Jews the part of the Ottoman empire that encompassed the ancient Jewish homeland, just as it "gave" the Arabs all the rest of the part of once Ottoman Empire that we call the Middle East. The land allocated to an eventual Jewish state was much less than 1% of the Middle Eastern land area; it included what is now Israel, Samaria, Judea, Gaza, the Golan and Jordan as a solid block. The specifics of the allocations were written as three separate mandates (Syria, Iraq, Palestine) to be carried out by the Mandatory powers: Britain and France. Between the San Remo Conference in 1920 and the authorization by the League of the Palestine Mandate contract in 1922, Britain split off 78% of what was to be Jewish land — the land east of the Jordan river that is now Jordan — to be administered by the Arab Hashmites. After the United Nations was formed in 1945, the League of Nations was dissolved in 1946, transferring all its assets to the UN. The treaties deposited with the League of Nations and the trusts and the legal status of countries created by League of Nations' Mandates were transferred to the United Nations. There has never been a binding resolution passed by the Security Council changing the ownership of Mandated Palestine, nor, by the legal doctrine of estoppage, can there be. The San Remo Conference action that made the Jewish people the owners of Mandated Palestine remains the applicable international law.

READ MORE
hrrule

THE MYTH OF STOLEN ARAB LAND

by Israel Kasnett, July 20, 2008

With this essay by Israel Kasnett, we add to our store of articles on Israel's irrevocable right to Mandated Palestine with information on the view of the Peel Commission of 1937 on the Balfour Declaration and the Mandate. The Commission confirmed the large increase in Arab population in Palestine since 1920. It states: "Jewish immigration and subsequent economic growth in Palestine led to increased Arab immigration from other countries by those seeking economic opportunity."

READ MORE
hrrule

WHAT OCCUPATION?

by Efraim Karsh, July-August, 2002

 This essay by Efraim Karsh is exquisitely detailed yet very understandable. It dissects the misleading and fallacious threads that are woven together into the charge that Israel is occupying Palestinian Arab land. As the title says, "What occupation?" In addition to demolishing the non-factual Arab "narrative", Karsh defines precisely what is really keeping the pot boiling: "It is not the 1967 occupation [of the Territories] that led to the Palestinians' rejection of peaceful coexistence and their pursuit of violence. Palestinian terrorism started well before 1967, and continued — and intensified — after the occupation ended in all but name. Rather, what is at fault is the perduring Arab view that the creation of the Jewish state [in 1948] was itself an original act of 'inhuman occupation' with which compromise of any final kind is beyond the realm of the possible." As Karsh makes clear, the Palestinian Arabs regard the lawful establishment of the State of Israel itself as the original sin, even though Israel was at the time located in a very small part of its lawful entitlement.

 READ MORE
efraim karsh

WHO'S ZOOMIN' WHOM?

by Michael Zebulon, January-February 2008

As part of this essay, Michael Zebulon provides facts about Britain's unlawful severing of the land east of the Jordan River. Indeed, Zebulon has the gift of making it fun to learn some necessary information we should all know about "Palestine" and the "Palestinian people". The Arabs have another kind of gift — they have been able to invent a people — the Palestinians — and a country called Palestine, where this people is said to have dwelt from ancient times. Never mind that there is no P sound in Arabic, so ironically, having a suspected terrorist say Palestine is an effective shibboleth. But we have the facts of geography and history available and they are an excellent way to counter the Arab fantasy. We simply need to speak up.

READ MORE
hrrule

OUT WITH THE OCCUPIERS!

by Steven Plaut, October 28, 2009

The belief that the Arabs own the Land that is Israel and the Jews do not is a political version of Goldilocks and the three bears. The Jews owned it too long ago and too short a time ago. But the Arabs who conquered the area at the rise of Islam — well, that's just the right time ago. Another popular pro-Arab argument is that it has "been nearly 1,900 years since Jews exercised sovereignty there — and it is absurd to argue that any group still has rights to land they last governed such a long time ago." Steven Plaut turns that argument on its fez with a few home truths. For one, If recency wins, then the birth of modern Israel trumps because the last time the Arabs held the land was much earlier. And even then, it was Arabs, not Palestinian Arabs, in charge. It's a pleasure to watch a logical mind spell out the implications of the fanciful nonsense the Arabs dish out. There is an appendix from MidEast Web for Coexistence that provides a "Brief History of Israel And Palestine."

READ MORE
hrrule

EXPOSING HOW POST-ZIONISTS MANIPULATE HISTORY

by Avi Beker, July 2010

Ever read a book or a gang-up of books, proving something you know in your bones is wrong? The arguments dazzle and seem too weighty to push aside. It is only later that you have that 'hey-wait-a-minute' moment, when you notice a gap, an inconsistency, a puzzling omission. This is roughly what has happened to the history of newly-reborn Israel and its 1948 war of survival, when it was attacked by its Arab neighbors, intent on destroying the non-Arab state. The story was told accurately at first. Then the New Historians revised the interpretation of these events and announced that the original version was a myth. The issue was not, they declared, Israel's remarkable accomplishment: redeeming Jewish land and constructing a free and democratic Jewish state in a relatively short amount of time. The issue was that through no fault of their own, the local Arabs suffered severely in 1948 and it was all because of what Israel did intentionally.

Using the New Historian Benny Morris as both focus and foil, Avi Becker recounts distortions, misinterpretations and down-right lies told by the New Historians. What made these whoppers so pernicious is that Israel was cast as a figure of evil, which needed to atone for its sins. It was put on the defensive in political negotiations. These accusations were eventually used to try to delegitimize Israel. Benny Morris was a key figure in framing the features of the New History; he fashioned a strong base on which others constructed ever more-outlandish interpretations. It is ironic that it would be Morris who later put a stop to this nonsense by supplying essential information the New Historians had omitted: First, the Arabs saw the 1948 War as just another battle in their unswerving religious Jihad over the centuries to become top dog over all other religions. Second the Arabs, not the Jews, started the 1948 war and, by this action, rejected a partition resolution that would have given them land. Ironic.

The truth that the Arabs don't own the Land of Israel and the Territories is just beginning to crack the cement of lies cast around the historic events. It doesn't help that many readers, who were, for their own reasons, so eager to accept the New Historians' lies, will be just as motivated to ignore the truth.

READ MORE
hrrule

HOW CAN WE HELP WIN THE INFORMATION WAR?

by David Ha'ivri, January 10, 2012

David Ha'ivri writes in particular about distributing information about the Jewish citizens who live in Biblical Israel. But his advise is of general value to improve Israel's ability to communicate. As he says, "The problem is mainly that Israel's advocates are not addressing the particular issues for which Israel is under attack. By avoiding and not responding to the accusatory claims, it appears that Israel doesn't have a good answer." The comments in the original Ynet article serendipitously illustrate how to provide right answers. Someone pushes the incorrect but frequently-used "Israel is violating international law in occupying the West Bank." Knowledgeable readers respond appropriately. New points are raised and answered. A reader, "Gee" from Zikron Yaakov, puts Israel's ownership of Samaria and Judea succinctly this way:

"First under international law for it to be 'occupied' it needs to meet two conditions. The 'occupier' has to not have a legal claim to the land. The second part is the people claim need to have said legal claim.

Gaza, Judea and Samaria meet neither condition. Our claim to the land is enshrined in the UN Charter and the Covenant of the League of Nations - so we do have legal claim to the land.

Then there is the little fact that the Arabs do not have any legal claim to the land. Nobody on this planet has managed to date to produce said legal claim. So the Arabs are squatting on the land illegally. So much for the claim of international law."

READ MORE
hrrule

Arguments Derived From The 'Jews Stole Arab Land' Assertion

This section examines other matters, including some that are ignored, once the notion that the Jews are occupying Arab land is firmly established. For example, if someone is convinced that the Jews are occupying Palestine — I've made people laugh in derision by telling them the easily-verified fact that the Jews are occupying their own, not Arab, land — then it is a short step to believing the Jews must be responsible for all those millions of Arab refugees. Few suggest the actual and obvious: most Arabs left because their leaders told them to leave and because they feared the Jews might do unto them as they would have done to the Jews, should they have won the war(s). As another consequence, people are not outraged that the Arab refugees now in their fourth to sixth generation — medicated, fed, housed and educated on our money and growing from a few hundred thousand in 1948 to 7-8 million — are still with us, when almost every other refugee in the whole wide world is (re)settled within a decade. The Arab refugees are a wound that has not been allowed to heal in the normal manner, which is say, by settling the refugees in other parts of Arab Land. They continue to serve as a propaganda ploy that the Jews occupy their land.

There were, actually, two sets of refugees created around the time that Israel became a state. Everyone know about the Arabs. Few know about the more numerous Jewish refugees, who were kicked out of the Arab countries, fleeing mainly to Israel to avoid being killed. They were absorbed by Israel and helped to resettle without any help from the U.N. These Jews left behind an enormous amount of property and personal goods worth billions and billions of dollars. In contrast, the claim of so many Arab refugees that they left behind much land and prosperous farms in Israel when they fled the war zone is not in sync with the actuality that under the Ottomans very few Arabs held private property in Syria Palestine and most of those that did lived elsewhere and were unlikely to have become refugees. (See here.) Until the Jews came and revitalized the Land of the Jews, the Arabs, along with every other ethnic group in Palestine, lived in squalor. Most were landless laborers or tenant farmers on land that produced little. They had nothing much to leave behind. Those Arabs that came after the Jews created economic opportunity came for jobs, not because they had wealth to invest. Yet the circular reasoning persists: if an Arab lives less well than a Jew, it must be that the Jews must have taken away the Arab's property. Clearly, until the thinking public truly understands that the Jews took nothing away from the Arabs — except perhaps the Arab delusion that Islam should reign above all religions — all sorts of collateral crimes can be attributed to the Jews. And the global public will excuse Arabs for committing barbaric acts against the evil Jews.

Foster the belief that the Palestinian Arabs own the land of Mandated Palestine and even many a churchman will feel anything the Palestinians do to regain their land is justified. (see here). After all, they only have guns, rocks and knifes to fight against a well-equipped Israeli army.

The media and politicos have bought into "returning" Arabs some of their land, so there is much discussion about where the proposed Arab state will be located. There is less said about the question: is there to be one Arab state, two or three? After all, 78% of the land that was to be Jewish was cut away illegally by the British and given to the Arabs to administer. They now call it Jordan. Then there is Gaza, abandoned by the Jews in a moment of idiocy. It is ruled by Hamas and is a training ground for terrorism for several bloodthirsty groups. Will that stay independent or be linked to the Palestinian entity? And if so, what if the locals again vote to be ruled by Hamas?

As another matter, ignorant tweeters and journalists are sure the Land was always called 'the West Bank' and that the Jews quite recently invented fancy names for it. Judea and Samaria may sound vaguely familiar, but there is no impetus to identify them as the very accurate names of the region since ancient times.

Until Syria became a war zone, there were always voices raised urging Israel to return the Golan Heights to Syria. Jewish security concerns are still ignored, because who wants to help a thief hold onto his stolen land? Maybe when people are open to listening to the truth, that attitude will change.


Return to What We Are Talking About

A REPLY TO AMBASSADOR SEVJE

by Wallace Edward Brand, August 10, 2011

The Norwegians seem to have no concept of the world-class proxy war taking place in the Middle East: the Palestinian Arabs, both those controlled by the Fatah Terror Group and those in Gaza under the thumb of the less polished Hamas, are the foot soldiers of resurgent Islam. The terrorist activities they practice in Israel are eventually emulated and exported. On the other side, Israel, not by its own choice, has been thrown into the front lines and given the role of defending Western values of fair play and 'live and let live.' Ironically, some of those who should be most grateful haven't a clue. One such is Norway's Ambassador to Israel, Svein Sevje, who condemns Norwegian terrorism against Norwegians but condones Arab terrorism against Jews. This is based, he claims, on Israel's occupation of Arab land. He, as do others, also discounts the improved economy, education and medial care that Israel brought to a blighted area. Wallace Brand responds in this essay with the actual facts about the so-called Israeli occupation.

READ MORE
hrrule

OCCUPATION AND GENOCIDE

by Pat Gilsan, March-April, 2004

I've read a lot of accusations that Israel treats its Arab population despicably, even brutally. But when it comes to specifics, the only problems adduced are the fence to keep out terrorists and being stopped at checkpoints. Pat Gilsan brings up an interesting point. Why, she asks, if Israel is so awful, why are Arabs coming from all over the Arab world to Israel, and staying, legally and illegally. As she says, "Nobody leaves a good place to come to a bad place." She also answers the Arab claim that Israel is occupying land belonging to the 'Palestinian people' and counters with facts that show that the only genocide has been by the Arabs and perpetrated against the Jews. The solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict? "The answer is not to give up land. The answer is to transfer the Arabs."

READ MORE
hrrule

QUESTIONS REASONABLE PEOPLE ASK ABOUT ISRAEL AND YESHA

by Yechiel Leiter, May 10, 2007

Yechial Leiter does an excellent job explaining why Israel and Yesha (Samaria, Judea and Gaza) belong to the Jewish people by history, by religion, by unbroken affiliation, by international law and by conquest. By the same token, he explains why this land does not belong to the Palestinian people. Part of the explanation is that there is no Palestinian people, there never was a Palestinian nation and there never was a state of Palestine. Among the errors he corrects is the notion that the correct name for the land on the western bank of the Jordan is the West Bank, suggesting that the Jews who call it Samaria and Judea recently invented these names. The opposite is true — the area was called Samaria and Judea from biblical times until Jordan named it the West Bank when it invaded Israel in 1948.

READ MORE
hrrule

TWO STATES IS A FRAUD

by Drora bat Melech, March 10, 2015

Drora bat-Melech is an Israeli whose parents and grandparents were authentic refugees. Together with some 150 to 250 thousand other Jews, they were forced to flee from Iraq in the 1940s-early 1950s, even though the Jews had lived in Iraq for some 2500 years, more than a thousand years before the Arab invaders conquered the area. Not only were they kicked out, leaving most of their possessions and real estate behind, they had to pay the Arab government for the privilege of being allowed to leave alive. The scene was replayed in the other Arab states. The Jews received no help or compensation from the U.N., but the new state of Israel absorbed them and made them citizens. Bat-Melech was a refugee from Iraq but she was an 'aboriginal' in Israel because in 1922 their ancient land was restored to the Jews in recognition of their historic attachment to it; it was held in trust until they could develop the infrastructure and population to be a state. In 1948, when the neighboring Arab states invaded the new state of Israel, Arabs who fled — many of them left on orders of their leaders, and expected to return as soon as Israel was demolished — were placed into camps in Arab states, in Gaza and in Samaria and Judea, when these was under Jordanian control, where they were treated as aliens and denied citizenship. Unlike any other group of refugees ever, they were given refugee status in perpetuum, they and their descendants, even those "refugees" who had come brand new to Mandated Palestine just a couple of years before they fled as refugees.

READ MORE
hrrule

PALESTINIAN MYTHS: THE RIGHT OF RETURN OF THEIR REFUGEES

by David Bukay, January 29, 2014

David Bukay writes of a myth the Arabs have fostered: that the Arabs who fled Israel in 1948 and who were relabeled as Palestinians are entitled to return to their homes, they and their children and their grandchildren and their great grandchildren. Retroactively and much later than the events of 1948, their supposed loss of what is now the State of Israel came to be labeled nakbah, a disaster. They had no problem ignoring that the local Arabs never were in control of the land. They simply covered the facts with a fantasy that their identity, hitherto proudly Syrian, was always Palestinian. Their fantasy and their status as refugees would ordinarily have disappeared in a few years, except for the fact that they were put on lifetime support by the UN and given an agency, UNRWA, that tends exclusively to their needs, sustaining them physically, educating them, medicating them and keeping their fantasy fresh.

READ MORE
hrrule

"A LAND WITHOUT A PEOPLE FOR A PEOPLE WITHOUT A LAND"

by Diana Muir, March-April, 2008

"A Land Without A People For A People Without A Land" has it exactly right. Note that it says A People, not People. An alternative version makes the meaning even clearer: "a country without a nation" in need of "a nation without a country."

Using the high estimate, in 1890, there were some 500,000 people (some 50 ethnic groups, including Jews, Christians, Arabs and other Muslims) in the desolated Ottoman territory that would become the portion of mandated Palestine west of the Jordan river and that included today's Gaza, Israel, the Golan, Samaria and Judea. A staple in the Arab list of grievances is that the early Zionist immigrants were shocked to find that the land wasn't empty — implying there was a thriving Palestinian population that Israel subjugated. Diana Muir concludes that certainly it was known there were some people on the land. A land without a people means the territory "was without a national character". The notion of a Palestinian national identity "only developed in reaction to Zionist immigration." She tracks the origin of the phrase and its use as anti-Zionist propaganda.

READ MORE
hrrule

WHEN BUSH COMES TO SHOVE

by Bernice Lipkin, April 14, 2003

If Samaria and Judea and Gaza are Palestinian Land, not Jewish land, then the political arbiters of morality are right to help the Palestinians regain their land. The latest international threat to Israel's sovereignty and security comes from the road map issued by the Quartet. It is Oslo all over again, but more virulent — instead of negotiations, it would impose dangerous restrictions on Israel. The UN, the EU and Russia didn't fight Iraq. Apparently, Israel is more their size.

READ MORE
hrrule
QUESTION 4: ISRAELIS WANT A PERMANENT SEPARATION FROM THE ARABS. ARABS WANT TO DESTROY ISRAEL

Every peace process calls for Israel to give up land, making it easier for Arabs to attack her, while she keeps an expanding and hostile Arab population. Does that address Israel's concerns?

How do we deal with the initial supposed reason for Arab hostility: the plight of the Arab refugees of 1948 and 1967? Their rapidly expanding numbers alone are enough to destabilize any plan.

Are there better alternatives to solve the Arab-Israel hostilities than unrealistic "peace processes"?

What's delaying an effective solution?


Will Current Peace Processes Bring Peace?

Peace process arguments have little to do with core concerns on either side. Arabs bring up the ongoing plight of the unsettled refugees, soft-pedaling that the 1948 and 1967 Arab refugees won't be allowed to become citizens in the projected Palestinian state. They argue that they want the return of their land, when what they want is an expanded base, a place like Gaza, from which to launch more effective attacks against Israel. The Jews argue their need for security — thus implicitly admitting they know that giving up land won't bring peace. They talk security and not the passionate love of the land most Israelis feel. Their leaders say they are willing to share the land. This feeds the world's certainty that the land belongs to the Arabs.

Current peace processes offer Israel one of two options: a bi-national state or two neighboring states, one Jewish, one Arab. Either one means the local Arabs can proceed with less hindrance to try to destroy Israel. Either one means less land available for growth of Jewish communities, while the Arab population expands rapidly. Either one means eventually the Arabs are in control and the Jews are dhimmis, dead or converted to Islam. This is suicidal.

Actually, there is no real difference between the choices. A bi-national state of Arabs and Jews would soon be under Arab control, because Israel already allows Arab family reunification and ignores the presence of Arabs who enter illegally or who overstay their visa. As the Arabs gain political control through larger population numbers, intimidation, bribery and the help of their Western friends, they will, as they have done in every other host country, demand social services, regulations and laws customized to favor Islam. This will be the case whether or not a bi-national state would accept a sizable number of UNRWA's "refugees". The conundrum is this: according to the Arabs, Israel is supposed to take in any and all of the over seven million refugees that wish to return. On the other hand, Fatah and most Arab countries insist that these refugees can not be citizens of a Palestinian state. And such a state would still have a hostile Hamas-controlled Gaza as a neighbor. In the two-neighboring states option, the Arab state would be ethnically cleansed of Jews, as Gaza is now. And if Fatah or any like-minded group is in power, it will not accept any Arab refugee. On the other hand, the reduced-in-size Jewish State would have an expanding Arab population and a continuation of Israel's policy of allowing a continuous influx of Arabs, including many of the supposed descendants of the 1948 and 1968 refugees. How long would it remain Jewish?

A peace treaty that would be worth while for Israel's to sign would:

  • Stop the expansion of the 1948 "refugee" population. Disperse the current refugees to an area or areas of Arab Land.
  • Increase the separation between Jewish land and Arab land sufficiently so that terrorists have minimal access to Israel.
  • Keep Israel in the Land of Israel and the Land of Israel in Israel.
  • Show as much consideration and respect for Israel and its concerns as it does for the Arabs and their demands.

These conditions would need to be in place prior to "peace" and easily enforceable because treaties with the Palestinian Arabs are worthless.


Return to What We Are Talking About

THE BLACKMAILER'S PARADOX: ARAB-ISRAEL NEGOTIATIONS ARE A GAME

by Prof Yisrael Aumann, July-August, 2010

Professor Yisrael Aumann applies game theory to how to negotiate with Arabs. In the Blackmailer's Paradox, it is the side that doesn't flinch, that makes unreasonable demands and doesn't compromise, that walks home with the goodies. To date the Arabs have played the game better, convincing Israel to be the one that must compromise. Aumann suggests some necessary changes in Israel's negotiating stance. Of course in real life, the problem is more complex. Negotiation implies a willingness to compromise. Unfortunately, the Arabs aren't just unreasonable — the goal of Islam's leaders is to destroy Israel, no matter what the costs. But Aumann is certainly right that the Israelis need some street smarts.

READ MORE
hrrule

THE ARAB WAR ON ISRAEL: THE MORASS OF MIDDLE EAST DIPLOMACY

by Rachel Neuwirth, May 11, 2006

This is an important paper that explicates the many levels on which the peace process is ill-conceived. It makes understandable why, despite years of trying and the efforts of diplomats, political leaders, analysts and media people to solve the "Israeli-Palestinian" conflict, the result has been a failure. One reason is that their focus was "on the mechanics of implementation," while fundamental information was ignored. They never investigated the basis of the claims of the newly-minted Palestinian people. Nor did they seem to know about Israeli's irrevocable legal claim to Mandated Palestine. Rachel Neuwirth suggests that the "fallacy of the ongoing political dogma [the creation of a Palestinian state] should be recognized" and an approach based on historical/legal truths should be substituted.

READ MORE
hrrule

FALSE PREMISES

by Patricia Berlyn, July-August, 2007

Over the years, we have seen each peace negotiation for ending the Arab war against Israel put the burden of making headway on concessions by Israel. This appears a reasonable, even fair, activity only because it is anchored in the commonly-held deep-seated conviction that a Jewish State is at fault by just being in the Middle East, which is otherwise Muslim (if one ignores all the other minority religious and ethnic groups in the Arab states). However, for true understanding, it isn't enough to know the facts. You need to know what pseudo-reality the facts demolish. Patricia Berlyn provides us with both: the non-facts that too many believe and the actual facts. As applied to the prototypic Peace Process, she breaks the major premise into component and derivative assertions, which are also false, and provides us with actual facts why this is so. If you are so used to the fantasy that has been created about the Arab-Israeli conflict that your first reaction is to deny Berlyn's "Reality" remarks, may I suggest you check the facts out before rejecting them. Preferably in an authoritative source.

READ MORE
hrrule

FORGOTTEN COVENANTS

by Alex Rose. May-June 2009

For generations, Western Middle East "experts" have urged Israel and the West to start "dialoguing" with Hamas. At stake is whether Hamas will openly acquire the windfall money the USA is giving the Palestinian Arabs. Hamas has acted as the spoiler, openly refusing to recognize Israel as legitimate, while offering a truce with a 10-year expiration date, providing that Israel first settles the millions of Arabs who claim descent from the original ~420,000 Arab refugees. The PLO appears to be more accommodating to Western views, but basically it is just as vicious as Hamas. In this essay, Alex Rose reviews two fundamental Palestinian documents: the charters of Hamas and the PLO. Hamas's Charter, which says that its mission is to eradicate Israel, is phrased as a religious compulsion, and hence can not be revoked. The PLO charter is a political document, which has often been said to have been revoked — but never has. Both make clear that the Palestinian Arabs regard the destruction of Israel as their mission, and they continue to steadfastly affirm this intent both in word and deed. This will not change, no matter how much the West denies reality or trivializes Muslim core values.

READ MORE
hrrule

THE PREREQUISITE FOR PEACE IN THE MIDDLE EAST: ARAB RECOGNITION OF THE LEGITIMACY OF ISRAEL

by Kenneth J. Bialkin, March-April 2010

THE peace process — it seems always to apply only to the Arab Israeli conflict — certainly hasn't lacked high-level presidential involvement, from the Elder Bush to Obama, plus the presence of the U.N., the E.U. and their cohort of diplomats and politicians. Nevertheless, as Kenneth J. Bialkin puts it: "A peace process which rests upon Israel's unilateral concessions is doomed to fail — unless and until the world also demands that the Arab states (including the Palestinians) recognize Israel's legitimacy and sovereignty, explicitly and openly. ... This is the most important prerequisite for peace." As the previous article by Rose suggests, this would require a rejection by both Hamas and the PLO of their foundation eschatology. And a rejection of the Koran's decrees against Jews. Obviously, politicians and diplomats find pressuring Israel to make concessions a far easier task than trying to convince Muslims to betray fundamental convictions.

READ MORE
hrrule

PEACE CANNOT REST ON INJUSTICE

by Judah (Yehuda) Tzoref, November-December 2004

We are so used to hearing "human rights" associated with the Arab encroachment of the Land belonging by every legitimate measuring stick to Israel that it comes almost as a shock to read Judah Tzoref's valid argument that Arab aspirations can not be fulfilled by depriving the Jews of their right "to human and national equality."

READ MORE
hrrule

TO CARRY OUT THE MANDATE FOR PALESTINE

by Bernice Lipkin, November-December, 2012

  Bernice Lipkin summarizes some of Israel's recent history of trying to make peace when the Palestinian Arabs don't want peace and have made no effort to cooperate. It is time to stop these attempts to obtain the currently unobtainable. She suggests that it's time to stop appeasing terrorists and go back to nation-building as the San Remo Resolution anticipated. Suggestions for additional reading materials are provided.

 READ MORE
hrrule

THE AGENDA OF ISLAM - A WAR BETWEEN CIVILIZATIONS

by Professor Moshe Sharon, December 24, 2003

Professor Sharon asserts that the war between two civilizations — "between the civilization based on the Bible and between the civilization based on the Koran" — started a long time ago. It will continue as long as Islam is bound by its holy books, as long as it has the imperative to rule the world. In consequence, peace as understood in Judaism or Christianity, is impossible between Islam and other religions, cultures and civilizations. It puts the current diplomatic ways of obtaining peace between the Arabs and the Jews in the same category as attempting to square the circle. It is possible to envision a secession of hostile activities by Muslims, but that won't come about by a peace process in which Islam is enlarged rather than constrained.

READ MORE
hrrule

DE PROFUNDIS

by Yashiko Sagamori, May 2004

The previous article by Moshe Sharon spoke of large group dynamics that are based on antithetic religious principles. This article by Yashiko Sagamori investigates these cultural differences as acted out on the personal level. Sagamori makes the simple but profound observation that the more humans believe they resemble each other, the less do they understand their cultural differences. Take us and the Muslims.

READ MORE
hrrule

The Destabilizing Impact Of The Perpetual Arab Refugees

BACKGROUND:

Refugees are usually resettled either back to where they came from or in other countries within a few years. The only exceptions are the Arabs who fled Israel in 1948 and their multi-generation descendants. After 60 plus years, they are still refugees. UNRWA, the UN agency that supports these refugees and only these refugees, provides lifetime welfare benefits, rather than focusing on resettlement.

There are two UN agencies dedicated to handling refugees. The UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) was established on a temporary basis to deal with the Arabs who fled the new state of Israel when it was attacked by its Arab neighbors in 1948, as soon as the State of Israel came into being. Additional refugees were added in 1967, when Arabs fled when the Arab countries again invaded Israel. Over the years Arabs labeled "internally displaced persons", Arabs who live in Israel, Samaria or Judea, have also been registered as "refugees". The original group of refugees has increased enormously, starting with an estimated 300-400,000 to 750,000 refugees, and is now over 7 million. UNRWA handles only the Arab refugees living in Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Samaria and Judea (the West Bank), and Gaza, which totals 5.49 million people. The other UN agency, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), handles every other refugee in the world, including the Palestinian refugees not handled by UNRWA.

Brett D. Schaefer and James Phillips of the Heritage Foundation compared the two agencies this way (March 5, 2015):

"As of July 1, 2014, UNRWA reported a staff of 30,252 to support 5.49 million persons (5.09 million 'registered refugees' and 398,229 'other registered persons') in Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, the West Bank, and Gaza Strip. UNRWA reported expenditures of $1.1 billion in 2013, including $678.9 million in regular budget expenditures ($206 in total budget expenditures per individual and $125 in regular budget expenditures per individual).

"UNHCR reported a staff of 7,735 in 2013, a 2013 budget of $5.34 billion, and budget expenditure of $2.97 billion to support more than 42.9 million refugees, internally displaced persons, and 'others of concern' to UNHCR in more than 100 countries ($124 of total budget per individual or $69 in budget expenditure per individual)."

THIS SECTION EXAMINES TWO FACETS of the problem of the Palestine refugees: (1) the enormous increase rather than diminution of the number of refugees over the years, and (2) the relationship of the refugees and the peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Arabs (also see previous section on the peace process):

(1) Put simply, stopping the exponential growth of Arab refugees, a festering problem, means reexamining the role of UNRWA. UNRWA hasn't reduced the number of refugees. Quite the opposite. UNRWA has grown the Arab refugee problem into a large, almost intractable, problem. In conjunction with Muslim clerics and political leaders, they have instilled in their charges the certainty that the Land belongs to them. They have carefully cultivated an attitude of revenge. They have nurtured a cult of death, helping to train their clients in techniques of terrorism from the time they are toddlers. Instead of dissolving their client's refugee status and making them independent, they have made the refugees dependent and incapable of running their own lives. UNRWA needs to be separated from the Arabs it has psychologically crippled.

Israel solved the problem of the Jewish refugees from Arab lands — it made them citizens and helped them reconstruct their lives as Israelis while keeping what they wanted of their old customs and traditions. Though Israel was a new country and a poor country, it did this with no help from the U.N. The wealth and real property the Jews left behind when they were forced to flee is still in the hands of the Arab states.

The Arab countries have resources to solve the other refugee problem. The refugees live in Lebanon, Syria and Jordan, but there are 22 Arab states, which could take in groups of these Arabs, depending on their resources. Or they could finance the construction of a Palestinian Arab state somewhere within the 99.99% of the Middle East the Arab own. It could be much larger than Israel and the Territories and still be a tiny portion of the land the Arabs have. At this point, someone is sure to say: but don't you understand, the Arab refugees want to return to their homeland, just as the Jews did over 2000 years of the Diaspora. The answer is that it is a publicist's dream but a complete lie to say that Israel belongs to the Palestinian people. There is no Palestinian People. There never was a Country or State that was called Palestine. They have no claim to land that most of them came to after the Jewish Aliyah made the area economically attractive. The land was owned by the Ottomans for hundreds of years before the Europeans conquered it in WW1, not by Arabs.

It is ludicrous that so many local Arabs have kept their benefits-rich refugee status while living under Arab governance in Gaza, Samaria and Judea. It is pathetic that their pretending that their environment and culture is alien to what they had before their (great) grandparents left Israel — a few miles down the road — is accepted by their logic-deficient and history-ignorant sympathizers.

(2) As the American Friends Service Committee, a pro-Arab group, writes: "The Palestinian refugee issue is at the heart of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict."


THE PALESTINIAN REFUGEES ON THE DAY AFTER "INDEPENDENCE"

by Jonathan D. Halevi, December 2010

Hard statistics are hard to come by. But In 1948, what would become the new State of Israel (and not including the Golan, Gaza, Judea and Samaria) had somewhat less or much less (depending on the estimate) than 690,000 to 736,000 permanent Arab residents. (See MidEastWeb.) After the Arab invasion of the new-born State of Israel in May 1948, subtracting the couple of hundred thousand Arabs that remained, and accepting the artificial inflation due to double ration cards, not reporting the dead, registration of Arabs in the Territories and poor Arabs in the Arab host countries that had never been to Israel — there were at the very most — 595,000 refugees, well below the number of Jews who were forced to flee the Arab countriess. In August 1948, the U.N. estimated the number of Arab refugees needing help at 330,000. The U.N. now supports around 5 million people [as of 2010], the putative original refugees and their multi-generation descendants. As of 2016, the number of refugees registered with UNRWA plus those living elsewhere is well over 7 million.

Jonathan Halevi does an excellent job of making us understand Arab thinking on the right of return of the Palestine Arabs to Israel. In essence, even if a sovereign Palestinian Arab state were to be established, this would have no impact on changing the status of the Palestine refugees. The Arabs have locked themselves into a refusal to accept anything but an unfettered return of the more than seven million Arab "refugees" to Israel before they consider ending their armed struggle with Israel. This is reinforced by their interpretation of Resolution 194 and additional resolutions of the General Assembly of the U.N., although none of these resolutions are binding. In this context, note that PA Chairman Abbas has stated that the Arab refugees will not be allowed to become citizens of any future state of Palestine.

Ignoring for the moment that Israel is a sovereign country, perfectly capable of deciding for itself who it will allow in, the rejectionism of the Arab leaders appears to leave only one path for the registered refugees: if the refugees can't be citizens of a Palestinian state and the Arab leaders in the different Arab states continue to reject any "resettlement of the refugees in any Arab state, the Arab Peace Initiative essentially leaves each refugee with no choice but to go to Israel itself." The Arab states now hosting the 'refugees' are a way station in which to collect the refugees and strengthen them to work to take over Israel when they to go back to their old homes in Israel — Halevi cites a 2010 poll of Palestinians where the majority agree that "Palestinians must work to get back all the land [i.e. Israel] for a Palestinian State. Those that think that inundating Israel with even thousands, let alone millions, of Arabs is the humanitarian thing to do and downplay that it will destroy Israel should give consideration to creating a destabilizing precedent. Give this a thought: after World War Two there were millions and millions of refugees (see here and here); many of them were resettled in new places. What if these refugees and their children and their grandchildren and their great grandchildren began to demand the right of return?

We have added an appendix using part of an article written by Eli E. Hertz in 2012 and entitled "UN Resolution 194 and the 'Right of Return.'" Additional legal assessments of Resolution 194 and the right of return are: Ruth Lapidoth, "Do Palestinian Refugees Have a Legal 'Right of Return' to Israel?'", available here, Ruth Lapidoth, "Security Council Resolution 242: An Analysis of its Main Provisions," here and Constantine Kaniklidis, "The Israeli/Palestinian Conflict: The Evidence", available here.

READ MORE
hrrule

PALESTINIAN PROLETARIAT

by Michael S. Bernstam, December 2010

Michael Bernstam describes Gaza, with its eight UNRWA refugee camps as "a totalitarian paramilitary camp at war with its neighbors and other Palestinians." Typically, refugees are helped over an immediate crises and encouraged to resettle somewhere or other in a timely fashion. In contrast, UNRWA, the agency established in 1949 exclusively for the Arab refugees, has continued to provide generous handouts, medical care, education and social services to the children and grandchildren and great grandchildren of the original refugees. UNRWA, with its complete welfare program for an ever-expanding clientele living in 59 refugee camps scattered over several Arab countries and in the Territories, has thwarted economic development, destroyed opportunities for peace in the Middle East, and created, along the way — both metaphorically and literally — a breeding ground for international terrorism." Keeping these professional refugees on the dole has prevented them from developing a nation-state. It follows that the best way to improve their lot would be to abolish UNRWA.

READ MORE
hrrule

GAZA BEDFELLOWS: UNRWA AND HAMAS

by Claudia Rosett, January 8, 2009

Claudia Rosett puts the essential facts about the Gaza populace bluntly, "In the current violence of Gaza, we are seeing the fruition of one of the most bizarre creations of modern diplomacy: a UN-supported welfare enclave for terrorists." and "Hamas has been running Gaza as a territory reduced to basically two industries: aid and terrorism." Strip out the fantasy that Hamas is mostly a beneficent social services agency. Strip the cunning propaganda that there's something so unique about the "Palestinian" Arabs that, unlike any other group of refugees in the world, they are never to be resettled anywhere but in the land they claim as their own and until then they are entitled to the services of an entire U.N. agency just for them. Strip out diplomat language that tries to hide that the United Nations has been corrupted. And you are left with the essentials Rosett states so well. Instead of being a force to encourage civility and human rights, the U.N. has become another forum for promulgating Arab propaganda and bankrolling terror.

READ MORE
hrrule

FRAUD! UNRWA EXPOSED

by Moshe Dann, December 7, 2004

Unlike all other groups who have become refugees temporarily, the refugee status of the Palestinian Arab is artificially maintained by the United Nations Relief and Welfare Agency (UNRWA). The problem is not just political. As Moshe Dann writes, "... UNRWA receives funding from terrorist organizations (including al Qaida connected) and [UNRWA's] 'refugee camps' are major centers of terrorism." And terrorism is not the way to promote peaceful co-existence.

READ MORE
hrrule

ENDING UNRWA AND ADVANCING PEACE

by Elliott Abrahams, December 19, 2011

UNHCR, an agency of the United Nations, has helped millions of refugees since WW2 to find new homes in a timely fashion. Refugeehood isn't transferable to the next generation. UNHRCR handles all refugees except the Arabs refugees, who have an agency, UNRWA, dedicated to them and their children and (great)grandchildren, with no termination point in sight. Unlike all other refugee groups, they have been preserved as refugees until they can return to their homes in Israel. UNRWA feeds them and provides them with education and medical services. It also allows them to be inculcated with hate toward Israel and trained as terrorists. Elliott Abrams makes the case that "Palestinian refugees should be handled by UNHCR with the intention of resettling them. That process should begin with a redefinition of who is a refugee entitled to benefits, so that benefits are based on need rather than on status." It would improve life for them. It might even improve the chances of peace in the Middle East. (For additional material on UNRWA and how it keeps the refugee problem from being resolved, see the exchange of comments at the end of the article.)

READ MORE
hrrule

Alternative Ways To Reduce Hostilities Between Arabs And Jews

An immediate solution to being besieged to give up land would be to annex Samaria and Judea. Israel has international law on its side, as well as Biblical promise, and an extraordinary history of devotion to the homeland: there were always Jews living in Israel despite having to endure dreadful hardships and Jews kept its memory alive for 2000 years when living in the Diaspora. In recent times, Israel created a modern state out of a malaria-infested, rock-strewn wasteland, a state that in a few short years has benefitted the entire world with innovative electronics and medical techniques. It has served as an instructive example of how to live civilized when barbarians want to reduce you to their level. Even demographic trends are in its favor. It also has the reality underlying the creation of most countries — it conquered the land fair and square, regaining more of its own land each time the Arab countries invaded Israel to demolish it.

The problem is that Israel is still groggy from years of believing that it must cater to world opinion. Unfortunately, it doesn't have the luxury of deferring action. As the first of this set of articles points out, the world, with Israel in the foreground, is in the midst of the latest jihad by resurgent Islam. It must rid itself of Fifth-Column Arabs in Israel and curtail the growth of the Arab population so that it doesn't reach the "take-over" stage of Muslim control of a foreign host. (See Richard Butrick's article in the January 2013 Think-Israel issue here.)

Annexation is a short-term solution. A better solution and one that gives the Arabs that call themselves Palestinians their own land is to give them their own place(s) within the vast land area the Arabs own. See e.g., Section 1 of the September-October 2010 Issue. This will require regional support — but, after all, the Arab states were responsible for the local Arabs becoming refugees. In fact they created two sets of refugees: Arab and Jewish.

This set of articles examines alternative solutions that have a chance of succeeding because they are based on realistic goals and historically good solutions.

Some suggest that money be given to individual families to assist them to set up in an Arab country — they would be given a sufficient dowry to make them attractive to the Arab state they were negotiating with.

Others suggest the Palestinian Arabs now living in the various Arab states stay where they are but have their status changed so they become citizens of the respective states.

As a third-way: give the Palestinian Arabs, including the refugees, a large tract of Land in Arab Land — Saudi Arabia and Sinai have been suggested. Fence it in. Help them farm if they wish. Help them set up infrastructure, if they wish. Spend the money that now goes on fences in Israel and UNRWA salaries and terrorist training camps on helping the Palestinians truly learn how to run a state. And if they prefer terror and murder and adding nails dipped in rat-poison to their explosives, let them do it — to themselves. Their choice.


Return to What We Are Talking About

THE THIRD WAVE

by Wallace Edward Brand, May 28, 2010

Muslim leaders have persuaded the current American administration that their jihad against the West is America's fault because it supports Israel. The Arab jihad against Israel is Israel's fault because it inhibits Arab nationalism. Blaming Islamist violence in Afghanistan and Iraq and the nuclear threat in Iran on Israel's supposed occupation of Arab land conveniently forgets that the Arabs were massacring Jews in the Holy Land well before Israel was a state — "Palestine" was never a state — during the time when Jew and Arab lived equally in squalid conditions under the Ottoman rule. As Wallace Brand makes clear in this essay, the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is just another manifestation of the Third Wave of jihad by a resurgent Islam. The Islamists have again begun a religious war around the world, aiming at world dominance. "Terror in the West is not caused by US support for Israel; terror all over the world is the result of Islamist imperialism."

READ MORE
hrrule

THE CASE FOR POPULATION EXCHANGE

Lewis Lipkin, October 15, 2002

Lewis lipkin defines population exchange as "the legal and enforced exchange of populations so as to eliminate conflict by eliminating contact." He notes that "[p]opulation exchange is not a new idea. Sometimes a complete separation is the only way that two groups unable to live together can get on with their lives. It might be time to complete the separation of the Jews and the Arabs. The Jews were evacuated from Arab countries when Israel was born. Maybe it's time to do the second half of the transfer: move the Palestinian Arabs to Arab countries." If it is moral and not racist to contemplate the removal of hundreds of thousands of Jews, who have legitimate ownership from Samaria and Judea, it is not racist to transfer Palestinian Arabs to one or more Arab states. There are, moreover, practical reasons. First, were an Arab state to be established in Samaria and Judea, it would, like Gaza, become yet another area from which to launch attacks against Israel. Second, as Lipkin points out, "The neck between the 1967 border and Netanya on the Mediterranean coast is less than 10 miles. There is no depth to defend against external attack — against external attackers that are supported by 5th columns that can draw on some 2 million internal enemies. Neither the geographic situation or the demographics are acceptable." As we have seen, any Israeli concession encourages the diplomats of a hostile Europe and UN to pressure Israel to give up yet more land. And if the Palestinian Arab population is not resettled in Arab Land, the Peace Diplomats will pressure Israel to allow a sufficient number of alleged 1948 "refugees" to come live in Israel, where they can more easily work to destroy it.

READ MORE
hrrule

THE PALESTINIAN PROBLEM: A REAL SOLUTION

by Martin Sherman, September-October 2010

For political reasons, UNRWA has provided the Arab refugees of 1948 and their descendants with lifetime welfare when the goal — as it is for all other refugees — should have been (re)settling them permanently as soon as possible. To rehabilitate the Arab refugees, Martin Sherman advocates (1) eliminating UNRWA and (2) removing the anti-refugee discrimination in citizenship, employment and housing practiced by the Arab states that currently host the refugee camps. For those Palestinian Arabs living in the Israeli Territories — Samaria and Judea (the West Bank) and Gaza — he recommends that Israel and such international donors that wish to participate give them generous financial help to relocate to Muslim countries as individuals, not under the control of their leaders. A 2004 poll indicated over 70% would take such a deal. It would also financially benefit the countries that accept them. For Israel, it would be cheaper than the enormous military costs it currently incurs to defend itself from neighboring Palestinian states. And for the international community, especially the European Union, the money they invest in the Palestinians might actually benefit the community.

READ MORE
hrrule

THERE IS AN ALTERNATIVE

by Robert S. Barnes, March 9, 2006

Decisions about giving up land that actually belongs to Israel have been based on false assumptions about demographics and the belief that West Bank Arabs feel strongly about the land. Robert Barnes suggests that a realistic alternative strategy should be explored, i.e., encouraging Arabs to emigrate. He discusses some practical considerations that would make this plan feasible.

READ MORE
hrrule

AN ALTERNATIVE 2-STATE SOLUTION

by Bernice Sacks Lipkin and Lewis Edward Lipkin; appendix by Richard H. Shulman

It would be suicidal for Israel to allow a Palestinian state to be carved out of Biblical Israel, particularly one that would control a major component of her water supply and is capable of shooting missiles everywhere in Israel. But there remains the festering problem of a growing Palestinian refugee population living on cradle-to-coffin debilitating welfare, taught to hate Israel and the West and used as pawns to make claim to Jewish land. The Editors of Think-Israel propose that the Palestinian Arabs — those from the refugee camps and those residing in the Territories — be helped to establish a viable state within the land given to the Arabs by the League of Nations when the Ottoman Empire was dissolved. The state would be physically well-separted from Arab population centers and legally independent of the Arab country that previously owned the land. Within their state, the Palestinian Arabs would have complete control of their politics, education, culture and living style. Given recent political developments in the Middle East where Israel's military and technological strength is a major asset, the strengthening of Israel's appreciation of its own religious roots and a growing disbelief in the reliability of supposedly impartial external organizations, this is a propitious time to create such a state.

READ MORE
hrrule

A NEW PLAN FOR RESOLVING THE ARAB-ISRAELI CONFLICT

by Richard H. Shulman, September-October 2010

Richard Shulman's plan for resolving the Arab-Israeli conflict takes into consideration Israeli Arabs as well as the Arabs living in the Territories. The plan lays down a sequence of feasible steps that are primarily Israel's responsibility: beginning with changing Israel's attitude and policy of doing anything and everything for a peace that can't come about under prevailing conditions. Israelis need to start thinking with their heads and start basing their actions on their own interests and their actual experience with the Arabs, not on the wishful thinking or the frank anti-Zionism of ignorant foreign diplomats, politicians and media. Some changes are obvious: favoring the Arabs no matter what the merits of their case in police actions and in the judiciary needs to stop; Arab sedition in Israel and in the Territories is no longer to be tolerated; the Oslo Accords are to be nullified and Jewish areas in the Territories are to be annexed. It is much less clear whether eventually expulsion will be required. Discussions before hand should consider that it would violate Israel's concept of civil rights as well as creating much opposition. On the other hand, "[e]xperience shows that a large Muslim minority is not compatible with majority survival." It does not help resolve the conflict for the U.S.A. to pressure Israel to make peace while ignoring Islam's goal of destroying Israel. In fact, America herself needs to make changes in how she reacts internally to Muslim demands and infiltration. She needs to recognize that the fight against global Islamic jihad must be fought globally.

READ MORE
hrrule

A WIN-WIN SOLUTION TO THE ARAB-ISRAELI CONFLICT

by Rachel Neuwirth, July 26, 2004

Scraping away false facts that serve as base for unworkable peace proposals to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict, Rachel Neuwirth uses significant factual data on land availability to propose a resolution that would benefit the Palestinian Arabs as well as the Israelis; namely, transfer the Palestinian Arabs to their own place in a sparsely inhabited part of an Arab country such as Saudi Arabia.

READ MORE
hrrule

A PALESTINIAN STATE IN SAUDI ARABIA

by Gennadiy Baruch Faybyshenko, July 24, 2009

Gennadiy Faybyshenko notes that the Saudi Arabian Initiative — which provides for the creation of a Palestinian state inside Samaria and Judea and the return of enough Arabs to almost double Israel's Jewish population — would mean the end of Israel. That won't do. But given the Saudi concern for their Palestinian brethren and given that Saudi Arabia is huge but sparsely-settled, a comfortably-sized state for the Palestinian refugees could be set up in some small portion of Saudi Arabia. Refugee problem: solved! A state for the Palestinians: created! And, that, according to the Obama administration, is the key to peace and harmony in the Middle East.

READ MORE
hrrule

THE SINAI OPTION — THE ROAD TO PERMANENT PEACE!

by Steven Shamrak, January-February, 2006

Steven Shamrak envisions giving the Palestinian Arabs a larger land area than what they have now by relocating them in the Sinai Desert. The separation between them and Israel would be beneficial to both groups.

UPDATE: RE Shamrak suggestion: in 2015-6, Sisi of Egypt offered the PALs a home in Sinai. They rejected it. Right now, they can walk to a Jewish neighbor and slaughter them. Sinai would be inconvenient.

READ MORE
hrrule

THE DEATH OF OSLO AND THE REBIRTH OF JORDAN-IS-PALESTINE

by Matthew Hausman, March 11, 2012

Matthew Hausman elegantly demolishes the notion that the Oslo Process was a vehicle for peace, and suggests an alternative procedure — declaring Jordan, which already has a Palestinian Arab majority, as the Palestinian state. He makes clear that the Jews have had a historic and religious attachment to their homeland for thousands of years and in point of fact never completely left it. The Palestinian Arabs, in contrast, "had no ancestral connection", nor were they a nation or a people. They were mostly immigrants from the neighboring countries, attracted by the economic opportunities created by the Jews and the British. That being the case, moving them to nearby Jordan does not sever them from their homeland. Just the opposite — it gives a motley group of Arabs, the local Arabs and for the millions living in the refugee camps in the various Arab countries, land that could become their homeland.

READ MORE
hrrule

(TRANS)JORDAN IS PALESTINE

by Sarah Honig, August 6, 2009

The British were given the administration of the Palestine Mandate to aid the Jews settle Palestine as a homeland. Instead, the Brits gave the administration of the portion of Palestine east of Jordan River — some 78% of the Land of Israel — to the Hashemite clan. Over time, the Arab rulers called the area Transjordan and now it's the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, and the majority of its inhabitants are already Palestinian Arabs. Sarah Honig writes about Jordan, pointing out some home truths.

READ MORE
hrrule

What's Holding Up An Effective Solution?

It is Paul Lademain's contention that Israel's leaders — he doesn't think highly of them — are not dealing correctly with the Arabs encroaching on Jewish land. He bluntly diagnoses what's wrong with Israeli governments wanting to demonstrate kindness to their enemy more than showning concern for their own people. As he wrote in ("Israel's Leadership is ignorant of Law", (Nov 21, 2009):

Arabs, especially those educated in the US, apparently understand British law better than today's Israelis and one of the most important laws pertaining to the ownership and title to land is: Possession is 9 points of the law (aka: Possession is 90 per cent of the law.) This "common law" is in effect throughout the US and incorporated into statute, and known as "the law of adverse possession". The law of adverse posssession" allows a trespasser who gains control over lands belonging to another for a statutory period to destroy the true title-holder's claim to its property. The law of adverse possession is well understood by the invading arab scofflaws, and when Israelis — many in Israel's current top leadership — automatically refer to every arab as a 'palestinian' they are, wittingly or not, aiding and abetting the seizure and destruction of their own nation — bit by bit, piece by piece, and acre by acre.

By so easily hoodwinking Israelis — getting Jews to call Islamics 'palestinians' and rewarding them with superior rights — the arabs, who pose as poor and oppressed, are thereby enabled to buffalo Jews at every turn. Worse still, some powerful women lodged in Israel's highest court use every imaginary excuse to reward the Islamics at the expense of Jews — as if these Jewish women were ashamed of being Jews in a Jewish state.

As we've repeatedly said in the past, we must say it again: Nations who agree to relinquish their land or their power in exchange for air-kisses are correctly perceived as "losers," because even if they win the war, they invariably lose the peace. For instance, when Israel bowed to US pressure, and strove to appear magnanimous by bargaining away its right to assert control over lands in its possession, Israel was punished by the world community for its naivete and failure to understand how to exercise its rights and powers. In short, Israel's status as a nation was immediately diminished by this unnecessary sacrificial gesture. A gesture that generated only short-term, illusory benefits. [...]

To perfect control over YOUR land you must first resolve that the land is YOURS — and shall always be yours — and to do so without any qualms and with absolutely no guilt. This new attitude will allow Jews to assert domination and control over their promised land without trembling and worrisome second-guessing, which bad habits have led Jews into the delicious trap of analysis-paralysis — that is, delicious to the arabs, who joyously moved in and began to conquer Israel through their sheer numbers (and untrammeled fecundity) until finally they reached a tipping point which permitted them to launch attacks on Israeli civilians.

An effective prescription for peace can be stated in two words: get real. Israelis need to stop pretending they can sweet talk into normal, peaceful behavior a bunch of people taught by their holy books and their holy men and scholars and political leaders that they are destined to reign over the planet; and that they must never stop working towards that goal. To change the odds, Israelis need first to change themselves somewhat. They need non-Marxist, non-globalist education, a fistful of facts not wishful thinking, new attitudes and firmness of purpose. They need to figure out how to give up the intruders, not Jewish land. Perhaps most of all, they need to admit that much of the Jew's confidence that what he is doing is the right thing to do comes primarily from his spiritual connection to God and the land of Israel. That doesn't seem too much to do when the alternative is oblivion at the hands of a determined group of death cultists aided by Western "friends" with reasons of their own for eliminating the Jews.


Return to What We Are Talking About

TIME TO ANNEX JUDEA AND SAMARIA?

by John Hinderaker. May-June, 2011

Annexing Samaria and Judea, a large part of the territories, may be a small timorous step but it's a step in the right direction. John Hinderaker points out that annexing Judea and Samaria would "entirely moot the idea of an independent Palestinian state, not just deter the U.N. from supporting one for the moment" — an excellent reason for openly claiming land that actually belongs to Israel by international law. What would become of the Arabs living in Samaria and Judea? Hinderaker suggests a new interpretation of the 'right of return': "all Arabs now living in Judea and Samaria would be allowed, or if necessary required, to return to their compatriots in Jordan, Gaza, Egypt and Lebanon."

READ MORE
hrrule

WHY ISRAEL'S IMAGE KEEPS DETERIORATING

by Yoram Shifftan, November-December, 2006

Yoram Shifftan has written significant articles exploring both Israel's ineffective hasbara and her legal right to Biblical Israel. In this essay, he asks why Israel's image continues to deteriorate. He delves and uncovers a major reason: Israel does not rebut Arab lies with the historical and geographical facts that are both accurate and that support her claims. Unfortunately, this lack of resolution is part and parcel of a larger problem — Israel is still dominated by a small but influential group that puts liberal secularism above patriotism.

READ MORE
hrrule

ISRAEL NEEDS TO STOP ARGUING THE PALESTINIANS' CASE AND START ARGUING ITS OWN

by Evelyn Gordon, June 11, 2015

Evelyn Gordon writes an article that shouldn't have to be written. As the title says, it's time Israel stopped acting as unofficial spokesmen pleading the Palestinian cause. With all its savvy in medicine and technology, one would think she could come up with some intelligent way to talk to the world and tell it about the irrevocable right of the Children of Israel to the Land of Israel.

READ MORE
hrrule

NEXT YEAR IN WEST JERUSALEM

by Victor Sharpe, March 31, 2010

Victor Sharpe points out that the fatal flaw in the succession of peace plans is that "[f]or Muslims, no non-Muslim state or nation that is on land once conquered by Muslim armies in the name of Allah will ever be tolerated." This cuts down the number of intelligent options for Israel to 1. "Unpalatable as it must be, the only solution for Israel is to make not one additional concession but resolve to face the entire world if need be rather than deny Jewish history, Jewish faith, and the Zionist cause." It must ignore "the siren calls of a fraudulent, beguiling and deceptive peace."

READ MORE
hrrule

WHAT SHOULD OUR WAR AIMS BE IN WORLD WAR 4

by Tom Carew, September-October, 2006

Tom Carew uses the recent Lebanon War as a starting point on how we need to restructure our thinking about what our objectives are in fighting our Jihadist enemies. Instead of praising the IDF goal of saving enemy civilians at the cost of sacrificing Israeli citizens, he suggests rational war aims are directed at winning, not posturing. He then, succintly, provides the context in which these objectives will be applied — the Fanatical Jihadi Fringe (FJF) war against everyone else. As he points out, there's "no possible scope for any negotiation or compromise with the FJF, because... for the FJF, there is simply nothing to negotiate."

JANUARY 2016 UPDATE: Unfortunately, the theme of maintaining political correctness as defined by those not friends of Israel has continued into 2016. It was prominent in 2014 when Israel went into Gaza. Jewish children died because Israel would not eliminate Arab mortar guarded by human shields. In this year of 2016, the Arabs are using men, women and children to snipe, knife and stone Israeli civilians, seemingly at random. Instead of trying to kill as many terrorists as possible, the Israeli government has put an IDF soldier on trial because he killed a terrorist who had been secured but before it was absolutely determined whether the terrorist was wearing an explosive. Will Israel never learn?

READ MORE
hrrule

UNLEASHING THE DOGS OF WAR

by Martin Sherman, January 6, 2003

Martin Sherman wrote this remarkable essay in January 2003. He pointed out that "[t]he Jewish people have taken their peace-making efforts to irrational extremes." What he said then is true now: "The time has come for Israel to assert its fundamental right to self-defense and for the Jews to remind the world that they can be fearsome warriors when pushed to the wall. It is time to convey to the public at home and abroad that Jewish patience is at an end, that Jewish lives are not cheap and the letting of Jewish blood will no longer be acceptable. It is time for this embattled nation to arise, to cry "havoc" and let slip the dogs of war. Only then will it be clear that the present policy of restraint was indeed a noble gesture of benign strength and not of ignoble faintheartedness."

READ MORE
hrrule

WHAT ISRAEL SHOULD DO NOW: A TIME FOR MORAL CLARITY

by Rabbi Yosef Y. Jacobson, January 16, 2004

Rabbi Yosef Jacobson responds "to some of the painful questions people of goodwill are asking today." His answers are succinct and clear and explain why basic concepts many accept as true — that there is a Palestinian people and that Israel is occupying Palestinian land — are not true. Given the facts, he suggests that "[t]he best way to bring about genuine peace in the Arab-Israeli war is by Israel putting an end to any future negotiations on the land. Israel must assume full security and military control over all of the territories under the united banner of a single country, Eretz Israel."

READ MORE
hrrule

THE U.S. AND BIBLICAL ISRAEL

by Barbara Lerner, January 5, 2012

Barbara Lerner writes about the Muslim ambition to become top dog globally, with Islam the supreme religion and all other religions treated as inferior. Destroying Israel seems to be a necessary step. When invading Israel didn't work, Israel's Arab neighbors began waging a stealth war. Their weapons were oil money, taqqiya (creative lying, approved by the Koran, whereby a Muslim could do and say anything and not feel honor-bound to keep his word) and the newly-invented Palestinians would invert reality and become the quintessential victim. They are succeeding in discrediting Israel — which was out of its league at playing their propaganda game — and winning the overwhelming support of the Europeans. Lerner points out that our acceptance of Muslim's assertions and our denigration of our own Jewish and Christian Biblical values earn the West contempt and make the Muslims more confident they will win. "To change their minds, and our future, we need to reject the Palestinian Taqqiya and embrace Biblical Israel."

READ MORE
hrrule

ISRAEL MUST REACQUIRE SUFFICIENT IDEOLOGICAL DETERMINATION TO PERSEVERE, PROGRESS, REPULSE, AND OVERWHELM ITS ADVERSARIES

by Major General (res.) Gershon Hacohen, October, 2015

Gershon Hacohen advocates a major change in Israel's attitude towards terrorists and in its ways of keeping its enemies at bay. He urges a change from reaction to proaction. He promotes a policy change from minimal and mostly responsive actions that at best contain terrorist activity to actions that will overwhelm Israel's adversaries and stop the low-level but constant terrorism. He advocates viewing "Israel as a stepping stone for redemption and as the Jewish national spiritual homeland" rather than "as a safe haven." As it is now, Israel is locked "into a defensive posture" dictated by the actions of the Arabs. She should be seizing the initiative. She is the one to "re-shape and shake-up the strategic environment"; she is the one that should be determining the facts on the ground. Jerusalem as a whole needs to be connected seamlessly to its satellite communities. As Hacohen writes, "We are seeking the return to Zion in all regions of our homeland! And if Israel does not insist on this, it will steadily withdraw inward, toward the coastal plain, and edge towards decline." Jewish settlements in Samaria and Judea should be treated as the "forward outposts of Zionism" that they are.

Hacohen's assessment of Israel's squeamish and inadequate response to Arab hostility is readily confirmed. It is absurd that Jewish citizens only obtain permission to build in Samaria and Judea with great difficulty, while the continuous illegal building by Arabs is ignored by the authorities. It is shameful that the Arab Waqf sets the rules so that Jews can not pray on the Temple Mount but Arab children play ball games on Judaism's Holiest Site. It is almost fifty years since the Jews reclaimed eastern Jerusalem from the Jordanian invaders, and it is still a slow, painful and expensive process for Jews to reclaim their property. Too many politicians, judges and the media acquiesce in Arabs continuing to squat rent-free in buildings that legally belong to Jews. They don't stop the Arabs from building new constructions on land owned by Jews. They have allowed whole neighborhoods to be taken over by the Arabs in this manner. The upshot has been that the Arabs have become arrogant. Snotty Arab children have no fear of punishment as they terrorize Jewish children or harass IDF soldiers. Jews on the Temple Mount are attacked by Arab women screeching at them. Jews are arrested for moving their lips — they might be praying! All this makes the Arabs more and more confident that they will eliminate the Jews and take over all of Israel.

READ MORE
hrrule



PART 2: LEGAL CONCEPTS AND PERTINENT LEGAL DOCUMENTS


RELATIONSHIPS AMONG THE PERTINENT LEGAL DOCUMENTS CONFIRMING THE JEWISH OWNERSHIP OF THE LAND OF ISRAEL

The articles in this set connect the relevant legal documents, emphasizing the importance of the San Remo Conference and the ensuing Mandate for Palestine.

  • The Sykes-Picot Agreement (1916): Also known as the Asia Minor Agreement, this was a secret agreement between Britain and France on how they would divide the Middle East region of the Ottoman Empire among the Allied Powers, with specific areas marked out on an official map. France would control today's Syria, Lebanon, northern Iraq and southeast Turkey; Britain would control the area that is today's and the Negev would be a single Arab state or a confederation of Arab states; and the area southward from Gaza to the Dead Sea and covering the Ottoman Sanjak of Jerusalem would be under international administration. Jerusalem and Jewish interests were not mentioned. They did worry about controlling arms importation into the Arab territory. The treaty was officially nullified by the Allies at the San Remo conference in April, 1920. The full text is available at
    avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/sykes.asp.
  • The Balfour Declaration (November 2, 1917): This was the famous letter Lord Arthur James Balfour sent to Baron Walter Rothschild acknowledging that: "The British government favored the creation of a Jewish national home in Palestine." The full text is available at
    http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/balfour.asp.
  • The Covenant of the League of Nations (1919 plus amendments to 1924): This detailed the structure and membership of the newly-formed League of Nations. Some of the text indicated concern with how to implement the League's Mission, which was: to promote international co-operation and to achieve international peace and security. Article 8, for example, called for reducing national armaments. According to Article 12, arbitration was the method of choice for settling disputes. Article 22 of the Covenant established "the principle that the well-being and development of ... peoples [not yet able to stand by themselves] form a sacred trust of civilization." The full text is available at
    http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/leagcov.asp.
  • The San Remo Conference (April 19-26, 1920): The Allied Supreme Council passed resolutions at San Remo, Italy, that created mandates for administering the new partitions of the once Ottoman Empire. The boundaries would be finalized by the Principal Allied Powers. On April 24th, they passed the resolution for Palestine, confirming, as Joshua Teitelbaum put it (September 15, 2010, here) "the historic roots of the internationally-recognized right of Jewish self-determination. It recognized the existence of the Jews as more than individuals who subscribed to a certain religion – Judaism – but rather as a corporate group deserving of national expression, in this case in the form of a national home." This document, backed by the entire membership of the League of Nations, authorized the decision to put the land on both sides of the Jordan River, the land that was once Biblical Palestine, in a permanent trust for the Jewish people with the understanding "that this would not involve the surrender of the rights hitherto enjoyed by the non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country...." It incorporated the provisions of the Balfour Declaration combined with Article 22 of the League of Nations Covenant. The full text is available at
    http://www.cfr.org/israel/san-remo-resolution/p15248
  • The Treaty of Sèvres (August 10, 1920): This was one of group of documents that spelled the end of the Ottoman Empire. In signing the Treaty of Sèvres, the Ottomans relinquished all of their non-Turkish territory. The treaty spoke of an independent Armenia and an autonomous Kurdistan; these provisions were later voided by the Treaty of Lausanne. Articles 94 and 95 of Section 6 of Part 3 recapitulated the San Remo provisions; Britain was given the mandate for the southern half of the Ottoman province of Syria, the region known as Palestine. The full text is available at
    http://www.hri.org/docs/sevres/
  • The Franco-British Boundary Convention (December 23, 1920): This demarcated the boundaries between Palestine, Mesopotamia and Syria-Lebanon — between the British and French mandates — rectifying the Sykes-Picot agreement of 1916. Much of the Golan was illegally put in the French-controlled area, and hence removed from the Palestine Mandate. Otherwise, with some modifications, Palestine was most of the land that had been Jewish in Biblical times. It was land on both sides of the Jordan River. The full text is available at
    https://www.jstor.org/stable/2213236
  • The British White Paper (June 3, 1922): In response to the violence starting in 1920, where the Arabs rioted, looted Jewish shops and massacred Jews, the British issued this White Paper reassuring the Arabs (!) that the Balfour Declaration did not "support "the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language, or culture in Palestine." And, as the Jewish Virtual Library put it (here), it "also established the principle of 'economic absorptive capacity' as a factor for determining the immigration quota of Jews to Palestine." On the other hand, it stated unequivocally that "the Declaration, reaffirmed by the Conference of the Principle Allied Powers at San Remo and again in the Treaty of Sevres, is not susceptible of change." The White Paper noted that letter from Sir Henry McMahon to the Sharif of Mecca did indeed promise Arab independence from the Ottomans within particular territories. However, the same letter excluded "the portions of Syria lying to the west of the District of Damascus. This reservation has always been regarded by His Majesty's Government as covering the vilayet of Beirut and the independent Sanjak of Jerusalem. thus excluded from Sir Henry McMahon's pledge." The full text is available at
    http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/brwh1922.asp
  • 1920 palestine

    1922 palestine

  • The Mandate for Palestine (July 24, 1922): Between the time the provisions of San Remo were formulated and the time they were confirmed and detailed in the Mandate for Palestine, Winston Churchill illegally handed over "the administration" of Transjordan (the land west of the Jordan and ove three quarters of Mandated Palestine) to Abdullah, Sharif Hussein's second son; the region eventually became the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. The Mandate gave "civil and religious rights" to all the residents of the Land (no mention was made specifically of "Arabs"). Article 2 said, "The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble, and the development of self-governing institutions, and also for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion." The full text is available at
    http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/palmanda.asp
  • The Anglo-American Convention (December 3, 1924): In 1922 President Warren G Harding signed the unanimous joint resolution of Congress recognizing a future Jewish state in "the whole of Palestine." The Anglo-American Convention is a follow-up document. President Calvin Coolidge by proclamation confirmed the United States of America's acceptance of the provisions of the Mandate for Palestine. It included the full text of the Mandate for Palestine. The US needed a separate document, other than the Mandate for Palestine, because it was not a member of the League of Nations. There was the ambiguity that the USA's acceptance was in part because "the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on the 2nd November, 1917, by the Government of his Britannic Majesty," when Palestine meant the land on both sides of the Jordan River, not just the land that remained after Britain essentially gave TransJordan 78% of the land in 1921. The full text is available
    http://www.alliedpowersholocaust.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/1924-Anglo-American-Convention.pdf
  • The United Nations Charter (1945): The assets of the League of Nations, including the Palestine Mandate, were transferred to the new United Nations organization — it came into being June 26, 1945 --- after its Charter came into effect on October 24, 1945. The League of Nations held its last assembly in April 8, 1946, and dissolved itself on April 20, 1946. The UN charter has 19 Chapters and covers membership, agencies, the General Assembly, the Security Council and the Secretariat, among other subjects. Chapters, in turn, contain Articles, that specify rules, regulations, policy, and procedures. Article 80, Chapter 12, is most relevant to the Mandate for Palestine. Speaking of the International Trusteeship System, it states that "nothing in this Chapter shall be construed in or of itself to alter in any manner the rights whatsoever of any states or any peoples or the terms of existing international instruments to which Members of the United Nations may respectively be parties." Often informally labeled the Jewish People's clause, Article 80 of the UN Charter means that the Jewish right to Palestine and the Land of Israel continues in perpetuum, even though the Mandate expired May 15, 1948, when Israel became a sovereign State. It confirms that the right to the Land of Israel and Palestine is vested in the Jewish People and can not be altered or abrogated. This means, for example, that it would be illegal for the UN to transfer ownership of any part of Palestine to the Palestine Authority. The full text of the Charter is available at
    http://www.un.org/en/charter-united-nations/

Return to What We Are Talking About

MANDATE FOR PALESTINE

by Eli E. Hertz, November-December, 2012

This is a superb presentation by Eli E. Hertz on the Legal Aspects of Jewish Rights to the Land of Israel. It begins by asking What is Palestine? It explains the importance of the term Mandate and presents the chronology of the events leading to signing of the document that placed Mandated Palestine in an irrevocable trust for the Jewish people, to develop into a Jewish state. Three facts are of particular importance. (1) The representatives of the League of Nations viewed the Mandate as reinforcing an already existing historic connection between the Jews and their ancient homeland. The Land was theirs by right. The Jews would be redeeming, reconstituting and recreating their national Home in situ. (2) The rest of the Middle East part of the Ottoman Empire (some 99.99% of the land) was cut up into states that were given to the Arabs. In some cases there was a long-established connection to the land. In others, boundaries were arbitrary and were a poor fit to the clans and sects of the various local Arabs living in that particular region. (3) The Assets, Rights and Obligations of the League of Nations were transferred to the United Nations where it came into being. The Palestine Mandate is valid.

The version on Think-Israel of Hertz's article is in slides format. A presentation that emphasizes the text material is available on the Myths and Facts website here.

READ MORE
hrrule

SUMMARY OF ISRAEL'S LEGAL RIGHTS TO JUDEA AND SAMARIA

by Ted Belman, November-December, 2009

Ted Belman summarizes the unbroken series of treaties and resolutions, laid out by the San Remo Resolution, the League of Nations and the United Nations, that give the Jewish People title to Mandatory Palestine and the city of Jerusalem. Ownership of the Land went from the defunct Ottoman Empire to the present State of Israel. The Arabs were never involved. The "Palestinians" had never owned the land; they had never had a state on the land. Considering that during the same period and by the same mechanisms, the Arabs acquired title to over 99% of the Middle East, the Arabs can hardly be considered to be deprived of land.

READ MORE hrrule

WHY IS THE SAN REMO CONFERENCE SO IMPORTANT?

by Canadians for Israel's Legal Rights, August 10, 2011

This article focuses on the sequence of events that led to the San Remo Conference. It describes the context and environment within which the San Remo Conference took place. It also serves as a sister paper to the next article below, Howard Grief's article on the San Remo conference. It was produced by the Canadians for Israel's Legal Rights (CILF).

 READ MORE
hrrule

THE RIGHTS OF THE JEWISH PEOPLE OVER THE LAND OF ISRAEL UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW

by Howard Grief, December 5, 2010

Howard Grief discusses the documents that established the firm legal foundation of Israel being the exclusive owner of the land designated as Jewish by the League of Nations. The Land of Israel — current Israel, Samaria and Judea (aka West Bank), the Golan and Gaza — was given to the Jewish people as a perpetual trust and handed in that condition to the successor to the League of the Nations, the United Nations. This is a clear presentation of the documents that preceded the document of ownership and some of the history of the time. Any whittling away of this trust is illegal, whether it is attempted by a foreign country, the Israeli government or the U.N. itself. The question that remains is why have successive Israeli governments not asserted their claim. For that matter, why would a Jewish government allow control of the Temple Mount, its most holy site, by the Arabs?

 READ MORE
hrrule

TWO NOTABLE EVENTS RECALLED THROUGH THE PRISM OF HISTORY

by Alex Rose, June 6, 2010

Alex Rose writes about two notable events of historical importance. The first was the San Remo Conference of 1920. "It recognized the exclusive national Jewish rights to the Land of Israel under international law, on the strength of the historical connection of the Jewish people to the territory previously known as Palestine." The San Remo Resolution "remains irrevocable, legally binding and valid to this day." The second was Abba Eban's speech to the UN General Assembly's Special Political Committee in 1958 suggesting transfer of the Arab refugees to the states responsible for the problem — the Arab states that had invaded Israel in 1948 and 1967. Actually, these states were responsible for two sets of refugees: the Arabs from Israel and the Jews from the different Arab countries. Israel, with few resources, took in the Jews. The Arabs had huge resources but have reneged. It's time they faced up to their responsibility.

READ MORE
hrrule

'PALESTINE' IN THE LAND OF ISRAEL?

by Jerold S. Auerbach, June 29, 2011

Jerold Auerbach does what shouldn't be necessary — he reminds the politicos of the U.N. that its creating a Palestinian State in what was Mandated Palestine would be illegal. It would violate the U.N.'s own role as guarantor that what was Mandated Palestine is held in an irrevocable trust for the Jewish people. It is, in fact, incorporated in the UN Charter as Article 80. Auerbach also explores why Israel has not made this information generally known. He writes, contrasting a secular government and more or less religious settlers: "At best ambivalent - and usually hostile - toward Jews in Judea and Samaria, government officials have resolutely maintained silence about the international guarantees for the 'close settlement' of Jews west of the Jordan River." But that doesn't do away with reality: Israeli settlements are legitimate because Samaria and Judea belong to Israel. They are legally Israel's by the same authority that gave the rest of the Ottoman Middle East to the Arabs. "The Palestinian claim, by contrast, is a contrived recent invention. ... Devised by Arabs who only recently identified themselves as 'Palestinians,' it is built on the foundation of perpetual victimization claims, the international determination to delegitimize Israel, and - perhaps most revealing - the pillaging of Jewish and Zionist history." Annexation by Israel of at least pieces of Samaria and Judea is a low-keyed but necessary solution.

READ MORE
hrrule

APPLICABLE LEGAL CONCEPTS AND TERMINOLOGY

The articles in this Section are concerned with some fundamental legal concepts and how they do and do not apply in determining whether Israel is occupying Jewish land or Arab land. Specifically, the first article discusses what the rights of a sovereign state entail in context of the Jewish ownership of the Land of Israel. In the second article, the oft-times clashing concepts of self-determination versus the rights of a sovereign state frame a discussion of the legality of the settlements in Judea and Samaria. The third article explains the essential difference between legal and legitimacy. The final article in the set discusses the impact of media sloppiness in using legal terminology and citing legal documents.

Because some of the information in Part 2 on Israel's claim to Jewish land depends on the legal concept of a Trust, we repost here "The Palestine Mandate in a Nutshell", written by Wallace Edward Brand. It first appeared in Introduction to the September-October 2014 Issue (see here and below). The "unshelled" version is at
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2385304.
See also Brand's discussion of Israel's ownership as applied to Judea and Samaria here.

The text of San Remo Agreement provided: "The High Contracting Parties agree to ENTRUST... the administration of Palestine . . .

Trust law for non-lawyers

After finding an intention to set up a trust, look for:

  1. The "settlor", the person or entity setting it up. He contributes the trust res.
  2. The cestui que trust or "beneficiary" of the trust.
  3. The trustee.
  4. The trust res or the thing place in trust.
  5. The purpose of the trust.
  6. The term of the trust.

These are the vital elements of a trust. Some are expressed; others may be inferred. For example if you place a delicate Ming dynasty bowl in trust for your daughter aged 5, others may infer that the purpose of the trust that is to vest when she is 30 is to preserve and protect it until she is capable of doing that herself.

The 1920 San Remo agreement of the Allied Principal War Powers contained the British Balfour Declaration of Policy word-for-word. The 1922 Palestine Mandate approved by 51 countries that were members of the League of Nations, and also by the United States, filled in the details needed to apply the Balfour Policy.

One. At San Remo, the settlor of the trust was the Supreme Council of the Allied Principal War Powers in WWI. They defeated Germany who commenced the war and the Ottoman Empire who joined Germany in making war on the Allies. Under customary International Law, the victors in a defensive war may negotiate with the vanquished to establish new boundaries for it and keep all the territory outside the new boundary. In this way the Ottoman Empire was reduced to Turkey. The remaining Turkish territory in Europe was allocated by the Supreme Council at the 1919 Paris Peace Talks. Claims for territory in the Middle East — Syria, Mesopotamia and Palestine — were resolved at the reconvening of the group at San Remo, the following year. At the Paris Peace talks the Allies set up the League of Nations including Article 22 of its Covenant that provided for "mandates". These were combination trusts and guardianships for countries that had been colonies of Turkey for 400 years. The Mandatory was to provide stability and tutelage for their political development to become independent representative governments over time.

Two. The cestui que trust is the beneficiary. The beneficiary has no right to go to a "law court" to protect his rights. That is only the right of the trustee. He has legal dominion over the trust res. For a tangible piece of property, such as a Ming dynasty bowl, only the trustee has the right of possession. If it is stolen, only the trustee can go into a court of law to reclaim it. The beneficiary is limited to protecting his rights against abuse by the trustee. He is entitled to go into a court of equity. The beneficiary here was the Jewish People or World Jewry. It was the Jewish people and the Arab people who had submitted competing claims for collective political rights to Palestine at the Paris Peace talks. Woodrow Wilson's Commission of Inquiry in searching for those throughout the world having the right of self-determination had said of the Jews that Palestine was "the cradle and home of their vital race" and noted that the Jews were the only people that had no other land.

An express term of the trust made the World Zionist Association the formal advisor to the mandate government. Another term required the trustee to facilitate only Jewish immigration so the Jews could become a majority.

Three. The mandate was based on English law concepts of trusts and guardianships. Britain volunteered to be trustee or "mandatory" and was selected.

Four. The thing placed in trust, the trust res, was an intangible, the collective right of a group to establish a government and provide for its administration. This is referred to as "group political rights". An individual political right, sometimes referred to as included in "civil rights", is the right to one vote for each citizen.

Five. The purpose of the trust was, in the case of most of the mandates, providing a stable government until such time as the majority of the people in the territory of the state developed politically and could represent themselves - there having been no opportunity in the last 400 years for the inhabitants of the former Turkish colonies to do that. It was also, in the case of the Palestine Mandate, to avoid an antidemocratic Jewish government. At the time the Jews were in the minority in the entire territory of Palestine and if they had legal dominion over the political rights, an antidemocratic government would be in power. One purpose of the Palestine Mandate was to delay representative self-government until the Jews were in the majority within the area to be ruled.

Six. The term of the trust — it was to end when the Jewish population in the area to be ruled was in the majority and the Jews had the capability, just as any European Government to exercise sovereignty. That would avoid an antidemocratic government such as later was founded in Syria by the French, of a minority of Alawites that under Hafez Assad and Bashir Assad has caused so much misery and destruction.

Historical note

In 1948 the Jewish population within the Armistice Line in Palestine became the majority. The trust res partially vested. In 1967 it became completely vested. Coincidentally the UN Partition Resolution 181 was enacted on November 29,1947, not long before 1948 when Israel proclaimed its independence. That is why many people believe that Resolution 181 is the root of Israel's sovereignty. But the Arabs rejected this Resolution. By law it was only a recommendation that must be approved by all involved before becoming international law. It died at birth when rejected by the Arabs.

In 1964 the PLO charter was drafted in Moscow. It posited that there was a "Palestinian Arab People". In the '60s also the Soviet Diplomats at the UN promoted two International Conventions dignifying the right of any "people" to have the right of political self-determination not just under natural law, but also under international law. These became effective in 1976. But the drafters at the UN made sure that these rights under international law were subordinate to the right of a preexisting state to territorial integrity because since the new world order was established after the Peace of Westphalia, national boundaries of sovereign states have been inviolable.


Return to What We Are Talking About

LEGAL RIGHTS AND TITLE OF SOVEREIGNTY OF THE JEWISH PEOPLE TO THE LAND OF ISRAEL AND PALESTINE UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW

by Howard Grief, February 2004

Howard Grief's book, "Legal Foundations and Boundaries of Israel under International Law" was one of the first and one of the most complete explanations of Israel's indisputable sovereign rights under international law to Israel, Samaria, Judea, Golan and Gaza. In this essay, Howard Grief brilliantly fulfills his objective "to set down in a brief, yet clear and precise manner the legal rights and title of sovereignty of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel and Palestine under international law." He makes clear that Jewish National Home meant the Jewish State and its boundaries are co-extensive with those of Palestine, including both Cisjordan and Transjordan. He makes clear that the existence of a Palestinian nation "is the greatest hoax of the 20th century and continues unabated into the 21st century. This hoax is easily exposed by the fact that the 'Palestinians' possess no distinctive history, language or culture, and are not essentially different in the ethnological sense from the Arabs living in the neighboring countries of Syria, Jordan, Lebanon and Iraq." He makes clear that "The Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 and the Hague Regulations of 1907 are acts of genuine international law, but they have no direct application or relevance to the legal status of Judea, Samaria, the Golan and Gaza which are integral territories of the Jewish National Home and the Land of Israel under the sovereignty of the State of Israel. These acts would apply only to the Arab occupation of Jewish territories, as occurred between 1948 and 1967, and not to the case of Israeli rule over the Jewish homeland." He makes clear that Israel's title to all of Palestine was not abrogated by later UN resolutions asserting that the "Palestinian people" have legal right to Judea, Samaria and Gaza. This paper should be part of your cache of information for the next time you are told that Resolution XXX of the U.N. guarantees the rights of the Palestinian Arabs to YYY.

READ MORE
hrrule

INTERNATIONAL LAW, SELF-DETERMINATION AND THE SOVEREIGN STATE: AS APPLIED TO THE STATUS OF SAMARIA AND JUDEA

by Wallace Brand, January, 2016

Part I examines the legal basis of the Levy report, which concluded that Jewish settlements are legal. In fact, the legality of Israel's presence in Judea, Samaria and East Jerusalem was res judicata as of April 25, 1920, when [at the San Remo Conference] World Jewry received a beneficial interest in the political rights to Palestine that was intended to mature into a legal interest. The policy for the Arab States that were established at around the same time by other Mandates was to deal with the current Arab inhabitants but the beneficiary for Mandated Palestine was World Jewry. The Mandate thus confirmed a living connection between the Jews and their homeland, extending over some 3700 years. As Wallace Brand writes, "... under International Law, the Jewish People have sovereignty over Palestine west of the Jordan River and the Arab people residing in Palestine calling themselves "The Palestinian Arab People" do not." Part II "shows that International Law does not support unilateral claims of secession from a sovereign state such as that of the alleged Palestinian Arab People because when there is a tension between the right of a 'people' to self-determination and the territorial integrity of a sovereign state, the latter is paramount."

READ MORE
hrrule

SETTLEMENTS, AGREEMENTS, LEGITIMACY

by Michael Zebulon, September 5, 2010

Michael Zebulon provides us with a lively exposition of a serious topic: the legality of the Jewish settlements in Samaria and Judea. It is written in the form of a rebuttal to Pres. Obama who has questioned their legitimacy. Zebulon delves deeply into the concept of legitimacy and why the term is not twin to legality This essay provides a well-rounded description of the commitment in international law to the all-member ruling by the League of Nation that what was called Mandated Palestine s in an irrevocable trust for the Jewish people for all time. The trust was given over with no changes or exceptions to the U.N. Read this. It will sharpen your understanding of why settlements are legal. And legitimate.

READ MORE
hrrule

DOES THE INTERNATIONAL NEWS MEDIA OVERLOOK ISRAEL'S LEGAL RIGHTS IN THE PALESTINIAN-ISRAELI CONFLICT?

by Dan Diker, June 10, 2003

This is a meticulous examination of how the media, by using sloppy language, intentionally or unintentionally further Arab land claims. The media promote the wrong idea that the Arabs have international law on their side, even though, as an example, the drafters of Resolution 242 did not plan on an Arab state, except Jordan, west of the Jordan River. As Dan Diker writes, "The emotionally charged Palestinian liberation story is, for many reporters, more compelling than the dry, factual context of history, especially existing international laws and resolutions that support Israel's narrative."

READ MORE
hrrule

ISRAEL'S LEGAL OWNERSHIP OF THE LAND OF ISRAEL: SIGNIFICANCE AND IMPLICATIONS

There are far-reaching consequences of Israel's legal ownership. This section deals with some of the implications of Israel's ownership of the Land of Israel. As Matthew Hausman writes (see here.)

The acceptance of the San Remo program by the League of Nations — and the restatement of its ambitions in the 1922 Mandate for Palestine — evidenced an acknowledgment of the Jews' status as an indigenous people and their right to settle anywhere in their homeland, including Judea and Samaria, and thus underscored the legal basis for the reestablishment of the Jewish state. Consequently, traditional recognition of the Jews' indigenous rights should inform any proposals for resolving the Arab-Israeli conflict. This would be consistent with the ideals set forth in the "Declaration on Rights of Indigenous Peoples," voted on by the U.N. in 2007. Of particular relevance is the language contained in Article 10, which states:

Indigenous peoples shall not be forcibly removed from their lands or territories. No relocation shall take place without the free, prior and informed consent of the indigenous peoples concerned and after agreement on just and fair compensation and, where possible, with the option of return.

Though the true intent of this nonbinding declaration may have been to promote the Palestinian cause at Israel's expense, it cannot be divorced from the long-standing recognition under international legal conventions that the Jews are indigenous to the Land of Israel. Accordingly, it implicitly reinforces the Jewish connection to lands the Palestinians now attempt to claim as their own, and provides justification for potential resolutions that are premised on legally-cognizable Jewish claims, rather than on politically-motivated or apocryphal Palestinian pretensions.

Hausman points out, "A Palestinian state created by dispossessing Jews from their ancestral lands would be in violation of international law and would represent a repudiation of history." Arguably, this would also be the case were an Israel government itself to act against Jewish ownership of the land. Two articles in this section examine this issue.


Return to What We Are Talking About

INTERNATIONAL LAW REGARDING THE LAND OF ISRAEL AND JERUSALEM

by Elliott A. Green

Elliot Green brings the significance of San Remo up to the present time. "International Law" is often used as a buzz word implying that Israel is violating international Law and is "occupying" the Land of Israel illegally. On the contrary, as Green writes:

International law has recognized Jewish rights to sovereignty over the Land of Israel and to settlement throughout the land. In April 1920, at the San Remo Conference (part of the post-World War I peace negotiations), the Principal Allied Powers, acting on behalf of the international community, recognized all the land between the Jordan River and the sea, including Jerusalem, as part of the Jewish National Home, based on the Jewish people's historic rights.

[...] The San Remo decision for the Jewish National Home was ratified by the League of Nations in 1922 and endorsed by a joint resolution of the United States Congress that same year, with a more official US endorsement coming in the Anglo-American Convention on Palestine (proclaimed 1925).

[...] When the UN was founded in 1945, it reaffirmed through its Charter the existing territorial rights of peoples as they had been before the war (Article 80). This applied of course to the Jewish National Home. [...] Hence, the areas that Jordan called "West Bank," as well as east Jerusalem (which had thousands of Jewish residents before 1948), remained part of the National Home even during Jordanian occupation.

READ MORE
hrrule

THE EXCLUSIVE POLITICAL RIGHTS GRANTED TO THE JEWS IN 1920 AT SAN REMO

by Wallace Edward Brand, September-October, 2012

 Wallace Brand writes that the solution to the Arab-Israeli Conflict is usually presented as either a single bi-national state with an Arab majority OR two states, with the Arab state cutting Israel or residing in its heartland. He reminds us there is a third way that is based on rights to the territory granted at San Remo almost a hundred years ago: a single Jewish state. In this article, he discusses the background, details and implications of the momentous San Remo decision.

 READ MORE
hrrule

SAN REMO: THE FORGOTTEN MILESTONE

by Salomon Benzimra, May-June, 2009

Salomon Benzimra points out the significance of the Sam Remo Conference. For one, "for the first time in history, Palestine became a legal and political entity." The so-called Palestinian people — the local Arabs in Israel and the Territories — had never had a state or sovereignty. Also, the "de jure sovereignty of Palestine was vested in the Jewish people." The San Remo conference was, as Benzimra notes,"a major historical milestone," yet in recent time, the irrevocable grant of sovereignty over the Land of Israel by the Jewish people made by the international community has hardly been mentioned, thus allowing nonsensical claims that the Jews were illegally occupying the land to be taken seriously [emphasis added].

READ MORE

hrrule

A LEGAL CHALLENGE TO SHARON'S UPROOTING POLICY

by Yoram Shifftan, March-April, 2005

This was written before PM Sharon evacuated the Jews from Gaza. But it is applicable to any giving away of Jewish land. Yoram Shifftan provides a meticulous analyses of the legal status of the "territories". He bases the legitimacy of the Jewish claim to Biblical Israel — Gaza, Samaria and Judea (aka the West Bank) — on rock-solid international law. Israel holds Biblical Israel as a sacred trust for all future generations and can not gift it away. What is surprising — and appalling — is that Israel's diplomatic corps and its educational system did not proclaim these truths; they were mute while the Arabs invented fanciful claims that the world accepted as valid. A decade later, we are still suffering the consequences of the Gaza give-away.

READ MORE
hrrule

ISRAEL'S STRANGEST SELF-DEFEATING PARADOX: Forgetting To Teach Itself And The World Jewish National Rights In Palestine

by Yoram Shifftan, July-August, 2004

Yoram Shifftan expands on earlier articles that discussed the centrality of international law to support Israel's right to mandated Palestine — land the Arabs claim as theirs. He suggests that Israeli leaders have been delinquent in not teaching the facts to their own citizens as well as proclaiming them to the world. He emphasizes the continuing obligations of the Mandate.

READ MORE
hrrule

JERUSALEM IS A JEWISH ISSUE

by Ted Belman, November 28, 2007

This was written at the time of the Annapolis Summit, which based "peace" activities on false premises in yet another attempt to nibble away more of the land that is Jewish. One indication that Jerusalem was on the cutting board was P.M. Olmert's clearly expressed annoyance that diaspora Jews believe they have a stake in and a say about Jerusalem. Olmert claimed Jerusalem was solely an Israeli issue. Ted Belman summarizes the arguments that acknowledge the legality of world Jewry's claim to Jerusalem.

READ MORE
hrrule

JERUSALEM

by Eli E. Hertz, September-October, 2007

Eli E. Hertz demolishes the propaganda piously sprouted by those who want to break the indivisible connection of Jews and Jerusalem. How does he do this? By stating the facts of history, contrasting the age-old and ageless connection of Jews to Jerusalem to the meager and politically-motivated connection of Muslims to Jerusalem. Legal information on the internationalization of Jerusalem and U.N. resolutions on Jerusalem are to be found in the second half of the article. This essay is both readable and worth reading.

READ MORE
hrrule

DOES ISRAEL OWN JUDEA AND SAMARIA? ARE THE SETTLEMENTS LEGAL?

The Land of Israel is in a perpetual trust for the Jewish people. Because Judea and Samaria (aka the West Bank) and every bit of Jerusalem are part of the Land of Israel, they belong to the Jewish people. There should be no need for additional discussion. However, Jordan occupied the area for some nineteen years after she invaded Israel in 1948, so there was time for all sorts of fanciful concoctions to take root. In 1967, when Israel was able to reclaim the Territories — Judea, Samaria, the Golan and the Gaza Strip — and the eastern section of Jerusalem, like Jack's beanstalk, these fantasies grew tall and expansive. Unfortunately, Israel didn't appreciate how important it was to set the record straight right away. In fact, since the Oslo Accords of 1993, Israeli governments have not even responded to Arab accusations that Israel is violating international law by building settlements in Samaria and Judea. Perhaps they fear introducing reality into that long-playing fantasy: the Peace Process. Perhaps they fear being the ones to put a spoke in the mum-mum policy Western politicians cherish: making global peace by putting another Arab state inside Israel.

The attacks on the settlements have been vicious and successful. Most of the world is sure the Jewish settlements should not be allowed. Even the White House, when it isn't fighting for transgender bathrooms, bemoans settlement activity. The American Administration ignores the crumbling of the fragile political structures in the Middle East, while using its power to eat away at land that legitimately belongs to Israel. This misguided mission is more than irrational when you consider it speaks quaintly of two people, Israelis and Palestinians, who need to share the same land, ignoring that new forces, more vicious and more recalcitrant than Fatah or even Hamas, are acting as directed by the Koran to use any and all means to put the entire world under Sharia law.

In 2012, PM Netanyahu appointed a committee of legal experts to focus on a specific issue: are the Jewish settlements in Samaria and Judea legal or are they violating international law? The Committee's report was a well-phrased reiteration of some of what became international law at the San Remo Conference almost a hundred years ago, namely, the Jewish people own Judea and Samaria. Nothing has changed that fact. The Levy Report has affirmed that the decades-long presence of Israel in Judea and Samaria is not "belligerent occupation." Israel has the legal right to settle in Judea and Samaria. To date, PM Netanyahu hasn't acted on the Report, while those that wish to do to the Jews in the Territories what Ariel Sharon did to the Jews of Gaza continue to tell tall tales.

[Part of this introduction was taken from the introduction to the November-December 2013 Issue of Think-Israel.]


Return to What We Are Talking About

INTERNATIONAL LAW AND THE ARAB-ISRAEL CONFLICT

by Ian Lacey, September-October, 2007

Israel and Palestine by the renowned Professor of International Law, Julius Stone, "presented a detailed analysis of the central principles of international law governing the issues raised by the Arab-Israel conflict." His student, Ian Lacey, has provided us a summary of the main points, using the text of the original. Lacey's extracts can be downloaded from Australia/Israel and Jewish Affairs Council. October 13, 2003. We present here Part I, entitled "The Legal Status of the Territories."

READ MORE
ian lacey

ISRAELI SOVEREIGNTY OVER JERUSALEM, JUDEA AND SAMARIA

by Wallace Edward Brand, March-April, 2010

Wallace Brand writes on the legal underpinnings of Jewish ownership of the Territories — Samaria and Judea — and of the eastern part of Jerusalem. These areas were assigned to Israel in the San Remo conference in 1920 and in the Mandate for Palestine. They were part of the area held in trust for the Jewish people. They were destined to become part of the modern state of Israel as soon as the Jewish people built the infrastructure and population to exercise sovereignty. But Britain was a bad trustee. Between the San Remo Conference and the League of Nations voting on the Mandate, Britain lopped off the area east of the Jordan, Trans-Jordan, to be administered by a Hashemite sheikh, leaving 26% percent of the land — Samaria, Judea, Gaza, the Golan and what became Israel proper — in trust for the Jews. Jordan captured Samaria, Judea and Gaza when the neighboring Arab countries invaded Israel at her birth in 1948. Israel did not get them back until 1967-8, when her Arab neighbors again invaded Israel. Foolishly, she did not immediately formally annex Samaria and Judea, thus giving the local Arabs the opportunity to invent out of whole cloth a history and geography that claimed that the Arabs owned the area. They also tried to redefine 'national home' as being a part of, not all of, the Palestine Mandate. Brand makes clear why that didn't work. He also makes clear that Jewish settlements are legal because they are built on Jewish land.

READ MORE
hrrule

ARE THE SETTLEMENTS LEGAL?

by Eugene V. Rostow, July-August, 2003

Eugene V. Rostow wrote two articles on the Jewish settlements for the New Republic during the presidency of George H.W. Bush. The first, published April 23, 1990, was written a few months before Saddam Hussain of Iraq invaded Kuwait and precipitated the first Gulf War. Bush excluded Israel from fighting during the War and then, after the USA had forced Iraq to withdraw from Kuwait, he pressured the then Prime Minister, Yitzhak Shamir, to attend the Madrid Conference, a Middle East peace initiative that led to Oslo 1. The second article was published October 21, 1991, just days before the Madrid Conference. Mr. Rostow helped draft the UN Security Council Resolution #242, which called on Israel and the Arab States (not the Palestinians) to make peace, and allows Israel to administer the territories until there is a just and lasting peace.

In these essays, Rostow imparts important information on several matters. First, he emphasizes Israel's right of settlement, which was bestowed by the League of Nations and written into the Palestine mandate. He observes that "[t]he State Department has never denied that under the mandate 'the Jewish people' have the right to settle in the area." However, the State Dep't inter alia objected to the Jews building in the territories by insisting "that Jewish settlements in the West Bank violate Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, which deals with the protection of civilians in wartime. Where the territory of one contracting party is occupied by another contracting party, the convention prohibits many of the inhumane practices of the Nazis and the Soviets before and during the second World War - the mass transfer of people into or out of occupied territories for purposes of extermination, slave labor, or colonization. For example, Article 49 provides that the occupying power "shall not deport or transfer part of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies." Rostow makes clear Article 49 doesn't apply because the "Jewish settlers in the West Bank are volunteers."

Rostow makes clear that it is not Israel's legal standing that is at issue. He points out that "[t]he controversy about Jewish settlements in the West Bank is not, therefore, about legal rights but about the political will to override legal rights." He asks whether "the United States prepared to use all its influence in Israel to award the whole of the West Bank to Jordan or to a new Arab state, and force Israel back to its 1967 borders?"

READ MORE
hrrule

JEWS BUILDING SETTLEMENTS IN JUDEA AND SAMARIA IS LEGAL

by Salomon Benzimra, January 2, 2012

  Salomon Benzimra summarizes the major points of the Levy Report on the legality of the settlements. The Report addressed the problems that stem from incorrectly characterizing Israel taking back its own land as an "occupation." The Report notes that "No 'special rights' were conferred to the Jewish people. The Supreme Council recognized a pre-existing right by calling for the 'reconstitution' of the Jewish National Home in Palestine — and not the 'creation' — it being clearly understood that it would turn, in time, into a sovereign Jewish State, pending an expected Jewish population majority." This article is essential reading. It goes a long way to correcting the falsehoods the Palestinian Arabs and their ignorant friends in the media have been peddling.

 READ MORE
salomon benzimra

PROFESSOR BERMAN'S MISTAKEN VIEWS ON THE LEVY REPORT

by Wallace Edward Brand, August 5, 2012

 In this essay Wallace Brand focuses on the principle that law is by judicial process, not by concensus. He discusses the circular argument accepted by many that goes like this: most lawyers disagree with the Levy Report. Therefore those wishing to explain why the Levy report is accurate and the opposition have got it wrong should be kept from confusing the public. The critical argument is that the Levy Report is not a new idea thought up by Israel right-wingers but a circumspect restatement of what was decided a century ago on how to prepare for a Jewish State. In point of fact, by the time the League of Nations issued the Mandates for Jewish and Arab states, the British had lopped off some 78% of the land intended for an eventual Jewish state and given it over to the Hashemites to administer — when no one objected formally, this eventually became transJordan and then Jordan.

 READ MORE
hrrule

SETTLEMENTS ARE NOT ILLEGAL

by Ted Belman, July 20, 2012

Ted Belman presents the opinions of some eminent jurists that confirm one consequence that Judea and Samaria were given as an irrevocable trust to the Jewish people; namely, that they can build housing and businesses, and public and private institutions upon their land. Those that would help the Arabs try to steal the land are fond of citing the Fourth Geneva Convention (FGC) to claim that Jewish settlements are illegal, but in point of fact, the FGC doesn't apply.

READ MORE
hrrule

FIGHTING BACK — THE LEGAL CASE FOR JUDEA AND SAMARIA

by Nadav Shragai, November-December, 2013

Dror Eydar has suggested that the "[t]he fight against our possession of those parts of Israel that are the most important to our identity as an ancient nation is a fight against the return to Zion (see here). Reducing the number of legal Jewish settlements while ignoring rogue Arab settlements will make an eventual Arab take-over of the land easier. In this essay, Nadav Shragai writes that, finally, some jurors are now counterattacking with the easily substantiated truth: Israel has historical and legal rights to the land. He quotes some of their arguments.

READ MORE
hrrule

APPLYING CONSTITUTIONAL LAW TO THE 1967 LIBERATION OF JUDEA, SAMARIA AND GAZA (BIBLICAL ISRAEL)

by Howard Grief, September-October, 2007

This is Attorney Howard Grief's elegant summary explaining why Justice Meir Shamgar was incorrect when he ruled that Israel's reestablishing itself in Biblical Israel was illegal. In this issue we get at the nuts and bolts. One can trace almost all — if not all — the difficulties that Israel has had in the last 40 years defending its irrevocable right to Samaria, Judea and Gaza to Justice Shamgar's incorrect legal advice. Had the appropriate law been applied, we wouldn't be needing to rebut the "pernicious Occupation Myth." Shamgar's original ruling "provided our enemies with an enormous propaganda victory in the eyes of the world, for the term 'occupation' implied that Israel had taken over by war the land of another people to which it had no right under international law, an absolutely false implication."

READ MORE
hrrule

INTERNATIONAL LAW AND THE 4th GENEVA CONVENTION

The Fourth Geneva Convention (FGC) Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War was signed August 12, 1949. Part 3 deals with the Status and Treatment of Protected Persons. Section 3 in Part 3 deals with "Occupied Territories". These are the 6 paragraphs of Article 49, the Article most often cited as applicable to Israel's citizens living in Samaria and Judea:

  1. Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive.
  2. Nevertheless, the Occupying Power may undertake total or partial evacuation of a given area if the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand. Such evacuations may not involve the displacement of protected persons outside the bounds of the occupied territory except when for material reasons it is impossible to avoid such displacement. Persons thus evacuated shall be transferred back to their homes as soon as hostilities in the area in question have ceased.
  3. The Occupying Power undertaking such transfers or evacuations shall ensure, to the greatest practicable extent, that proper accommodation is provided to receive the protected persons, that the removals are effected in satisfactory conditions of hygiene, health, safety and nutrition, and that members of the same family are not separated.
  4. The Protecting Power shall be informed of any transfers and evacuations as soon as they have taken place.
  5. The Occupying Power shall not detain protected persons in an area particularly exposed to the dangers of war unless the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand.
  6. "The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies."
The full text of the FGC is available at
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/geneva07.asp.

In response to assertions that the Geneva Convention made Jewish settlements in Samaria and Judea illegal — the Arab settlements in the area are always ignored — Eugene Kontorovich wrote (September 7, 2012, here):

"Whatever "deport or transfer" means, and I think it is clearly ambiguous, it relates only to action by the occupying power. It is Israel, not private individuals, who can violate the anti-transfer norm. There is no auto-transfer. [...] Thus the spontaneous or voluntary movement of Israeli nationals (the only controversy seems to concern Jews) simply does not trigger 49(6). True, there are many who wish to read 49(6) this way, but it transforms a prohibition on governmental deportation or transfer into a requirement that the government STOP its nationals from moving to occupied territory, which is quite far from what the text says. (And indeed many but not all settlements were built against the will of the government.) Art. 49(6) was designed to prevent governmental efforts at demographic transformation (as have been seen with considerably less fuss in Tibet, Western Sahara, etc) rather than create ethnically or nationally exclusive zones.

[...] "The desire to have an international legal ban on 100% of the settlements, despite the diverse circumstances of their creation and continuation, stretches the language far beyond what it can bear. And it doesn't help matters that the Article gets little or no traction in other comparable cases, that one could learn from the international community's treatment of those precedents.

"Finally, the Convention assumes that nationals of the occupying power are not also nationals of the occupied territory. Given that the occupying territory had no nationality in 1967 (it was not Jordan, and it did not have its own citizenship), this makes it quite hard to apply to the given situation. Indeed, some of the "transferees" were indigenous to the occupied area, and had as much claim to its "nationality" as anyone. Certainly international law had recognized the area as a Jewish "homeland," making it quite unlike other transfer situations. [...] Israel is not obliged to abide by glosses of professors and committees rather than a plain language approach to a not-often applied provision.

In a comment entitled, "The International Court of Justice (ICJ) Inappropriate Use of the Fourth Geneva Convention: the ICJ lacks the authority to affect ownership of any part of the Territories," Eli Hertz pointed out (September 8, 2012, here):

"The language of Article 49 was crafted in the wake of World War II and the Nazi occupation — an occupation that led to a war of aggression in which Nazi Germany attacked its neighbors with impunity, committing a host of atrocities against civilian populations, including deportation and displacement of local populations in occupied Europe. Millions were sent to forced labor camps and those of particular ethnic origin, most notably the Jews, were sent to their deaths in the gas chambers. The drafters of Article 49 were concerned with preventing future genocide against humanity.

"But that has not stopped critics and enemies of Israel, including members of the UN and organs such as the International Court of Justice (ICJ) from using the Geneva Convention as a weapon against Israel, even when statements by authoritative analysts, scholars and drafters of the document contradict everything said by those who distort history for politically motivated reasons.

[...] "How that (Geneva) Convention could apply to Jews who already had a legal right, protected by Article 80 of the United Nations Charter, to live in the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip, was never explained." It seems that the International Court of Justice never explained it either."

This set of articles deal with the misuse of the FGC by those opposed to Jewish occupation (in the sense of Jews occupying their own homes in their own homeland) of Samaria and Judea. As was pointed out above in discussing Israel's legal ownership of the Land of Israel, "'A Palestinian state created by dispossessing Jews from their ancestral lands would be in violation of international law and would represent a repudiation of history.' (Hausman, 27mar11). Arguably, this would also be the case were an Israel government itself to act against Jewish ownership of the land." Two articles in this section examine the attitudes of successive Israeli governments to Jews living in the Territories..


Return to What We Are Talking About

THE QUESTION OF THE APPLICABILITY OF THE FOURTH GENEVA CONVENTION ON OCCUPATION TO JUDEA, SAMARIA AND GAZA

by Howard Grief, March-April, 2009

Howard Grief makes clear why applying rules from the Fourth Geneva Convention (FGC) to Israel's ownership of Judea and Samaria (the "West Bank") and Gaza rests on dubious and incomplete interpretions of FGC. Briefly, the IDF can not be considered a "hostile army" occupying Judea, Samaria and Gaza because these areas did not belong to Jordan or Egypt. By irrevocable trust, the land belongs to Israel. He also overturns the myth that Israel is an occupier of Arab land, because Mandated Palestine was never Arab land. This is an important paper. We have included appendices on some basic documents that indicate that the Peace Process and the Two-State solution violate Israel's irrevocable right to Mandated Palestine.

READ MORE
hrrule

A BITTER IRONY

by Eugene Kontorovich, January, 2016

Professor Eugene Kontorovich describes the legal status of the Jewish towns and villages — "settlements" — in simple language, making the legal context very plain. He points out that a settlement in Samaria and Judea may not meet the requirements of "Israel's building or zoning rules, and thus are sometimes called 'illegal,'" but "in general, the 'unauthorized' settlements raise no issues under international law." Yet, from the hue and cry that arises when an Israeli living in Samaria or Judea adds a bedroom to his house, one would think profound evil was being perpetrated. He concludes, "The Geneva Convention was designed to protect against governmental efforts to forcibly change the ethnic make-up of an area, efforts of the kind that occurred in World War II. It would be a bitter irony if it were misread as requiring that any territory be kept free of Jews, or any ethnic group."

READ MORE
hrrule

THE INTERNATIONAL RED CROSS' WAR AGAINST ISRAEL

by Moshe Dann, August 21, 2009

Remembering that the International Red Cross had no problem accepting the Arab's Red Crescent (which has often taxied terrorists into Israel) but refused to allow the entry of the Jewish Magen David until it agreed to not display the Magen David sqymbol, it comes as no surprise to learn that the International Red Cross is a politicized anti-Israel participant in demonizing Israel. In this essay, Moshe Dann focusses on how they misuse the provisions of the Geneva Convention, specifically Article 49.

READ MORE
hrrule

THE SETTLEMENTS AND THE MONSTROUS CHARGE OF ILLEGALITY

by David Isaac, November-December, 2010

Jewish settlements in Samaria and Judea (aka the West Bank) are legal by international law: the San Remo Conference and the Mandate for Palestine. How could they not be, when that entire area is Jewish by an irrevocable trust created by the same International Authority that created many of the Arab states? Yet, as David Isaac writes, a great deal of the anti-Israel propaganda by the European Union and the American administration inter alia has been focused on claiming that Jewish settlers are fanatics, their settlements illegal. On the other hand, Arab settlements, built on private land not their own — or even on public land — are never considered illegal. What's going on is that propagandists want to turn over the land to the Palestinian Arabs, without the problem of having to expel a lot of Jews living on the land. Their major arguments are based on dismissive readings of the Geneva Convention of 1949 Article 49, initiated in 1978 by Herbert Hansell on behalf of the Carter State Department. Isaac points out why their interpretation is fallacious.

READ MORE
hrrule

IS ISRAEL'S LEGAL SYSTEM ACTING ILLEGALLY?

by Yoram Shifftan, September-October, 2004

Dr. Yoram Shifftan continues his brilliant explication of the legal bases for Israel's possession of Samaria, Judea and Gaza. Citing Julius Stone, Professor of International Law, Shifftan carefully extracts the applicable and appropriate legal interpretations from the inaccuracies that have wantonly been heaped over the truth.

READ MORE
hrrule

WHO IS ENTITLED TO GIFT AWAY JEWISH NATIONAL RIGHTS?

by Yoram Shifftan, September-October, 2004

This is a companion piece to the previous article, which focusses on the lack of awareness of the legal foundation of the right of the Jews to what was Mandated Palestine. This essay makes the point that the Land of Israel can not be gifted to another group until its citizenry is fully aware of the legalities and the consequences of such an action.

READ MORE
hrrule

WORLD LEADERS IGNORE INTERNATIONAL LAW

by Eli E. Hertz, September 13, 2009

Eli Hertz talks about the international law that pertains to the Middle East. The territory the Ottoman Empire had owned for hundreds of years was taken over by England and France after World War I. The area labeled Mandated Palestine was to be Jewish. The rest — 99.9% of the Middle East — was carved into present-day Arab states; this was never challenged. Only the peaceable Jewish state must show cause for existing, despite its title to the land.

READ MORE
hrrule

LATER UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTIONS

The UN's Security Council Resolution 242 is the major argument for the negation of the Palestine Mandate. A complete analysis, including the text of the Resolution, can be found in Ruth Lapidoth's article, "Security Council Resolution 242: An Analysis of its Main Provisions," here. Resolution #181 of 1947 is also frequently cited as proving that Jewish settlements in the Territories are illegal. In point of fact, no later resolution can nullify the Palestine Mandate, which made the Jewish people the beneficiary of the region that was Biblical Israel with no time limit.

When Israel was near birth in 1948, her Arab neighbors invaded. Israel repelled the attack but Egypt held onto Gaza and Jordan captured Samaria and Judea (aka the West Bank) and a piece of the eastern part of Jerusalem. Some lawyers have argued that when Israel became a state, the Palestine Mandate terminated. They concluded from this that Israel no longer held title to the Arab-captured territories. Yisrael Medad wrote this counter argument (September 12, 2012, here.):

"Article 80 of the UN Charter, once known unofficially as the Jewish People's clause, which preserves intact all the rights granted to Jews under the Mandate for Palestine, even after the Mandate's expiry on May 14-15, 1948. Under this provision of international law (the Charter is an international treaty), Jewish rights to Palestine and the Land of Israel were not to be altered in any way unless there had been an intervening trusteeship agreement between the states or parties concerned, which would have converted the Mandate into a trusteeship or trust territory. The only period of time such an agreement could have been concluded under Chapter 12 of the UN Charter was during the three-year period from October 24, 1945, the date the Charter entered into force after appropriate ratifications, until May 14-15, 1948, the date the Mandate expired and the State of Israel was proclaimed. Since no agreement of this type was made during this relevant three-year period, in which Jewish rights to all of Palestine may conceivably have been altered had Palestine been converted into a trust territory, those Jewish rights that had existed under the Mandate remained in full force and effect, to which the UN is still committed by Article 80 to uphold, or is prohibited from altering.

"As a direct result of Article 80, the UN cannot transfer these rights over any part of Palestine, vested as they are in the Jewish People, to any non-Jewish entity, such as the "Palestinian Authority." Among the most important of these Jewish rights are those contained in Article 6 of the Mandate which recognized the right of Jews to immigrate freely to the Land of Israel and to establish settlements thereon, rights which are fully protected by Article 80 of the UN Charter."

A comprehensive discussion on Article 80 can be found in Howard Grief's article "Article 80 and the UN Recognition of a 'Palestinian State'" and its comments here.


Return to What We Are Talking About

OCCUPIED PALESTINIAN TERRITORIES?

by Salomon Benzimra, July-August, 2004

Salomon Benzimra points out a logical inconsistency. When the Arabs waged war against Israel in 1948, the UN was bound to defend Israel because of Resolution 181. As Salomon Benzimra notes, they did no such thing. Winning that war, Israel's conquest of some of the land allocated by the UN to the Arabs was (properly) deemed valid. So why was Israel's conquest — when the Arabs again attacked Israel in 1967 — declared an occupation? He traces the problem back to the preamble of UN Resolution 242.

READ MORE
hrrule

THE JEWISH SETTLEMENT ILLEGALITY LIE EXPOSED

by Wallace Brand, March 4, 2014

Wallace Brands explains one reason people think the Jewish settlement in Samaria and Judea are illegal. In point of fact, they are not. He describes the situation at the UN, when Russia got passed "a resolution promoting the 'inalienable rights of the Palestinian People' without any examination of whether there was a Palestinian People or what their rights were and then was able to form a UN 'Committee for the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People'". Relying on meretricious legal opinions, the Committee "concluded that the Jews were, under international law, engaged in illegal occupation of Judea, Samaria, East Jerusalem and Gaza." Julius Stone, an authority on international law, "showed that the Resolutions the opinion was based on were not International Law but mere recommendations that died at birth when the Partition Resolution, No. 181 of 1947, died at birth because it was rejected by the Arabs." He also pointed out what the UN Committee legal support should have known: the rights of a people to self-determination can not abrogate "the territorial integrity of a preexisting state, [in this case, Israel], and that right is paramount." But the damage was done, and the incorrect conclusion — that the settlements were illegal — is believed by too many.

READ MORE
hrrule

UN SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTIONS 181 AND 242

by Eli E. Hertz, November-December, 2009

Eli Hertz presents the pertinent information about two U.N. Resolutions — 181 and 242 — that are often used inaccurately to 'prove' that Israel needs to give up yet more of its tiny country to the Arabs. Resolution 187 was adopted by the General Assembly in 1947 and would have partitioned mandated Palestine into a Jewish state and an Arab state. It was never adopted by the Security Council, so it was never a binding resolution. In any event, the Arabs rejected it. It became null and void when the Arab states invaded the new-born state of Israel in 1948. U.N. Resolution 242 was adopted after the 6-day war by the Security Council. It said that Israel was to return some of the land it conquered when the Arab states formally agreed to allow Israel to live in peace with secure and recognized borders. It did not mention Palestinian Arabs.

READ MORE
hrrule

SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 242: A VIOLATION OF LAW AND A PATHWAY TO DISASTER

by Howard Grief, September-October, 2008

In 1948, Jordan, one of the Arab armies that invaded Israel, conquered the eastern part of Jerusalem, Samaria and Judea. Israel regained these areas after the Arabs invaded Israel again in 1967. The U.N. passed a non-binding resolution, 242, when fighting stopped. The Arabs have often falsely claimed that according to Res. 242, Israel was to return to the pre-1967 borders. Howard Grief's comprehensive article explains exactly what Res 242 did and did not assert. And what it was wrong in asserting — i.e., "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war" does not apply in that Israel was not the aggressor. It had been threatened by imminent aggression. "In this case it is certainly admissible under international law for the state under imminent attack to keep the territory that was captured from which the planned aggression emanated." More importantly, Grief makes the point that "the Security Council does not have and never had the authority or right to order Israel to withdraw from territories that constituted historical and legal areas of the Jewish National Home and Land of Israel that had been recognized implicitly or explicitly as belonging to the Jewish People in various acts of international law: the San Remo Resolution of April 25, 1920; the Franco-British Boundary Convention of December 23, 1920; and the Mandate for Palestine, confirmed by the League of Nations on July 24, 1922 and accepted by the United States in the Anglo-American Treaty on Palestine of December 3, 1924." This land is held in a perpetual trust for the Jewish people.

READ MORE
hrrule

THE PALESTINIAN UN UPGRADE: SETTING THINGS STRAIGHT

by Alan Baker, December 5, 2012

This is a straight-forward summary of what Mahmoud Abbas' request to the UN General Assembly to upgrade the area controlled by the Palestinian Authority to a state did and did not do. Alan Baker points out that it "neither created a Palestinian state, nor did it grant any kind of statehood to the Palestinians." It has no effect on the situation on the ground between Israel and the Palestinian Arabs, no matter how much significance the media give the political charade. Unfortunately — and this wasn't within the scope of the article — media distortions are likely to be believed by a public trained to sympathize with Palestinian victimhood.

READ MORE
hrrule

ISRAELIS ARE OCCUPYING JEWISH LAND, NOT ARAB LAND


Return to What We Are Talking About

SELF-DETERMINATION AND THE PALESTINIAN ARABS

by Julius Stone, 1970

The San Remo Conference in 1920 established that Mandated Palestine — some one tenth of one percent of the Ottoman Middle East — was to be in trust for a Jewish State. The rest of the Middle East would be divided into Arab states. When Israel's Arab neighbors invaded Israel in 1948, Egypt took Gaza and Jordan seized Samaria and Judea and a chunk in the eastern part of Jerusalem. So the new State of Israel, while it maintained legal ownership, lost physical access to these areas. During, this time, the local Arabs never contended that they, not Egypt and not Jordan, owned the land. But when the Jews reclaimed their land in 1967, the newly-congealed Palestinian people began asserting that Israel was occupying their land and, retroactively, "50 years late want a separate distribution just for them."

Julius Stone, a law professor predominant in both jurisprudence and international law, approached the problem of culpability from a fresh point of view. Boiled down it is: the groups that benefitted from the situation that occasioned the Palestinian Arabs misfortune are responsible, in proportion to the benefits received, with the Arabs having obtained 99.99% of the Ottoman Middle East land holdings. He points out that the refugees were "a by-product of the Arab State resort to military force in 1948, in order to destroy the State of Israel." He reminds us that the Arab states not only encouraged Arabs to flee Israel when they invaded Israel in 1948, but they are responsible for actively forcing almost a million Jews to flee the Arab countries, leaving their homes, businesses and personal property behind. Israel did far more than its share by absorbing the Jewish refugees as full citizens, while the Arab states are yet to take responsibility for either the Arab refugees or the Jewish refugees. It remains the responsibility of the Arab states, Jordan in particular, to resettle the Palestinians. Stone concludes that "[t]he growth of more specific Palestinian Arab consciousness in the last decade, even if this now represents a peoplehood entitled to self-determination, cannot be projected back into time so as to invalidate a distribution of decades before. And this is the more so since, in all but name, there is an already existing Arab State in Palestine ... Jordan." Stone also demolishes Arab claims to the land based on conquest — Jews conquered the area both and after the Arab — or population numbers or displacement.

Stone is a major figure in the legal understanding of major issue in the Arab-Israel conflict. In this issue of Think-Israel, several authors cite him extensively. See for example, articles by Yoram Shifftan here, here, here, and here. Howard Grief cites Stone's opinions here and here. Wallace Brand cites Stone here and Ian Lacey devotes his article to summarizing Stone's analysis of the "central principles of international law governing the issues raised by the Arab-Israel conflict." A complete list of relevant articles can be found by googling in the search box on the top of this page. Thanks are due Wallace Brand for sending Think-Israel a digitized copy of the original of this pamphlet.

READ MORE
hrrule

THE ORIGIN OF THE OCCUPATION MYTH

by Howard Grief, October 8, 2005

The notion that Israel is occupying Arab land has been used to condone the barbaric behavior of the Arab terrorists and condemn whatever Israel does to defend itself. Yet, as Howard Grief demonstrates, it is a fundamental egregious error. He examines the origins of this myth in meticulous detail. Surprisingly, it was the fault of Jews — the jurist Meir Shamgar, in particular — who applied the wrong laws when the Jews overcame the Arab invasion of 1967 and came into control of Gaza, Samaria, Judea, Golan and the Sinai. Only later were these inappropriate concepts picked up and used so effectively by the Arabs.

READ MORE
hrrule

IS ISRAEL OCCUPYING THE WEST BANK?

by Howard Grief, June 10, 2007

The myth that Israel is occupying land owned by the Palestinians is so ingrained, it seems to be received truth. A large part of this belief is due to Arab propaganda, reinforced and amplified by cooperative news and TV media. Some of the blame goes to Shimon Peres and the Israeli leadership who decided that the Oslo Accords would be strengthened if the Jews allowed Arab lies to go unchallenged. But now Howard Grief writes of another source of the belief that Israel is illegally sitting on Arab land. He writes of the shocking fact that it was an Israeli judge, Meir Shamgar, who ignored international law and applied the wrong concepts when Israel successfully fought back the invasion by the neighboring Arab States. She did more than fight back. She regained land that was rightfully hers by international law. But over the years, rather than reinforcing Israel's claim, sloppy thinking by some of the Israeli judiciary has given the cotton-candy narrative spun by the Arabs a seemingly solid foundation. In this and in his other writings on Israel's ownership of the land, Grief provides us with the facts and a broad understanding of what these facts mean.

READ MORE
hrrule

THE TRUTH ABOUT THE OCCUPATION AND THE SETTLEMENTS

by Ted Belman, July-August, 2010

As Ted Belman writes, "The pro-Palestinian propaganda machine has succeeded in stigmatizing the Israeli occupation and the settlements. Time and again we hear about the 'brutal occupation' and the 'illegal settlements'. We rarely hear the truth in opposition to these lies." He provides us with a clear statement of the facts. To the fact that the land is Jewish by international law — meaning that the U.N. is supposed to be helping the Jewish settlements to expand — add the fact that some 95% of the supposed indigenous "Palestinians" came in after 1900, and it becomes Ph.D. thesis-level puzzlement how the Arabs and Arab-aiders have managed to make everyone believe lies that invert the truth.

READ MORE
hrrule

THE JEWISH RIGHT TO LIVE IN WESTERN PALESTINE: The Irrelevancy Of 'Belligerent Occupation' and the 4th Geneva Convention

by Yoram Shifftan, May-June, 2005

The jurists of Israel in the Ministry of Justice appear to excel in creative albeit inappropriate reinterpretation of the law — and not only Israeli law, but international law. Misapplying the concept of "belligerent occupation" and the 4th Geneva convention, they recently rejected the appeal of the Gazan Jews that the government be stopped from carrying out Sharon's unilateral disengagement plan. Yoram Shifftan explains why the bases of their rejection are inapplicable to the current situation. He has called the Israeli justice system "a legal system a là demand," tailored for the legalization of the uprooting.

READ MORE
hrrule


A FINAL THOUGHT

The Ottoman Empire ruled the Middle East from the 1500's for some 400 years. It had the bad judgment to side with Germany in World War 1, and so lost its enormous land holdings to the Allies, particularly the British and the French. With legal authorization from the League of Nations (LON), at the San Remo Conference in 1920, the Allies created three mandates for dividing these Ottoman holdings: the Syrian, the Iraqi and the Palestinian. The first two — which distributed more than 99% of the land to the Arabs — eventually gave rise to many of the current Arab states, including Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Yemen and Kuwait. The third mandate reserved the small amount of land remaining, the land that had been Biblical Israel, the land on both sides of the Jordan river — today's Israel, Samaria, Judea, Gaza, the Golan, and Jordan. — for a Jewish state that would be formed when the Jews had sufficient infra-structure and population.

The Palestine Mandate (for the Land of Israel) was legally launched at San Remo. Between then and the LON's ratifying the Mandate in 1922, Britain allowed the land east of the Jordan river to be "administered" by the Hashemite Arabs, leaving what is today Israel, Samaria, Judea, Gaza and part of the Golan in perpetual trust for the Jews. It then — also illegally — ceded the Golan Heights to France in 1923. For the next few years until World War 2, these were the highlights: the Arabs often rioted and occasionally slaughtered their Jewish neighbors wholesale; the British illegally blocked immigration from Europe to Palestine when Nazi Germany began systematically annihilating Jews; and the UN tried unsuccessfully to divide Mandated Palestine between the Arabs and the Jews. During World War 2, the Jews of Palestine fought on the side of the British and at home in Palestine they fought against the British.

The neighboring Arab states started attacking the State of Israel even before its birth day on May 14, 1948, and to almost everyone's surprise, the Jewish state survived. But it lost land. Egypt took control of Gaza. And (Trans)Jordan captured Samaria and Judea and a small piece in the eastern part of Jerusalem. Jordan kicked out and/or killed each and every Jew living there and filled the area with Arabs from everywhere. In addition to the new Arab inhabitants, many of the Arabs who fled Israel during the Arab invasion also came to live there as refugees.

This went on for 19 years. The local Arabs never asked for self-determination. They never demanded a new state or talked about regaining their ancient land — not until the neighboring Arab states again attacked Israel in June 1967, and Israel was able to win back its land. It was then that the Arabs mostly abandoned conventional warfare. although they would try again in 1973. They continued guerrilla "lone wolf" and small-group terrorism. Indeed, it was in designing small but effective attacks that the local Arabs have been at their most creative. But they began to emphasize propaganda via the media and academia as well as political initiatives by friendly groups such as the European Union and "humanitarian" institutions such as the United Nations. They built on top of the sympathy they had successfully created for the Arab refugees who had fled Israel in 1948. The local population, declared a people in 1964, was to become a major tool to battle Israel.

When Jews started making aliyah in large numbers in the late 1800s, Ottoman Syrian Palestine (Israel, the Territories and Jordan) was severely underpopulated but rich in ethnic variety — less than 350,000 people, split into some fifty ethnic groups including Arabs, lived there in 1860. Most of them were Muslim. There was a large jump in immigration from the neighboring countries starting in the early 1900s, because of the economic opportunities made possible by the Jews and later also by the British, after the Ottomans lost their land holdings. The population in the Territories including Gaza was greatly enlarged after 1948 by 'Arab' refugees that were clients of UNRWA. Moreover, at the end of the Arab-Israel War of 1948, after Jordan kicked out all the Jews from Samaria, Judea and some of eastern Jerusalem, she encouraged the entry of Muslims from neighboring states. In December 1948, UNctad estimated a population of 415,000 to 426,000 on the West Bank (Samaria and Judea), and some 81,000 in Gaza. They estimate that by May 30, 1967 there were 900,000 people on the West Bank and 450,000 in Gaza. The majority were registered as refugees. In 1968 there were 290,000 Muslims and 103,000 Christians and other non-Jews living in Israel. Jordan had been cut out of Mandated Palestine in 1922, but some 70% of her population was said to be Palestinian. In 1967, there were no Jews in the Territories, Jordan having killed them or expelled them after she gained control of the area in 1948.

In 1964, the Muslims living in Israel and the Territories — Sudanese, Bosnians, Circassians, Turks, Egyptians, Syrians and Bedouins, etc., plus their kin in Jordan and elsewhere — were suddenly a single people: the Palestinians. In fact, the Palestinian Arab leadership asserted they were the descendants of the Philistines, the Canaanites; they were the original owners of Palestine, the aboriginals — whatever fancy took them, history and geography be damned. Until the Jews made aliyah, Syrian Palestine had, for hundreds of years, been an unsanitary, poverty-stricken, under-populated place, with high infant mortality and a stagnant barely viable economy. Most inhabitants lived hand-to-mouth. But now, the refugees claimed huge fortunes in land and personal property left behind in Israel.

Their new status as a people made new narratives plausible. Retroactively, the Jews became occupiers of Palestinian land. Because the Jews had been denied habitation in the Territories for almost two decades, the Palestinian Arabs could pretend the Jews had never lived there.

Life began for the Palestinians as a people in 1964. Their history's zero time was 1967. They complained after 1967 that the Jews were occupying Palestinian land. When details were needed, like reusing ancient columns as building blocks, they reused Jewish history as their own, exchanging only heroes and villains. In their history, there never was a Jewish Temple on the Temple Mount. Jesus was a Palestinian. The Palestinian Arabs had happily lived for eons in Palestine until the Jews invaded.

So successful have they been in selling such absurdity that the Arab refugees have become somewhat superfluous. The few hundred thousand original refugees, augmented by their progeny and by non-refugee locals, have grown into the millions. They continue to be fed, educated, medicated and housed by UNRWA, a special UN refugee agency. The head of the Palestinian Authority isn't about to take on UNRWA's burden. He has announced that these refugees will not be part of a future Palestinian State, not even those currently living in Samaria and Judea. He is, however, looking out for their future. He has demanded that the refugees have the right to return to their (mostly illusory) pre-war dwellings in Israel, all seven million of them.

It is worthwhile reflecting on a simple fact: had the Hashemite State of Jordan and Egypt not captured some of the Land of Israel and held it for nineteen years, none of this would have happened. The Arabs would still conspire to destroy Israel, all of Israel, but Samaria, Judea, Gaza and the eastern part of Jerusalem would be seamless parts of Israel. They would not be available as detachable containers to be filled with all sorts of agit-prop, fantasies, claims and assertions by pro-Arab propagandists. As it is, the 19 years of Jordanian occupation were the occasion for starting all sorts of creative theatrics. Arabs have hijacked Israel's history and have attempted to steal Israel's land. They have inverted history and claimed Israel is occupying Palestinian land. Given successive Israeli governments that don't even answer back, they have convinced most of the world they are in the right. Just think. Had Israel not lost control of some of her land for a few years, the Arabs would not be asserting rights they never had in the Land of Israel.

hrrule

JANUARY-JUNE, 2016 BLOG-EDS

 This is where our readers get a chance to write opinions and editorials and share articles they find informative. The Blog-Eds page for the month is updated every few days.

There is a separate file that is the index for the articles on the Blog-Ed page. You can access an article immediately from this index by clicking on the item in the index.

To access the Index, click the "Blog-Eds List" box in the Blue Strip on the top of the Blog-Ed page.

Please note that The Blog-Ed pages for January-June 2016 are not currently available.

Different Blog Ed pages will be down intermittently until the Archive structure is in place. We apologize for the inconvenience.

Return to Feature Index hrrule
FEATURED STORIES

November-December 2015

What we are talking about in the November–December 2015 Issue

  1. Islam Is A Religion Of War (Greenfield, Thornton, Shaw, Cline, Bukay)
  2. Conditions In The Middle East Region (Snodgrass, Spyer, Kessler, Humphrys)
  3. Nuclear Iran. An Update (Rose, Aronoff, Carmon, Landau)
  4. Accelerating the Muslim Takeover of Europe (Cline, Shine, Kern, Geller)
  5. Reactions of Israeli Authorities to The Attack in Duma (Fendel, Goldberg, Brodie, Freedman)
  6. How to Respond Effectively to the Third Intifada (Kruger, Kedar, Spyer, Saperstein, Ginsberg, Hacohen)
  7. Propaganda and Public Relations (Gur-Arieh, Rosenthal, Shulman, Raza, Engelhard, Bedein)
  8. History Section (Hunter, Durie, PictureADay, Cohen, Kelly, UNWatch)
  9. Blog-Eds  November-December 2015 Blog-Eds


Editor's Note:

Think-Israel tends to use salafist rather than extremist or Islamist or militant or fundamentalist or activist to describe generically a pious Muslim, one who sticks as closely as possible to the unfiltered words and actions of Mohammad and the first three generations of Muslims, including, especially, the Companions of the Prophet. In modeling himself as closely as he can on the preachings and practices of Mohammad, a salafist can in modern terms be precisely described as an uninhibited terrorist, a theological supersessionist, a political supremacist who believes Islam and sharia law must dominate and a social barbarian, who wages jihad with whatever tools are available. Thanks to the high quality of whitewash supplied by sympathetic propagandists, he seldom is so described.



ISLAM IS A RELIGION OF WAR

Islam is waging a religious war and its religion is to wage war.

Muslims do not wage jihad out of desperation or poverty or a sense of inferiority. They wage war because Islam is a Religion of War. It's built on a mission: to conquer all other religions, to reduce all other people to dhimmitude, if they don't convert or choose death instead. Playing the victim and declaring that any criticism of Islam is islamophobia are weapons of intimidation to paralyze the enemy into inaction. Israelis and Westerners do fear Islam's irrational and overblown responses to the ordinary give and take among people and groups. This is not phobic; it's rational.

A reader, Dilbert WhoKnows, said on Nov 27, 2015 (a comment on an excellent article by Hussein Aboubakr here) "Students of Islamic history know that the religion has not been corrupted by fundamentalist forces. The religion has simply re-taken its original format of violent conquest, and murderous domination of non-believers after a hiatus of several centuries of Islamic power stagnation. The stagnation of Islam power was due to the rise of the west and other stronger peoples who were able to stop the Islamic conquest and push it back towards its Arabian center. The Islamic world essentially imploded on itself and remained stuck while the rest of the developed world continued to move forward faster and faster. The anger and frustration felt throughout the Islamic world is due to the cognitive dissonance where the religion teaches that they should righfully dominate everyone else, but in reality they are the most backwards and undeveloped of all the nations on earth. Thus the change can not come from within as the needed changes are direct contradictions to the basic tenets of the faith."

See also the video "Fear of Muslims is Rational" here.


Return to What We Are Talking About

WHY ISLAM IS A RELIGION OF WAR

by Daniel Greenfield

Daniel Greenfield makes the case that "Islamic violence is a religious problem." When salafist terrorists murder and rape, "[t]hey are not perverting a great religion, as our politicians claim, they are living it." Greenfield makes the point crystal clear by this comparison: "What the Ten Commandments are for the Jew, or the resurrection of Jesus is for the Christian — the physical dominance of Islam is to the Muslim. It is the basis and fulfillment of his faith." Muslims may talk the spirituality lingo — it's persuasive propaganda in the West — but, as Greenfield says, "Islam is not primarily an inward spiritual experience, but an outward expression of tribal honor." Islam is a religion of war, not peace.

READ MORE
hrrule

THE ANATOMY OF DENIAL: MULTICULTURALIST DELUSIONS IN AN AGE OF TERRORISM

by Bruce Thornton

While salafists proudly boast how well they mirror Mohammad's activities — slaughter, violence, invasion, enslavement, rape, vandalism — Western multicultural ideologues insist that Islam is a religion of peace. Bruce Thornton suggests several reasons for this, including differences in religious intensity. He notes that "Western secularism has rendered us incapable of understanding passionate religious beliefs." For the most part, religion in the West is or is becoming compartmentalized and tepid whereas "the commands of Allah and the words and deeds of Mohammed are a living presence in every aspect of a devout Muslim's life." If Mohammed condoned violence fourteen hundred years ago, violence is acceptable today, no apologies necessary. This is a thoughtful essay directed at the problem why all sorts of palliative treatments are suggested to stop Muslim expanionism and violence, but the obvious source of the problem, Islamic doctrine, is willfully ignored.

READ MORE
hrrule

KINETIC RELIGION OF ISLAM

by Barry Shaw

Barry Shaw describes Islam as a kinetic religion because it must, by its own rules, continue to press on and never stop until it obtains its religious objective: the expansion of Islam to every part of the world. Muslims may come into a new host country weak and ill-equipped but they have the obligation to establish a presence there and "turn it into solid Launchpad from which to expand to other locations, which must be controlled and fortified before spreading out to the next stage of the expansion. This can be done militarily or peacefully, depending on the political environment into which Islam intends to expand." But done it must be, no matter how much Western appeasers would like to pretend it ain't happening.

READ MORE
hrrule

CATASTROPHIC FAILURE: A REVIEW

by Edward Cline

Stephen Coughlin is a leading expert and lecturer on how Islamic jihad is directly derived from Islamic religious doctrine and how the Holy Books serve as primers for current terror activities. Many of us have read how he was fired by the Defense Dep't because associates of the Muslim Brotherhood objected to his factual lectures on the clear and present danger of Islam to America (see here). If firing Coughlin was intended to suppress his message, it boomeranged — Coughlin has published his analysis as a book that is reaching a larger audience. Moreover, being fired for revealing the source of Islamic terrorism serves as authentication of the truth of Coughlin's charges today in the same way that being 'banned in Boston' by self-appointed book censors certified the importance of the ideas expressed in a book a half century ago.

In this article, Edward Cline reviews Coughlin's book, "Catastrophic Failure: Blindfolding America in the Face of Jihad." Part 1 of this review describes how criticism of Islam, even if true, is against Sharia Law, and thus is considered to be religious blasphemy. In the USA, executive edicts from the White House have forbidden government training manuals and data bases for military and defense analysts to associate terrorism and Islam. Hence our defense and security agencies are blocked from openly identifying acts of terror committed by Muslims, unless these acts are called aberrations of the Religion of Peace. In actuality, the commands for jihad against all non-Muslims, for violence, for plunder, for slaughter and for viewing women as chattel are directly from the to-be-followed more recent instructions of the Koran and Hadiths. The earlier peaceful sections have been abrogated. In part 2 of this review, Cline focuses on Coughlin's "explication of the roles of Sayyid Qutb, the Muslim Brotherhood, and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation in the emasculation of America's power to defend itself from 'civilization jihad'." As Cline notes, "If there is a 'failure to communicate' the peril in which America finds itself, it is not Stephen Coughlin's failure."

READ MORE
hrrule

THE RELIGIOUS FOUNDATIONS OF SUICIDE BOMBINGS: ISLAMIST IDEOLOGY

by David Bukay

This classic essay by David Bukay points out the disparity of the Western belief — promoted by Islamic apologists such as Professor John Esposito of Georgetown U. and John Brennan, Director of the CIA — that jihad is some sort of internal spiritual struggle and the actual meaning of jihad as spirited warfare against all who are not yet in submission to sharia law. Bukay points out that jihad was defined as an internal struggle only when "Muhammad and his band of followers were small and relatively weak and so prone to compromise." This interpretation was abrogated (i.e., canceled, voided, superceded) by Mohammad himself. Since then, Jihad has meant the necessary violent and non-violent never-ending struggle to ensure Islam's victory over every non-believer everywhere. It is a compulsory duty for Muslims, not subject to debate. It justifies every way of conquering the enemy, including committing suicide, which is otherwise prohibited by Islamic law. Those killed participating in jihad are considered to be living with Allah in Paradise, where they enjoy special rewards. Jihad is as central to Islam today as it was in Mohammad's time. As powerful and as deadly.

READ MORE
hrrule

CONDITIONS IN THE MIDDLE EAST REGION

This section deals with some general conditions affecting the entire Middle East. The basic conflict is between the Sunnis and the Shi'ites. Attempts to readjustment the balance of power between the two groups have led to large-scale violence and governmental destabilization over the entire region. Open hostilities between the groups are likely to intensify now that Iran will have nuclear resources with which to lord it over her neighbors. Maj.Gen. (res.) Yaakov Amidror wrote on January 24, 2016 in a BESA Center perspective Paper:

"During this upcoming period, Iran will behave like a regional power, and anyone who does not accept its status will have to deal with its increasing power and the strength of its emissaries in the region. The American move in making the deal, and its ramifications for Iran's stature, serve as a kind of proof for the Sunnis of an American decision to align with the Shiite side of the struggle."

At the very least, Iran will do what it does well: create disorder and disruption by fighting through its many proxies. And the response by the other states will contribute to the breakdown of civility and the rejection of limits on barbaric behavior. As Jonathan Spyer noted in a recent paper, the main problem in the Middle East is the domination of political Islam by "States, indifferent to any norms and rules, using terror and subversion to advance their interests, Jihadi armed groups, and the refugee crises and disorder that result from all this are the practical manifestations of it." (See here).

Meantime, the world struggles to "understand" what has caused all this. Many reasons have been proposed for the sharp increase in violence. Both groups are said to suffer overt frustration because the status of the Muslims in the world doesn't match the superiority their religion tells them they are entitled to have. The reasons adduced to explain the current perturbations are for the most part fanciful and independent of Islam itself. Israel, of course, has been blamed for the region's woes, as has the West. But it is becoming recognized that the motive power behind the surge of what is called radical Islam terrorism is that both the Sunnis and Shi'ites are committed to unlimited jihad for the sake of Islam. They aren't deviating from the tenets of Islam. They are very much rooted in the beginnings of Islam in thought and in action.
Return to What We Are Talking About


LEADERSHIP OF THE ISLAMIC WORLD AND ISLAMIC JIHAD IS WHAT IS AT STAKE FOR MUSLIMS

by Col. Tom Snodgrass (Ret.)

Tom Snodgrass provides a primer explaining the similarities and differences between the Sunnis and Shi'ites. Both are dedicated to replacing the US Constitution — and the administration of every non-Muslim country — with sharia law. Neither will give up until they obtain this objective. The US has been dealing with the different factions piecemeal, supporting the Sunnis here, the Shi'ites there. Snodgrass suggests the US needs to "adopt a comprehensive strategy which is based on the reality that the U.S. loses regardless who triumphs in the Islamic religious sectarian war: Islamic State Sunni Salafist Wahhabis, al-Qaeda Sunni Salafist Wahhabis, Sunni Muslim Brotherhood, or Shia Khomeinist Twelvers."

READ MORE
hrrule

IS IT IRAN'S MIDDLE EAST NOW?

by Jonathan Spyer

In the current war between the Sunnis and the Shi'ites in the Middle East, Iran is the major source of funding for the political-military organizations acting as Iranian proxies and fighting for the Shi'ite side in Yemen, Iraq, Lebanon and Syria. Jonathan Spyer explores how successful these different alliances have been. Spyer believes Iran will be more successful creating chaos in the region than developing a sustainable hegemony over the Middle East.

READ MORE
hrrule

A RAGE AGAINST HISTORY

by Clive S. Kessler

Clive Kessler has an interesting perspective: Islam since it fell behind the West, has tried various governmental and administrative fixes, from secular to military to Marxist. It has now gone back to its violent religious beginnings, to sharia-dominant "pure" Islam and idealization of that perfect man, Mohammad. Kessler talks about only a minority taking the terrorist route. But given there were 2.08 billion Muslims in the world as of 2014, even if only 15% are terrorists and their support structure, that is 312 million people, which is close to the entire population of the USA (318.9 million in 2014). Not proven is whether Islam ever actually discarded Sharia as society's glue. Not proven is whether Islam ever had the creativity it takes for success. Soon after its formation it absorbed the Persian and Hebrew cultures, inter alia. Its rampages were effective but are hardly proof that Islam intrinsically can build and create as well as it can pillage, destroy and make subservient. Islam's blaming everyone and everything but itself and its lack of introspection stands in sharp contrast to the way, for example, the Chinese, another ancient people, found its way to modernity through many blunders and false starts. It reshaped its people, not the world.

READ MORE
hrrule

ISLAMISM: THE ROOT CAUSE OF ISLAMIST TERROR

by Mark Humphrys

For years, we were told that the Po' Palestinian Arabs were sadistically violent only because they had no other way to fight the Jewish invaders of their homeland, an explanation that assumed incorrectly that these Arabs owned the land. As justification for barbaric behavior, the notion they were fighting to regain a homeland began to fall apart when the salafists started doing unto the West what it had done in Israel. One could patch together a commonality that the West was under attack because it aided Israel or because it had done Islam wrong, but the uniqueness of the underpinning of Arab terror — that it was fighting for its land — was lost. As Brig.-Gen (res.) Yossi Kuperwasser wrote (December 3, 2015, here.)

"What disturbs the Palestinians is that as radical Islam's direct warfare against the West expands, they lose a key asset for promoting their goals. If, as is becoming increasingly clear, the Palestinian issue is not the heart of the problem, then the West's expression of regret for its "crimes" on this issue will not solve the greater problem. The request for penance must be much more far-reaching; Iranian President Hassan Rouhani recently made dialogue with the United States conditional on an American request for Iran's forgiveness. In addition, the more the connection between the two kinds of terror grows, the more the radical Islamic component of the Palestinian rejection of Israel's existence as the democratic nation-state of the Jewish people and preference for a violent struggle to eliminate it, is exposed. The West would better understand how difficult it is to promote a settlement and may (as Israel would hope) come to understand that the terror against Israel is essentially part and parcel of the terror against the West."

The Pro-Palestinian propagandists are now using a second line of justification: the actions of the terrorists are due to 'frustration, desperation, fury at being dealt a poor hand, shame, etc.' — environmental and external reasons, not part of the Religion of Peace. Nevertheless, it is becoming clear that they don't want a homeland — they rejected Genl Sisi's offer of a homeland in the Sinai. What they want is to take over all of Israel and evict the Jews because they controlled the area for a time centuries back. The reasons for terrorizing the West have also become suspect. It isn't because the West wronged them. It isn't because they suffer from frustration or poverty or desperation. It's because they have a mission to impose Sharia globally on all.

In this essay, Mark Humphrys rejects the absurd notion that the fight for a Palestinian homeland is the well-spring for Arab terrorism throughout the Middle East. He points out that the sociological certainty that poverty and frustration cause acts of terrorism is also wrong. Most terrorists capable of the self-direction needed to carry out a successful terror attack come from the upper classes. He identifies the motive power of Islamist terrorism: Islam.

READ MORE
hrrule

NUCLEAR IRAN. AN UPDATE

This section begin with the history of the treatment of the Jews in Iran, from the time it was the Persian Empire until today. The other essays explore the new threats to global survival which became reality when the so-called nuclear deal with Iran was accepted by Prez Obama. After a flurry of reports detailing the defects of the JCPOA in the summer of 2015, news articles on progress were markedly reduced. This set of articles brings us up to date.

Many of the Deal's dangers were obvious from the start; many warned of the consequences. For example, see here. These possibilities have become reality, with Iran running the show: deciding what it will and will not do, dictating to the West, deciding what the IAEA — the agency responsible for monitoring the nuclear deal — may and may not examine. In the last issue of Think-Israel, in the Section entitled "We Can Still Defeat the Iran Nuclear Deal", where we concluded that there were ways to stop Iran's unimpeded drive to become a nuclear power (see here). These ways are still available. And using them is more necessary than ever.

In step with Iran's punching its way out of the paper bag full of JCPOA's restraints on its nuclear ambitions, there has been a reconsideration of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), an early attempt at restricting nuclear proliferation. The NPT has no bite, no ability to stop Iran's ambition, but coming from the mouths of the European Union and the American President and the Muslim-riddled United Nations, it has enough strength to tie up Israel to make it incapable of responding to Iranian threats and activities.

The maneuver to paralyze Israel is multi-pronged. Besides trying to ensure politically that Israel doesn't use nuclear power, there is a "special relations between the PLO/Fatah and Iran." This is the documentation at hirhome.com/iraniraq/plo-iran2.htm:

"PLO/Fatah, now better known as the 'Palestinian Authority,' will govern a Palestinian State in the militarily strategic territories of Judea and Samaria (or 'West Bank') if the Middle East 'peace process' concludes with a 'Two-State Solution.' Given that Iranian leaders daily promise the destruction of Israel, most people assume that PLO/Fatah has nothing to do with Iran. It would be absurd, they implicitly reason, for Israeli leaders to give strategic territory to an Iranian proxy. And yet, it is a historical fact that PLO/Fatah helped install Ayatollah Khomeini in power and create the current Iranian Islamist regime. It has maintained a close relationship with this regime ever since. This short film PLO/Fatah and Iran: The Special Relationship from HIR at http://www.hirhome.com documents that relationship:"

Watch the HIR film here. Other HIR videos on PLO are here. Many other videos are available, including How to Con America - And get a Nuclear Bomb, and Bill Clinton on the virtues of N. Korean Nuclear Deal.


Return to What We Are Talking About

FROM PERSIA TO IRAN — A LEGACY OF ANTISEMITISM

by Alex Rose

Alex Rose traces the treatment of the Jews through the dynasties from ancient Persia to its transformation to modern-day Iran. With few exceptions, Jews, like other religious minorities, were treated harshly by successive rulers, well before the Arabs conquered Persia. The Arab rulers were Shi'ite, so the traditional brutality of the Muslims was reinforced by the Shi'ite doctrine of purity, najis, which emphasized the fear of uncleanliness caused by non-believers — Jews and Christians. An episode of Jewish "pollution" was often the trigger for a pogrom or forced conversion to Islam. The current rulers of Iran, the mullahs, may be conversant with modern technology but they are as obsessed with Jew-hate as most of their predecessors.

READ MORE
hrrule

IRANIAN NUCLEAR DEAL IS A CATASTROPHIC HOAX

by Roger Aronoff

The Iran Nuclear Deal was not signed, not affirmed by raised hand, not treated as a treaty by the US executive, not voted on directly by the US Congress. It is a non-binding set of plans, which unfortunately the USA Administration seems to feel honor-bound to implement, while Iran has announced it will do what it wants, when it wants. Roger Aronoff points out that the State Dep't's spin on these facts is to emphasize verification rather than contractual agreement, even though Iran has already stated it is now and will continue to be non-compliant when the Deal interferes with its own plans. As for the rigorous monitoring that verification demands, IAEA, the monitoring agency, has already shown itself to be incapable of standing up to Iran's bullying. The upshot is that "President Obama is perpetrating a dangerous hoax through his triumphal advocacy for this so-called deal, and the media, for the most part, are participating."

READ MORE
hrrule

THE EMPEROR HAS NO CLOTHES

by Yigal Carmon

Yigal Carmon, co-founder of MEMRI, an institute that does scrupulous translations from the Arab media, has examined the end-game activities of the Iran nuclear deal. The final bits and pieces were to be in place by December 15, 2015 so the participants could begin carrying out their agreed-upon Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). Instead, "[t]he JCPOA is best characterized by bangs and whimpers — by bold prohibitions on Iran that peter out in qualifying terms such as 'unless,' 'except if,' and the like." Moreover, by her actions and temper tantrums, Iran has totally "rewritten" the JCPOA so Iran will be doing just what she wants to do. In fact, Iran is the one stipulating conditions the West must agree to — or else Iran will stop her version of cooperation. The IAEA monotoring agency has long been intimidated into not going against Iran's inperious demands. As Carmon says, "With every passing day, Iran is more and more in violation of the JCPOA. But neither the Republicans nor the Democrats, nor the media, nor anyone else will acknowledge this, for the implications are too devastating."

READ MORE
hrrule

THE LOOMING GLOBAL NUCLEAR WEAPONS CRISIS

by Emily B. Landau

The Obama Administration continues to tout the Iran Nuclear Deal as having thwarted Iran's ability to acquire nuclear weapons for at least a decade. Even if Iran doesn't already have the bomb, Obama's claim is unlikely. It ignores "other crucial requirements for effective nonproliferation." Emily Landau examines the impact of the JCPOA on the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), which was enacted in 1970 as the way to stop "the spread of nuclear weapons and the destabilization that could result." She points out that "[i]nstead of shoring up the nonproliferation regime, the Iran deal is likely to dangerously undermine it" in that it will likely lead non-nuclear NPT members to reexamine their commitment to current NPT regulations and restrictions. As it is, taking advantage of a loophole, Iran, a member of the NPT, like North Korea and Iraq before it, has already been substantially advancing "a military nuclear capability under the cover of a supposedly civilian one." The supposedly mature nuclear countries irresponsibly have made no attempt to punish the rogue countries, which quickly learned that in pushing nuclear proliferation beyond legal limits, they would suffer no loss in "long-term status, wealth, and power."

Contrariwise, as Landau writes in an article entitled "The NPT's Challenge To Israel" (see here), over the years, there has been intermittent but substantial pressure on Israel, not a member of NPT, to become a member — maybe the only member — of a "nuclear-weapon-free zone" in the Middle East. As Landau writes, "the only way for Israel (or any of the other states outside the treaty) to join the NPT is as a non-nuclear weapon state; therefore the call for Israel to join the NPT is necessarily a call for Israel to disarm itself of whatever nuclear capability it is assumed to have."

Ignoring Iran's genocidal rants and NPT's own, albeit weak, acceptance of the right of self defense, many have argued that Israel and Iran should have equal NPT obligations. Now that Iran has shown itself to be erratic — using its growing expertise in nuclear matters to intimidate — logically, we'd expect the pressure on Israel to disarm itself would discontinue. But logic isn't a prominent feature of Arab demands. Landau concludes that much depends on whether the Arabs think that "increasing attention to Israel had a realistic chance of producing results."

READ MORE
hrrule

ACCELERATING THE MUSLIM TAKEOVER OF EUROPE

The salafists are determined to win Europe from the control of the "Crusaders" — they want another shot at the Christians they weren't able to defeat at the time of the Crusades. Instead of mounting a realistic defense against the Muslim invasion of Europe and infiltration of the US, Western leaders blame everything and everybody but Islam. This set of articles identifies some of the ruses Western leaders employ to avoid having to deal with reality. They allow uncontrolled immigration of an unassimilable culture. They refuse to give up their precious ideology — diversity and multiculturalism — even though, should the salafists win, there will be no diversity, only the uniformity of sharia law. There will be no respect for all cultures; all cultures will be treated as inferior to Islam. They continue to see Israel as the root cause of global problems and try to cripple it, even though as Dr Shine observes, "Israel stands at the forefront of the war against terrorism." A video called "Paris Attacks: Western Politicians are Accessories to Murder" featuring Paul Weston here reinforces the observation that the weak and ineffective behavior of Western politicians contributes to the harm the salafists have been able to do the West.


Return to What We Are Talking About

THE MENTAL STATE OF THE POLITICAL ELITES

by Edward Cline

Edward Cline write about the demented mental state of the political elite of Europe who, ignoring the devastation, crime, social diseases and economic disruption the Muslims has brought to their countries, continue to preach a distorted form of Christianity: when faced with Muslim anti-social behavior, turn the other cheek and pretend even harder that Muslims will allow themselves to be reshaped into civilized Europeans with Western values. As Cline notes, using German Chancellor Angela Merkel as a supreme example of ideology-motivated behavior, "Her 'mind-set' of plurality and diversity is directly at odds with those of the disdained hoi polloi." Ordinary folk who rely on the evidence of their eyes are sneered at and given misinformation or no information to keep them from objecting to the social upheaval the Muslims have engendered. To paraphrase F. Scott Fitzgerald, "The political elite are different from you and me."

READ MORE
hrrule

ISRAEL AT THE FOREFRONT

by Dr. Haim Shine

Haim Shine writes bluntly and accurately, "For many years, European policymakers have endlessly regurgitated the fallacy that the 'suffering' of Palestinians motivates terrorists across the globe. This baseless and hypocritical claim stems from a desire to appease Arab countries and promote European business interests." There is no connection between the Israel-Palestinian conflict and Islamic terror. Instead, there are two facts that are for the most part disregarded: (1) Salafists regard France and Germany as 'Crusader states' and are ready to continue their battle with the Christian Crusaders; and (2) through no desire on its part, nevertheless, "Israel stands at the forefront of the war against terrorism." Until this is acknowledged and the war against Islamic terrorism becomes serious, people will die from terrorist acts. It would behoove European and American politicians to stop pushing Israel to make suidical concessions and to understand that, as Shine writes, "Any ceded land would turn into a forward base of radical Islam."

READ MORE
hrrule

THE ISLAMIZATION OF GERMANY IN 2015

by Soeren Kern

The Main Stream Media (MSM) continue to emphasize the humanitarian aspects of the refugee influx into Europe, primarily Germany, with its generous welfare benefits and enthusiastic welcome of the refugees by its Chancellor, Angela Merkel. The media ignore that their own photos show that currently 69% of the Syrian refugees coming by sea are not women holding toddlers but grown men, well dressed and equipped with cell phones (see here). The MSM don't explain why wealthy Middle East countries such as UAE, Saudi Arabia and Bahrain won't take in refugees, especially when these countries have the same culture, attitude toward women and family, religion and language as the refugees. In Europe, refugee absorption is not doing well. The European public was brimming with friendliness towards the refugees only a short while ago. Its enthusiasm was much reduced after major increases in crime were reported and took a sharp plunge after a mass attack against women took place on New Year's Eve 2016 in various German cities, particularly in Cologne where Arab migrant gangs harassed and attacked women sexually. The way the gangs assaulted lone women and "diverted outsiders' attention" (see here) suggests the attacks were pre-planned and coordinated. More and more, harassment of native women is being reported from Western European countries. In Sweden, 77% of the rapes are committed by Muslim males, who are 2% of the population (see here.) Other facts are just as indigestible. ISIS is openly bragging that thousands of their members have entered Europe as unvetted refugees or on fake passports, while surveys show that 25% of the Syrian refugees in Europe (with an estimated range from 13% to 80%) sympathize with the Islamic State (see here). And most European Muslims want Sharia. not European, law (see here).

In this article, Soeren Kern focuses on the social and political perturbations triggered by the large increase of refugees into Germany in 2015, adding to those already there. Far from keeping a low profile or showing gratitude for their resettlement, the Muslim community is already beginning to be angry and aggressive towards the natives. They are demanding modifications in the lifestyle of the Europeans in line with their own religious and social practices. This doesn't sit well with the native populations, but the responses of the politicians, police and judicial authorities have been mixed. Many such as Henriette Reker, mayor of Cologne, are blaming the women victims for the New Year's Eve attacks. For the most part, the police are overwhelmed and can no longer offer much protection to the native population except for major crimes such as murders and rape (see here.) Various reports on the impact of the refugees on Europe's welfare systems and economy, and its political and social institutions, are available here. Another report by Baroness Cox in England (see here) highlights the impact on the English and Muslim communities of polygamous muslim males having as many as 20 children each. It is safe to say that Europeans are just beginning to think through the consequences of the fact that the Muslims have a much higher birthrate than the natives.

READ MORE
hrrule

THE WEST HAS LOST THE WILL TO LIVE

by Pamela Geller

Pamela Geller writes of the strange inertia that has taken over the West. Westerners seem to have lost the will to defend themselves against the Islamic invaders. In France, they have reacted to the recent horrible terror attacks in Paris with meaningless ineffective gestures. As one example, they composed a clever hashtag, which was "just the latest in an endless stream of manifestations of the sophomoric, embarrassing, preening self-indulgence that is endemic in our sick culture." The Eiffel Tower peace symbol is another example of creating a hollow symbol instead of mounting an adequate defense of Western culture against the savages that would destroy it. Much of the media have responded to the Muslim challenge by blaming "right-wing extremists," as if that declaration will harm a single one of our real enemies. In a show of lunacy, heads of state meeting in Paris ignored the attacks on Paris except to mouth solemn nothings; they declared global warming as the greatest threat to mankind. The West has yet to recognize we are at war. In war, "you either win or you are defeated." To show weakness only makes it easier for the salafists to defeat us.

READ MORE
hrrule

THE REACTIONS OF THE ISRAELI AUTHORITIES TO THE ARSON ATTACK AND MURDER IN THE ARAB VILLAGE OF DUMA

This section discusses the arson attack on a house in the Arab village of Duma that left a mother and father and their baby dead. The police usually quickly identify a murderous terrorist. When the current intifada struck Tel-Aviv at the start of 2016, within a day, the police correctly determined that the terrorist was an Israeli Arab from Wadi Ara, yet despite their six-month long, wide-sweeping, monomaniacal investigation of Jewish suspects, they have never found any evidence that Jewish settlers were responsible for the Duma tragedy. So eager have some secular security/police/judiciary been to blame religious Jews, they have treated these suspects — some of whom are in their teens — brutally, not letting them sleep, putting them in isolation, incarcerating them beyond the legal limits, refusing them their religious rights, preventing them from seeing their families and lawyers, beating them and torturing them to try to force them to confess. When some the suspects were released, they were placed under house arrest, almost as a gesture of spite and frustration.

One reader, Dov Blair Epstein (INN, Jan 2, 2016), summed up what many thought: "amazing, just like that, name of [Tel-Aviv] killer found. Maybe they're also looking for the real killers of the Dawabshe baby....oh, no, that HAS to be a Jew." What is more shameful, the disgraceful treatment of the suspects was not the work of a few arrogant policemen going well beyond their legal authority; the directive to torture Jewish suspects came from the Attorney General Yehuda Weinstein (see here.)

These are some of the pertinent elements of the story that are, to put it politely, underreported. The arson attack in which three members of the Dawabsha family died occurred in July 2015. There were no eye witnesses and no evidence, but only Jews were blamed, even when the authorities knew there was no reason to suspect them. It was not until December 2015 that Internal Security Minister Gilad Erdan admitted that there was no evidence to try the suspects. The police have ignored the ongoing murderous clan war in Duma itself — the Dawabsha family is part of one of the feuding clans. The Arabs immediately blamed Yehuda Landsberg of Gilad Farm in Samaria, but had to retract the accusation when it was discovered he was serving time for another crime. The murdered family lived in the center of Duma, where access was difficult, and an out-of-towner would be easily spotted, yet they hung around long enough to hit two houses and watch until the fire was working, without being caught. There was graffiti sprayed on a nearby wall, the Magen David and two phrases — "revenge" and "long live the Messiah." "Revenge" had components of Arab calligraphy but was immediately attributed to the Jews.

What was the motivation of the responsible authorities? Was it the desire to make Arab terrorism less out-of-proportion by adding some Jewish 'terrorists' to the other side of the scale? Was it the fear of Arab rioting if they focused on the logical suspects, the Arabs of Duma? Was it the taking advantage of the opportunity to demonize 'Settler' Jews in the Territories to make it easier to give up Jewish land? Was it the fear that Jews might start to behave as reprehensibly as the Arabs? Was it the fear that Jewish vigilantism might force the Government to deal with Arab terrorism seriously rather than symptomatically? Or was it simply an opportunity for the extreme secular to lash out at religious Jews, whom they loathe more than they do the Arabs who are trying to destroy the State of Israel? So rabid have some members of the Israel Security Agency (Shabak) become, that when the case against the Jews faltered, a video appeared of a Jewish wedding in which Jews were said to be stabbing a picture of an Arab baby and otherwise, well, behaving like Arabs. Some anecdotal material has appeared that makes the video questionable. As an example (see here), a woman from Kfar Etzion, a close friend of the groom's family, asks

  1. The family tried to find out from all the guests who brought these images ... just a mystery. Did not find.
  2. Who gave the weapons? The group has no weapons! Also, the weapons disappeared two minutes right after the song.
  3. Who took the video? The photographer was somewhere else. According to the owner of the hall, GSS agents came several hours earlier, and installed cameras all over the room! After the wedding they came and took them.
    In short, it turns out that unfortunately, someone organized and initiated all of this in advance.They distributed weapons and pictures and in a shocking way stabbed the picture of the boy in front of the camera. It is important to know the truth, how much it hurts. (translation unclear...)
  4. In a conversation with those in charge of Security of this event, hundreds of plainclothes police arrived ... in civilian clothes. Presented him with a police ID.
  5. Neither the Groom nor his family nor his Bride or her family recognize who danced with the picture.

And now, Shabak has announced they will be taking two of the suspects, Amiram Ben-Uliel and a minor, to trial. Under a government gag order, news from the courts has just about ceased; information is by way of rumors.

There is much to ponder in the behavior of the Israeli authorities involved in the harassment of the Jewish settlers, in what is a striking contrast to the care taken not to injure the human shields of missile emplacement in Gaza — as just one example. What is indisputable is that, as many have observed, we have witnessed the acting out of a morality play illustrating, once again, the Talmudic observation that those that are kind to the cruel will in the end become cruel to the kind.


Return to What We Are Talking About

'SETTLER' PAYS TROUBLING CONDOLENCE VISIT TO ARAB VILLAGE

by Hillel Fendel

Yonadav Tapuchi joined a group of Jews who went to Duma on a condolence visit and to "give a clear message that there are some acts that have no justification." It didn't take long for him to realize he'd been suckered into being a anti-Israel propaganda prop. As Hillel Fendel records, Tapuchi's observed that the second house that was burnt, the one where the Dawabsha family lived, was not only hard to reach but would have been hard to enter. Yet the arsonists had time to navigate to the middle of the village, enter two houses, set the second on fire, "wait with the parents, spray graffit in two places ... and then run away through the middle of the village with all the townspeople surely already up and on their feet seeing the flames and hearing the family's cries. Something here is very fishy..." Yes, indeed.

READ MORE
hrrule

MY DAUGHTER'S WEDDING

by Lenny Goldberg

The global media have distributed a video purporting to show religious Jews poking holes in a photo said to be of the dead Dawashba baby at a wedding where the wedding guests were said to be celebrating the arson attack in Duma. This article was written by Lenny Goldberg, father of the bride at the wedding where this happened. Yes, he agrees, some waved rifles and toy guns.

Some do take rifles to celebrations, never knowing when some murderous Arabs will decide to crash the party. But the ominous and lurid attributions in this story appear to have been added after the fact. To me, the blurry photo looks more like the image of a Yeshiva boy. Or maybe it's a new-Age Rorschach. The waving of guns while dancing is said to show hatred of the Arabs. If true, it is certainly different than the way the Arabs celebrate a Jewish death. They don't wave toy guns. They shoot real bullets in the air, which occasionally kill a celebrant or two. The Arabs aren't timid about showing their joy openly and instructing their children in how to celebrate the death of an enemy. They want photographers to take close-up pictures of their joy in killing. Here, the Jewish father of the bride notes that while everyone dancing is wearing white shirts, "the guys holding the signs are wearing jackets and their faces are blurred." He doesn't know them. He has good reason to suspect that this was a Shin Bet setup.

READ MORE
hrrule

DUMA, AND THE WAR AGAINST JEWISH ISRAEL

by Tuvia Brodie

Tuvia Brodie makes the point that when the police ignore a clan-war motive and focus solely on Jews as the perpetrators, "professional police investigation may not be your agenda." He goes on to discuss the political benefits to Israel's Left of having Israel's Right "accused of unravelling Israel's democracy." Leftists, particularly Marxists, pit democracy against Judaism and they believe that anything that weakens Jewish identity contributes to increasing democracy. And the importance of Duma? As Brodie puts it, "Duma: it's the newest weapon in the Left's war against Jewish Israel."

READ MORE
hrrule

DON'T JUST TREAT THE SYMPTOMS

by Jacob L. Freedman

Jacob Freedman writes that rhetoric and talk hasn't and won't stop episodic terror attacks. Palliatives such as putting protective barriers at bus stations are not enough. Effective treatment would include affecting the families of the Arab terrorist, who, to date, continue to receive their welfare benefits in food, medicine, housing, tuition. More importantly, Jewish identity needs to be strengthened.

READ MORE
hrrule

HOW TO RESPOND EFFECTIVELY TO THE THIRD INTIFADA

Israel is treated as the enemy by the present American Administration. The UN spends an inordinate amount of time castigating Israel for breathing. The European Union and the United Nations lavishly fund and support her belligerent enemies. Almost all of the global media have a pro-Palestinian Arab slant and the salafists crow with joy that Hamas and Hezbollah and Isis are encircling the Jewish State. In response, Israel is doing some things well. She is reaching out and creating trade agreements with Asiatic countries. Closer to home she is sharing renewable energy and water conservation technology with Greece and Cyprus. She now has a office in Abu Dhabi as part of her membership in the International Renewable Energy Agency. Egypt and Israel have drawn closer, because both realistically fear the harm a nuclear Iran will do to the Middle East. And she has invented and innovated so many of the medical, computer, water and agricultural appliances and electronics — as well as techniques and conveniences the world relies on — that a sincere believer in the anti-Israel Boycott-Divest-Sanction (BDS) movement should withdraw from civilization and go live in a cave to make sure he isn't inadvertently using something that comes from Israel (see a new video here or here. Or listen to Pat Condell on BDS here).

In this set of articles, we emphasize Israel's need to make major attitudinal changes if Israel is to overcome successfully the damages done to Israel's citizenry by Israel's Arab citizens and neighboring Muslims. One way to start is to emulate the realistic appraisals of Moshe Saperstein, a delightful essayist with a style that combines sarcasm, dry humor and straight-out bitching. That's so much better a way to do a refutation than by reciting long boring and lofty speeches about how Israel wants peace while ignoring that her enemies are trying their best to destroy her. On the Temple Mount and on the streets of cities and towns randomly across the country, the Arabs have sent in their crack troops — aggressive screeching women and cute-looking youngsters, the younger the better ‐ using knives, guns, stones, and vehicles as weapons. It's awful that often the only way to stop the darlings is with a bullet, but that definitely does help protect Jewish women and children. The articles by Gershon Hacohen and Barbara Ginsberg should be read with care because much of the Jew's confidence that what he is doing is the right thing to do comes primarily from his spiritual connection to God and the land of Israel.


Return to What We Are Talking About

ISRAEL NEEDS NEW WAYS TO RESPOND EFFECTIVELY TO THE THIRD INTIFADA

by Stephen Kruger

In the Israel-Arab relationship, Stephen Kruger sees Israel as the battered partner. To change her role in this unwanted relationship, Israel needs to change her responses to the current Third Intifada. Blowing up empty houses is ineffective. Israel needs to cast aside her overly protective concern for the "innocent Arab civilian." She need to take direct control of Judea and Samaria, part of the ancestral Jewish homeland. She needs to respond to the concocted fantasy that there was a Palestinian people who controlled Mandated Palestine in the misty past, a fantasy that the Arabs sold to the world, because Israel, in the interests of peace, never spoke up. She needs to assert her rights to land that is hers (a) by the Bible, (b) legally by the San Remo Conference and as a United Nations trust; and (c) by right of conquest, when she deflected the aim of her hostile neighbors to destroy her and took possession of additional land as a result. Will the "world" scream? Of course. Doesn't it always, no matter what Israel does?

READ MORE
hrrule

WAKE UP AND START CONNECTING THE DOTS

by Mordechai Kedar

An indication of how ill-prepared Israelis are attitudinally to fight effectively is that we are in the midst of the Third Intifada and Israelis are still debating how to handle a terrorist neutralized after he's committed his act of terror. They aren't even sure if the context should be normative civil law or wartime necessity. Mordechai Kedar writes of the basic political differences that underlie the opposing views. Morally superior liberals don't want to stoop to the level of the enemy. They "relate to the terrorist stabber and murderer as though he is a member of civilized society who has, unfortunately, strayed from the proper path, but is entitled to all the protection afforded by law to any criminal..." Unfortunately, because the terrorist is treated as a hero by the Arabs and enjoys generous benefits in prison, including the ability to obtain advanced degrees at Israeli taxpayer expense, this ends up encouraging terror and murder. Whatever the morality of killing the terrorist on the spot, it does have the effect of deterring terrorism. As Kedar points out, in the Middle East, he "who succeeds in convincing his enemies that he is invincible and that they had better leave him alone for their own good, has a chance of achieving peace."

READ MORE
hrrule

SUNNI POLITICAL ISLAM: ENGINE OF THE 'ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN' CONFLICT

by Jonathan Spyer

With all due respect to those that insist that the current problem with the Muslims is not their religion but their political aspirations — and not denying that the Muslim movers and shakers do indeed plan to rule the world under sharia by utilizing politics, social acceptance and terrorism, among other means — Islam's domination of all other religions is an unshakable part of their religious tenets. It is also, as Jonathan Spyer, points out, significant in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, where the "centrality of religion continued to fire the various movements fighting Israel. The very name "Fatah," for example, which is often — absurdly — described as a "secular" movement, is a religious term. "Fatah" is in Arabic a term literally meaning to "open," but is used in context to mean "to conquer a land for Islam. [...] [T]he core energy on the Arab side is one of religious rage — a feeling that the re-establishment of Jewish sovereignty in parts of the land formerly ruled by Muslims constitutes a crime against god."

It would seem to me that an outsider, unfamiliar with the history and geography of the conflict, is likely to side with the Arabs, because instinctively he knows true owners of land do not willingly give up their land. Thus Israel has weakened its irrefutable biblical, historic, legal and conquest claims to the land by promoting the secular and rational and offering to share the land, while downplaying the deep-rootedness of the love that Israelis, even secular Jews, have for their homeland.

READ MORE
hrrule

I'M GETTING TO KNOW MY MOTHER; IGNORANCE IS BLITZ; FLAMES; ONE MORE LAST THING; AND OTHER ESSAYS

by Moshe Saperstein

Rachel and Moshe Saperstein lived in Gush Katif in Gaza until the Israeli Government of Ariel Sharon unilaterally kicked them and another 10,000 productive and patriotic Jews out of their homes and greenhouses. One theory claimed that tightening the borders by cutting away Gaza would make defense more efficient. In point of fact it brought Hamas closer to Jewish population centers and gave them more room to train terrorists and assemble explosives. From reading the Saperstein essays over the years, we understand how this moronic displacement affected the involuntary participants. We know the struggle it has been not to sink into depression but continue to fight a recalcitrant and inefficient bureaucracy to regain permanent housing for members of the original Gush Katif community. Every so often we hear rumors that the politicians are prepared to kick the Jews out of Samaria and Judea and the eastern part of Jerusalem so the local Arabs can have their own state. One wonders how the politicians, who in ten years, have not yet completed the resettlement of the 10,000 members of Gush Katif community plan to handle some 800,000 new Jewish refugees.

READ MORE
hrrule

KAHANE ON THE PARSHA

by Barbara Ginsberg

On the road they have traveled these last seventy years, American Jews have come to a fork they had not anticipated. There was optimism after World War II. It was symbolized by the formation of the United Nations, which was founded on the belief that hostilities between countries could be talked out and negotiated. Wars weren't necessary to solve differences. Jews, too, since the end of second World War, have been optimistic. They have been more than comfortable as secular-appearing members of the liberal intellectual culture: sophisticated, open to all ideas, tolerant almost to excess, concluding from the Holocaust that they should take a low profile as Jews while passionately defending the human and civil rights of others.

Jews adored the idea that they could vote for an attractive, articulate black man as President. Unfortunately, Prez Obama didn't return their love. He was raised as a Muslim and had internalized the major goal of the Koran: make Islam supreme; all other religions are inferior, members of all other religions are dhimmis His antipathy was reinforced by his long-standing preference for socialism over democracy, a socialism that includes despising religion.

Right now Jews are at a place where the familiar road has stopped. The Liberals — now called Progressives — continue to deviate further and further towards the extreme Left. The old-fashioned benign liberal is considered quaint. To stay liberal means adopting Marxism, socialism, white-hate and Jew-hate, as well as becoming a partner to Muslim activists, who don't negotiate or tolerate. Otherwise, one must go to the Right, to the group still imagined by many as old-white-men, fossilized Republicans lacking a sense of humor and disliking Jews. But the Right, at least by a large majority, has abandoned Jew-hate, and does uphold the Jewish ethic that hard work and family values are the way to a happy and productive life. As more Jews realistically assess what their new political choices are, the writings of the prophetic Rabbi Meir Kahane become more appreciated. In this article, Barbara Ginsberg writes of the Rabbi's take on Israeli security.

READ MORE
hrrule

PROPAGANDA AND PUBLIC RELATIONS

In this issue we examine the inadequacy of news sources and publishers as well as the ethics of a think-tanker who is anything but objective. The article by Rosenthal is of interest because it catches a columnist at the point where he sees some of the truth but won't follow where logic leads. And a Canadian Muslim explores one source of inciting Muslims to become lone-wolf terrorists.


Return to What We Are Talking About

THOUGHTS OF AN IDF SOLDIER AFTER A MONTH IN THE WEST BANK

by Noga Gur-Arieh

Noga Gur-Arieh transmits some thoughts a reservist IDF soldier named Yoav shared with her. He spend a month in Samaria and Judea. What he found most troubling was the behavior of the journalists and "human rights" activists who "watch as Palestinians aggravate and interrupt the soldiers there, and when the soldiers finally respond, they turn their cameras on, making it seem as if the Israeli Defense Forces is all about war and conquest, and the Palestinians are weak and helpless." Often the media precipitate episodes of violence. A video such as
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2QoGtJwZH0&feature=youtu.be
captures the sort of abuse the IDF soldiers are subjected to by Arab children who have learned from experience that they won't suffer harm by taunting the solders.

READ MORE
hrrule

JEFFREY GOLDBERG FINALLY GETS IT, THEN QUICKLY LOSES IT AGAIN

by Vic Rosenthal

Years of brilliant propaganda have demonized the Settler Movement. Yet most people would be hard put to explain rationally why they feel the Jews should not establish towns and communities in Samaria and Judea. There is indeed a logic behind it. A very simple one.

IF the Arabs are to succeed in taking over the Territories
THEN the Jews must be discouraged from living in Samaria-Judea.

HOW? Get the Jews out of the Territories by hook, by crook, by terror, by murder, by blandishment. Demonize the Jews. Lie. Lie. Lie. Demonize the settlers. Any and every Jewish settlement (a tainted word for a town or city located in Samaria and Judea) is evil. Never mention the illegal Arab settlements.

THE RESULT: Thanks to the major media and the UN/EU politicos conditioning the public, lots of Arab money and a quiescent Israeli government, the evil nature of the settlers has become an unshakable belief, resistant to facts and logic.

Vic Rosenthal shows how hollow this pernicious blather is. As context, he presents the limited reasoning of someone, Jeffrey Goldberg, who is much better informed about the facts than most. Goldberg agrees that eliminating the Jewish towns in the Territories would have little impact on creating peace between Arab and Jew. But he is still in favor of destroying the settler movement, because he hopes that eliminating the settlements may somehow eventually pacify the Arabs, or at least, not rouse them to more extreme violence.

Goldberg doesn't pursue his own logic. If freezing the Jewish settlements isn't the way to peace Then why bother recklessly and pointlessly destroying a culture that is productive and patriotic? Realistically, in giving up Samaria and Judea, we would only make it easier for the Arabs to carry out their avowed mission to destroy all of Israel.

If we put aside the belief that there is a magic way to make peace with Arabs that want to destroy the Jewish state, there is another matter to deal with. The Arabs declare that any state of theirs will not allow a single Jew to live there. And the Jews could happily live without the presence of uncivilized practitioners of the cult of death. Both sides want a separation. As Rosenthal says "In any divorce, one of the ex-spouses has to move out. Goldberg, like Obama and like other American and European diplomats, can't shake the idea that it should be the Jews — possibly because he thinks they can be more easily pushed around." But there is no reason for Israel to consent to this idiocy.

READ MORE
hrrule

RENAMING PLACES TO MAKE JEWS SEEM OCCUPIERS

by Richard H. Shulman

The usual reason for semantic cleansing — rebranding — is to downgrade a well-recognized name that has, for one reason or another, become tarnished. In this case, the New York Times has started calling Jewish holy places such as the Temple Mount and the Cave of the Patriarchs by their Arab names. Richard Shulman notes that the Times deliberately targets Jewish holy places. This had the dual effect of downplaying that the Temple Mount is the holiest site in Judaism and pretending that the site has been exclusively Muslim from time immemorial. Previously, they stopped using the name Judea. Perhaps they feared some Times readers might notice the obvious connection between Jew and Judea. The Times calls ancient Judea and ancient Samaria the West Bank, a name that came into being in 1948.

READ MORE
hrrule

POISONING THE WELL FROM WHICH OUR YOUTH DRINK

by Raheel Raza

Raza Raheel is a Canadian Muslim who speaks out against radical Islam. On the common Muslim gambit of playing the victim, she has said, "Let's get over this victim ideology that we, Muslims, are being persecuted." She has observed that "[t]he OIC have a powerful grip at the UN because their numbers are high and they have an unspoken agreement to stand up for each other, regardless of cause. So if the word "Sharia" is ever used in any resolution or speech and is connected to, for example, stoning of women, since Sharia is associated with the Muslim religion and is practiced in many Muslim countries, they will object and not allow that point to be documented." In this article, she examines one example of how salafist radicalization is inculcated.

READ MORE
hrrule

BUSTED: NEW YORK TIMES INVENTS BACKLASH AGAINST NEW YORK MUSLIMS

by Jack Engelhard

Jack Engelhard captures the ambience at the NY Times and its respect for truth and accuracy in this story of supposed backlash against Muslims that appeared in the Times on November 25, 2015. The headline informs us that day by day New York Muslims are growing ever more fearful for their lives - they fear retribution after the Paris massacre. Muslim self-defense organizations have all weighed in with predictions of doom and gloom and the mullahs have loudly worried about backlash — not about the monstrous crimes their fellow-Muslims have been committing. But how many of these hate crimes have been confirmed, or at least attached to a actual person? Two or possibly three separate women say they were spat upon by men who cursed and threatened. One woman wearing a hijab claims to have been deliberately tripped as she was rushing to an exam. In NYC, that's too ambiguous to count. That's a lot of brouhaha over a couple of minor incidents. Well, you can't blame the Times for dramatizing a whole lot of nothing'. It was a slow newsday. On the other hand, considering the Times won't tell the real stories of Muslim overt hostility to others and their attempts to take over NY campuses, it must be hard to fill a news sheet most of the time.

READ MORE
hrrule

MARTIN INDYK'S LEGACY REMEMBERED TODAY

by David Bedein

Martin Indyk claims to be a Jew but has been the tool of American presidents, from Clinton through Obama, who act as if they believe the claims of the so-called Palestinians. The pressure is always on Israel to make high-risk concessions. The simplest way to tag him is to know that he served on the board of the Israel-hating New Israel Fund. Moreover, as Executive Vice-President of the Brooking Institute, an influential think-tank, he accepted a $14.8 million dollar "donation" from Qatar, a top funder of Hamas. That was around the time he led the 2014 American-initiated peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Arabs. Of course, he blamed Israel for his failure (see here and here.) In this article, David Bedein explains how "Indyk is one of the people who paved the way for Yassir Arafat and the PLO armed control to gain control over most of the Palestinian Arab population." Committed to the idea that Israel withdraw from territories, legitimately hers, that she got back in the 1967 Six Day War, "Indyk oversaw every step of the Oslo process with that precise policy in mind — Israel giving up land that is vital to her defense." Quel creep!

READ MORE
hrrule

HISTORY SECTION


Return to What We Are Talking About

THOMAS JEFFERSON AND RADICAL ISLAM'S WAR ON THE WEST

by David L. Hunter

Prez Obama has described Islam as having always been part of America, implying that Islam has helped strengthen America. David Hunter writes that it is true that as far back as Colonial times, we interacted with Muslims — mainly Muslim pirates who were capturing American cargo ships and selling American citizens into slavery. The US had no warships so it unhappily paid ransom until the increase in ugly incidents was deemed intolerable. Thanks to the grainy irritant of Islamic piracy, America began developing a pearl of a navy. So yes, if we tweak historical fact sufficiently, Obama's assertion is sort of true.

READ MORE
hrrule

IS THE WEST INDEBTED TO ISLAM?

by Mark Durie

It is often said that we should be grateful Islam kept Greek and Hindu intellectual accomplishments safe for the West during the "dark ages." Mark Durie sets the record straight. He points out that the Islamic conquest and "resulting Arab control of the Mediterranean, stunted scientific progress in Europe." Indeed, it was "Islam's disruption of Mediterranean civilization [that] ushered in the so-called European 'Dark Ages'." Islam didn't maintain contact between Eastern learning and the West; it destroyed it.

READ MORE
hrrule

THE OTTOMAN-GERMAN ATTACK ON THE SUEZ CANAL — 1915

from the Israel Daily Picture website

The Ottomans attacked British positions along the Suez Canal in January 2015 at the start of World War 1. These pictures are, for the most part, from the Ottoman Imperial Archives.

READ MORE
hrrule

HOW THE MUFTI OF JERUSALEM CREATED THE PERMANENT PROBLEM OF PALESTINIAN VIOLENCE

by Edy Cohen

Edy Cohen writes on Haj Amin al-Husseini, the Mufti of Jerusalem, who was "a fervent anti-Semite, the most important Nazi collaborator in the Arab world, and a political activist who worked tirelessly for the ethnic cleansing and physical destruction of the Jews in Palestine and in the Middle East as a whole." His brazen lies — he claimed, for example, that the Jews wanted to conquer Muslim sites — incited the local Arabs and helped initiate riots and terror attacks, models of current-day terrorist tactics. The British response was to disregard their legal and moral duty to help the Jews settle their homeland. Instead they curtailed Jewish immigration. During WW2, the Mufti gathered troops to massacre the Jews in Palestine, a plan that, thanks to the British victory in North Africa in 1942, didn't come to fruition. He was more successful in recruiting Muslims to fight for Germany. "In the western Balkans, he raised three SS divisions composed of Bosnian and Albanian Muslims who participated in the killing of Jews in Croatia and Hungary," He blocked thousands of Jews from escaping from Europe to Palestine. Above all, he rejected peace with the Jews. His ideology lives on in the Arab world.

READ MORE
hrrule

ABOVE AND BEYOND

by Martha Hall Kelly

When the modern state of Israel came into being in 1948, its Arab neighbors immediately invaded it. The Jews had little weaponry, few trained fighters and no air force. Britain turned over its stock of weapons to Egypt and TransJordan before it vacated the region. Except for Czechoslovakia, the members of the United Nations — who had just voted for the formation of the Jewish State — embargoed the sale of military weapons to Israel. The Arabs had every reason to expect to have an easy time carrying out their declared mission: to push the Jews into the sea. Martha Hall Kelly writes about "Above and Beyond," a Paramount film shown at the Atlanta Jewish Film Festival. It tells the story of World War II aviators who cobbled together an air force from inadequate last-leg planes to prevent a second Holocaust. For additional information, look at the an hour-long documentary entitled A Wing And A Prayer. It was produced by Boaz Dvir and narrated by William Baldwin (Hawaii-Five-O, Backdraft). It is available here and here. It features firsthand accounts by the operation leader, Al Schwimmer, and some of the group of daring aviators he recruited.

READ MORE hrrule


40TH ANNIVERSARY OF "ZIONISM IS RACISM": MOYNIHAN'S HISTORIC SPEECH

by UN Watch

The passing of Resolution 3379 at the United Nations on November 10, 1975 declaring that 'Zionism is Racism' was a significant event in the progressive demonization of Israel at the UN. The US Ambassador to the UN, Patrick Moynihan, denounced the resolution the same day. He observed that it was an outrageous act on the part of a number of countries "and thereafter, the outrageous thing having been done, to profess themselves outraged by those who have the temerity to point it out, and subsequently to declare themselves innocent of any wrong-doing in consequence of its having been brought about wholly in reaction to the 'insufferable' acts of those who pointed the wrong-doing out in the first place." What a great description of what has since become commonplace: the tendency of Arab leaders to declare themselves victims of the outrageous terror acts that they themselves have perpetrated. The worrisome thing to them is not the act of terror but the possibility of backlash against the perpetrators and abettors of the acts of terror.

READ MORE
hrrule

NOVEMBER-DECEMBER, 2015 BLOG-EDS

 This is where our readers get a chance to write opinions and editorials and share articles they find informative. The Blog-Eds page for the month is updated every few days.

There is a separate file that is the index for the articles on the Blog-Ed page. You can access an article immediately from this index by clicking on the item in the index.

To access the Index, click the "Blog-Eds List" box in the Blue Strip on the top of the Blog-Ed page.

NOVEMBER 2015 BLOG-EDS READ MORE
DECEMBER 2015 BLOG-EDS READ MORE

Please note that The Blog-Ed pages for November-December 2015 are not currently available.

Different Blog Ed pages will be down intermittently until the Archive structure is in place. We apologize for the inconvenience.

Return to Feature Index hrrule
FEATURED STORIES

July-October 2015

What we are talking about in the July–October 2015 Issue

  1. The Iran Deal (AIPAC, TIP)
  2. Facts Versus Wishful Thinking (Grynglas, Shulman, HouseCommittee, Myer, Onley)
  3. Compliance, Verification, Enforcement (Taheri, McFee, Gallington, Fleitz, Goodenough, Heinonen)
  4. What Does Iran Get out of this Deal? (Pollak, London)
  5. Repercussions From the Deal in the Middle East and Further (Euronews Staff, Spyer, Bekdil, Glick)
  6. Selling A Dangerous Deal (Lopez, Greenfield, Stillwell)
  7. We can Still Defeat the Iran Nuclear Deal (Lipkin, Pollak, Beres, Benzimra, Clawson)
  8. Propaganda and Public Relations (McCarthy, Elder of Ziyon, Edmunds, Spencer)
  9. History Section (Kephart, MacEoin, Merkley, BenDavid)


Editor's Note:

Think-Israel tends to use salafist rather than extremist or Islamist or militant or fundamentalist or activist to describe generically a pious Muslim, one who sticks as closely as possible to the unfiltered words and actions of Mohammad and the first three generations of Muslims, including, especially, the Companions of the Prophet. In modeling himself as closely as he can on the preachings and practices of Mohammad, a salafist can in modern terms be precisely described as an uninhibited terrorist, a theological supersessionist, a political supremacist who believes Islam and sharia law must dominate and a social barbarian, who wages jihad with whatever tools are available. Thanks to the high quality of whitewash supplied by sympathetic propagandists, he seldom is so described.


THE IRAN DEAL

The five permanent members of the Security Council (US, Russia, China, Britain France) and Germany, collectively known as P5+1, have negotiated an agreement to regulate Iran's nuclear program: The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). This issue is devoted to examining the deal that Prez Obama is determined to make with Iran.

If you read no further, understand this: "It had already become clear that we have implemented our stated objective of preventing Iran from getting a nuclear weapon by agreeing to make certain that no one interferes with her developing nuclear weapons." The rest of this issue provides details on how and what.


 

AIPAC early on did an excellent job of summarizing how the nuclear deal with Iran was being described and what is actually the case. See also their "Analysis: An Unacceptable Deal" (July 28, 2015. here.) As we have learned more, the facts have become even more distasteful. As an example, any deal requires proper verification which, in this case, means free access by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). As first advertised, inspection was to be allowed anywhere, anytime. But Iran has already announced it won't allow direct inspection at military sites. What's worse, the inspection protocol is governed by a side agreement outside of the Iran Agreement, one between Iran and the IAEA, which the US and the other P5+1 countries are not allowed to see.

myths and facts

"Why is Iran So Happy About The Deal", a video created by The Israel Project, is a quick view of what Iran will gain (click here) if this deal/treaty/agreement/contract/understanding is allowed to come to fruition, Iran will have it all, and the West will have gained nothing.

happyiran


 

We are beginning to understand what the consequences are likely to be. There is more to know. But it is unlikely that further information will change the general picture for the better. It is equally unlikely that the politically-correct description of the deal will change to fit reality. As recently as September 10, 2015, the day U.S. Senate Democrats stopped the debate on disapproval of the Iran Nuclear Deal, President Obama said, "‎Today, the Senate took an historic step forward and voted to enable the United States to work with our international partners to enable the implementation of the comprehensive, long-term deal that will prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon."[emphasis added] Yet the agreement spends a great deal of space on how many centrifuges and radioactive material and resources Iran is allowed to have over time and how we will help her with our experience and nuclear skills. What else does she need to develop nuclear weapons?

To make more precise what Obama is saying in his logic-defying way: in order to prevent Iran from making nuclear weapons, we will help her make nuclear bombs. And we are pledging to Iran that we will thwart any attempts by hostile countries (such as Israel) to stop or hinder Iran's nuclear program.

These are other consequences that the deal ignores.

We hear tell congressmen are thinking long and hard about this deal. If true, what they are weighing is what they need to fear the most: Obama's wrath or the anger of the voters. Bye and large, the Democrats have decided they fear Obama more in the short term, and who knows, a miracle might happen before they come up for reelection. And too many Republicans don't have the passion and determination to stop Obama from having his way.

Nevertheless, it is important that we fight every item that contributes to Iran's progress, every regulation the American administration issues that helps Iran, every decree that promotes Iranian nuclear activity, every media article that lulls us and calms us and quiets our anxiety. We just might delay her activities significantly. Some unforeseen event might change the picture significantly. Maybe an Iranian province or two will rebel. Maybe a nuclear site might blow itself up. Maybe Iran will run out of water or irradiate her own water supply. Maybe.., Maybe...

The bulk of this issue presents the facts and what they mean. But we do have some ideas on how to fight the Deal. They may be found at the end of the informational articles here.

If we do not stop the Iran Nuclear Deal now, then realistically, as Norman Podhoritz put it (here): "The brutal truth is that the actual alternatives before us are not Mr. Obama's deal or war. They are conventional war now or nuclear war later.


FACTS VERSUS WISHFUL THINKING

This set of articles lays out disadvantages to the world of Iran's achieving its passionate desire for nuclear appliances. The picture will only become more ugly as we learn more about the "secret" side deals made with Iran. The beginning articles — the more factual ones — are followed by more in-depth analyses of why Iran, a major if not the biggest, paymaster of global terrorism, should not be allowed to success. So many of the arguments urging acceptance of the Iran Nuclear Deal are wishes, hopes, fantasies, misdirections and just plain lies. Some of these are also discussed in this section.


Return to What We Are Talking About

NUTS AND BOLTS OF THE IRAN DEAL: IS IT REALLY BAD?

by Daniel Grynglas

Daniel Grynglas points out that we sent two American amateurs against first class bluffers and tricksters. What else could we expect but an Iranian win? The Americans were charged with coming home with a deal, any deal; the other negotiating countries were eager to partake of the billions Iran would acquire when it agreed to a deal.The eagerness of the P5+1 negotiators was a weakness that Iran knew how to exploit. And. in the face of the P5+1 very many bargaining chips, it did so successfully. Grynglas provides a list of the main provisions, referencing the pertinent clauses in the JCPOA document. He points out treaty defects, including some large legal loopholes; the built-in ability for Iran to drag out the time between when inspection is requested and when (and if) it happens; and how easy it will be for Iran to hide evidence of illegal nuclear activity. As he says, "This agreement is full of loopholes and gives Iran more-than-ample opportunity to cheat." There is also the serious problem of what's omitted: "...the agreement includes a very long list of various individuals, companies, transportation units, and entities related to the sanction regimen," but only a few of the ~70 known nuclear sites are named; so the agreement may easily become a focal point of contention and/or the basis of an Iranian argument that only these sites can be inspected. The ingenuity and skill shown by the Iranian negotiators is now being matched by the misleading and mendacious arguments the Obama administration is using to convince the US to accept a deal that will allow Iran to become an nuclear power unrestrained by moral inhibitions.

READ MORE
hrrule

FACTS AND FANTASIES ABOUT THE IRAN NUCLEAR DEAL, FROM SEVERAL SOURCES

by Richard H. Shulman

Richard H. Shulman explores the actuality of the terms of the Iran nuclear deal and the likely consequences of the treaty stipulations that are praised by the pro-deal news media. The writings of The New York Times writer, Richard Cohen, illustrates what's wrong with much of the pro-treaty arguments: pro-treaty writers are prone to wishful thinking instead of assessing the treaty realistically. Lacking sensible arguments, they resort to denigrating those who question the theory, and they invent fantasies that endorse the empowerment of a rogue country. Afraid to examine the consequences of accepting this ill-designed document, they assert that non-acceptance will lead to war. As Shulman points out, Iran has already declared war on us. The issue for us is how best to fight it, rather than to deny what's going on. Shulman also references several anti-deal writers, who have made important observations that can be summed up this way: the treaty appears to have ways to handle cheating and flouting the terms of agreement, but, realistically, other transactions such as Russia's agreeing to sell Iran an anti-missile system already nullify some of the ways the treaty plans to handle non-compliance. Shulman concludes, "Every alleged restriction, if not already removed from negotiations, has a major loophole." The treaty is a fraud. A dangerous fraud.

READ MORE
hrrule

THE IRAN NUCLEAR AGREEMENT KEY SHORTCOMINGS

by House Committee on Foreign Affairs. Chairman: Ed Royce

This summary of the elements of the Iran Nuclear Agreement was produced by the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. The Committee has held two dozen hearings since 1913 and continues to do so. This paper highlights major shortcomings of the treaty, whether one invokes the standards Obama's own former advisors would use or the standards implicit in the terms of the treaty itself.

READ MORE
hrrule

SURRENDER IN VIENNA: THE FALSE ASSUMPTIONS OF THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION

by Allan Myer

The Israel Project's The Tower has published an excellent briefing entitled "Surrender in Vienna: Why We Need A Better Nuclear Deal With Iran. (ISBN: 978-1-943842-05-6; see here.). It discusses Iran's destabilizing drive for regional hegemony and the danger Iran poses worldwide, given the agreement's weaknesses that allow the continuation of nuclear development, the removal of sanctions and a weak inspection protocol. It may be downloaded as a PDF document. This article by Allan Myer serves as the introduction to the set of articles. As Ben Cohen wrote in the Preface:

Allan Myer asks the pertinent question: "Does the President's conclusion match up to the world as it is, or is the conclusion based on series of profoundly false assumptions?" Regrettably, and despite President Obama's insistence that the agreement with Iran is grounded on empirical verification rather than plain trust, the assumptions of the current administration concerning Iran and its future behavior have, as Myer asserts, created an outcome whereby research on advanced centrifuges is permitted and, at the same time, the bans on Iranian weapons imports and ballistic missile programs are removed. All in all, this provides "a significant boost to the legitimacy of a regime with a truly despicable human rights record."

Obama assumes that Iran, a major sponsor of terrorist activities in the Middle East, Europe and America, will be a stabilizing influence in the Middle East. He apparently believes the terms of this agreement will circumvent cheating. Unfortunately, these assumptions are contradicted by Iran's past interactions with other countries in the Middle East, by its sorry history of cheating, by its high-handed reinterpretations of contractual obligations, by its lack of cooperation and by its linking its pursuit of nuclear power to its profound hatred of America and Israel. These unrealistic assumptions constitute a shaky foundation to base an agreement that will have major influence on the restructuring of the Middle East. Any agreement based on them will soon show itself to have no way of restraining Iran in its bid for global domination.

READ MORE
hrrule

OBAMA'S GAMBLE WITH IRAN'S THEOCRATIC REGIME

by Robert D. Onley

Robert D. Onley writes that "Obama's Iran deal is a direct manifestation of the President's fundamentally misguided worldview, one that wishes away danger and then believes in the wishes." No amount of tweaking will fix its structural unsoundness. Onley suggests that "President Obama's willingness to concede Iran's new-found normalized membership in the community of nations on the basis of this nuclear deal is an affront to the liberal, free, democratic principles that have stood against the forces of tyranny throughout American history." It may also be unconstitutional. "By seeking approval of the deal under the UN Security Council, President Obama has bound the United States under international law without Senate consent [and] ... the Iran deal may directly conflict with U.S. obligations as a signatory of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). As a number of critics have pointed out, the Iran deal may be unconstitutional, violate international law and feature commitments that President Obama could not otherwise lawfully make." These are reasonable grounds for halting the precipitous acceptance of the Iran Nuclear Deal in its present state.

READ MORE
hrrule

COMPLIANCE, VERIFICATION, ENFORCEMENT

korea and iran

The previous section discussed many specific weaknesses in the Iran Nuclear Deal. In a call to action, the Zionist Organization of America (July 29, 2015, here) described them this way: "It does not dismantle any part of its nuclear infrastructure."

It does not: It will, the ZOA notes, "produce a nuclear arms race in Middle East" and "the U.S. will be obliged to live under the permanent shadow of nuclear blackmail."

With so much at stake, we'd expect the negotiating committee would be very careful about pinning down Compliance, Verification, and Enforcement. The initial articles in this section are about Iran's compliance, verification procedures and enforcement protocols, in that order. The last ones are about an incident at the Parchin military site in Iran that prefigures how compliance, verification and enforcement are likely to play out once the deal is signed.

We are already seeing grid lock between Prez Obama's reassurances that the Deal is based on verification not trust and the newer information that, in practice, the Deal depends on trust, not verification. We are supposed to trust the IAEA, although it was revealed (here) that "Iran apparently threatened [Director-General of IAEA] Yukiya Amano in a letter meant to ensure he did not reveal specific information about the nature of nuclear inspections going forward, according to Iranian AEOI spokesman Behrouz Kamalvandi." We should trust the Obama Administration, whose leader sold the country on Obamacare with the promise that if we liked our doctor we could keep him, if we liked our insurance plan, we could keep it. And, what is almost impossible to do, we need to trust Iran to behave responsibly. Actually, in one sense, we can trust Iran — it has bluntly and without apologies declared it will do what it wants when it wants. But that doesn't reassure that Iran will abide by the face meaning of the rules, and ignore legal loopholes, ambiguities and nullifications and its own wishes.


Return to What We Are Talking About

IRAN PUBLISHES BOOK ON HOW TO OUTWIT US AND DESTROY ISRAEL

by Amir Taheri

To put the best face on the American President's encouragement of a nuclear Iran, it has been said that what Prez Obama wants from Iran is not a non-nuclear Iran. He is willing to settle for a much less ambitious result, detente, a lessening of hostile relations between Iran and much of the rest of the world. It is most unlikely that even this can be achieved. This article by Amir Taheri gives us insight into Iran's attitude toward peaceful coexistence with any non-Muslim country once ruled by Muslims. Iran's Ayatollah Khameni has just published a book in which he directs specific hatred towards Israel because "it is a loyal 'ally of the American Great Satan' and a key element in its 'evil scheme' to dominate 'the heartland of the Ummah.'" Here and elsewhere, Iran's leaders have often publicly stated they have no intention of foregoing terrorism and belligerency and complying with the terms of the Iranian nuclear deal.

READ MORE
hrrule

IF THE IAEA INSPECTED RESTAURANTS WE'D ALL GET FOOD POISONING!

by Dr. Robin McFee

Robin McFee juxtaposes the scrupulous care with which restaurants are monitored with the sloppy and inadequate way the IAEA will verify activity at suspected nuclear sites. The article makes a humorous comparison about a deadly situation, namely, that Iran is in control, one way or another, of how its nuclear sites are inspected and its conformity to treaty regulations verified. To reduce the problem to its simplest terms, Iran will decide what facilities the IAEA can visit. If allowed, IAEA inspectors have to request permission to visit and the time to the actual inspection can be creatively stretched out long enough to allow even union labor to dismantle a nuclear facility. In many cases, IAEA inspectors are not allowed direct access. Iranian technicians will take the soil samples that determine what type of nuclear activity has been going on. This has been likened to accepting a urine sample brought in from the outside by a person suspected of illegal drug use. To add insult to injury, the US — even though Obama is the biggest promoter of the Iran Deal — has no control on verifying whether Iran is working on nuclear weaponry. The procedure is laid down in a 'secret' side agreement between Iran and the IAEA.

READ MORE
hrrule

THE "IRAN NUKE DEAL:" ANOTHER UNREAD BESTSELLER — AND WITH ALL THE "USUAL" SCARY PARTS

by Daniel Gallington

Whatever agencies will be in charge of dealing with Iran if, or more likely when, it breaks its promises, will find it almost impossible to enforce the agreement. Definitions are poorly spelled out. Actual procedures are as vague as reassurances are optimistic. Already, the elastic has gone out of 'Snapback', whereby sanctions were to be automatically restored, should Iran violate the Deal. Secretary Kerry stated, "The arms embargo is not tied to snapback." His mind may have been on the slippery means by which the diplomats were able to take such a crucial enforcement tool off the table without collapsing the deal, for he continued, "It is tied to a separate set of obligations. So they are not in material breach of the nuclear agreement for violating the arms piece of it," (August 11, 2015, see here).

As usual, every bitter grain of reality is coated with honeyed reassurances. In this case, Kerry reassured us that the P5+1 has "ample tools at our disposal" should Iran try to send weapons to Hezbollah or to the Shia militia in Iraq. But these alternatives to sanctions are unspecified and the protocols for invoking them are unwritten. Realistically, once sanctions, the major enforcement tool, are removed, they will never be reinstated, making it more difficult to prevent or punish Iran for abrogating any part of the deal at will. The greater amount of enforcement activity will be dissipated in determining whether any particular incident is worth the effort of proving it is anti-agreement and then determining how to enforce the rules, such as they are. And meantime, Iran works on.

Gallington writes of his concern that nothing we do will have any effect on Iran's covert program to build nukes. For several reasons, enforcement is almost impossible. As he points out, "It's virtually impossible to separate a 'peaceful' nuclear energy program from one intended to produce material to make nuclear weapons. This is because perhaps 95 percent of the 'nuclear fuel cycle' pertains to both programs, and so most of the 'dirty work', i.e., the secret weapon building part, happens at the very end of a so-called 'peaceful nuclear program'."

Then too, because an agreement is written in several languages, inevitably there are subtle changes in the meaning, context and usage of words between versions, so an agreement, especially one drawn up by politicians, is often sufficiently ambiguous that it becomes grounds for bickering and indecision rather than for action. Add to this the "side agreements' and 'secret protocols' that might contradict or nullify the guidelines for verification in the Deal, making it uncertain when enforcement is required.

Initiating enforcement implies that the authorities have verified that there is illegal nuclear activity. In what is a grotesque division of labor, the terms under which the IAEA (the agency to verify Iran's compliance or lack of compliance) operates are in a secret agreement separate and independent of the Iran Nuclear Deal and inaccessible to the P5+1 countries. What we do know is that the IAEA has already abdicated its role, letting Iran control access to nuclear sites and procedures for obtaining evidence.

Gallington emphasizes that committing a rogue country to a set of laws is counterproductive. The agreement acts to shield countries such as Iran while they do whatever they want. At most, this deal slows down Iran's nuclear program for a while, assuming that she does not yet have the bomb. But the amount of slowdown time is uncertain. Even if Iran still does not have nuclear weaponry, the promise by the negotiating countries to use their experience and technology to help Iran acquire the skills to make a bomb nullifies the assertion that Iran won't break out a bomb for some eight years. As Alan Dershowitz has pointed out, "The devil is not so much in the details as in the broad outlines of this deal and its understanding by the parties," (here) It's not a question of more or less. The whole approach of defining the borders of Iran's nuclear estate is wrong. Iran is a terrorist state and shouldn't have any such property.

READ MORE
hrrule

IAEA TELLS CONGRESSMEN OF TWO SECRET SIDE DEALS TO IRAN AGREEMENT THAT WON'T BE SHARED WITH CONGRESS

by Fred Fleitz

There are two side deals that are independent of the Iran Nuclear Agreement. They are separate agreements between Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), who do inspection and verification. Fred Fleitz writes that "[o]ne of these side deals concerns inspection of the Parchin military base, where Iran reportedly has conducted explosive testing related to nuclear-warhead development... The other secret side deal concerns how the IAEA and Iran will resolve outstanding issues on possible military dimensions (PMDs) of Iran's nuclear program."

Senator Tom Cotton (R., Ark.) and Congressmen Mike Pompeo (R., Kan.) had discovered these side agreements when they met with IAEA officials in Vienna. Their press release points out that "Both arrangements will not be vetted by any organization other than Iran and the IAEA, and will not be released even to the nations that negotiated the JCPOA [Iran nuclear agreement]."

In a word, these side deals were designated as secret, and are not accessible to the US. This means that knowing there is adequate compliance, rigorous verification, and timely enforcement depend primarily on accepting the conclusions issued by the IAEA, but we have no information on how they will carry out inspections and/or whether they succumbed to political pressures. Talk about buying a naked pig in a shielded poke! It doesn't require knowledge of nuclear science to deduce that the negotiators knew that the inspection protocols, which are crucial to serious monitoring of Iran's nuclear program, were likely inadequate. Iran has often controlled the negotiations by stubborn refusals or arrogant demands, putting progress on hold. Were verification adequate, the verification protocols would be proudly displayed in the Deal document. Instead, they were cleverly taken off the table so that methodology would not be subject to questioning by Congress or the American public.

As Fleitz points out, "This means that two crucial measures of Iranian compliance with the nuclear agreement will not be disclosed to Congress despite the requirements of the Corker-Cardin bill (the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act), which requires the Obama administration to provide the U.S. Congress with all documents associated with the agreement, including all "annexes, appendices, codicils, side agreements [emphasis added], implementing materials, documents, and guidance, technical, or other understandings and any related agreements, whether entered into or implemented prior to the agreement or to be entered into or implemented in the future."

We might also ask: what else is being kept secret?

READ MORE
hrrule

IRAN: NO IAEA INSPECTORS WERE PRESENT AT SUSPECT MILITARY BASE WHEN WE COLLECTED SAMPLES

by Patrick Goodenough

Without rigorous verification, there is no way to know whether Iran is complying with the terms of the Iran Nuclear Deal (IND). A major weakness of the IND is that the verification procedures are not part of IND. They are part of secret contractual arrangements between Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Essentially then, we have to trust IAEA's verification procedures; we have to trust that IAEA is trustworthy.

We had already discovered that IAEA inspectors can not simply walk into any Iranian site at any time. They have to request permission and the entire process can take months. We had already learned that Iran has refused to let IAEA into military sites. Now there is more news.

Patrick Goodenough writes about the mid-September 2015 IAEA inspection of Iran's base at Parchin. Parchin has been a particular site of interest to the IAEA, which has tried to inspect there since 2005. It is more urgent now because there is evidence that Iran has recently been sanitizing the place. Iran appeared to capitulate and the site was finally inspected. Now we learn that "Atomic Energy Organization of Iran spokesman Behruz Kamalvandi told the IRNA state news agency Monday [September 21, 2015] that Iranian experts had collected the samples 'in the absence of the inspectors affiliated to the International Atomic Energy Agency,' before the samples were handed over to IAEA officials."

Well, that certainly tells us how much we can trust the procedures that verify Iranian compliance with the terms of the Iran Nuclear Deal. Immediately afterwards, we learned from IAEA chief Yukiya Amano how much we can trust IAEA in general. Amano insisted the "the process was carried out under our responsibility and monitoring." Certainly it was the IAEA's responsibility. But even allowing Iranian technicians to participate let alone collect the samples seems an odd way for the IAEA to monitor sample collection.

The IAEA is in the process of collecting information on allegations that Iran had been trying to developing atomic weapon capability. Its report is due mid-October, with a final report due December 2015. Care to take a guess what their findings will be?

READ MORE
READ MORE
hrrule

WHAT DOES IRAN GET OUT OF THIS DEAL?

Except for future revisions and reinterpretations in the Iran Nuclear Deal — all likely to relieve Iran of even more responsibilities — we now have a pretty good idea of what Iran's rulers were after and what they got. Their expectation have been met, even though these are much more outrageous than Prez Obama's modest desire for a legacy, where almost anything, even this awful nuclear deal, would do.

Although Iran's contractual obligations are minimal, Iran still reserves the right to do whatever it wants. Iranian President Hassan Rouhani has underlined that Iran will not allow foreign countries to interfere in its defense and military affairs and will continue arms sales and purchases irrespective of the views of other states. "We will purchase weapons from wherever we deem necessary and we are not waiting for anyone's permission; if we deem necessary we will sell our weapons and we will do this without paying attention to any resolution" [...] "On Friday, the Commander of the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps Aerospace Force, Brig.-Gen. Amir Ali Hajizadeh, said that Iran 'will continue developing its defense capabilities and military might, especially the surface-to-surface ballistic missiles.'" (Fars-Iran. August 22, 2015. See here.)

The P5+1 held all the good cards, but, given the poor quality of their negotiators, it is not surprising that Iran, with the help of the American president, won the pot. With a lack of diplomatic politeness, it immediately started to brag of its victory over its enemies. As Adam Kredo wrote: "Iranian President Rouhani celebrated the deal in a speech that detailed how the country received everything it was looking for from the United States... [He] went on to say that Iran 'will scrutinize implementation of the agreement" to ensure that the United States and other world powers uphold their end of the bargain.'" (here). [emphasis added]


Return to What We Are Talking About

THE IRAN DEAL, EXPLAINED

by Noah Pollak

When Truth Revolt reprinted Noah Pollak's article (see here), they wrote: "In a news conference (Wash Post, July 15, 2015), President Obama touted the Iran nuclear deal as a 'powerful display of American leadership and diplomacy' that shows 'what we can accomplish when we lead from a position of strength and a position of principle.' So what exactly did we 'accomplish'? To answer that question, Noah Pollak has provided a devastating 'balance sheet' that 'cut[s] through the rhetoric surrounding the Iran deal' by listing in 'simple and non-technical' terms what we get out of the Iran deal versus what the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism gets. The reader is free to make up his own mind about the merits of the deal and the extent to which it advances U.S. interests and U.S. security, and that of our allies,' writes Pollak, but as he implies, it's hard to imagine how anyone can look at the actual terms of the deal and not agree with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that this is a 'stunning historic mistake.'" (see here.)

READ MORE
hrrule

IRAN WINS, WE LOSE

by Herbert London

Herbert London writes that the Iranian leadership had four objectives when negotiating with P5+1. They wanted to continue their nuclear projects, including work on a nuclear bomb; they wanted sanctions removed; they wanted their criminal record — anti-Iran resolutions by the Security Council — deleted and the nuclear record expunged. They were completely successful. As London writes: "What this agreement has done from Rohani's point of view is legitimate Iran as a nuclear power, ignoring its role as the leading state sponsor of terror and a nation responsible for the death of at least 1000 Americans. No wonder Iran celebrates. This agreement is a victory the Shia have sought for 1400 years since the split with the Sunni majority."

READ MORE
hrrule

REPERCUSSIONS FROM THE 'DEAL' IN THE MIDDLE EAST AND FURTHER

Even though the nuclear deal is not yet a working entity, it has already promoted significant changes in the Middle East. First, the combination of Iran's projected full pocketbook and its determination to acquire both conventional and nuclear weaponry has caused other Middle East countries to focus on acquiring nuclear weapons. Second, Iran can buy all the foot soldiers it needs and can readily acquire proxies to fight in different countries. Syria can be maintained as a nodal point in the war between Shi'ite and Sunni. Iran can create diversions and start new aggression where ever it wishes.

FIRST: As facts of the 'deal' became known, it became clear that Iran's nuclear ambitions will be unrestrained in the future. This understanding is already leading Sunni countries, fearful of Shi'ite Iran's new power, to set more rapidly into motion nuclear weapon programs of their own. Saudi Arabia has long feared a nuclear Iran and has been considering how to develop a mighty nuclear and conventional armament program of its own. Saudi Arabia has an inadequate population, one not distinguished in scientific enterprise; she imports much of her technology and the people to run the various institutions. She could short circuit trying to create an infrastructure that is beyond her abilities by inducing Pakistan to share either its knowledge or some of its nuclear arsenal directly. She did, after all, bankroll a substantial part of Pakistan's current store of weapons. And Russia is said to have agreed to help build reactors for the Saudis.

Egypt and Jordan have less financial resources but they are also about to start less ambitious nuclear programs with Russia's help. With what appears to be political neutrality, Russia is also supplying Iran with a missile-defense system to protect her nuclear facilities from attack.

The most likely candidate to initiate a substantial program to develop nuclear weapons is Turkey. She has a large population, many of whom are educated in advanced science; she already has two research nuclear power facilities built with help; and she, too, has signed an agreement with Russia to built a large nuclear power facility.

Altogether, according to the Jewish Virtual Library (here): "Like Iran, at least twelve other Middle Eastern countries have either announced plans to explore atomic energy or have signed nuclear cooperation agreements: Saudi Arabia, Algeria, Egypt, UAE, Jordan, Morocco, Tunisia, Turkey, Syria, Kuwait, Qatar, and Oman (Two other counties - Yemen and Libya - cancelled their nuclear programs). Each of these countries, like Iran as well, have explicitly stated that they are only interested in peaceful uses of nuclear technology. The fear is now that these countries may follow the Iranian example and work toward building a nuclear bomb to protect themselves in any future nuclear arms race." These mostly Sunni countries fear a nuclear Iran, particularly now that the US will be obligated by its treaty with Iran to protect Iran's nuclear program from harm.

Obama's 'deal' doesn't deal with Iran's warfare in Syria or Yemen or with its support of Hamas and Hezbollah. Iran's one hundred and fifty billion dollar windfall and its freedom from sanctions are immediately of concern because Iran will have the freedom and the wherewithal to strive to establish her hegemony over the Middle East. Iran will be able to destabilize and restructure the Middle East at a faster pace because she will be able to pay for an increased number of terrorist attacks in more parts of the Middle East and give bigger bribes to more politicos, thus challenging Saudi Sunni control of the region. So Iran's enriched attempts to move to a dominant position are an immediate and existential problem for the Saudis.

With some misgivings about verification, Saudi Arabia has come out for Obama's Deal, but this doesn't imply what we'd ordinarily assume, namely, that the Saudis are in tune with the Obama Administration. It's unlikely King Salman believes Obama has stopped Iran's nuclear weaponization plans, but as Saudi's Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir said, "Now we have one less problem for the time being to deal with, with regards to Iran. We can now focus more intensely on the nefarious activities that Iran is engaged in the region." (Salman Rafi, "US concerned as Saudi Arabia, Israel team up against common foe Iran," see here.)

SECOND: Even without the deadly potential of a nuclear war, a future possibility, the Iran Deal has already had repercussions in the Middle East, strengthening some alliances and destabilizing more fragile areas.

The region has never been known for stability. Quite the opposite. And in the last few years, since the "Arab spring", it is like a 7-legged chair, where each leg is of a different size. Libya has split into multiple terrorist-controlled domains; Lebanon is in large part Hezbollah-controlled; Yemen is split into three regions, each fighting the other; aside from a Kurd-controlled area, Syria is the locus of multiple Sunni terrorist groups all fighting the Iran-backed Bashar Assad's government and often each other; some of Iraq is controlled by Iran, some by ISIS, some by the Kurds and the rest is pending; Jordan, without the protection of the Saudis and Israel, would last about as long it would take its king to fly off to Europe.

The Palestinian Arabs, useful to the Arab countries because they could be presented to the world as pitiful victims of Israel's aggression, are, in the present crisis, of low priority. Fatha's head, Mahmoud Abbas is in motion, looking in scatter-brained fashion for money sources and political support. Sunni Hamas is now on Shi'ite Iran's payroll, as is Hezbollah. And while Sunni allies are unreliable and Sunni terrorists are split between multiple groups, some of which, such as ISIS and al-Qaeda, hate each other more than they hate the Shi'ites, Iran appears whole and untroubled by internecine fights between her clients and mercenaries. So Saudi Arabia is focusing its efforts on strengthening Egypt, obtaining weaponry needed in the future, persuading irresolute countries such as Pakistan to join the fight and coordinating with Israel.

The fragile rights of the minority Christian and "heretical" Muslim groups are deteriorating still further. The massacring, rape and forced conversions to Islam of Christians have become so common, they are no longer news, but the slaughter continues. The Western Protestant churches ignore their fellow-Christians, preferring to put their efforts into helping to destroy Israel economically by BSD efforts. The Roman Catholic Pope has committed his Church to the Palestinian Arab cause, while ignoring the plight of the Middle East's Christians.

Russia to date has mostly helped build facilities and supply weaponry but although it may have less resources than the US, it has a much stronger leader. To date, it hasn't played a large role, at least not publicly.

The turmoil is spreading in and beyond the Middle East. Syrians fleeing from the combat have taken refuge in Jordan, Lebanon and especially Turkey, contributing to the pressure on these countries. Businessmen from European countries, itching to get some of Iran's billions, ignore some of the ramifications of Iran's increased power. Buyers of Middle East oil have always been uneasy. Arabs have always associated supplying oil with buyers accepting — or at least not attacking — Muslim political views. Iran will not be timid about using its role as a major oil supplier to the Far East to make India and China and Japan understand they must actively support her activities.

Some social engineers are following the Marxist edict always to take advantage of a crisis: they are promoting the idea that Europe, already swamped by unassimilatable Muslims, should take in more of them And Prez Obama, always happy to downgrade America, wants to add thousands of Syrian refugees to the terror-prone Somalis he has already brought to the States, using tax-payers' money to bring them in and welfare money to support them.

In this bubbling and turbulent mix, there is one country that stands out as unpredictable.

Turkey has long been the joker in the Middle East deck. As David P Goldman said (The Persian Pandora's Box" July 16,2015 here): "Turkey's reaction to the P5+1 nuclear deal with Iran will be something of a bellwether. The reactions of other regional players were known in advance, except for Turkey's, which has tried to play all sides, and no longer can. When Iran was isolated diplomatically in 2010, Turkey sought to mediate between Iran in the West, and failed miserably. In 2012 and 2013, Turkey helped Iran skirt sanctions through a billion-dollar gold trade that allowed Iranian traders to buy the precious metal in Turkey, cart it to Dubai, and sell it for foreign exchange. But Turkey and Iran are the bitterest of opponents in the Syrian civil war, with Turkey backing ISIS as a blunt instrument against the Assad regime, and against the Syrian Kurds, whose hopes for autonomy further the Kurdish national cause."

Some things seem certain. Although a member of NATO, Turkey is an active player in the confusing alliances and clientships of the Middle East. Turkey doesn't want a Kurdish state next to it. Turkey and the Muslim Brotherhood are bosom buddies. Turkey and Egypt are definitely not. Egypt openly captured Turkish intelligence officers actively involved in guerrilla war waged by IS in Sinai and Egypt.

Statements about Turkey and other Middle East countries should be tagged by date. Turkey's attitude toward ISIS is not immutable. As a generality, it fights ISIS when it must, but would rather devote its fire power to attacking the Kurds. There is documentary evidence that Turkish officials have directly interacted with high-level ISIS members (Robert Spencer, July 29, 2015, here). Turkey has long been a conduit through which IS has smuggled weaponry into Syria and young volunteers from around the world have come to ISIS. But on July 20, 2015 ISIL bombed Suruc, a town in Turkey. This made them a (temporary?) enemy.

The Turks are unambiguously against Syria, well they were in June 2015. It's not quite clear in July 2015. With IS's threat to Turkey's security the new top priority, Syria has been downgraded. And Turkey and the Saudis have been diplomatically smiling at each other, although the Saudis are backing Egypt. Saudi would like Turkey as part of a Sunni consensus against Iran, but Turkey views Egypt with distaste, and, as always, is somewhat mercurial.

This section discusses the complexity woven into the simple statement that Iran will use some of its new billions of dollars to strengthen Syria's Bashar al-Assad in his fight against ISIS and the Syrian rebels. It explores some aspects of the relationships and schemes of Turkey vis a vis Syria. Can we predict whether Turkey will again side with Iran? It seems likely it will. But that won't harm Turkey's relationship with Prez Obama, another good friend of Iran.


Return to What We Are Talking About

SYRIA AND TURKEY — A HISTORY OF A COMPLEX RELATIONSHIP

by Euronews Staff

This article by Euronews Staff focuses on the changing relations over time between Turkey and both Syria and Isis. Turkey and its neighbor, Syria, have had good and bad relations over many years. The situation has been more complicated since the rise of Isis. When Isis has behaved itself in its dealing with Turkey, Turkey has focused on its chronic disagreements with Syria. When ISIS has forced a confrontation, Turkey has focused on fighting ISIS. In general, they are allies, even though ISIS is fighting Iran, with whom Turkey does deals.

READ MORE
hrrule

SYRIA'S NEW DIPLOMACY

by Jonathan Spyer

Jonathan Spyer explains how what was initially a civil war in Syria has splintered into multiple independent conflicts, involving Sunni Arab rebels, the Kurds, IS, and Turkey. Spyer makes an important point about these separate wars being fought inside Syria. "So even if Assad's declining fortunes were to lead to his departing the scene, the war for Syria's succession, and the suffering of its inhabitants, would almost certainly not be at an end."

READ MORE
hrrule

WHAT TURKEY WANTS IN SYRIA

by Burak Bekdil

Currently, Turkey has joined the West's fight against ISIS in Syria. Aside from this giving Turkey an opportunity to hit at the Kurds, as Burak Bekdil writes, Turkey has emphasized that it wants to install a moderate group when it clears the area of ISIS. It has suggested the Free Syrian Army (FSA), a group that doesn't have the ability to fight IS or Syria. Moreover, the FSA, once touted as a democratic group seeking civil rights in Syria, has been shown to be just as prone to practices such as recruiting children as soldiers as any Salafist terror gang. Bekdil suggests Turkey's actual objective is to find a new safe home for the Sunni Salafist Muslim Brotherhood, a group that both Turkey and the Obama administration like, encourage and shelter.

READ MORE
hrrule

OBAMA STRIKES AGAIN

by Caroline Glick

Caroline Glick provides the major highlights of what Turkey is doing in Syria. She emphasizes the important point that under the guise of cooperating with Western forces in fighting ISIS, Turkey devotes most of its effort to killing Kurds. "As for that 'safe area' in northern Syria, as the Kurds see it, Erdogan will use it to destroy Kurdish autonomy. He will flood the zone with Syrian Arab refugees who fled to Turkey, to dilute the Kurdish majority. And he will secure coalition support for the Sunni Arab militias - including those still affiliated with al-Qaida - which will be permitted by NATO to operate openly in the safe area." This is being done with Obama's concurrence and in a most sanctimonious manner. Obama could do no better.

READ MORE
hrrule

SELLING A DANGEROUS DEAL

On May 7, 2015, "the Senate held a vote on the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015, commonly referred to as the "Corker-Cardin bill", in which every Senator voted on that bill with the understanding that the Iran nuclear agreement was an executive agreement, and not a treaty, and that United States sanctions on Iran's ballistic missile program remain in place." By the Constitution, it takes a yes vote by 2/3s of the members for Congress to confirm a treaty, which means that 67 senators need to YES to ratify a treaty. The Corker-Cardin bill will pass legislation with only 1/3 of the members voting yes. It gave Congress 60 days to review the final agreement when there was a final agreement.

Negotiations between P5+1 and Iran were completed in Vienna, Austria July 14, 2015. The full text of the agreement known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan Of Action (JCPOA) is available here, here and here, among many other sites. Buzzfeed here has linked to a version posted by the Russian government here.

In a press conference July 14, 2015, Prez Obama said he'd veto any Congressional legislation that would prevent implementation of the Deal — and that was true. He also said the Deal was built on verification, not trust. He said that the Deal prevented Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and American national security depended on preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. He said inspectors will have 24/7 access to Iran's key nuclear facilities. Secretary of State John Kerry in a press conference in Vienna said the agreement would allow sanctions to snap right back into place if Iran reneges on its commitments. Three bald lies from Obama, one from Kerry.

Following a "diplomatic blitzkrieg" by the Obama Administration, the U.N. Security Council (UNSC), which includes the P5 members (U.S., Britain, France, Russia and China), voted unanimously July 20, 2015 for the Deal and agreed to lift its sanctions. This was done "under silence". As Mark Langfan explains (here:)

In an "under silence" adoption procedure, instead of the UNSC holding a normal positive vote, the motion that is set for party specifically objects to the motion. This "under silence" procedure would put the onus on Israel to be the first, and possibly the only, objector to the UNSC's adoption of the Iran deal.

In the established handbook on diplomacy, G. R. Berridge's "Diplomacy: Theory and Practice," the "under silence" procedure is described as being used by the majority where "a proposal with strong support is deemed to have been agreed unless any member raises an objection to it before a precise deadline: silence signifies assent — or, at least, acquiescence. This procedure relies on a member in a minority fearing that raising an objection will expose it to the charge of obstructiveness and, thereby, the perils of isolation."

[...]

And for history's sake, it would be important to have the 15 members of the UN Security Council go on record as having voted for what many have called a modern-day 1938 Munich Appeasement of the Nazis, in a comparison to the Islamic regime's calls to destroy Israel while reportedly building a nuclear arsenal.

The JCPOA was adopted with no show of hands or discussion or signing a document.

The House and Senate had until September 17, 2015 to, in the words of Richard Hertling and Kaitlyn McClure (see here), "to review the agreement, reached by international negotiators in July, and ultimately vote for a resolution of approval or disapproval."

Hertling and Kaitlyn wrote that "[e]nactment of a resolution of disapproval from Congress would remove President Obama's ability to lift sanctions on Iran. This outcome is now improbable because Senate Democrats have secured enough votes in support of the nuclear agreement to sustain a presidential veto of any resolution of disapproval, notwithstanding the likely opposition of all Republican senators (only one is undecided) and the opposition of several leading Democratic senators."

On September 10, 2015, the Senate voted to end debate on the resolution of disapproval. By the rules of the Corker-Cardin bill, only 34 YES votes (1/3 of the number of Senators) were needed and the Democrats had 42 votes to end the debate. With four Democrats voting with them, the Republicans had 56 votes to vote AGAINST ending the debate to disapprove JCPOA, which wasn't enough. 60-votes is needed to negate a resolution. The House did not vote on JCPOA at all. Technically, Congress did not vote for or against the JCPOA per se.

Now President Obama can concentrate on selling the deal to the general public, most of whom don't like it, and making its operations bullet-proof before the public is aware that Iran will do whatever it wants, while the P5+1 is obligated to help them build a bomb. To help him, he has the enthusiastic cooperation of a large group of well-funded news media, academics and (mostly) Muslim front organizations for Iran.


Return to What We Are Talking About

THE RISE OF THE 'IRAN LOBBY': TEHRAN'S FRONT GROUPS MOVE ON — AND INTO — THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION

by Clare M. Lopez

This article by Clare Lopez on the Iran Lobby was written in 2009. As Lopez noted in a more recent article (see here), the 2009 article "was offered as a warning about the constellation of forces that was just then moving into power positions from which to influence U.S. foreign policy in ways supportive of the Tehran regime's objectives."

There have been some changes in personnel and group names and people have changed jobs if not ideology. The Campaign for a New American Policy for Iran (CNAPI) website no longer exists. Sahar Nowrouzzadeh had left her job at NIAC but didn't leave her ideology behind when she become Director for Iran for America's National Security Council. Joseph Cirincione directs Ploughshares.com, a site that, with a tone of sweet reasonableness, urges the West to forgo military action and try diplomacy, chiding the U.S. as if we were unreasonable to worry that it isn't safe to give the bomb to a country whose salafist leaders can't stop blurting out their hatred of the US and Israel. WND's Aaron Klein (November 15, 2014. see here) notes that Ploughshares "has also partnered with a who's who of the radical left, including Code Pink, the pro-Palestinian J Street, United for Peace & Justice, the U.S. Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation and the Demos progressive group, where Obama's former green jobs czar, Van Jones, serves on the board." In December, 2012, former CNAPI experts, James Dobbins and Amb. Thomas Pickering, were among those that signed an open letter suggesting that easing sanctions would have a greater influence on Iran's "willingness to modify its nuclear program and to cooperate in verifying those modifications" than if we demand more ambitious objectives such as "capitulation to all U.S. demands or regime change." They needed not have worried. The Deal gives Iran sanction easement and a lot more. At no cost. In fact, As David Rutz July, 7, 2015, see here.) pointed out, "On issue after issue over a potential nuclear deal with Iran, the Obama administration has caved... U.S. has fallen short, misled or simply kowtowed on sanctions, uranium enrichment, Iran's breakout capacity, whether Iran could be a good actor and more."

New avenues of projecting how cooperative Iran has been have opened up. The social media have expanded. Tweeting and its clones have proven ideal media for communicating with the attention-handicapped: one can assert a "factoid" without the need to back it up with facts. The Huffington Post just launched an Arabic Edition. It will be managed by Anas Fouda and Wadah Khanfar, both from al-Jazeera, which supports the Muslim Brotherhood. And academics that hate Israel and democracy have become bolder in disseminating their ideology.

But basically, Lopez's excellent reference article on the people and groups who toil to carry out Iran's Mullahs bidding, without balking at anything the Mullahs do, remains fresh and useful.

READ MORE
hrrule

TRAITOR SENATORS TOOK MONEY FROM IRAN LOBBY, BACK IRAN NUKES

by Daniel Greenfield

IAPAC is a pro-Iran lobby group which clearly had AIPAC on the brain when it came time to name itself. Daniel Greenfield names US senators that have accepted donations from the Iranian American Political Action Committee (IAPAC) and are for the Iran Nuclear Deal. It is ironic that one of them, Senator Markey, wants to tighten control of gun ownership to "address the plague of gun violence" but is voting for a deal with Iran — a major money-source for international terrorism and a known cheat — that will allow her much more pernicious weaponry in a few years. In addition to other senators that had a conflict of interest, Secretary-of-State Kerry and Vice-President Biden, both of whom are involved in the Iran nuclear deal, have taken money from IAPAC. As Greenfield points out, "While the so-called 'Israel Lobby' is constantly scrutinized, the fact that key foreign policy positions under Obama are controlled by political figures with troubling ties to an enemy of this country has gone mostly unreported by the mainstream media."

READ MORE
hrrule

THE PROFS WHO LOVE OBAMA'S IRAN DEAL

by Cinnamon Stillwell

Despite the unpopularity of the Iran Nuclear Deal, there is one group that continues to promote its virtues: academics, particularly those who are themselves the products of Middle East departments. By no coincidence at all, they also loathe US and Israel. Cinnamon Stillwell provides us with word images of some of the most virulent of these professors. In the style of Baghdad Bob, they deny that Iran plans to build a bomb and on the basis of nothing, some are sure the mullahs will benevolently use the freed funds to better the economy for the Iranian people. They are quick to divert criticism of Iran's plans on how she says she will use nuclear weaponry to finding fault with Israel's nuclear program, although Israel has never threatened to use their bombs on other countries. With these professors able to influence students, the damage that Edward Said did to the academic field of Middle East studies lingers on.

READ MORE
hrrule
WE CAN STILL DEFEAT THE IRAN NUCLEAR DEAL

founding fathers

Despite the huge amount of funds and propaganda invested in selling the Iran Nuclear Deal, Americans instinctively reject allowing an insane totalitarian state planning genocide have nuclear weapons. Only some 21% of the public wants the Obama Deal (September 2015. Pew poll). With good reason. As Alex Joffee wrote: (August 3, 2015, here):

"It is revealed daily just how horrendous the deal really is. On every point enrichment, centrifuges, stocks of fissile material, inspections, sanctions on the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps members and businesses, 'snapback,' etc. the Obama administration caved completely. Concessions on ballistic missiles and arms sales were thrown in at the last minute; the administration lied about it all, while Iran touted its victories and American capitulation. All this went on amidst a background of Iranian chants of 'death to Israel' and 'death to America,' which entered not at all into American calculations."

The Obama Administration has cut a deal with Iran that is designed to benefit no one but the fanatical Mullahs of Iran. Turmoil in the Middle East will increase. Europe will increasingly become dhimmified, Americans will live in fear of seemingly random organized terror attacks.

kerry stripped by iran

People don't like the deal, but there are so many distractions, so many other personal and national problems to worry about. And the media aren't doing their job of keeping an important situation constantly in front of the public.

We can still stop the monstrous transaction that will help Iran become a nuclear power and hence the most important regime in the Middle East, giving it more money and more freedom to pursue its desire to reestablish a Persian empire that espouses Shia Islam, while subjecting non-Muslims to an inferior status. We can still stop the Deal from coming to fruition.


WAYS AND MEANS

BECOME PROACTIVE: Americans need to change their attitude that there's nothing more they can do. Americans who love America must start acting up. Forcefully. In the absence of a media and press working properly, we need to do it ourselves. We need to act for ourselves by ourselves.

WRITE LETTERS, HOLD RALLIES, DO STREET THEATER: We can form groups that write letters and inform others about the specifics of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). We can join grass root groups — such as the Tea Party, Judicial Review, etc ‐ that have sprung up to resist all the ways that the present Administration has devised to weaken our country. We need to talk about it at our dinner tables. We need to make it a joint concern with our friends. We need to worry about it. We can network and alert others across the country through Facebook and twitter and other social media. The web is neutral. The key is sustained effort.

PRESSURE CONGRESS: We can continue to bug our congressmen. We have the phone, the letter, the visit by constituents. We can make those congressmen that helped pass the Iran Nuclear Deal become aware that in kowtowing to Obama, they haven't been representing the people. Tell them they have a chance to redeem themselves between now and the next election by proactively terminating US's participation. Maybe Congress can use countering JCPOA as an exercise in learning how to recapture its Constitutional role as an entity independent of the Executive Branch. And that means it must be made to fear the power of its constituents more than that of the Obama Administration.

PRESSURE THE STATES: Congress makes laws but so do the States. And the states need not accept Federal agreements passively. As Joel Pollak writes (see below), "they cannot be forced to implement an international treaty or agreement that is not self-executing—i.e. one whose implementation requires new congressional laws." Surprisingly, "Many of the states that have applied harsh restrictions on Iran, moreover, are liberal "blue" states. New York, for example, maintains a blacklist of persons "determined to be engaged in investment activities in Iran." People on the blacklist can not bid on contracts put out by New York State.

PRESSURE THE COURTS: We can exert pressure by way of the courts. First, the Deal is not a legal treaty as defined by the Constitution, but is sufficiently weighty to require treatment as one, even if it is defined as an agreement. This might require the Supreme Court to determine its status. Second, terrorists can be sued for damages in the U.S.A. In February 23, 2015, the families of the American victims of Palestinian acts of terror won their case claiming million of dollars of damages. Already a lawsuit has been filed (August 11, 2015) against Sec-of-State John Kerry and Treasury Sec Jacob Lew by two dozen plaintiffs who were victims of Iranian-sponsored terrorism between 1995 and 2006. More can be done. Even though we think that Saudis were responsible for 9/11, it has been established that Iran was responsible in large part for the destruction of the Twin Towers and part of the Pentagon and the (thwarted) attempt to destroy the White House (see below and here.) Three thousand people died. Their families has the right to sue Iran. We can try to force the decision-making courts to freeze Iran's assets until the courts have time to hear the claimants and make a decision.

EXAMINE JCPOA IN CONTEXT OF RELEVANT LAWS ALREADY IN FORCE: Louis Beres writes about the JCPOA's "crude subversion of both international and national law ..." (see paper below). First, it violate the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which became law in 1970 and was extended in 1995 to continue with no time limit. The nuclear countries that signed the NPT are obliged NOT "in any way to assist, encourage, or induce any non-nuclear-weapon State to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices, or control over such weapons or explosive devices." Moreover, Beres points out, Prez Obama "refused to base his country's negotiations with Iran upon a duly contingent expectation that Tehran's leadership first abrogate unambiguously genocidal statements" Hence, JCPOA also violates the Genocide Convention, which "criminalizes not only genocide per se, but also 'conspiracy to commit genocide,' and 'direct and public incitement to commit genocide.'" Beres also discusses an interesting topic: what strategies will Iran utilize, when it has gotten all that it wants from the JCPOA and is ready to terminate its participation unilaterally.

James Rosen (October 9, 2015, here) raises another legal issue. "[T]he Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act (ITRA), signed into law by President Obama in August 2012, was explicit in closing the so-called 'foreign sub' loophole." Aside from the language in ITRA that directs that foreign subsidiaries of American companies are to be treated as are the parent companies, "Additional executive orders and statutes signed by President Obama, such as the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act, have reaffirmed that all prior federal statutes relating to sanctions on Iran shall remain in full effect." Iran is on our Terrorist List, so American companies can not deal with her. If foreign subsidiaries are to be treated like their owners, then the subsidiaries can not do business with Iran. But, "Section 5.1.2 of Annex II [of JCPOA] provides that in exchange for Iranian compliance with the terms of the deal, the U.S. 'shall...license non-U.S. entities that are owned or controlled by a U.S. person to engage in activities with Iran that are consistent with this JCPOA.'" In reopening this loophole, Prez Obama is violating his own 2012 law. Companies and their subsidiaries are also at risk of violating the law. As Senator Ted Cruz said, "Any U.S. company that follows through on this, that allows their foreign-owned subsidiaries to do business with Iran, will very likely face substantial civil liability, litigation and potentially even criminal prosecution. The obligation to follow federal law doesn't go away simply because we have a lawless president who refuses to acknowledge or follow federal law."

PUBLICIZE FAILURES OF THE UN: It is almost certain that Iran will soon provide us with activity proving it is in violation of JCPOA stipulations. According to Dr. Saberi Ansari, Iran's legal advisor during the talks, "JCPOA is neither an agreement nor a treaty... An agreement or a treaty is distinguished by the fact that its contents are binding on contracting parties. This is not the case with JCPOA."

Salomon Benzimra points out (see below) that Iran is flagrantly ignoring UN resolutions by conducting acts of terror and by spewing hate against Israel. In this way, Iran is putting in-your-face pressure on the UN, which has strong resolutions against terrorism. On July 20, 2015, the UN passed United Nations Security Council (UNSC) Resolution 2231, which is essentially JCPOA plus some attention to Iran acquiring conventional weapons and ballistic missiles. The resolution was passed in silence and not signed by the negotiators.

By September, three top Iranian leaders — President Hassan Rouhani, Foreign Minister Javad Zarif, and Deputy Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi — stated that they will abide by the provisions of only the JCPOA and they will violate Resolution 2231. They are indeed violating Resolution 2231. But they are also already violating JCPOA. In mid-October, 2015, October 18, 2015 to be exact, the Iran Nuclear Deal took effect and conditional waivers were given. By then, Iran had arrogantly given us evidence of disregarding components of the deal that they didn't like. Or they did things that would make their nuclear program more dangerous. According to AP, "Iran successfully test-fired a guided long-range ballistic surface-to-surface missile." (here.) Supreme Leader Khamenei said "the U.S. and European Union must announce that they were dropping sanctions before Iran completely fulfilled its obligations." (here.) Yukiya Amano, Director-General of IAEA is still trying to set up interviews with Iranian scientists and hold an inspection at Parchin, supposedly an issue that was resolved. Now it comes out that the previous visit to Parchin was to an area unconnected to the suspicious area.

CONNECT JCPOA AND IRAN'S BANKING/BROKERAGE PRACTICES: Patrick Clawson (August 21, 2015. see below) writes about Iran's murky banking structure. He notes that "... under the nuclear deal Washington has reserved rights to preserve serious limits on Iranian trade with European and Asian firms. Banks are involved in trade in several ways and Washington retains the power of "sanctioning foreign banks involved in Iran trade, supporting seizure of Iranian assets, highlighting the risks from Iranian deceptive financial practices, and maintaining regulatory pressure."

As Clawson points out, "it is by no means clear if the Obama administration will make vigorous use of those rights." However, there is nothing to stop private citizens refusing to have their money invested in businesses that trade with Iran or pressuring their credit unions not to invest in companies doing business with Iran. A small group of knowledgeable activists can leverage their effectiveness by building up a network of people less acquainted with banking and brokerage practices but who are indignant at the thought of contributing to Iran's support of terror activities globally. The USA Patriot Act states:

"If you are a financial institution and you engage in any transaction involving Iran's Central Bank or any other Iranian bank operating inside or outside Iran, you are at risk of supporting Iran's illicit activities: its pursuit of nuclear weapons, its support for terrorism, and its efforts to deceive responsible financial institutions and evade sanctions. Any and every financial transaction with Iran poses grave risk of supporting those activities."

We have the tools. We need to use them.


IS THE JCPOA A TREATY OR A MORE CASUAL DEAL?

One way to attack the JCPOA is to start by pinning down its legal and functional status. And then we can use congressional and legal means to block it from being implemented.

What exactly is the Iran Nuclear Deal? It is constructed as — and has the power of — a major treaty. It is between members of the United Nations Security Council plus Germany with a single country, Iran. It is also a special contract between the U.S. and Iran that will make Iran's progress towards developing nuclear weaponry a partnership.

Yet, as if it were a minor undertaking, it is called a deal, an arrangement, an executive agreement, anything but a treaty.

Why was it done this way? One answer is that Obama and his henchmen knew that if it were sent to Congress for ratification as a treaty, they could never get it through Congress. A treaty must be ratified by two-thirds of the membership of the Senate and there are not 67 Senators willing to vote for its ratification.

For whatever reason, members of the Senate were apparently convinced that it would be better to draw up a bill that didn't define the JCPOA as a treaty. In fact, it was specifically declared not to be a treaty. On May 7, 2015, the Cocker-Cardin Bill came into being.

The full text of the amended Corker-Cardin bill can be found here. A summary for congress is available here.

It was NOT a direct vote on JCPOA. It was presented as a way "[t]o provide for congressional review and oversight of agreements relating to Iran's nuclear program, and for other purposes." Every senator except Tom Cotton voted for it, Democrats and Republicans alike. It provided deadlines for the President to provide information on various components of the JCPOA.

These are its major points: (Note: glosses are in [])

I am not a lawyer but by the wording of Corker-Cardin, it does seem that Congress takes it for granted that the agreement when completed is immediately viable. It is not a treaty that Congress must ratify for it to become operational. The Bill appears to assume the agreement will be in force without any Congressional input; Congress does not have to approve it or disapprove it. So I don't understand the supposed concern and upset in Congress, when it was discovered in July that Obama was sending the JCPOA to the UN Security Council for approval and thus it would be operational before it could be reviewed by Congress. See, for example, here.

It does give Congress the right of review after the agreement was signed by President Obama: Congress can as part of its review process try to pass a resolution of disapproval. [Update: it did and of course that failed.]

It's probably not exhaustive, but Corker-Cardin does a fine job of enumerating many of the devious ways Iran can violate the terms of JCPOA. It does deal with Congressional instructions on sanctions. It does require the President to keep Congress informed on Iran's compliance and what he was doing about non-compliance. Time lines are instituted for reporting and repair from the Executive Branch to Congress, else Congress will consider appropriate legislation. If violations are not corrected, "Congress may initiate within 60 calendar days expedited consideration of qualifying legislation pursuant to this subsection."

All in all, not a strong bill.

The executive agreement, the JCPOA, was finalized in Vienna, Austria July 14, 2015. As prescribed in Coker-Cardin, "Congress will hold hearing for 60 days after it receives the Agreement and all its collateral material. During this period, the President can not remove sanctions." Congress began hearings. It began its review. As Andrew McCarthy wrote: (here)

"The Corker review process is a provision of the Corker law that permits Congress to attempt to enact a "resolution of disapproval" against Obama's Iran deal — an illusory process because there was never any chance that Democrats would allow such a resolution to be enacted over Obama's certain veto."

On September 10, 2015 the Senate approved a resolution to end the debate on a resolution of disapproval of the JCPOA. Don't let the twists and turns of that sentence throw you. The vote was 56 against closure to 42 to stop the debate. The Republicans didn't have the 60 votes necessary to continue the debate. No treaty was ratified. No agreement/arrangement/deal was rejected. On the other hand, no agreement was accepted by Congress. Voting to stop a debate to reject JCPOA is not the same as voting to reject — or accept — JCPOA itself.

There is one clear road block built into Corker-Cardin bill. It insisted that all the documents relevant to the executive agreement be on hand when it reviewed the contract. This didn't happen. Verification is carried out by IAEA and its arrangements for carrying out inspection are in a side document that the US, specifically, is not allowed to see. In fact, Secretary-of-State John Kerry, the American chief negotiator, testified in Congress that he hasn't seen the side agreement. This isn't a trivial point. The mainstay of Obama's arguments for accepting the JCPOA is that it isn't based on trust, it's based on verification. But the U.S. has no way of directly warranting the verification process. We have to trust the IAEA, and we have recently seen how well that works in practice (see the Compliance, Verification and Enforcement section above). Because the Executive Branch has not yet sent Congress all the side issues and other secret documents, a Congress with a spine can argue that until it has all the documents, it can't do a review of the deal. It might halt implementation of JCPOA until this condition is met.

Congress can also argue that documents that it received may have been made obsolete in the last few days before the treaty negotiators accepted JCPOA. Inspectors were supposed to go into suspected nuclear installations anywhere at any time. By the time of agreement, terms had changed. Inspectors had to request permission to come. Iran had 24 days to respond. But some pro-deal proponents were still arguing that inspections were not being limited by Iran.

There is the larger point of the nature of the JCPOA. The JCPOA walks like a treaty and talks like a treaty and has momentous influence on the future of all parts of the world, including ours. The Obama Administration calls it an executive agreement, not a treaty. Does renaming a treaty make what is functionally a treaty a non-treaty? If it is, indeed, only a temporary executive agreement, then it has little substance. It is vulnerable. Yet Congress did little to stop it. Perhaps the next administration will ignore it as arbitrarily as this Administration is using it to empower Iran.


THE RELATION BETWEEN IRAN'S MILITARY NUCLEAR PROGRAM, INTERCONTINENTAL BALLISTIC MISSILES AND SOME REQUIREMENTS OF THE JCPOA

FACT: The Verification Agency Is Forbidden Access To The Most Likely Places For Developing Nuclear Weaponry.

The Administration says this deal is focused on Iran's making nuclear weapons, not on other bad behavior such as spending its money on terrorists to terrorize. But Iran has a "civilian" nuclear program and a military nuclear program. The JCPOA says very little about Possible Military Dimensions (PMD), but Iran has said emphatically that its military sites will not be open to inspection. And it is the "military sites" where the action probably is.

The White House claims it is blocking Iran from producing a bomb. The White House website provides us with the major reasons it believes Iran is blocked from building a nuclear bomb.

Of the four roadblocks to the bomb, two concern how the JCPOA prevents uranium from being enriched at the Natanz and Fordow facilities and one is about how the plutonium reactor at Arak 'can't produce any weapons-grade plutonium'. But these sites have already been blown. As Clare Lopez wrote (April 15, 2015, see here.)

The critical issues before us then are not so much about the number of centrifuges, or which generation of centrifuges, or what level of enrichment will be allowed to Iran going forward at the show case sites: rather, we must ask why and how our negotiators have themselves been spun up to dither endlessly, but only about sites already in the public domain. Iran's secret parallel nuclear weapons program remains unmentioned and untouched."

The fourth argument on the WH Site touches on the problem of how the JPCOA inspectors will handle yet unidentified sites. How does it block "a covert pathway to building a secret nuclear program." Iran has already said that military facilities can not be inspected. If an exception is made, Iranian technicians will do sample collection. At best, IAEA might view the procedure from cameras, which is not good enough for a proper assessment. (See Olli Heinonen's paper, Section on Compliance, Verification, Enforcement).

Yet, according to the White House, "Basically, from the minute materials that could be used for a weapon comes out of the ground to the minute it is shipped out of the country, the IAEA will have eyes on it and anywhere Iran could try and take it." Considering the effort it took for these zealous IAEA inspectors to get to inspect Parchin — and then it was the Iranians that did the collection — this seems a blithe, almost childish, dismissal of a very serious problem. Iran doesn't fear the verification inspectors. The political fix is in.

FACT: U.S. Will Help Iran To Obtain Nuclear Weapons.

A particularly creepy set of commitments on the part of the PS5+1 is described in the JCPOA Annex III, which envisions nuclear cooperation between Iran and subsets of PS5+1, mutually determined and focused on shared experience and technical implementation and improvement of Iran's "reactors, fuels and associated technologies, facilities and processes," (see here.) For example:

10.D.1 pledges us to: "Co-operation in the form of training courses and workshops to strengthen Iran's ability to prevent, protect and respond to nuclear security threats to nuclear facilities and systems as well as to enable effective and sustainable nuclear security and physical protection systems;"

10.D.2 pledges us to "Co-operation through training and workshops to strengthen Iran's ability to protect against, and respond to nuclear security threats, including sabotage, as well as to enable effective and sustainable nuclear security and physical protection systems."

Adam Kredo of the Washington Free Beacon put it this way:

"The United States and its partners have just become the international protectors of the Iranian nuclear program. Instead of rolling back the Iranian nuclear program, we're now legally obligated to help the Iranians build it up and protect it," said one Western source present in Vienna and who is apprised of the details of the deal. here.

The JCPOA also specifically says that America and its cohorts will "facilitate exchanges and visits to nuclear power plants outside of Iran." This also means that we will not be able to determine the extent of what Iran learns from this. Claudia Rosett wrote this (August 7, 2015. here):

The Iran deal does not say exactly which nuclear plants among the world powers will host these nuclear tours for Iran. Like many aspects of this deal, the nitty gritty will likely be handled by U.S. officials in secret councils, under captions such as "Nuclear safety." Whose safety, exactly? Let's spell this out: If you happen to live downwind of a nuclear power plant, do you really want officials from Iran — world's leading state sponsor of terrorism — casing the joint?

[...]

Obama administration officials have been justifying these arrangements on grounds that their first priority — the blinkered aim of this deal — is to ensure that Iran's nuclear program is "exclusively peaceful." On that premise, in this Iran deal, they propose to endow Iran with training in running a modern "exclusively peaceful" nuclear infrastructure.

Combine these facts with Fusion Technology.

The American administration says that Iran is working only on peaceful nuclear enterprises, ignoring that the deal commits the P5+1 to help them with fusion technology. Dr. Robert E. Buxbaum writes (see here) that the JCPOA:

leaves them "with 1500 kg of 20% enriched U235. That's enough for quick conversion to 8 to 10 Hiroshima-size A-bombs (atom bombs) containing 25-30 kg each of 90% U235." More likely, the Iranians will focus on using nuclear fusion to develop "a hydrogen fusion bomb of the sort that vaporized the island of Bimini: an H-bomb."

Controlled fusion potentially may have many peaceful uses in the future, but not now. It is extremely difficult to work with, while the uncontrolled fusion used to make H-bombs is relatively manageable.

Add A Delivery System: Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles.

Ballistic missiles are not needed for Iran to reach Israel. They are sufficient to travel to the United States loaded with nuclear bombs. And the U.S., according to Iran, is their main enemy; it's the 'Great Satan.'

What experts fear most is an attack on our electric grid. A few bombs properly set off could disable the country. Ambassador Henry Cooper here) describes the potentially catastrophic Electro-Magnetic Pulse (EMP) effects, pointing out that "a burst over the continental U.S. could bring our entire "just in time" economy to an indefinite standstill—we could lose for many months the electric power grid and our communications, transportation, banking and other critical infrastructure systems upon which we depend for survival... most Americans would perish for lack of food and other necessities. For example, diabetics without Insulin would die, as would others without critically needed prescriptions filled. How long would it be before civil order would break down if those in our cities were without the benefits of our globally dependent, just-in-time economy? And then what?"

Recognize That Obama Is Shielding Iran's Real Nuclear Program from Harm.

Obama's Jew-baiting increased outrageously when he feared the JCPOA might be shot down. Since then, he has focused on making sure Israel does not interfere with Iran's plans. Lori Lowenthal Marcus writes (October 23, 2015, here): "ever since 2012, the United States has been spying on Israel in order to prevent the Jewish State from attacking suspected Iranian nuclear sites, according to Friday's Wall Street Journal... The White House had sent an additional aircraft carrier to the region after learning that Israeli aircraft had flown into Iranian airspace in what U.S. officials feared was a test run for an attack on Iran's Fordow plant. The carriers had attack aircraft on board prepared to respond to any Israeli attack on Iran."

No deductive power is necessary to realize that Iran does not have peaceful intent. They have spoken up for themselves. The New York Post Editorial Board (August 13, 2015, here) reports that

Mohammad Javad Zarif was in Lebanon in August, meeting with the head Hezbollah terrorist, Hassan Nasrallah. Hezbollah's TV station al-Manar reported, "Zarif said from Beirut that the nuclear agreement between Tehran and the world powers created a historic opportunity for regional cooperation to fight extremism and face threats posed by the Zionist entity." Translation: With a "signing bonus" to Iran of $100 billion or more, the nuke deal will empower the Islamic Republic to send more cash, rockets and other arms to Hezbollah and other anti-Israel terrorist groups. It will also boost Tehran's regional prestige — allowing it to bully other nations into greater hostility toward Israel."

A video called "Believe Them - NO Nukes for Iran", see here, makes the same point.

It is the combination of sharing our knowledge with Iran including how to use fusion power to make hydrogen bombs, their work on developing a ballistic missile capable of carrying bombs to the U.S., Obama's protecting Iran from Israel, and the Iranian hatred of US and Israel that makes JCPOA such a menace to regional and world stability.


CONCLUSIONS

In summary, ObamaDeal is cut from the same cloth as other Obama projects. Prez Obama has an almost unblemished record for picking the wrong side and doing the wrong thing. Like ObamaCare it is poorly defined and designed to do the opposite of its supposed goal, in this case, preventing Iran from making a nuclear bomb. Its promoters are chock full of reassurances that ignore baleful outcomes that are already becoming visible and it rests on trusting the unreliable.

The main objection to getting America out of a lemon of a deal is that the U.N. will remove sanctions anyway. But there's more to the JCPOA than sanctions. Containing Iran's nuclear program depends on timely verification and swift enforcement. As it stands, this Deal paralyzes us more than it binds Iran. If we were not party to this Deal, we wouldn't need to waste inordinate amounts of time and effort trying to prevail upon Iran pretty-please to allow inspection of suspected sites. Detaching U.S. from this contract will give America more flexibility to use appropriate means to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran.

Adoption of JCPOA in the U.S. can be undone with an active educational campaign that exposes the dangers of the agreement; by legal means and by hampering the free exchange of Iran's money.

Freed of our obligations under JCPOA, we will be able to treat friends as friends and enemies as enemies, instead of pretending we can tame Iran's mad mullahs into civilized behavior. An America that acts effectively will give confidence to the Sunni countries that now, with good reason, fear Iran's power play. It may reduce their need to own bombs themselves. At the very least, we won't need to open our facilities to Iranian scientists or train Iranian technicians in how to make hydrogen bombs. We won't be in the ridiculous position of preventing countries such as Israel, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States from hindering Iran while Iran develops nuclear weaponry to use against us.

The Administration main way of avoiding further inquiry into JCPOA is to insist it's all over. It's a done deal. There's no more to be said.

It is not over, not until the bombs fall or until we make sure Iran has no bombs to throw at us, whichever comes first.


Return to What We Are Talking About

SURPRISE! THE STATES CAN REJECT THE IRAN DEAL

by Joel B Pollak

Joel Pollak writes about states rights. He notes that " States and local governments do not play much of a role in foreign policy. However, they cannot be forced to implement an international treaty or agreement that is not self-executing—i.e. one whose implementation requires new congressional laws." And they are in control of who bids on state contracts. Moreover, " 30 states have passed divestment laws, roughly a dozen have passed contracting restrictions, and some have passed supplemental legislation, such as a 2012 law passed in California that applies to the state's insurance industry." These forbid "pension funds and contractors from providing economic benefits to Iranian companies and the Iranian regime." As Pollak points out, "That leaves great power in the states' hands to trigger the deal's collapse—or force Obama to re-negotiate."

READ MORE
hrrule

LOOKING BEYOND STRATEGY AT THE STILL-HIDDEN FLAWS IN IRAN DEAL.

by Louis René Beres

The nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), to which the U.S. is a party, is legal under the Constitution. It explicitly "obligates its nuclear-weapon State Parties '...not in any way to assist, encourage, or induce any non-nuclear-weapon State to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices, or control over such weapons or explosive devices'." As Louis Beres points out, this means that JCPOA is in violation of Article 6 of the U.S. Constitution, commonly known as the Supremacy Clause. JCPOA is also in violation of the 1948 Genocide Convention, which "criminalizes not only genocide per se, but also 'conspiracy to commit genocide,' and 'direct and public incitement to commit genocide.'"

READ MORE
hrrule

THE IRAN NUCLEAR DEAL'S FALLOUT ON THE UNITED NATIONS

Salomon Benzimra

The deal was between members of the Security Council of the United Nations( UNSC) plus Germany and Iran. Salomon Benzimra writes of problems the JCPOA makes for the United Nations because the JCPOA would negate several UNSC resolutions currently in effect that call on UN members to punish acts of terrorism. The UN Charter states, "All Members shall refrain...from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state..." (Art. 2[4])" but the Iranian mullahs rant against Israel and declare they will destroy her. As Benzimra points out, "it is worrisome that the major world powers, led by the U.S. administration, have concocted the lame JCPOA agreement which, beyond all its flaws, casts a serious doubt — by commission and omission — on whatever credibility the United Nations still has as an international institution designed to preserve world peace and fair relations between its member states.

READ MORE
hrrule

WILL THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION IMPLEMENT THE STRINGENT SANCTIONS AUTHORIZED UNDER THE IRAN AGREEMENT?

by Patrick CLawson

Patric Clawson writes about Iran's banking structure and how the JCPOA might impact them, impeding normal trade. He discusses how sanctions would impact Iran's banking practices in several areas: "sanctioning foreign banks involved in Iran trade, supporting seizure of Iranian assets, highlighting the risks from Iranian deceptive financial practices, and maintaining regulatory pressure." As an example, private U.S. lawyers and plaintiffs have to date seized some $46 billion of Iranian assets because of Iranian support of terrorist attacks against specific Americans. Because regulator pressure has been maintained, many major international banks have suffered "billions of dollars in fines for sanctions violations or actions including improper handling of mortgages and manipulating interest rates and foreign exchange rates." Clawson concludes, "Even if the Obama team does little to retain the pressure on foreign financial institutions, the next U.S. administration could decide to be more proactive. Much could be done within the framework of the JCPOA because Washington has only pledged to take extremely modest steps. The failure of the Obama administration to clarify the meaning of various provisions — which on their face appear to provide much sanctions relief but on close reading suggest that need not be the case — has fed the critics' skepticism about what the Obama team plans to do."

READ MORE
hrrule

PROPAGANDA AND PUBLIC RELATIONS SECTION

pa mother

This is a frame from a video featuring a Palestinian Arab woman, a mother.

The video2 (Click here) is very telling.

As Lev Haolam put it: "This Palestinian mother was shown such kindness by Jews when her young son was treated, free of charge, for his heart problem in an Israeli hospital. She freely acknowledges this, but she still hopes that her child will grow up to be a martyr. This video is a rare look into the mind of someone who worships death and destruction. She describes the difference between her culture and all of Western society perfectly when she explains that for her people life is meaningless. Please share, it is so important that people see this." (Dr. History, August 2015).


Return to What We Are Talking About

THE POLITICAL NATURE OF TODAY'S MIDDLE EAST STUDIES

by Andrew C. McCarthy

Andrew McCarthy writes about Edward Said, a major corrupter of an entire area of academic study: Middle East studies. He eventually tainted sister department such as linguistics and political science in many universities. His method of attack was simple. He decreed that Westerners could not understand the Middle East and, even more damaging, they were only interested in justifying colonialism. "The point of pursuing knowledge about 'the languages, culture, history, and sociology of societies of the Middle East and the Indian subcontinent,'" Said elaborated, "was to gain more control over the 'subject races' by making 'their management easy and profitable.'" He buffaloed otherwise intelligent academics into accepting this nonsense. He helped make "modern Middle East studies .. a political movement aligning leftism and Islamism under the guise of an academic discipline." This included demonizing Jews and accepting the myth that there existed a Palestinian people whose land was occupied by Israel.

READ MORE
hrrule

THE MYTH OF SUSIYA

by Elder of Ziyon

The Arabs and their geographically-challenged media cohort claim that the Arab village of Susiya has been there for centuries and the authorities had no right to expel the villagers from their homes. There indeed was an ancient town of Susiya, but it was Jewish and is now an archeological site. Some Arabs, who actually live in Yatta in the Palestinian Authority sector, in recent years and illegally put up some structures in Susiya as part of a land grab funded by the European Union. The Supreme Court heard the case and ordered demolition. The pro-Arab press and Western diplomats howled in outrage.

READ MORE
hrrule

AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL'S ISLAMIST PROBLEM CONTINUES, SENIOR FIGURE ACCUSED OF MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD LINK

by Donna Rachel Edmunds

Donna Rachel Edmunds writes about the hitherto-denied connection between a senior Amnesty International (AI) official and the Muslim Brotherhood. AI said: "Amnesty International does, however, take very seriously any allegations that would call into question our impartiality and is therefore investigating the issues raised." Peter Kolding, a reader of the original article, pointed out an ironic inconsistency; he wrote: "Let's just understand this: An organization accused of partiality, and with a grotesque record of malice, lies and contempt for democracy and the sovereignty of nations, will be investigating its own impartiality."

READ MORE
hrrule

BOSTON UNIVERSITY PROF BLAMES U.S. FOR ISLAMIC STATE SEX SLAVERY

by Robert Spencer

In this article, Robert Spencer dismembers Kecia Ali's defense of Muslim sex-slavery. In a recent article, she wrote, "In focusing on current abuses in the Middle East, perpetrated by those claiming the mantle of Islam, Americans — whose Constitution continues to permit enslavement as punishment for crime — deflect attention from partial U.S. for the current crisis in Iraq." Spencer retorts, "See, the Islamic State doesn't practice sex slavery because it is sanctioned in the Qur'an and Sunnah, but because the U.S. did bad things in Iraq. This is what passes for analysis on most university campuses these days."

READ MORE
hrrule

HISTORY SECTION

Return to What We Are Talking About

IRAN, HEZBOLLAH ALSO RESPONSIBLE FOR 9/11, RULES FEDERAL JUDGE

by Janice Kephart

Clever pro-Iranian media suggest Iran is all talk, no do. It rants. It says outrageous things. But what has Iran actually done? Hmn? Of course, this works best when written for the ignorant, the readers of the New York Times, for example, an audience that happily ignores that Iran has done both Hezbollah — and at the moment — Hamas proud. Their weapons storehouses are stocked to the brim. Their training camps are full. True, Iran's beleaguered client, Assad of Syria, has his hands full staying alive despite Iran's prodigious help. So, under the radar of that civil war, Iran has been directly attacking the Jews who live on the Golan Heights (See Benjamin Korn, here). More generally, Iran has been attacking Western countries directly and outside of the Middle East for sometime now. It was a major contributor to the 9/11 attack. Janice Kephart writes about "the case of Fiona Havlish, et al v. Usama Bin Laden, et al, 03-CV-9848 (GBD) and is part of the consolidated proceeding In Re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001, Civil Action No. 03 MDL 1570 (GBD)." Based on the "preponderance of the evidence", the Islamic Republic of Iran and its offshoot, Hezbollah, were indicted by a US judge of "providing material support" for the 9/11 attack on the USA. Iran began planning 9/11 in the mid 1980s, when it set up a terrorist task force to plan "unconventional attacks." But this has received little publicity.

READ MORE
hrrule

ISLAMOPHOBIA: FACT OR FICTION?

by Denis MacEoin

There are relatively few hate crimes committed against Muslims. As a group, they are more likely to commit hate crimes than be victimized by them. Yet, being labeled an Islamophob is beginning to have serious consequences. Muslims allow no criticism of Islam and are seeking to criminalize 'Islamophobic' speech and writing. Should that happen, the fact that the text is completely factual will be no excuse; it will still be treated as a criminal offense. Denis MacEoin explores some of the background of a ploy that threatens to restrict Western freedom of speech.

READ MORE
hrrule

THE ANTI-HISTORY THAT SUSTAINS ANTI-ZIONISM.

by Paul Merkley

In recent years, the mainline Protestant churches — joined by the niche Quakers and Mennonites — have wholeheartedly subscribed to the political BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions) campaign intended to destroy Israel. Simultaneously, ignoring history, Bible and cultural differences, their theology now asserts that it is not the Jews but the Palestinian Arabs, a 'people' that, in 1964, sprung full-grown and in an instant from Yasir Arafat's brow, that are the ancient Israelites. Paul Merkley writes of this bizarre inversion of factual history. There is one other notable correlation with the churches adopting this Arabian counter-history. As Merkley pointed out previously (here), the United Churches of Christ "has lost approximately 300,000 members (about 20% of its membership) since 2005, the year when its convention passed its first divestment resolution." Indeed, the rate at which the Methodist, Episcopal and Lutheran churches have also lost members makes the designation "Mainline Protestantism" questionable.

READ MORE
hrrule

WHY WAS A NAZI FLAG FLYING FROM A JERUSALEM HOTEL IN THE 1930S?

by Lenny Ben David

Lenny Ben David presents historic pictures of the Fast Hotel near the Jaffa Gate. It served kosher food but its owners were Protestants, members of a community of German Templars in Jerusalem. And in 1933, it housed the German Consulate, complete with Nazi flag. The hotel lasted longer than the Nazis, but it too is now gone.

READ MORE
hrrule

JULY-OCTOBER, 2015 BLOG-EDS

 This is where our readers get a chance to write opinions and editorials and share articles they find informative. The Blog-Eds page for the month is updated every few days.

There is a separate file that is the index for the articles on the Blog-Ed page. You can access an article immediately from this index by clicking on the item in the index.

To access the Index, click the "Blog-Eds List" box in the Blue Strip on the top of the Blog-Ed page.

JULY 2015 BLOG-EDS
AUGUST 2015 BLOG-EDS
SEPTEMBER 2015 BLOG-EDS
OCTOBER 2015 BLOG-EDS

Please note that The Blog-Ed pages for this issue are not currently available.

Different Blog Ed pages will be down intermittently until the Archive structure is in place. We apologize for the inconvenience.

Return to Feature Index hrrule
FEATURED STORIES

May-June 2015


Editor's Note:

Think-Israel tends to use salafist rather than extremist or Islamist or militant or fundamentalist or activist to describe generically a pious Muslim, one who sticks as closely as possible to the unfiltered words and actions of Mohammad and the first three generations of Muslims, including, especially, the Companions of the Prophet. In modeling himself as closely as he can on the preachings and practices of Mohammad, a salafist can in modern terms be precisely described as an uninhibited terrorist, a theological supersessionist, a political supremacist who believes Islam and sharia law must dominate and a social barbarian, who wages jihad with whatever tools are available. Thanks to the high quality of whitewash supplied by sympathetic propagandists, he seldom is so described.


We present some articles on the San Remo Conference. Think-Israel will be adding to this Section and adding additional material by August. Thanks to the machinations of Murphy, we have not been able to upload many articles.


THE IMPORTANCE OF THE SAN REMO RESOLUTION

 

THE SAN REMO RESOLUTION

April 25, 1920

This agreement between post-World War I allied powers (Britain, France, Italy, Japan) was adopted on April 25, 1920 during the San Remo Conference. The Mandate for Palestine was based on this resolution; it incorporated the 1917 Balfour Declaration and the Covenant of the League of Nation's Article 22. Britain was charged with establishing a "national home for the Jewish people" in Palestine. Terroritorial boundaries were not decided until four years after.

It was agreed —

(a) To accept the terms of the Mandates Article as given below with reference to Palestine, on the understanding that there was inserted in the proces-verbal an undertaking by the Mandatory Power that this would not involve the surrender of the rights hitherto enjoyed by the non-Jewish communities in Palestine; this undertaking not to refer to the question of the religious protectorate of France, which had been settled earlier in the previous afternoon by the undertaking given by the French Government that they recognized this protectorate as being at an end.

(b) that the terms of the Mandates Article should be as follows:

The High Contracting Parties agree that Syria and Mesopotamia shall, in accordance with the fourth paragraph of Article 22, Part I (Covenant of the League of Nations), be provisionally recognized as independent States, subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The boundaries of the said States will be determined, and the selection of the Mandatories made, by the Principal Allied Powers.

The High Contracting Parties agree to entrust, by application of the provisions of Article 22, the administration of Palestine, within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers, to a Mandatory, to be selected by the said Powers. The Mandatory will be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 8, 1917, by the British Government, and adopted by the other Allied Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.

La Puissance mandataire s'engage a nommer dans le plus bref delai une Commission speciale pour etudier toute question et toute reclamation concernant les differentes communautes religieuses et en etablir le reglement. Il sera tenu compte dans la composition de cette Commission des interets religieux en jeu. Le President de la Commission sera nomme par le Conseil de la Societe des Nations.

The terms of the mandates in respect of the above territories will be formulated by the Principal Allied Powers and submitted to the Council of the League of Nations for approval.

Turkey hereby undertakes, in accordance with the provisions of Article [132 of the Treaty of Sevres] to accept any decisions which may be taken in this connection.

(c) Les mandataires choisis par les principales Puissances allies sont: la France pour la Syrie, et la Grand Bretagne pour la Mesopotamie, et la Palestine.

In reference to the above decision the Supreme Council took note of the following reservation of the Italian Delegation:

La Delegation Italienne en consideration des grands interets economiques que l'Italie en tant que puissance exclusivement mediterraneenne possede en Asie Mineure, reserve son approbation a la presente resolution, jusqu'au reglement des interets italiens en Turquie d'Asia.

hrrule

THE FEAR OF VIOLATING AN OATH WAS OVERTURNED: THE SAN REMO CONFERENCE 95 YEARS AGO

Menahem Rahat

The establishment of many of the Middle East countries was determined at a League of Nations congress at San Remo some ninety-five years ago. There, the international community gave the Jewish people an irrevocable trust to its ancient land, with the assurance that it would eventually create a Jewish State. Yet few Israelis know of the Conference, and successive administrations, in their quest for peace with recalcitrant neighbors, seldom allude to it. Menahem Rahat explores its power to wipe out Jewish uneasiness at renewing ownership of its land and encouraging its rebirth.

READ MORE
hrrule

SHOULD JEWS RECLAIM THE WORDS "PALESTINE" AND "PALESTINIAN"?

by Richard Mather

As Richard Mather points out, "the postmodern notion of a deep-rooted Arab Palestinian culture is a sham." The myth-makers assert that the local Arabs in Israel and its territories are a people who have been there since time immemorial. Mather presents some pertinent facts that contradict the Arab fantasy and make clear the "Palestinian people" has no coherency and is mainly a cludge of Arabs coming from Syria, Egypt and other parts of the Arab world. The land had a meager population for centuries. In the entire area, there was a little over a quarter of a million non-Jews in 1800 and a little less than half million in 1890. Then, the population rose began to rise more rapidly, not coincidentally just when the Jews, coming from Europe to redeem their land, creating economic opportunities for Arabs coming in from neighboring land.

READ MORE
hrrule

SAN REMO: THE FORGOTTEN MILESTONE

by Salomon Benzimra

Salomon Benzimra points out the significance of the Sam Remo Conference. For one, "for the first time in history, Palestine became a legal and political entity." The so-called Palestinian people — the local Arabs in Israel and the Territories — had never had a state or sovereignty. Also, the "de jure sovereignty of Palestine was vested in the Jewish people." The San Remo conference was, as Benzimra notes,"a major historical milestone," yet in recent time, the irrevocable grant of sovereignty over the Land of Israel by the Jewish people made by the international community has hardly been mentioned, thus allowing nonsensical claims that the Jews were illegally occupying the land to be taken seriously [emphasis added].

READ MORE

hrrule

ISRAEL NEEDS TO STOP ARGUING THE PALESTINIANS' CASE AND START ARGUING ITS OWN

by Evelyn Gordon

Evelyn Gordon writes an article that shouldn't have to be written. As the title says, it's time Israel stopped acting as unofficial spokesmen pleading the Palestinian cause. With all its savvy in medicine and technology, one would think she could come up with some intelligent way to talk to the world and tell it about the irrevocable right of the Children of Israel to the Land of Israel.

READ MORE
hrrule

FORWARD TO EXTINCTION

by Tabitha Koral

Tabitha Koral writes of a subspecies of Jew bred by the centuries in which Jews lacked a sovereign country and often lived as dhimmis. Taking on the attitudes of those that despised them, these Jewish turncoats promote any action that will weaken Israel. Korol writes specifically of Jay Michaelson, contributing editor to the Forward, who advocates giving up Jewish land to the Arabs for a spurious peace.

READ MORE
hrrule
FEATURED STORIES

March-April 2015

What we are talking about in the March–April 2015 Issue

  1. This Issue's Themes
  2. ISIS: The Latest Superstar, Terror-Wise (Naipaul, Reuter, Meir-Amit Center, Guitta)
  3. Iran - The Quiet Before The Bomb (Daoud, Segall, Lipkin, Glick, Amidror)
  4. General Observations About Terrorist Groups (Kern, Durie, Ahlert, Merkley, Byman)
  5. Israel In The Eye Of A Stormy Middle East  (Yadlin-Valensi, Schmitt-Merriam, Spyer, Kuperwasser, Hertz, Aviram-Schweitzer)
  6. To Aid And Abet The Enemy: Censor Thyself. Blame The Victim. (McQuillan, Greenfield, Wilders, Lebl, Bryen)
  7. Professional Bad-Mouthers of Israel (Stillwell, Rooks-Bedein, Devolin, Harrod, Ehrenfeld-Jensen, Steyn)
  8. History Section (Ben-David, May, bat Melech)
  9. Blog-Eds (March-April Blog-Eds)


Editor's Note:

Think-Israel tends to use salafist rather than extremist or Islamist or militant or fundamentalist or activist to describe generically a pious Muslim, one who sticks as closely as possible to the unfiltered words and actions of Mohammad and the first three generations of Muslims, including, especially, the Companions of the Prophet. In modeling himself as closely as he can on the preachings and practices of Mohammad, a salafist can in modern terms be precisely described as an uninhibited terrorist, a theological supersessionist, a political supremacist who believes Islam and sharia law must dominate and a social barbarian, who wages jihad with whatever tools are available. Thanks to the high quality of whitewash supplied by sympathetic propagandists, he seldom is so described.


THIS ISSUE'S THEMES

This issue is about the terrorist groups that are reshaping the map of the Middle East.

THE FIRST THREE SECTIONS in this issue describe some major terrorist groups and their impact on the Middle East in general and on Israel in particular.

When Israel became a state, its neighbors attacked it, using conventional warfare. But new methods of warfare were needed once the Arab countries realized they weren't going to beat Israel militarily. They turned to waging effective propaganda campaigns, convincing those that wanted to be convinced that, despite all evidence to the contrary, Israel was occupying Arab land and was abusing the Arab Palestinians. This new attitude towards Israel justified the well-organized terror attacks that began targeting Israel and Jews systematically. In 1964, Yassar Arafat declared the local Arabs were a separate people, retroactively to be known as Palestinians. He then created the Fatah, a terrorist group devoted to killing Jews, both soldiers and civilians. Hamas was established in Gaza in 1987-88 by the Muslim Brotherhood, also with the specific purpose of destroying Israel.

But what has been most successful has been asymmetrical warfare, waged by 'lone wolves,' the younger the better. A Jewish family is stabbed in their sleep one night when an Arab neighbor sneaks into their house; a family driving on the road is shot by a sniper another day; Jews are struck by Arabs steering cars and trucks and bulldozers at them on still other days. Teenagers, two or three at a time, are kidnapped and slaughtered. This asymmetric warfare has been highly successful. Uniforms aren't necessary. Expensive weaponry isn't necessary. A few dollars worth of gasoline and explosive or missiles that are so poorly constructed they hit almost randomly inside and outside of Gaza force Israel to response with the Iron Dome system, high-tech and expensive, with each interception costing some $60,000 (see here).

The size of a terrorist group becomes less important. Israel won't send out a IDF unit to fight a couple of 12-year olds throwing heavy rocks. On the other hand, a terrorist group can grow in size and organization. If it has enough recruits and money and organizational ability, it can become big enough to act almost as a sovereign state. Limitations on weaponry and on the use of biological and chemical warfare that have evolved over the years are ignored.

Once confined almost exclusively to harassing Israel, the new terrorism threatens the entire area. These terrorists often act like sovereign states themselves, without giving up any of their intrinsic thuggish viciousness. It is, in fact, often difficult to tell the difference between a terrorist state and a terrorist gang. ISIS — The Islamic State — is a terrorist gang that has acquired land, oil fields and terrorist affiliates that it supports with funding, weapons and training; it rules harshly over a large civilian population. Iran — The Islamic Republic — is a sovereign state that has land and oil fields and terrorizes a huge civilian population; it has acquired terrorist gangs and sovereign states — what's left of Syria and possibly Yemen via the Houthis — as affiliates that it supports with funding, weapons and training.

In recent times, except for low-keyed inter-clan and inter-tribe skirmishes, attacks have involved defined states: attacks have been encouraged by a government against a specific group, for example, the Armenian massacre; a structured proxy group fights against the Government, such as Hezbollah in the civil war in Lebanon; or the war is between two sovereign powers as between Iran and Iraq. The kings in power when many of the Arab countries were mandated into existence in the 1920s were mostly deposed, replaced by secular or salafist governments, equally or more repressive. But the states always had two features: borders and rulers. In the new Middle East, that is no longer a reliable statement.

Henri J. Barkey, a professor of international relations at Lehigh University, made the point this way April 21, 2015 in the Washington Post (see here):

The state as we know it is vanishing in the Middle East. Strife in Iraq, Syria, Libya and Yemen, foreign intrusion from states within the region and outside it, and dreadful rule by self-serving elites have all contributed to the destruction of societies, infrastructure and systems of governance. Nonstate actors of all kinds, most of them armed, are emerging to run their own shows. Generations of mistrust underlie it all. [emphasis added]

In the transitional Middle East, sovereign states, major terror groups and splinter gangs, ideologically, have much in common. These Muslim terrorists — thugs, gangs and sovereign states — are almost all salafists. They believe that Islam must dominate all other religions and they are all committed to pursue jihad until this comes true. They disagree mainly on which entity should run the show. The supposed 'authentic' Syrian rebels that have received much weaponry from the US are no exception. A large number of the group's fighters are seasoned al-Qaeda members.

These groups cooperate with each other and knife each other, often at the same time. Their common worship of Mohammad's ways and writings doesn't stop them from internecine fighting. From Mohammad's time, it never has. As EndTimes, a reader of the Daily Caller (see here) put it:

"Iran and ISIS are competing for the crown of militant Islam. One calls itself the Islamic Republic. The other calls itself the Islamic State. Both want to impose a militant Islamic empire first on the region and then on the entire world. They just disagree among themselves who will be the ruler of that empire."

They do have different personalities, depending on which ones of their commonality of features are emphasized. Is the target domestic or global? Is the goal to infiltrate the host country's infrastructure and, like a cancer, itself become the infrastructure or openly to behead resisters and "traitors" to change the country's life style rapidly and force adherence to sharia law? Do they act quietly or with much publicity? Do they use "inoffensive" weapons — stones, knives, cars and home-made explosives — on a few victims at a time but again and again without end or do they plan nuclear extermination of whole populations at a single time?

At the moment, ISIS tops the hit parade. It is a study in contrasts. It can plan and organize with the best and behave with the worst. ISIS is well-organized and plans meticulously but imaginatively. The leadership understands the values of those whose land they have taken over and how fast they can impose sharia law. They know how to attract the malleable and persuade the reluctant. They are good businessmen and know how to keep money coming in. They are thugs and aren't scrupulous on how they keep the money flowing. They use modern methods of social networking to attract recruits, yet they advocate that women are for breeding and are chattel under their father's or husband's complete control. They use sexual barbarism and large-scale slaughter as weapons of terror. They are unashamedly bestial, beheading wholesale, raping women and children, showing no civilized response to human suffering. A reader, RufusFirefly, (see here) summed it up this way:

For a religion who says it's devoted to God they sure have a strange way of expressing that devotion. The sights of headless bodies, bodies strung up like the carcasses of animals, people burned to death in cages, people getting their hands cut off, women and pre-pubescent little girls sold as sex slaves. You know, if we didn't know better we would say this looks a lot like something Lucifer would highly approve of.

These groups may have an ideology that is medieval, but their ambitions are transnational. It is curious that they are often described or market themselves in terms more commonly associated with modern business and trade than religion: al-Qaeda franchises, Muslim Brotherhood offshoots, ISIS market shares, al-Qaeda associates. This is from a Pri September 2014 article, "With terrorism, as with business, it's all about market share," (see here):

Who ever heard of a terrorist group announcing the opening of its latest "branch?" Yet that's what happened a couple of weeks ago, when al-Qaeda announced in a video from its leader, Ayman al-Zawahiri, that it was opening al-Qaeda in the Indian Subcontinent. Al-Zawahiri said that it had taken more than two years "to gather the mujahedeen in the Indian subcontinent into a single entity." Sounds like an M&A strategy, no?

It did to Sandip Roy, a senior editor at the Indian news site Firstpost. "I looked at it and I thought, 'All he lacks is a PowerPoint presentation.'"

In fact, the website Medium has created just the sort of PowerPoint presentation an ISIS exec might use if he were pitching to investors. It's complete with cash flow, market share and competitive advantages. Roy says that, shortly before the al-Qaeda video was released, Burger King had announced its own expansion into India. He was struck by the parallels between the two.

He believes al-Qaeda is acting like the big traditional player, while ISIS, which actually spun off from al-Qaeda, is the newer and "much more hip" start-up. "It's kind of like the classic IBM versus Apple starting out in a garage," he says. [...] The bigger message, for Roy, is that al-Qaeda realizes it no longer possesses a monopoly on "Terror Inc."

The reader may notice that we say little about one of the most insidious of the salafist groups, the Muslim Brotherhood. While they remain active in the West, they seem to be lying low in the Middle East. They may have temporarily changed their venue or they may be waiting for things to settle down.

We do discuss how the changes in the organization and scope of terror groups has forced modifications in how countries respond. The previous model of one country's identifiable soldiers clashing with another country's troops in specific locations isn't often useful. Several articles are devoted to detailing some of the new thinking, which has stopped regarding terrorism as an occasional nuisance and has started recognizing that terror organizations are the new ethnic group/state/corporate organization; that asymmetric warfare is the new way of waging war; and that the new warfare is without legal or moral constraint except that it adheres to the precepts in the Koran.

One thing we can say with certainty: if we don't stop Islam's takeover of the West and Far East now, we will be forced to try later, under much less favorable conditions.

THE TWO MIDDLE SECTIONS ADDRESS THE REACTIONS OF ISRAEL AND THE WEST. It was an easy decision for Israel to stay out of the battles of her neighbors, they are none of them her friends. It is difficult but so far possible to maintain vigil at her borders, to stop shipments of weaponry to Hezbollah and quietly to provide medical care and surgery to injured wounded rebels and civilians. Like Saudi Arabia and Egypt, she is alarmed that America and Europe don't seem to understand the consequences of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons.

The second section in this set is entitled "To Aid and Abet the Enemy: Censor Thyself. Blame the Victim" and focuses on the reactions in the West. It is so convenient to pretend that we can maintain a civil society with just a few appeasements to the Muslim life-style. Sometimes that works, at least for a while. But in general, appeasement is perceived as weakness and Muslim activists push to open these weak spots wide. We go from having halal meat for the Muslims to not having pork for the Christians. We go from having puff-pieces written in textbooks describing Islam as the religion of peace to calling any criticism of Islam criminal. When western law that contradicts sharia is ignored in practice, little by little the individual loses his right to run his own life. The protection afforded him by the Constitution and the bill of Rights is corroded. Sharia law takes hold in non-Muslim countries when the media and the politicians trivialize Western ways of living or when they talk about the importance of allowing individual rights but invent loopholes that allow Sharia law to function. The actual victims — the native populations of Western countries — often contribute to their own victimization by self-censorship and by not resisting the voices that are willing to give up everyone's freedom to pacify the Muslim community.

THE LAST TWO SECTIONS ARE, AS USUAL, PUBLIC RELATIONS/PROPAGANDA AND HISTORY. The first one presents some of the bad-mouthers of Israel, whose propaganda rants overpower any facts they might have about the events they are supposed to report. Some exaggerate some minor details and ignore the significant ones. Some invent factoids wholesale. Some chastize anyone that has a bad word to say about Arabs. Some blame the victim. Others invert the truth, painting Israel as doing the bloody deeds of the Arabs and/or award the Palestinians with the crown of innocence, rightly the property of Israel.

pope and abbas
PA Mahmoud Abbas (left) described by Pope Francis (right) as an "angel of peace"

The final section is the History Section. This time of the year being dominated by preparation for Passover, actually celebrating it and then repacking everything for next year, we present a story of how hard it was for some Jewish soldiers serving in the Palestine Brigade in World War 1 to celebrate Passover in Jerusalem. The massacre of the Armenians, the first genocide of the 20th Century, is described and there's an article on the authentic Palestinian refugees around at the end of World War 2: the Jews from the Arab countries, who were forced out of places the Jews had lived in for thousands of years, far longer than had the Arab invaders.


Return to What We Are Talking About


ISIS: THE LATEST SUPERSTAR, TERROR-WISE

As Dan Illouz wrote in the January-February 2015 issue, "The rise of the Islamic State has finally shocked some people into a belated awareness of what's been going on in Middle East." ISIS may be the newest and the nastiest, but ISIS has the same ideology as do all salafist groups: they will wage jihad until they conquer the world for Islam. When we assume ISIS is an anomaly in Islam, we make the mistake of limiting the reach and spread of Resurgent Islam to a relatively small number of terrorists. Even when we know there are hundred, if not thousands, of variously-sized terror groups, we ignore how many of them interact, concurrently friends and enemies. We are wrong when we think 'lone-wolf' terrorists function without a strong support structure. We are just as wrong to attribute independence of thought and technique to 'lone-wolf' terrorist groups.

To comprehend the enemy of current civilization, we have to understand that our enemy's motive power is its adherence to the terrorist preachings and teachings of Mohammad. "What would Mohammad do? What would Mohammad say" is the way millions of Muslims figure out how to interact with the world. Which terror organization ends up as the rulers of the Middle East depends on other factors: organizational ability, funding, the ability to maintain a large stock of high-tech weaponry, the ability to manipulate politicians, media and academics, the ability to attract troops and just sheer luck.

Right now the thugs of Iran and ISIS are the heavy favorites, but the Muslim Brotherhood and al-Qaeda are still in the running. The possibility that Iran will make a bunch of bombs before it is stopped OR that ISIS will overcome Iran and become the owner of the nuclear bombs Prez Obama is graciously helping Iran to develop OR that they cooperate is enough to give anyone nightmares.


Return to What We Are Talking About

ISIS IS THE FOURTH REICH

by V.S. Naipaul

The Dail Mail UK, the original publishers of this article by V.S. Naipaul wrote, "A long-term critic of Islam as a global threat, he [Naipaul] also challenges those who say the extremists have nothing to do with the real religion of Islam..." Change ISIS to SALAFISTS and Naipaul's article might appear even 50 years from now as an excellent summary of our present day conflict.

READ MORE
hrrule

THE TERROR STRATEGIST: SECRET FILES REVEAL THE STRUCTURE OF ISLAMIC STATE

by Christoph Reuter

According to documents accessed by Der Spiegel, Haji Bakr was the Islamic State's strategist who planned the organizational structure and the operations ISIS would perform to take over parts of Syria and Iraq. Christoph Reuter writes about the notes and organizational charts drawn up by Baki and discovered after his death. They details ISIS mode of operation and they clarify how ISIS's phenomenally rapid rise was possible. It is also possible to reconstruct the events surrounding the birth of ISIS from the initial membership of ex-officers from Saddan Hussein's army and start-up funds from al-Qaeda. When they targeted a town, they first set about getting information about the religious and sexual activities of the members of the local power structure. This gave ISIS the material to blackmail some of the people, entice others to join them and list which people they would need to eliminate. Controlling the populace, training the troops and having the funds to carry out operations were prime objectives. And when the infrastructure was in place, they declared the caliphate was resurrected.

READ MORE
hrrule

PRAGMATIC COOPERATION BETWEEN ENEMIES

by Meir Amit Intelligence and Terrorism Center

Life is simpler in the West. Adversaries are well-defined and separate. They wear different uniforms. You root for one team or for another. Things are different in the Middle East. As the Meir Amit Center demonstrates, arch enemies will trade and create economic alliances while carrying on brutal actions against each other. ISIS has conquered most of the Syrian oil fields in northern and eastern Syria but they don't have the skilled workers to maintain them. Syria supplies the workers. Syria needs oil and gas. ISIS needs the revenues from the sale of oil and gas. They worked out a deal. A side benefit is that ISIS is supplied with a reliable source of electricity. When I read this article I thought about how different things are in Israel. For some reason that I don't understand, Israel supplies the Palestinian Arabs with electricity for free. The Arabs show their gratitude by taking pot shots at the men who come to fix the grid.

READ MORE
hrrule

HOSTILE TAKEOVER: HOW ISIS ATE AL QAEDA

by Olivier Guitta

Olivier Guitta writes that terror groups around the world have joined the Islamic State as affiliates. The reward for affiliates is that they can share in ISIS's celebrity status. In return, they contribute their ability to wreak terror and destruction in their particular locales. Boko Haram had been a particularly important asset for al-Qaeda, obtained training and funding from al-Qaeda in the Maghreb (AQIM), while helping AQIM expand into Nigeria. It has shifted its allegiance to the Islamic State, leaving al-Qaeda much weakened.

READ MORE
hrrule
 

IRAN - THE QUIET BEFORE THE BOMB

iran nuclear negotiations
From The Israel Project, Facebook

The nuclear framework agreement signed between Iran and world powers, namely the United States, Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany, on April 2, was defined by U.S. President Barack Obama as an "historic understanding," while Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu defined the deal as "bad." — Israel Commentary (see here.)

"To my mind, a 'good deal' needs to bolt the door on the Iranians getting a nuclear weapon." — David Petraeus, March 19, 2015, (see here.)


Return to What We Are Talking About

THE RISE OF THE IRANIAN EMPIRE

by David Daoud

With good reason, anyone who can see two checker moves ahead worries about the Iranian unswerving intention to build nuclear bombs. As this article by David Daoud makes clear, non-Arab Iran is also building up its holdings in neighboring Arab countries. As the introduction to Daoud's article puts it, "With the fall of Yemen to Iranian-backed rebels, the subordination of the Iraqi army to Iran-backed militias, and the continuing dominance of Iranian proxies in Syria and Lebanon, it seems that a new empire has emerged—right under the nose of the United States."

READ MORE
hrrule

A BAD AGREEMENT WITH IRAN WILL UNDERMINE MIDDLE EAST STABILITY

by Lt. Col. (ret.) Michael Segall

Michael Segall sees the struggle in the Middle East as one between "between the proponents of change — such as Islamic State, Al-Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood and Iran; and the proponents of stability — the moderate Arab states including Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf states, and Tunisia, along with Israel." This is a particularly bad time for Iran to be given advantages. Segall puts into succinct and precise language how Iran is outmaneuvering the world. He confirms the trepidations most of us have felt as we learn that Iran is not only continuing its nuclear weaponry program but literally gaining ground — Arab country by Arab country — as well as regional political power. Iran's "growing entrenchment in the Syrian-Lebanese domain" and the increased coordination of Hizbullah, Hamas and other Palestinian terror organizations, will enable it to encircle Israel. Institutions such as the European Union, the P5+1 and the American administration, which should be stopping Iran's progress, aid and abet her ascent, while reassuring us that all is well. Two of Segall's conclusions — "the West repeatedly capitulates in the negotiations" and "The Iranian regime will not change in nature." — add up to a frightening future for the world.

READ MORE
hrrule

THE PHANTOM FATWA

by Bernice Lipkin

Bernice Lipkin writes about a fatwa said to have been issued by Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei, against Iran's developing nuclear weapons. The fatwa simply doesn't fit with Iran's monomania to build nuclear facilities or with the bellicose statements of its leaders. Yet Western leaders, including President Obama, have eagerly used the fatwa as linch pin to reassure the world that Iran was building nuclear facilities for peaceful purposes. It is not known where and when the fatwa was issued, if it were actually issued. It doesn't have even a fake birth certificate.

READ MORE
hrrule

THE DIPLOMATIC TRACK TO WAR

by Caroline Glick

Prez Obama asserts the agreement with Iran will prevent war and has called anyone who disagrees a warmonger. On much firmer ground, Caroline Glick shows why Obama's policy of nuclear appeasement will actually lead to a devastating war. A concerted diplomatic effort might still work but only if it is linked to collateral activities that would include supporting the Middle East countries that are already in a de facto war with Iran; wrecking Iran's nuclear installations ballistic missile storage facilities; and striking Revolutionary Guards command and control bases. With Obama in command, that won't happen. By threats, promises, stubbornness, deceit, broken promises and unexpected moves, Iran has routed the diplomats and, with Obama's support, has paralyzed any effective way to stop her brazen progress toward nuclear capability other than by warfare. This forces other Middle Eastern countries to try to acquire nuclear capability, making the possibility of a nuclear devastation in the region all the more likely.

READ MORE
hrrule

STRATEGIC FOLLY IN THE FRAMEWORK AGREEMENT WITH IRAN

By Maj. Gen. (res.) Yaacov Amidror

Yaacov Amidror makes a gloomy but realistic assessment of what life in the Middle East will be like if the US and European powers permit Iran to acquire nuclear weaponry and become a nuclear power. In addition to creating a "new, violent Middle East," in what is already an unstable region where thousands of civilians have already been slaughtered, Iran would also become a global power, with a heightened ability to inflict its Salafist ideas on the rest of the world. It is mystifying that Prez Obama would facilitate Iran's dominance and its horrifying consequences, when even now it would only take a few days for the US to completely destroy Iran's nuclear facilities. And he continues to thwart Israel's ability to do so.

READ MORE
hrrule

SOME GENERAL OBSERVATIONS ABOUT TERRORIST GROUPS

Like the Greek legend of the serpent Hydra, as we weaken or destroy one band of terrorists, old ones have more freedom of action and new ones pop up and become popular. Some terrorist groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood, al-Qaeda and Hizbullah are so well-established, they have cells, banking contacts, political networks, (not necessarily legal) businesses and front groups around the world. Members of the Muslim Brotherhood frequent the American White House. To illustrate the point, Hizbullah, which is dedicated to destroying Israel, is part of Lebanon's government and has, as this map indicates, an extensive global reach. It is more active in Europe than the map would suggest. The European Union (EU) resisted labeling it a terrorist organization for as long as it could. The EU finally banned Hezbollah's political wing but its 'humanitarian' wing has continued to procure weapons and raise funds for its terrorist operations, which Hezbollah usually performs elsewhere other than in Europe.

This section asked some general questions. What is the commonality among the Muslim terrorist groups? How do they interact among themselves? Deep down, below the cover story that the Arab states are passionately concerned about their Palestinian cousins, who after 65 years are still living segregated in camps in these same Arab states, who do the leaders of these states really see as the enemy? Are terror entities becoming institutionalized in the Middle East? Given that the present-day terrorists may destabilize the world more than the isms did in the last century, how is the rest of the world to protect itself? One of the essays suggests that our fundamental policy should be to destroy the core belief system that nourishes salafist terrorism: Islam itself.

map iranian sponsored hezbollah terror
PM Netanyahu used this map in a recent address to AIPAC. It illustrates the extent of the Iran-funded Hezbollah terrorist network. (from Tzvi Ben-Gedalyahu, The Jewish Press, 3mar2015. Ben-Gedalyah: "[Netanyahu] left out Argentine, the site of the Hezbollah bombing in 1994 of the AIMA center, but the map included Peru, the United States, India, Thailand, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Kenya, South Africa, Nigeria, Turkey, Egypt, Greece, Cyprus, Bulgaria, France, Germany and, of course, Israel.")


Return to What We Are Talking About

INSIDE THE MIND OF A JIHADIST

by Soeren Kern

Soeren Kern writes of a terrorist from Morocco and his Spanish wife, who have recently had a child in the Islamic State, on land which was once part of Syria. By birth, the child is Spanish. His mother is one of more than 100 Spanish citizens who have joined ISIS. Think of it. This ISIS couple already has photos for their family album — look! look! there is Daddy waving the heads of men he decapitated. He did it for Allah and Islam. As a conscientious father concerned that his children be brought up properly, it is likely he will teach them how to bomb, decapitate, shoot, knife and otherwise rid the world of those who go against Islam. He is a pious man and does what the Koran tells him to. And as the jihadists of IS take wives and start families, they will have a renewable home-grown source for future terrorists in addition to the usual recruits, who come for the romance, the excitement and the reassurance that Islam gives them permission to act out their anger. As Kern points out, we will soon have "a generation of Western passport-holding jihadi parents who are — presumably — inculcating their "Western" children with fundamentally anti-Western values."

READ MORE
hrrule

ACTING ON ISLAM'S CORE BELIEF

by Mark Durie

Islam is an all-encompassing paean of hate. Many with advanced insight insist Resurgent Islam is making a political ideological statement. And it is. At the same time, its acts of terrorism are making a statement about its core beliefs as a religion. Mark Durie writes of Muslim slaughter of Christians because they are Christian and of the Sura in the Koran that supports such activity. Incidentally, the accompanying photo of Muslims beheading Christians is sufficiently stylized that the Metropolitan Opera could use it next time it presents a sympathetic songfest lauding Muslim terrorists.

READ MORE
hrrule

THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD-ISIS CONNECTION

by Arnold Ahlert

In some ways the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) and ISIS are similar. Both are excellent in organizing and planning an operation in coordinated detail and in consolidating and expanding their gains. They differ in that the MB prefers stealth jihad, infiltrating a host country's infrastructure, creating a strong network connection with politicians and academics and influencing policy from within. ISIS prefers big, bold, fast and utterly demoralizing operations. A matter of style, not ideology. Albert Ahlert writes of the history of a group that has had many a name change and currently is called ISI (Islamic State of Iraq), ISIL (Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant), or ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria), depending on what territory is referenced. It's getting so big and stable, it often goes by its short all-encompassing name: IS (Islamic State). MB, founded in the 1920s, was the first in recent history to focus on bringing back the Caliphate and Sharia. MB has directly spawned groups such as Hamas and, if Egyptian sources are accurate, ISIS. And it has influenced the formation of many other salafist groups, which share the obsession of revitalizing Islam, recreating the Caliphate and living under sharia law. ISIS is also linked to the Muslim Brotherhood via al-Qaeda, which promoted its growth and with which it has had a fluctuating relationship. Currently, depending on the particular event, one can make a case that ISIS and MB work hand in glove (see here) or are on the outs. Or, in typical Arab fashion, denounce each other, while cooperating on other matters.

READ MORE
hrrule

"SOMETHING RADICALLY NEW" IN THE MIDDLE EAST

by Paul Merkley

Much of Western foreign policy in the Middle East is based on the assumption that what drives the Arab states and unifies the people of the region is the need to destroy that element perceived as alien, the Jewish state. Without the irritant of Israel, the Arabs would be content, peace and harmony would prevail. Paul Merkley suggests that recent events such as the banding together of Sunni countries to destroy the Shiite Houthi rule of Yemen show this is manufactured nonsense. In actuality, the core animosity is the mutual hatred of Sunni and Shi'ite, each out to prove it is authentic Islam, the other a heretic imitation.

sunni vs shiite
Dry Bones. The True Moslems, May 29, 2015.

As Merkley puts it, "what is tearing the Middle East apart today is the fact that the Muslim powers hate each other more than they hate us. This is not necessarily a comfort. But it does make clear that we have a range of responses that otherwise would be beyond consideration." He points out that "the largest obstacle standing in the way of a recalculation of diplomatic possibilities in the Middle East may well prove to be the determination of the President of the United States and his Secretary of State to keep on the world's agenda the hopeless issue of resumption of the Peace talks between Israel and Mahmoud Abbas."

READ MORE
hrrule

COMPARING AL QAEDA AND ISIS: DIFFERENT GOALS, DIFFERENT TARGETS

by Daniel L. Byman

Daniel Byman compares the differences in modus operandi and method of recruitment of two major Sunni terror groups, Al Qaeda and ISIS. Both are salafist and both are ambitious to be top dog in Islam, which they believe should be the top dog religion in the world. Al-Qaeda regards the US as its major enemy, and "the root cause of the Middle East's problems," and commits acts of terror often, as on 9/11, in dramatic and spectacular ways. ISIS, which emerged in Iraq, saw as its first task the securing of its local environment and since then has extended its control over more and more of the region, doing so in shockingly brutal ways. Terror groups that sign on as affiliates tend to focus on the parent concerns, ISIS troops slaughtering the local Shi'ites, al-Qaeda recruits attacking Western outposts. Based on his analysis, Byman suggests counter tactics for the US. I'm not sure I agree that the local Arab population will reject ISIS's tactics, as they become more grotesque. The local Arabs in Israel's Territories chose Hamas as against Fatah, gravitating to the terror organization with the more open violence.

READ MORE
hrrule

ISRAEL IN THE EYE OF A STORMY MIDDLE EAST

The overthrow of dictatorial regimes that began with the Arab Spring has created much motion, much strife, displaced civilians and a busy shuffling of government officials in and out of office, but little increase in democracy or individual freedom. A most significant consequence has been that more states have been unable to maintain a normal or even a minimum administrative structure to provide the services — access to education, food and water, transportation, communication, public safety, etc. — expected to some degree of even an incompetent government. On top of these deprivations, civilians who are not actively engaged in battle and jihad, suffer from life-threatening attacks by rival jihadists and are caught in the crossfire as their own group retaliates.

Many African states and gangs have left primitive and inadequate and are now stumbling around in passive non-functional, except for salafists such as the Boko Haram. The UN is planning to do something about them, just as soon as it finishes denouncing Israel for an almost infinite list of wrong-doings. Lebanon is considered stable, if we ignore the large number of Hezbollah in Parliament and the government. Internal peace has been gained at the price of civilized living, but it might not last because both ISIS and Jabhat al-Nusra have announced their battle plans include fighting Hezbollah. Meantime, Yemen, Syria, Iraq and Libya have shrunk in size as different salafist groups as well as the Kurds have gouged out large patches of land within the borders of the official states.

The new or at least transitional Middle East can roughly be compared to feudal Europe in the Middle Ages. In the Middle East, a recently restructured state is composed of fiefdoms controlled by jihadi bands, which have pledged allegiance to one of the bigger warlords, al-Qaeda or ISIS or Iran. Terrorist gangs and clans run Libya, where a brigade might be providing protection for the locals while fighting and raiding outsiders. ISIS now has enough land so it can train new troops in actual battle against the other major salafi groups; and the central government is reduced to some fancy words on a piece of paper. In Yemen as in ancient Gaul, the country is divided into three parts, each part controlled by a different salafist faction, which is at war with the other two. The new terrorist powers are mirror images in their allegiance to the word and deed of Mohammad and their hatred of the US and Israel. The old central government has abdicated, leaving a vacancy the Iran-supported Houthis will likely fill.

sanaa airport
People search for survivors under the rubble of houses destroyed by an air strike near Sanaa Airport in Yemen, March 26, 2015. (Reuters/Khaled Abdullah)

This section discusses the state of disarray of the Arab states in the Middle East and how Israel is coping with the situation. As luck would have it, Israel has already had years of practice balancing the safety of its populace with the fear of media and political outcry if it harms one strand of an Arab's beard. For well over a half century, a standard Arab ploy has been to hide weaponry among civilians. It's win-win. If the Israelis avoid targeting the area, their missiles are safe. If the IDF kills some human shields in destroying a civilian-guarded missile site, the Arabs gain inches of newspaper space and minutes of TV time, as Israel is chastised for causing the death of innocent civilians.

At present, in dealing with multiple civil wars, Israel doesn't support either side or, when more than two sides are at war, any side. It nips attempts to place a terrorist presence on its borders. And, quietly, it provides humanitarian and medical aid to injured civilians living near its borders. Its attempts to prevent future havoc by preventing Iran from making an atomic bomb have been thwarted by the American President, who has been running interference for Iran for some time now. As Louis Beres on April 22, 2015 put it:

"... it is effectively certain that Israel will have to face a fully nuclear Iran sometime in the next several years. It is also plausible that Israel's overall strategic position has been compromised by pertinent decisions of the Obama presidency, most recently, by the Pentagon's surprise publication of a 1987 document detailing once-secret elements of Israel's nuclear program [...] Israel will soon have to: (1) reassess the regional "correlation of forces;" and, correspondingly, (2) refashion its substantially complex "order of battle." [...] Israel's nuclear arsenal offers a potentially indispensable impediment to the actual regional use of nuclear weapons. Joined with a fully-coherent strategic doctrine, one that would include, inter alia, more explicit codifications of counter-city ("counter-value") targeting, and also certain enhanced efforts at ballistic missile defense, these weapons could come to represent the entire Middle East's principal line of defense against Iranian nuclear aggression, and regional nuclear war.[emphasis added]


Return to What We Are Talking About

THE UPHEAVALS IN THE MIDDLE EAST AND ISRAEL'S STRATEGIC BALANCE

by Amos Yadlin and Carmit Valensi

For years, Arab propaganda claimed the so-called Arab-Israeli conflict (or its lite version: the Palestinian-Israeli conflict) was the root cause of whatever bedeviled the Middle East. In 2010, the Arab Spring triggered a set of events that unhappily have resulted in bloody salafist attacks that have killed or injured hundreds of thousands of people and taken large chunks of land out of several of the Arab states. All of these new powers are sincere in their dedication to promoting the dominance of Islam and the authority of sharia. Amos Yadlin and Carmit Valensi suggest that what we are seeing is the acting out of religious differences, where each group is certain it is one that is correctly interpreting Mohammad's wishes. They point out that the Arabs are no longer preoccupied with Israel, now that they must deal with the viability and survival of their own countries. Unfortunately, these new circumstances continue to demand Israel's attention and will continue to do so. Asymmetric conflict, border flare-ups, the local Arabs acting on the belief that they are an ancient people and all of Israel was once a Palestinian state can flare up. ISIS can decide to test out its strength by provoking a fight. And there is Iran building a bomb, undeterred by the EU, the UN or the USA. And yet the new configuration creates opportunities. As Yadlin and Valensi note, a "wide congruence of interests has come into being for Israel and moderate Sunni Arab states, such as Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States, and Jordan. This represents an opportunity for regional cooperation..." Egypt is blocking smuggling tunnels, which makes it hard for Hamas to accumulate weapons of war. The Kurds are pioneering the concept of an ethnic group with autonomy that transcends state borders. Israel has much to contribute to regional cooperation should partnerships with moderate Arab states become possible. Israel needs to review its policy options.

READ MORE
hrrule

A LEGAL AND OPERATIONAL ASSESSMENT OF ISRAEL'S TARGETING PRACTICES

by Michael Schmitt and John Merriam

Primarily using data from Israel's July 2014 excursion into Gaza, Michael Schmitt and John Merriam examined Israel's "targeting methods and even some of its specific positions on the law of armed conflict (LOAC)," within the "unique operational and strategic context in which the IDF operates." IDF is a conscript force, not a professional army, so the IDF must take into account that the public justifiably has a strong fear of capture or death of its soldier-children in combat. So it puts a high priority on operations such as discovering and destroying tunnels the Arabs build to sneak up on troops. The IDF must also contend with the Arabs putting "fighters and military objectives among civilian persons and objects." To avoid hitting civilians, it resorts to warning when and where it will strike, which eliminates the important element of surprise; and it treats only voluntary human shields as hostile participants. IDF operations are also monitored by an independent judiciary on an on-going basis. Schmitt and Merriam conclude that "we found that their approach to targeting is consistent with the law and, in many cases, worthy of emulation." The only problem is that Israel's being a boy scout when it needs to put a stop to its enemy's missile attacks may be praiseworthy but it is not effective in that it doesn't wipe out missile attacks.

READ MORE
hrrule

WHEN OUR ENEMY FIGHTS OUR ENEMY

by Jonathan Spyer

Jonathan Spyer points out "that Israel has no natural allies on either side of Syria's civil war—neither among the Iran-allied 'regime' forces, nor with the overwhelmingly Sunni Islamist 'rebels.'" Israel has avoided involvement as much as possible. It does not participate in the current war between Hezbollah and the Al Nusra Front. Its activities are limited to stopping specific shipments of weapons to Hezbollah in Lebanon via Syria and preventing the presence of a strong terrorist group on the Golan border. It also provides humanitarian and medical aid to wounded rebels and Syrian civilians living near the border. Israel's goal is to maintain a secure border and stem spillover of the Syrian civil war into Israel. Spyer details some of Israel's interaction with Al-Nusra, a very capable group of Sunni jihadists fighting the Assad regime, to prevent their encroachment on the border.

READ MORE
hrrule

ISRAELI SECURITY POLICY IN SYRIA

by Brig.-Gen. (res.) Yossi Kuperwasser

As in the previous article by Jonathan Spyer, this article by Yossi Kuperwasser discusses Israel's policy to avoid "open intervention or taking sides in the bloody Syrian conflict." Clearly, Israel does not support either of the two main sides in the civil war — the Iranian-led radical axis and the radical Sunni axis led separately by Islamic State and Jabhat al-Nusra." Of particular interest in Kuperwasser's article is how "Israel and the Iranian-led radical axis" set the rules of the game in Syrian territory without coming to sustained and open battle.

READ MORE
hrrule

A "CRAZY STATE" DOES NOT PLAY BY THE RULES

by Eli E. Hertz

Stripped of its phony history and the fake story of how badly it's been treated by Israel, the Palestinian pseudo-state can be seen for what it is: another failed Middle East attempt at government. This is true whether it's the Palestine Authority — whose illegal head of state pockets much of the millions of dollars the West bestows on the local Arabs in Israel and the Territories — or Hamas in Gaza, which has imposed its notions on its Arab subjects of how to live 7th Century in the 21st Century. Long before ISIS emerged, before al-Qaeda choreographed 9/11, the Palestinian Arabs were innovating new and devastating ways of disrupting civilization and ignoring civilized conventions. Eli Hertz discusses how well the Palestinian self-government already fits the characteristics of a Crazy State.

READ MORE
hrrule

LEGAL RULES AND ANTI-TERRORISM WARFARE: THE CASE OF MUSTAFA DIRANI, REVISITED

by Keren Aviram and Yoram Schweitzer

Large-scale terrorism, neither random nor sporadic, is leading to a reexamination of the use of stylized rule-driven conventional warfare, now that asymmetric warfare has become the rule. Applying civil court procedures on terrorist activities has also come in for a reexamination. In this important paper, Keren Aviram and Yoram Schweitzer discuss a new ruling, using the case of Mustafa Dirani as prototype, where the Israeli Supreme Court expanded the "common law rule precluding the examination of an enemy's claim during wartime and applied it to members of terrorist organizations operating out of foreign countries, even if not in a formal state of war with Israel."

READ MORE
hrrule

TO AID AND ABET THE ENEMY: CENSOR THYSELF. BLAME THE VICTIM. KEEP THE VICTIMIZER HAPPY.

We know a lot about the ways anti-Semitism in Europe and the USA is systematically promoted by Muslims, how the job of marketing Jew-hate is made easy because of the European susceptibility to thinking the worst of Jews, and how the plague of irrational hate spreads among the academic elite as quickly or even more rapidly than in more ignorant communities. We know many Jews have responded to explicit or to murmured Jew-hate by becoming themselves willing participants in BSD and other hate campaigns against Israel. They blame the victim and shelter the victimizer.

This section examines some examples of Protect the Victimizer, lest he turn on you. People who should know better — and this includes Jews — accept the Arab invention of a Palestinian people. Newsmen, politicians and academicians who are supposed to dig for the facts suppress the truth and often invent lies to favor the Arab cause. The information that Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) are Jewish by international law, by history and by conquest is readily available, but people insist Israel is occupying Palestinian land. The humanitarians who are ready in the US to jail parents who spank their children or let their youngsters walk home from school by themselves excuse the Po' Palestinians, who strap explosive belts on Arab toddlers and teach them to shoot pretend guns at Jewish targets. Many a media person has argued that it is the Arab murderer — or, more often, the Arab community from whence he came — that is the true victim, because the host society hasn't made Muslims feel welcome. Too many of our opinion makers invert reality, downplay the importance of free speech, blame the victim and insist that the victimizer is the real victim.


Return to What We Are Talking About

ARE AMERICAN JEWS TRAUMATIZED?

by Karin McQuillan

Given Judaism amazing record for family stability, high creativity, low social pathology, financial success and strong moral teaching, one would suppose American Jews would encourage their children, even their intermarried children, to raise Jewish families. But "Jewish parents don't act as if it is in their children's best interest for a happy, good, meaningful life, to be Jewish." American Jews act as if, deep down, they don't really believe they are as accepted in American culture as they proclaim. In this essay Karin McQuillan examines why it is that, despite their success, so many "American Jews display the faulty reactions typical of trauma victims." Many of them exhibit "existential insecurity", acting out the judgment of their abusers in their 2000 years in the diaspora, exhibiting the defensive and convoluted reactions typical of the abused victim: "the self-blame, the guilt, the false accusations of being worse than the abuser, the pretense you were the one who caused the problem." Many a liberal Jew confuses "self-betrayal with proof of moral goodness," Using Israel as his proxy and inverting reality, he condemns Israel for mistreating the Palestinian Arabs. The world media also deny the obvious fact that the Arabs are neo-Nazi and insist that murder-obsessed Arab society is the "real" victim. As McQuillan writes, "Any group that tries to publicize Arab hate is criticized and marginalized as right wing. News of Arab anti-Semitism is routinely and thoroughly censored by NPR, the Washington Post, and the New York Times, because the reality of these facts is unwelcome."

READ MORE
hrrule

CARTOONISTS ARE CONTROVERSIAL AND MURDERERS ARE MODERATE

by Daniel Greenfield

Considering how protective TV media such as CNN and newspapers such as the Washington Post are of Muslim 'sensitivity', it should come as no surprise that when the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI) held a Draw Muhammad cartoon contest which incensed a couple of Islamic terrorists so they came to shoot up the contest participants, the media blamed the AFDI for provoking the shooters. As Daniel Greenfield puts it:

"A contest in which Bosch Fawstin, an ex-Muslim, drew a cartoon of a genocidal warlord is 'controversial' and 'provocative', while the Muslim Students Association (MSA), which has invited Sheikh Khalid Yasin, who has inspired a number of terrorists, including apparently one of the Mohammed contest attackers, is a legitimate organization that is only criticized by controversial, intolerant and provocative Islamophobes."

Was the Cartoon Contest designed to provoke? Of course. Just as Martin Luther King marched in towns that overtly hated blacks, not down safe streets in quiet towns. That's just the point. Provocative, in-your-face, unwelcome speech must be allowed. Polite talk that raises no ire raises no issues. The cockamamie Mainstream Media reaction of blaming the victim while "understanding" the sensitive hurt feelings of the terrorist has become so commonplace that people no longer see how sick and dhimmi-ish this is. In the inverted moral sphere in which the media spin, what is important is to protect the Islamic Victimizer from punishment for his immoral and illegal behavior.

READ MORE
hrrule

ISLAMIZATION OF THE WEST

by Geert Wilders

Geert Wilders was present at Garland Texas at the Cartoon Contest that was attacked by Muslim gunmen because the contestants insulted Muhammad by drawing his image. Wilders is no stranger to having Western politicians and opinion makers blame him for rocking the boat, for giving Muslim terrorists an excuse for rioting. Even though he was (and is) a leader of one of the major political parties in Holland, he was put on trial by the Dutch for the crime of inciting racial hate. What had he done? He made a film "Fitna" in which he quoted from the Koran. No distortions. No commentary. He simply cited currently-enforced rules from the Koran. Even worse, he spoke out against losing his country and his values to foreign invaders. In this essay, he sounds the alarm that the West is under attack by those that would turn the West into another fiefdom under Islamic rule, with Sharia displacing Western law and the primitive thug-based values of the Salafists — treating women as chattel and wiping out the individual's freedom to run his own life — displacing Western values. In this speech that he made April 29, 2015 to American congressmen at a meeting of the Conservative Opportunity Society, he pointed out a major error in how Europe handles incoming Muslims: people from Muslim countries that illegally make it into Europe are not turned back. Nor do the Dutch authorities insist that these immigrants assimilate the Western values of the host countries. We have an analogous situation in the States in that those who make it over the border from Mexico win big: jobs, welfare, free education, free medicine, and defense lawyers when they are caught engaging in criminal activities. In both countries, the rewards of illegal entry has encouraged substantial smuggling in of Muslim jihadists, which makes the host countries less safe as more salafists become available to promote Islam and sharia law. The authorities do nothing for fear of riling the Muslims. It's easier to blame those that speak up.

READ MORE
hrrule

SHARIA AND THE EUROPEAN UNION

by Leslie Lebl

The disparity between the law and its enforcement doesn't just affect free speech. Politicians and judges may make strongly-worded statements against violence against women yet refuse to back up their strong words with strong action. Leslie Lebl writes of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) describing sharia as "incompatible with ... democracy" yet its reports on human rights don't identify sharia law as a major reason for Muslim mistreatment of and violence against women. Polygamy is so obviously against Western values that we'd expect laws against polygamy to be strictly enforced in the Muslim immigrant community. Instead, as Lebl notes, "Although polygamy is illegal in all EU member states, it probably exists in all of them, and in some has been de facto legitimized." European countries ignore polygamous unions, debate polygamy rather than enforce the law, allow it if it was legal where it occurred, or classify Muslim wives as single mothers so they receive welfare. Thanks to the many loopholes, "perhaps some 300,000 people in Britain are living in polygamous families, many if not most at state expense." Similarly, the Council is strongly against violence against women. It "does not, however, recognize the critical difference between domestic violence and the sharia-justified violence against women, especially honor killings." Little by little, sharia becomes the de facto law of the land — and not just for the Muslims.

READ MORE
hrrule

MAKING DAVID INTO GOLIATH: HOW THE WORLD TURNED AGAINST ISRAEL

by Joshua Muravchik. Reviewed by Shoshana Bryen

Joshua Muravchik wrote in "Making David into Goliath", "Israel's image is not undermined by what Israel actually does as much as by deliberate, popular, and well-funded sources pursuing warfare against Israel off the battlefield." As Shoshana Bryen observes in her review, "with the triumph of the Six-Day War. ... Israel ceased to be perceived as endangered and therefore ceased to command the world's sympathy... The Arab states, in one of the most impressive political turns of the modern age, switched the conversation from Arab rejection of Israel to Israel's occupation of the Palestinians." Muravchik writes of the large number of Leftists, Jews and non-Jews, Israelis, Europeans and Americans, academicians, media people and think-tankers who, for money or ideology or job security, have maligned Israel. They were and are willing to tell outright lies, distort or ignore what they actually see and know, and omit critical facts to further the Arab cause. Bryen writes that "Muravchik comes to the ugly—and current—truth of European politics: European countries were willing to barter with Palestinian organizations in order that they mostly leave Europeans alone." From appeasement to slavishly doing the Muslim bidding was not much of a step.

READ MORE
hrrule

PROFESSIONAL BAD-MOUTHERS OF ISRAEL

This set of articles presents professional bad-mouthers of Israel. Some are paid directly from Muslim sources and some are media people, working for organizations that are supposed to be our tellers of truth, exposers of evil. Content is likely to be distorted, but usually the style is fine. These professionals usually avoid sounding petty — they manage this by wrapping the nasty message in some high-minded expressions. A recent example of an exception to this rule was Prez Obama's petty uncovered swipes at the Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu. Obama's petulance was a major embarrassment, even though the media tried hard to ignore his childish tantrums.


Return to What We Are Talking About

REZA ASLAN HYPES 'ISLAMOPHOBIA'

by Cinnamon Stillwell

Cinnamon Stillwell writes about Reza Aslan, a lecturer at UC Riverside. He has a monochromatic description of what's wrong with Islam: there's nothing wrong with Islam. What's wrong is the bunch of Islamaphobic bigots, who have a big pot of money donated by big business bigots and spend it all to stir up Islamaphobia by criticizing Islam. He has no use for information that comes from independent sources. He sticks to material that comes mainly from the Center for American Progress (CAP), a far-left organization. Armed with a few statistics that are debatable and chiefly ad hominem arguments, he dismisses the possibility that Islam is dangerous. He praises diversity and the American tolerance for differences, ignoring that, when Islam gains control of a country, its tolerance disappears and only a rigid Koran-based life style is permitted. CAP and academic followers such as Aslan have invested much effort in making people fear being called a bigot. They make it simple to avoid being called islamophobic: just don't criticize anything in Islam, ignore Islam's attitude to women and polygamy, ignore its anti-Semitism and hatred towards Christianity, Hinduism and all other religions. Ignore its battling with everyone, even other Muslims, ignore Muslims teaching their children how to behead someone. And you won't have to fear that someone will call you an islamophob.

READ MORE
hrrule

ISRAEL'S BASKIN CASE

by Kane Rooks and David Bedein

Kane Rooks and David Bedein summarize some of Gershon Baskin's "questionable statements of supposed fact that Baskin weaves into his writings." Many of Baskin's statements are confident reassurances that the Palestinian Arabs do not want to destroy Israel. A pity that Abbas and Hamas don't talk the same talk. This article provides a summary of Baskin's most flagrantly wrong statements, questionable declarations and pompous profundities.

READ MORE
hrrule

FRIEDMAN'S FANTASY

by Michael Devolin

In this essay, Michael Devolin takes on Thomas Friedman, the Shimon Peres of journalism. Both Peres and Friedman can sustain a lofty tone and the pretense of having carefully examined all that needs considering, combined with an impressive ignorance of consequences and incompatibilities. In a recent column, Friedman reassured us that in his pondering on the forthcoming nuclear deal with Iran, he was considering small details like verification and larger matters like the "wider American strategic goals in the region." In Friedman's dream sequence, transforming Iran into a civilized country would take place after Iran and the Saudis played out their ancient feud, pummeling each other "until they get exhausted." Devolin points out a few defects in Friedman's analysis. First, if the Sunnis and the Shi'ites have been fighting from soon after Mohammad's time, why would Friedman expect them to patch up things before Iran acquires the bomb and misuses its new power? Iran's incurring a tragic number of deaths during the Iran-Iraq war didn't shorten the war. Why would it now? Second, it may be true that given a resurrection of the U.S. relationship to the Shah — the one Jimmy Carter ruined — the US might be able to use Iran to counterbalance the Sunni forces, but there is no such relationship now. And Iran's open hatred of America and Israel is hardly an indication that Iran wants to be our buddy. As Devolin observes, "untruths and fantasy are today common fare for the Western journalist."

READ MORE
hrrule

ISRAEL'S BAD PRESS

by Andrew E. Harrod

We seem to be in the beginning of a trend where journalists, previously forced by their editors or the Arabs to engage in the practice of exaggerating Israel's mistakes or inventing nasty stories about Israel out of whole cloth, while ignore the actual and bestial behavior of the Arabs, tell all. First, there was Mattie Friedman. Now, as Andrew Harrod writes, Mark Lavie has revealed how distorted journalism has become, with reporters accepting Arab fraudulent claims without investigation. Lavie also talks about frank intimidation. For many years, reporters have justifiably feared their families would be harmed if they told the truth about the Arabs or showed footage of Arabs whooping it up in delight that Israelis or Americans were dead.

READ MORE
hrrule

POLITICAL ISLAM'S DISINFORMATION

by Rachel Ehrenfeld and Ken Jensen

Rachel Ehrenfeld and Ken Jensen ask how the Muslim Brotherhood and others who practice disinforming the West about the nature of Islam have been so successful for so long. They conclude that these jihadist groups spin lies and stretch truth within the context of simple and high-minded but false 'explanations' such as 'lack of economic development and social injustice.' Ehrenfeld and Jensen use as example the now-deposed Morsi government, which was voted in to protect human rights, but, instead, decreed shari'a law for Egypt. They might also have used the West's sympathy to the Palestinian Arabs as example. Palestinians are excused their knifing, sniping, stoning and lobbing missiles at Israeli civilians because they are too frail militarily to rid Palestine of Jewish occupation. Thanks to years of conditioning, the West, even supposed historians, ignores that there is no Palestinian people, there never was a Palestinian state, and it is the Arabs who invaded land set aside by international law for a Jewish state.

READ MORE
hrrule

THE ENEMY OF MY ENEMY

by Mark Steyn

Using a recent event that is destined for the history books, Mark Steyn writes on how to present a case and how not to present a case. He emphasizes the importance of the style and substance of Benjamin Netanyahu's speech to the US Congress by comparing it to Prez Obama's "small and petty" belittlement of the Israeli Prime Minister. Netanyahu warned of the dangers of Iranian expansionism in territory and its ability to produce nuclear weaponry. Netanyahu also pointed out an important fact when dealing with Muslim countries: ISIS may be on the outs with Iran, but that doesn't mean ISIS is friendly to the West. Steyn also admonishes us that 'your enemy's enemy is not automatically friendly' also applies to us in the US.

READ MORE
hrrule

HISTORY SECTION


Return to What We Are Talking About

COULD JEWISH SOLDIERS IN THE BRITISH ARMY CELEBRATE PASSOVER IN JERUSALEM IN 1918?

by Lenny Ben-David

Using photographs and old letters, Lenny Ben-David asks whether Jewish soldiers in the Jewish Legion in the British army and the individual Jews serving in the armies of Great Britain, Australia and New Zealand were allowed to celebrate Passover in Jerusalem in World War 1. The Jewish Legion was commanded by Col. John Henry Patterson, and letters written by the Colonel indicate that he was furious about the anti-Semitic policy which denied his soldiers permission to celebrate Passover in Jerusalem in 1918 and again in 1919, yet there are old photos showing Jewish soldiers doing just that. Although Jews were in the majority in Jerusalem, the British-run municipality allowed Arab violence against them, Hebrew was "officially disregarded and humiliated," and "Arab notables who betray pro-Jewish feeling" were penalized. Another photo suggests Jewish soldiers did have their seder in Jerusalem, but not those in the Jewish Legion "perhaps because of the army's desire to restrict a distinctly Jewish, nationalistic corps in its midst." The Jewish Legion made Pesach, but not in Jerusalem.

READ MORE
hrrule

THE LESSONS OF ARMENIA SHOULD NOT BE LOST

by Clifford D. May

The current spate of ugly ways to torture and murder people by both the Shiite and Sunni branches of Islam is not new. Clifford May makes the point that in recent history the "slaughter of Armenian Christians 100 years ago [was] preface and precedent to what's happening in the Middle East today." The fact that the world quickly forgot the Armenian victims reassured the Nazis that they too could slaughter people for the crime of a member of a particular ethnic or religious group without the world making much of a fuss. Nor do today's Muslim terrorist groups need to contend with a hostile aroused media as they exterminate Middle Eastern Christians. They cage prisoners, use 12-year old children to behead captives, rape women and sell children into slavery. They proudly act as practitioners of the Religion of Peace have always done.

READ MORE
hrrule


TWO STATES IS A FRAUD

by Drora bat Melech

Drora bat-Melech is an Israeli whose parents and grandparents were authentic refugees. Together with some 150 to 250 thousand other Jews, they were forced to flee from Iraq in the 1940s-early 1950s, even though the Jews had lived in Iraq for some 2500 years, more than a thousand years before the Arab invaders conquered the area. Not only were they kicked out, leaving most of their possessions and real estate behind, they had to pay the Arab government for the privilege of being allowed to leave alive. The scene was replayed in the other Arab states. The Jews received no help or compensation from the U.N., but the new state of Israel absorbed them and made them citizens. Bat-Melech was a refugee from Iraq but she was an 'aboriginal' in Israel because in 1922 their ancient land was restored to the Jews in recognition of their historic attachment to it; it was held in trust until they could develop the infrastructure and population to be a state. In 1948, when the neighboring Arab states invaded the new state of Israel, Arabs who fled — many of them left on orders of their leaders, and expected to return as soon as Israel was demolished — were placed into camps in their 'aboriginal' land, but they were treated as aliens and denied citizenship. Unlike any other group of refugees ever, they were given refugee status in perpetuum, they and their descendants, even those "refugees" who had come new to the area by June 1946.

READ MORE
hrrule

March-April, 2015 BLOG-EDS

 This is where our readers get a chance to write opinions and editorials and share articles they find informative. The Blog-Eds page for the month is updated every few days.

There is a separate file that is the index for the articles on the Blog-Ed page. You can access an article immediately from this index by clicking on the item in the index.

To access the Index, click the "Blog-Eds List" box in the Blue Strip on the top of the Blog-Ed page.

March 2015 Blog-Eds
April 2015 Blog-Eds

Please note that The Blog-Ed pages for March and April 2015 are not currently available.

Different Blog Ed pages will be down intermittently until the Archive structure is in place. We apologize for the inconvenience.

Return to Feature Index hrrule

Editor's Note:

Think-Israel tends to use salafist rather than extremist or Islamist or militant or fundamentalist or activist to describe generically a pious Muslim, one who sticks as closely as possible to the unfiltered words and actions of Mohammad and the first three generations of Muslims, including, especially, the Companions of the Prophet. In modeling himself as closely as he can on the preachings and practices of Mohammad, a salafist can in modern terms be precisely described as an uninhibited terrorist, a theological supersessionist, a political supremacist who believes Islam and sharia law must dominate and a social barbarian, who wages jihad with whatever tools are available. Thanks to the high quality of whitewash supplied by sympathetic propagandists, he seldom is so described.


FEATURED STORIES

January-February 2015

What we are talking about in the January–February 2015 Issue

  1. Arab Invasion of the Temple Mount (Eidelberg, Ronen, ben-Gedalyahu, Fendel, van der Hoeven, Brodie)
  2. Interfaith Dialogue and Muslim Intolerance (Dry Bones, Kessler, Cline, Murphy, West, Tepper)
  3. Expansionist Iran, Obama and the Bomb (Rafizadeh, Herf, Honig, Lipkin)
  4. ISIS Features Common to All Salafists (ITIC, Kedar, Ehrenfeld, Sherman, Devolin, Sennels, Illouz)
  5. Media and Political Propaganda (Friedman, MacEoin, Shragai, Greenfield)
  6. Aspects of World War 2 (Beck, Shapiro, Auschwitz Survivors, Nachshoni)

The ARAB INVASION OF JERUSALEM AND THE TEMPLE MOUNT

As described by Peter Hammond in his book Slavery, Terrorism and Islam (see also Richard Butrick's article in the January 2013 Think-Israel issue here), when the Muslim population of a host country becomes more than 5-10%, they begin to start their bid to take over the country. In Israel, Muslims officially are some 17% of the population, not including the many that live there unreported and illegally. So it should come as no surprise that the Arabs are flexing their muscles. As in Malmo, Sweden and Paris, France inter alia they are securing territory for themselves, the supposedly non-existent no-go zones. Jerusalem suffers from other lacerations. The unimpeded Arab intimidation and violence has impacted attitudes across the country, both Jewish and Muslim. One young Jewish woman, army-trained and religious, living close to Gaza and thus willing to risk erratic attacks from Hamas, confided in me that she no longer traveled to Jerusalem, which would seem to be a much safer place to live than her own town. But in Jerusalem she was afraid of getting into a cab driven by an Arab. Her fear of being kidnapped is very real and not uncommon. How has the growing Arab boldness affected Arabs citizens of Israel? When I was looking for a hotel close to the Kotel last Sukkot, I called a hotel in the area and asked whether they would have a Sukkah. The thick voice responded arrogantly that I was calling a hotel in Palestine and they certainly would not.

More openly, the Arabs are targeting Jews at the Temple Mount. As Moshe Feiglin has highlighted publicly by speaking out and coming to the Temple Mount, the harassment of Jews by Arabs on the Temple Mount is shameful, a shanda, made more appalling in that official Israel aids the Arabs in preventing Jews from praying at their most Holy Site. Menachem Begin insisted that "the right of free Jewish worship in Jerusalem stood at the very core of the independence that Zionists sought...A people that does not defend its holy places—that does not even try to defend them—is not free." Unfortunately, just as the British in the Mandate Period caved in to Arab demands to keep the peace, Israeli politicians today are more concerned with preventing Arabs from rioting than respecting the right of Jews to pray freely in their own land.

One observation starkly highlights the absurdity of the prevailing policy: Jews can't pray on the Temple Mount— a Jew was arrested for the suspicious activity of closing his eyes— but Arabs can play soccer there. It puts the lie to any argument that excuses Arab violence by pleading Arab sensitivity to infringement of their religious practices or mosque environment. In point of fact, what Israel's timidity has gained her is increased Arab unruliness, intimidation and vulgar behavior.

Professor Paul Eidelberg has suggested some ways Jews can begin reclaiming their most Holy Place:

1. We need to publicize the idea that Jewish control of Israel's holiest site, the Temple Mount (the Har HaBayit) on which stood the Beit HaMikdash, is a precondition of uncontested Jewish control of an undivided Jerusalem and the vivid restoration of Jewish national honor as well as the sanctification of God's Name. Once Jews maintain unequivocal control of the Temple Mount, a serious movement can be initiated among Christian in the United States to move the American embassy to Jerusalem — which would produce a salutary shock wave across the world.

2. Conversely, so long as the Muslim Authority (the Wakf) controls and desecrates the Temple Mount, the nations will despise Israel and kowtow to the Arab-Islamic world. Muslim desecration of the Temple Mount not only exposes Jewish weakness, but increases Muslim arrogance and incites Islamic violence everywhere.

3. Jewish spiritual revival of the Temple Mount would not only be the pinnacle of a Jewish restoration of Jerusalem; it would also inflict a lethal blow on the ambitions of Muslims, who regard Jerusalem is the key to their global ambitions.

4. The Wakf has long been violating the Law of Antiquities and the Law of Planning. The Muslims are erasing all historical evidence of Jewish presence on the Temple Mount. The Netanyahu Government knows this and has cravenly said they have no intention of interfering.

5. Of course, exclusive Jewish control of the Temple Mount is inseparable to Israel's control of Judea and Samaria. (See below, point 14.)

6. To show that the Temple Mount is the key to the world-historical function of the Jewish people prescribed in the Tenach, I shall now quote various passages from Joshua Berman's book, The Temple.

7. The Temple, he writes, represents "the spiritual center of the country. Here, at the site where God's presence is most manifest, the representatives of the Jewish people execute commandments and rites that symbolize the service of the nation as a whole."

8. It should also be noted that any non-Jew, so long as he adheres to the Seven Noahide Laws of Universal Morality, can bring certain "sacrifices" to the Temple, which acknowledges God's sovereignty over mankind.

9. The Temple — "a house for God's Name" — symbolizes "a public declaration of God's sovereignty. The ambition of declaring God's sovereignty in the world, which was initiated by Abraham, is the calling of the Jewish people."

10. Berman goes on to say: "God's acclaim in the world is a direct function of how Israel is perceived [by the nations]." Israel must become a great country. "A great country should possess political stability at home and should be at peace with its neighbors. It should possess a strong economy and should be home to a culture that boasts strong [moral and intellectual] virtues." Israel did not become such a nation until the reign of King David, and it was left to his son Solomon to build the (first) Temple. All nations then flocked to Jerusalem, which was recognized not only as the City of Peace but the City of Truth.

11. "The function of the Temple as a symbol for God's acclaim in the world reaches its apex with the visit of the queen of Sheba to Solomon's court" — Solomon, the wisest of kings. Ponder, therefore, these verses of Isaiah 2:1-3: "And many nations will go and cry, 'Let us go up the to mountain of God's house, to the house of the Lord of Jacob, and we will learn from His ways and walk in His paths, for out of Zion goes forth the Torah and the word of God from Jerusalem.'"

12. Now let us consider Rabbi Chaim Richman's essay, "A Third Jewish Temple" (May 18, 2000), where he says: "People assume those who are interested in the Temple are radical elements opposed to peace." Alluding to the era of King Solomon, Rabbi Richman points out that the Temple Mount represents "the hallmark of the greatest era known to man.... This place has been sanctified by God from the beginning of time.... Here Jacob laid his head. Here Abraham tried to sacrifice Isaac.... Of the 613 commandments in the Torah, 113 of them depend on the existence of a Jewish Temple. We have not received a cancellation order for any of the commandments issued at Mount Sinai."

13. Public opinion must therefore be educated about the Temple, about its significance in Judaism. Obviously, the Netanyahu Government, steeped in timidity and intellectual stagnation, will not do this. This Government doesn't really represent the Jewish people. At least 25% of Israel's Jewish population is religious, and at least 50% is traditional. The Jewish people were not consulted when, Netanyahu, without Knesset or public discussion, endorsed the creation of a Palestinian state in Judea and Samaria, Israel's heartland. There is no reason to believe, therefore, that this orator with a golden tongue and clay feet will stand firm on the issue of Jerusalem and the Har HaBayit.

14. Hence, a Jerusalem Movement involving a network of cells across the nation should be initiated by Jewish youth and venerable rabbis. Their proclaimed purpose is to preserve the integrity of Jerusalem and the Temple Mount now being sullied by Muslims. Weekly demonstrations will be necessary. Eminent speakers should be called upon to denounce Netanyahu's policy of moral equivalence regarding Jewish and Muslim claims to the Holy Land — an insult to Jewish intelligence, as well as to countless Christians who are grateful for Jewish sovereignty over Jerusalem, knowing that by this alone will they be welcomed in the Holy City.


Return to What We Are Talking About

WAQF'S NEW WEAPON: SCREAMING GIRLS

by Gil Ronen

Gil Ronen reports on a new gambit used by the local Arabs, "citizens of Israel," to show disrespect to Judaism and to Jews on the Temple Mount. Arab men and women of all ages, including youngsters, especially young girls, are paid to harass Jews verbally and physically to ensure they can't worship there. They can't even enjoy a moment of contentment or contemplation on this most Holy of the Jewish Holy sites. And the police, paralyzed by politicians who fear bad publicity, either do nothing or arrest the Jewish "troublemakers". An Addendum lists some relevant videos.

READ MORE
hrrule

ARAB MK AHMED TIBI FLIES PLO FLAG ON TEMPLE MOUNT

by Tzvi Ben-Gedalyahu

An Arab Member of the Knesset flies the PLO flag on the Jewish Temple Mount and the police do nothing. Tzvi Ben-Gedalyahu asks, "If a Kahane flag is illegal, is the PLO flag on Temple Mount kosher?" Perhaps the question should be, "In WW2, would the USA allow a Nazi flag fly from the National Cathedral?" Have we forgotten that Resurgent Islam has declared war on the West and Israel; and the faux-people, the Palestinians, are foot soldiers in that war? As an aside, the Arabs don't just fly their terrorist flag, they burn flags of other countries on the Temple Mount. See them burning the French flag here.

READ MORE
hrrule

STATUS QUO? 'JEWS PRAYED ON THE TEMPLE MOUNT FOR CENTURIES'

by Hillel Fendel

Hillel Fendel "explores the origins of the hotly-contested 'status quo' at Judaism's holiest site." As he says, everyone "religiously" is determined to continue the "status quo"— even those who blather about freedom of worship. But, as Fendel asks, what is the status quo? At the moment, Jews are forbidden by their Government to pray on the Har HaBayit (The Temple Mount). The reason for preventing Jews from praying is said to be that Jews might inadvertently step on a forbidden area. If the intent is to prevent desecrating a sacred place, why are Arabs allowed to run wild and destroy ancient relics? Besides, historically, Jews prayed there for hundreds of years without hindrance. The real reason appears to be to not stir up Arab anger. But if so, it isn't working. It is only emboldening the Arabs employed by Hamas et al to behave despicably.

READ MORE
hrrule

HOW IMPORTANT IS GOD'S TEMPLE MOUNT

by Jan Willem van der Hoeven

Who would have believed in the 1930's, as Hitler was starting his genocidal war against the Jews, that some eighty years later the Jewish State would be a major safety zone for Christians in the Middle East, the victims of another genocidal war, this time one conducted by the Islamic States? And Christians are among the strong voices declaring how important the Temple Mount is for Jews. Jan Willem van der Hoeven writes what even secular Jews should know and understand.

READ MORE
hrrule

JERUSALEM ALSO HAS 'NO-GO' ZONES

by Tuvia Brodie

Tuvia Brodie reports on the presence of no-go zones in Jerusalem. In Europe, 'For Muslims Only' areas are land patches — usually in a large city that has a sufficient concentration of Muslims — that are completely controlled by Muslims and only obey sharia law. Non-Muslim are not allowed in, not even police or firemen [See, for example, documentation of no-go zones in France here.] Israeli no-go zones differ from those in European countries only in that the surrounding Arab villages are also, for the most part, no-go zones, so that Jerusalem is more and more ringed by hostile bands of Arabs, who are citizens of Israel but identify with the Muslim Jihad against Israel.

READ MORE
hrrule


WHY INTERFAITH DIALOGUE CAN'T RESULT IN MUSLIMS BECOMING TOLERANT

interfaith

In his essay below, Clive Kessler points out that for interfaith "dialogue ... to proceed, no one party can 'set the rules'". This isn't a policy that can honestly be followed by Muslims who are compelled by the tenets of their religion to regard non-Muslims as infidels who must convert to Islam or pay Islam for the privilege of being allowed to live. This hasn't stopped Muslims from participating in interfaith dialogues but it may account for why these dialogues seem to end with only the Muslims gaining any material benefits from the transactions. The last essay provides an instance where Jews and Christian Arabs have genuinely made common cause, in that both groups live in Israel and are loyal to their country. But in general, as one reader, Gary Fouse, commented on another one-way interfaith dialogue, this one held at Georgetown University (January 13, 2015), "Sounds like Springtime in Germany. Was Mel Brooks there? Having sat through many of these side shows, it never ceases to amaze me how the gullible pastors and rabbis soak up this garbage that flies in the face of the daily slaughters around the world. Many of these US Muslim leaders will decry terrorism and violence insisting it has nothing to do with Islam, yet consider Yusuf al Qaradawi to be one of the greatest Muslim scholars. Qaradawi affirms every fear we have about Islamic ideology when it comes to apostates, Jews and Christians. He wants them all dead."

Several videos that complement the articles on interfaith discourse:

(1). David Wood discusses the 3-step Strategy of Jihadists: Stage 1: Stealth Jihad (Live in Peace); Stage 2: Defensive Jihad (Claim Victim Status); Stage 3: Offensive Jihad (Kill off disbelievers). Religious Interfaith Dialogue is a type of Stealth Jihad, Stage 1. See it either here or here.

(2) Baron Bodissey of the Gates of Vienna website writes on the Islamic service at the Washington National Cathedral that took place November 14, 2014, in an essay called, "What happened at National Cathedral last friday?" See clips and commentary of the service here and some excellent articles from the Counter Jihad Report here. The fourth article down is the transcript and additional commentary on the National Cathedral service.

(3) Bare Naked Islam has a video beautifully illustrating taqiyya (lying to prettify/protect Islam). The assertions by the speaker, Iman Musri, are followed by contradictory facts here. A viewer, cat, said of Iman Musri: "The man is a liar. Look at his body language of swinging legs as he lies. This is why the pen and pictures of the real and evil truth of the lies of islam, is mightier than the sword. We must keep on putting the truth up front for people to judge. Putting the truth, juxtaposition to the lies of the speakers works so very well. We must engage muslims with the truth and show their lies at every opportunity. Thanks to BNI, Geller, Spencer and so on, we have good knowledge to use to prove the lies of islam."

(4) Also from BareNakedIslam. (February 18, 2015) is this video featuring Hajj Saeed, Imam of the Al-Faruq Mosque in Copenhagen, who bluntly says, "We don't believe in interfaith dialogue." He points out that 'Prophet Mohamed engaged in war, not dialogue. When the Jews refused to come to Allah, he killed them. We will not dialogue with people who believe in a false religion, who live in a bogus culture.'" See here.


Return to What We Are Talking About

ON "SUPERSESSIONISM": ABRAHAMIC FAITHS IN HISTORY

by Clive Kessler

Religious supersessionism is the belief that one's religion has replaced or fulfilled its predecessor religion(s). In this article, Clive Kessler concentrates on making explicit the supersessionist substrate of Islam. He examines the weakening of such an attitude toward Jews in current Christianity, thus suggesting that a religion can reverse a negative attitude without doing violence to itself. The essay also suggests that attempts at interfaith understanding are doomed to fail when some the participants are innately supersessionist. Christianity has come a long way towards reorienting itself to respect Judaism. Muslims, however, still suffer from the conviction that Islam is — or should be— the religion that dominates any and all others. In practice and because of their unbending attitude, they take advantage of members of other religions who are trying so hard to show acceptance that they end up doing the bidding of the Muslims.

READ MORE
hrrule

THE MUSLIM'S CONUNDRUM

by Edward Cline

Edward Cline examines sharia law— the thorn in the side of ecumenism— from the point of view of the burdens it places on Muslims. It is a distasteful but incontestable fact that sharia is a package deal, sanctioning primitive, violent sexual practices, enforcing a supercessionary attitude and encouraging jihad against everything and everyone that is not Islamic. As Cline says, "Muslims of whatever stripe are stuck between a rock and a hard place — between the totalitarian nature of Islam, and its absolute, non-negotiable imperatives of Islamic dogma." Western media and academia and political leaders have placed no restrictions on "the stealthy and incremental Islamic incursions into Western culture," accompanied with its offensive behavioral patterns. So, non-violent Muslims have the additional burden of solving the problem of how to behave in a civilized fashion, a problem that they, not us, need to solve.

READ MORE
hrrule

INTERFAITH MUSLIMS GIVE REASONS FOR JIHAD

by Paul Austin Murphy

When pushed to the wall, Muslims engaged in interfaith dialogue can always claim that violent jihad is only carried out for the just cause of autonomy for Muslims, as in Kashmir, Palestine and Chechnya— the Islamic version of 'you can't make omelets without breaking eggs'. This appears to be the virtuous excuse provided no matter what the size of the Muslim population relative to the size of non-Muslim groups in the country— which begs the question why are the Muslims the only ones entitled to be in charge of their own destiny. Probe further and it becomes clear that the request for autonomous space is actually the desire for a beachhead, from which Islam can eventually force and enforce sharia law on all of us.

READ MORE
hrrule

ISLAM COMES TO THE NATIONAL CATHEDRAL

by Diana West

In this essay, Diana West describes what was wrong with the Muslim service conducted by a prestigious group of salafists and associates of Islamic terrorists at the prestigious Washington National Cathedral. Like the majority of Muslims globally, these Muslims strongly uphold sharia law, which means, in practice, that they have no doubt that Islam has replaced the imperfect religions of the Christians and the Jews— an attitude not conducive to genuine tolerance. The Episcopals thought they were being ecumenical, but judging from the surus read, all that these benighted Christians got for their efforts was a lecture larded with some very nasty appraisals of Christianity and Judaism. In Arabic, of course.

Baron Bodissey of the Gates of Vienna website wrote of a surprising and little-known fact about the event in an article entitled "The Washington National Masjid." "The administrative leaders of the Episcopal Church obviously have no idea what it means to allow their building to be used a place where formal Islamic prayers take place [emphasis added]. Or maybe they do, and they don't mind. In any case, once Muslims have said their prayers as an assembled group, the structure becomes a masjid, a mosque, and the property of the waqf board, the Islamic trust for the Ummah. The local Islamic community may decide to defer taking formal title to the building until their numbers in the Washington area are sufficient to make it prudent to do so, but after tomorrow, the National Cathedral will have become a mosque. And not just any old mosque, but one with full connectivity to the Muslim Brotherhood." As the Baron notes, the Muslim service was "a highly symbolic demonstration of Islamic supremacism" by a religious group that assumes other religions should accommodate them but would not themselves be foolish enough to reciprocate the Cathedral's hospitality.

READ MORE
hrrule

CHRISTIANS IN THE HOLY LAND: DON'T CALL US ARABS

by Aryeh Tepper

Aryeh Tepper writes the story of what is happening because an ethnic group of Israelis put Israel's claim to take diversity seriously to the test. Perhaps inspired by the revitalization of Jewish identity in the Jewish homeland and certainly unhappy at being lumped in the non-homogeneous cludge of ethnicities labeled Arab, the Israeli Aramean Christian community asked that they be legally identified as Aramean, a specific and unique Israeli minority, just as are the Druze and the Circassians. This hasn't pleased the Palestinian Authority, but while Israel has been reluctant to stir up the easily-inflamed Muslim Arabs, it has shown little tolerance to anti-Aramean incitement by these Muslims. Tepper makes the case that there is a regional movement in Arab countries and well as in Israel of minorities who are beginning to think of themselves in terms of their own history, rejecting both pan-Arabic philosophy and Muslim Arab political domination. There have been a sufficient number of groups emphasizing their identities before the Arab invasion that "the belief that the Middle East is somehow essentially Arab" has come into question. The fact that Arabs are Johnny-come-lately in contrast to the newly-assertive native populations is being recognized. Why is Tepper's article in this section? The interfaith interaction of the Jews and the Arameans is based on a genuine commonality: both groups are loyal citizens of the Jewish state and both have a strong interest in preserving it.

READ MORE
hrrule


EXPANSIONIST IRAN, OBAMA AND THE BOMB

In 1938, Europe was happy to believe that Neville Chamberlain had talked Adolf Hitler into giving up his warlike posture. The major effect of the "Peace in our Times" agreement was to prolong the war when it came and make it more deadly. We appear to be in an analogous situation now with Iran. These essays ask why the West doesn't recognize how much danger we are in.


Return to What We Are Talking About

OBAMA'S FAILED NUCLEAR POLICY AND KHAMENEI'S DUPLICITY

by Majid Rafizadeh

Majid Rafizadeh points out the serious defects in Prez Obama's handling of the most consequential crisis of the current century. "The primary objective of the nuclear negotiations was to completely dismantle Iran's nuclear program in order to remove the threat of Islamists obtaining nuclear weapons... when Iranian leaders realized that President Obama is more desperate than Iran to get a nuclear deal at any cost, Tehran began dictating and setting the terms in the talks, shrewdly threatening Obama to walk away from the talks if they are not satisfied...In the next few months, Obama is likely to give more concessions." Given his amateurish, waffling-and-wavering inept management, it is not surprising that many people suspect, as did a reader, JayWye, who wrote in FrontPage Magazine that: "Comrade Obama WANTS Iran to achieve nuclear weapons. Comrade BHO is not working for America,he's working AGAINST the US."

READ MORE
hrrule

TRASH TALK DIPLOMACY, US-ISRAEL RELATIONS, AND IRAN

by Jeffrey Herf

It is perhaps an indication that Israel and the US once had strong relations that Prez Obama is as hostile to Israel as he has become to Britain, Egypt and Saudi Arabia, once stout allies of the US. The issue, as Jeffrey Herf writes, is that Obama hates Israel because he perceives Israel as an obstacle to what has become obvious: Obama's policy towards Iran is one of appeasement. Even worse, it appears Obama will do nothing to stop Iran obtaining nuclear weapons, but will instead thwart and punish anyone who dares object. Acting more as a street thug than a diplomat or leader of a powerful nation, Obama has resorted to nasty language, direct insults as when he left Netanyahu in a room and trotted off to his dinner, and other shows of petulant and insulting behavior. He has also leaked information that prevented Israel from directly attacking Iran's nuclear facilities. As Herf reminds us. "Only if the President is willing to turn down a bad deal with Iran will there be a chance of success via diplomacy and sanctions short of war." But the president continues to be angry with anyone who points out he's heading recklessly in the wrong direction.

READ MORE
hrrule

VARIATION ON THE BIRD-JEW THEME

by Sarah Honig

Sarah Honig uses Sholem Alechem's story of the bird-Jew to anchor an egregious example of "the fear of giving offense to one's mortal enemies..." In this newer version, she takes to task those who argue that it is PM Netanyahu's "duty to obediently assume the role of the bird-Jew and self-destruct" to appease Prez Obama's anger at Netanyahu contradicting Obama's empty reassurances that Iran will not possess nuclear weapons. And doing it publicly. This view ignores that Congress is independent of the Executive Branch and that Obama's overt hostility didn't start or even blossom because of Netanyahu's addressing Congress and warning them against a deal that would allow Iran to build nuclear weapons, thus gaining the means to lord it over the other countries in the Middle East, threaten oil supply globally and be in a position to devastate Israel or any place in the Western world. Honig points out that if there be interference in a sovereign country's domestic policy, it is Obama who is the culprit, blatantly meddling in the Israeli election and encouraging the craven worship of Obama by Israel's bird-Jews, the Leftists.

READ MORE
hrrule

EXPANSIONIST IRAN, OBAMA AND THE BOMB

by Bernice Lipkin

It seems as if we've been negotiating with Iran for eons, initially to prevent her from acquiring nuclear weaponry, and now, it appears, to hope she uses her power wisely. Bernice Lipkin suggests reasons that might account for the West's lack of urgency and concern.

READ MORE
hrrule

THE FEATURES ISIS SHARES WITH ALL SALAFIST GROUPS

The list below shows that ISIS follows the teachings and practices of Islam. All Salafist groups share these features, because they all derive their sacred mission of jihad warfare from Islam, whether they are as violent as ISIS or more politic as is the Muslim Brotherhood. They all believe in the supremacy of Islam, whether they are members of a large organized group such as Al Qaeda or freelancers appearing to be unaffiliated with any terrorist group. They all model themselves on the words and deeds of Mohammad, the embodiment of perfection. They all follow the teachings and practices sanctioned by the Koran.

17 November, Abu Nidal, al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades, al-Nusrah, al-Qaeda, al-Qaeda in Islamic Maghreb, al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, Anbat an-Ansar, Ansar al-Islam, Army of Islam, Boko Haram, Egyptian Islamic Jihad, Fatah, Hamas, Haqqani, Harakat ul-Mujahidin, Hezbollah, Houthis, Iaish-e-Mohammed, Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Quds Force, Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (or Iraq and the Levant; name changes reflect growing territorial acquisitions), Jamaat ul-Mujahideen, Muslim Brotherhood, Palestine Islamic Jihad, Palestine Liberation Front, Talaban — to name only a few of the better known groups — are not aberrations. They are pious Muslims.


Return to What We Are Talking About

ISIS: PORTRAIT OF A JIHADI TERRORIST ORGANIZATION

by the Meir Amit Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center (ITIC)

This article is the Overview Section of a monograph issued by the Meir Amit Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center (ITIC). The monograph is a comprehensive examination of "the nature of the Islamic State in Iraq and Greater Syria (ISIS), an Islamic Salafist-jihadi terrorist organization founded a decade ago as a branch of Al-Qaeda in Iraq." It is an excellent and reliable reference on the roots of ISIS; its ideology; its military and financial capabilities and areas of control; its military campaign in Syria and Iraq (to mid-November 2014); how it has and will continue to increase regional instability; the American campaign against ISIS; and the danger it poses to Israel. The researchers took into account that they were dealing with a dynamic organization in situations subject to rapid change. To understand and prepare a comprehensive yet readable report on ISIS meant the researchers needed to assess, evaluate and integrate information from a multiplicity of primary sources dealing with the "history Islam, the Sunni-Shi'ite schism, the Salafist-jihadi movement from which ISIS sprang; the changes in Al-Qaeda and the global jihad; the developments in the civil wars in Syria and Iraq and the various aspects of the Middle Eastern upheaval." One can only admire how well they have succeeded.

READ MORE
hrrule

WHAT MAKES ISLAMIC STATE SO ATTRACTIVE?

by Mordechai Kedar

Mordechai Kedar focuses on what makes ISIS outstanding if not unique. And why it is so popular with young Muslim volunteers, who come from all over the world to be part of ISIS. Kedar observes that it projects strength. ISIS members are encouraged to kill citizens of powerful countries and these countries do little or nothing in response. Isis has reestablished the caliphate, which was dissolved some ninety years ago, They announced the caliphate wasn't some dream in the future; it had come into existence and it came complete with a caliph, who just happened to be the head of ISIS. Moreover, ISIS has apparently established a reputation for being authentic Islam. Its unabashed use of decapitation, burning and torture certainly is modeled on how the founder of Islam treated apostates, captives and the disobedient. As Kedar says, "Islamic State — at this point — seems a young and vibrant one, whose actions are in true accordance with Islamic precepts and which does not give any consideration to the heretical, materialistic and permissive cultural mores with which Western culture tries to inculcate Muslims all over the world."

READ MORE
hrrule

THE MYSTERY OF THE ISLAMIC STATE

by Rachel Ehrenfeld

Rachel Ehrenberg cites Abu ZBakr Al-Baghdadi of ISIS, who argues that it is reasonable "to unite all the jihadi groups under one umbrella. After all, they all seek the same result: fight the jihad to establish a global Islamic rule." It is more common, however, for Muslim groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood that practice stealth jihad to ascribe terrorism to "Political Islam, so that they can call Islamic religion a religion of peace.

READ MORE
hrrule

IT'S ISLAM, STUPID!

by Martin Sherman

Martin Sherman makes the point that terrorism is very closely linked to Islam. Muslim apologists point out that the majority of Muslims are not violent. True, but if we go by population figures, some 17% of the world's population is Muslim, so we'd expect they'd commit roughly 17% to 20% of the acts of terrorism. Instead, Muslims are the majority of the terrorists. They kill infidels. They kill other Muslims. They kill. And polls indicate that in Muslim countries, either the majority of people or a significant minority are "in favor of harsh corporal punishments (whipping/amputation) for theft/robbery; death by stoning for adultery; and death for apostasy." Muslim terrorism is said to be done as a response to colonialism, globalism, and Western hostility. But India was colonized, and Hindus don't behave like Muslims. We are told Muslims turn to terrorism because of poverty or because they are on the fringe of society. But many terrorists come from homes that are seemingly integrated into the community and are well-educated. When the facts are promulgated, these arguments are also discredited. What does hold up, as Ayaan Hirsi Ali put it, "Islam is not a religion of peace. It's a political theory of conquest that seeks domination by any means it can. Every accommodation of Muslim demands leads to a sense of euphoria and a conviction that Allah is on their side. They see every act of appeasement as an invitation to make fresh demands."

READ MORE
hrrule

THE PERPETUITY OF JIHAD

by Michael Devolin

In this essay, Michael Devolin explains how aptly the term perpetuity describes the history of Islamic jihad from the time of Mohammad until now. Perpetual Jihad is an Islamic imperative. As Devolin says, "Islamic jihad is never satisfied with its own, but only with complete possession of the other. They want only the field next to theirs, and once in their possession, Islam and the Muslim world concede nothing. It is meaningless to the Arab Muslim that the Temple Mount in Jerusalem has been a holy site for Jews long before the Prophet Mohammed and even longer before his Muslim hordes invaded ancient Israel. The sensibilities of Christians are of no concern to the Muslim extremist whose religious intolerance has made Nazareth today almost uninhabitable for them." Their program is facilitated by their anti-democratic pro-Palestinian supporters in the West. Also posted are some comments by readers of the original publication. The last one, by Ronald B, is an excellent description of stealth jihad.

READ MORE
hrrule

WE HAVE ISLAMONAUSEA

by Nicolai Sennels

Nicolai Sennels suggests that the "aspects of [Muslim] behavior that make us sick" aren't symptoms of islamophobia. It just means we have justifiable islamonausea. Despite all the efforts invested into convincing us we are Islamophobic when we critize Muslim behavior, as Sennels points out, "There is nothing phobic or racist about feeling nauseous when hearing about the countless, bloody massacres committed by Muhammad and his many devout copycats throughout history and all over the world today."

READ MORE
hrrule

THE SHATTERING OF WESTERN MYTHS BY ISIS

by Dan Illouz

The rise of the Islamic State has finally shocked some people into a belated awareness of what's been going on in Middle East. The belief that peace negotiations are possible even though Muslims will never abandon their goal of conquest has been undercut. Dan Illouz writes of some of the lessons learned: the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not the central conflict in the Middle East; territorial withdrawals strengthen terrorism; Iran needs to be stopped; and, finally, Israel must stand up to pressure.

READ MORE
hrrule

THE MEDIA AND POLITICAL PROPAGANDA

The media are everywhere in Israel and the Territories, but the reporters and camera men see only what they want to see and hear only what they want to hear. They are susceptible to Arab hoaxes and indifferent to truth spoken by Jews. They are advocates for the Arabs, whose cause justifies all. And oddly enough, instead of feeling guilty about corrupting the advertised standards of their guilds, they are satisfied that they are doing the politically correct thing to do — vilifying the Jews.


Return to What We Are Talking About

THE IDEOLOGICAL ROOTS OF MEDIA BIAS AGAINST ISRAEL

by Matti Friedman

Matti Friedman writes "about how the media dissect and magnify Israel's flaws while purposely erasing those of its enemies." While working for the Associated Press (AP), he became "aware of certain malfunctions in the coverage of the Israel story — recurring omissions, recurring inflations, decisions made according to considerations that were not journalistic but political, all in the context of a story staffed and reported more than any other international story on earth." He points out that this is not limited to AP; it is true of the international press with few exceptions. Friedman has since become a whistler blower who provides anecdotal and summation evidence, confirming what many of us have long assumed. As Friedman writes, by the rules of much of the international media, "Jewish hatred of Arabs is a story. Arab hatred of Jews is not... 100 houses in a West Bank settlement are a story. 100 rockets smuggled into Gaza are not. The Hamas military build-up amid and under the civilian population of Gaza is not a story. But Israeli military action responding to that threat — that is a story, ..." Friedman understands there is a larger and more sinister context. He points out, "The only group of people subject to a systematic boycott at present in the Western world are Jews, appearing now under the convenient euphemism 'Israelis.' The only country that has its own 'apartheid week' on campuses is the Jewish country." He clearly sees how the media have demonized the Jews — Jews/Israelis are occupiers, they are human rights violators, they are the vilest of the vile — and he understands how journalists and reporters and cameramen function as pro-Palestinian propagandists. He makes the important point that the alleged occupation of Jews of Arab land has become the central symbol of evil, which anchors and gives meaning to any story about victimization anywhere in the world. But he is apparently still certain that Israel really is occupying Arab land, when the reverse is the actual case. I hope as he progresses in understanding, he reads some factual history. The San Remo Conference of 1920 and the various Middle East Mandates that created both the single Jewish state and many of the current Arab states would be a good starting point. He might begin here, here, here, here, here and here.

READ MORE
hrrule

PBS: AMERICA'S "MOST TRUSTED INSTITUTION" AND ITS COVERAGE OF ISLAM

by Denis MacEoin

The Public Broadcasting Station (PBS) has convinced the public it is a superior, unbiased and trustworthy educational instrument. In point of fact, as Denis MacEoin demonstrates, they have acted as apologists for Islam. In a recent series on Islam, they "broadcast, through a film and on the internet, religious propaganda in place of balanced educational, instructional, and public information material, despite elaborate claims to the contrary." This is not a casual assertion, because, certified by the authority of PBS, this material has influenced the views of millions of Americans about Islam, yet it is littered with propagandistic bits, some of which are false, and many of them misleading and incomplete. Some sponsors "are linked to dubious organizations"; and some advisors have links to terror organizations, are salafist ideologues and have no scruples about lying and denying ugly facts about Islam. One, Azizah al-Hibri, asserted that Islam is compatible with women's rights and that the "concept of the separation of church and state came from Islam." A speaker, M. Cherif Bassiouni, is both a prominent lawyer and a defender of Hamas. He has argued "that Islamic law does not punish apostasy — a statement that might have come as a surprise to the many thousands of Muslim apostates and heretics who have been executed from the time of Muhammad to the present day." Perhaps the biggest howler was the unduly flattering portrait of Mohammad and the biggest error of judgment was presenting Karen Armstrong disingenuous distortions as historical facts. The material is suitable for a missionary video but in no way can it serve as a serious source of information about Islam.

READ MORE
hrrule

THE CONTROVERSY OF 'FROM TIME IMMEMORIAL'

by Nadav Shragai

Although the UN had an agency to handle the millions of refugees around the world, it set up a special agency, UNRWA exclusively for the Arabs who fled Israel in 1948 when Israel became a state. Most of them fled because Israel's neighbors who invaded the fledgling state told the residents to clear out until they could kill off the Jews and/or for fear the Jews would do unto them as they would have done unto the Jews. The Jews survived that invasion and another two after that, but the collection of refugees were pure gold as propaganda in that Arab propagandists claimed they were the aboriginal people of the land, which the Jews stole from them. Joan Peters determined that the facts and the Arab story didn't match and published the results in 1984 in a book entitled From Time Immemorial: The Origins of the Arab-Jewish Conflict Over Palestine. For her efforts, she was denounced by a host of Palestinian Arab supporters. Joan Peters died this year in January. Nadav Shragai tells us about her accomplishment.

READ MORE
hrrule

WHY THE LEFT REFUSES TO TALK ABOUT MUSLIM ANTI-SEMITISM

by Daniel Greenfield

The mainstream press, which is mostly Leftist, spends much time on the sins of the European far right. A major sin of these Rightists is that they don't like what Muslims are doing to European countries and they say so. But the press becomes timid when the subject is Muslim anti-Semitism. Daniel Greenfield points out that Muslim anti-Semitism has been "the dominant form of violence against Jews in Europe. And it has been that way for some time now." "When Western leftists make common cause with Arab and Islamic nationalists, they aren't being post-colonial, they're advocating an earlier form of colonialism [under Arab rule] that led and is once again leading to ethnic cleansing, genocide, mass slavery and the destruction of indigenous cultures; including that of the Jews." In such an environment, Jews would again live as dhimmis under Arab control as they did for hundreds of years. Their investment in "[t]he post-colonial narrative obligates academics and journalists to favorably contrast the Muslim treatment of Jews, then or now, with the European treatment of Jews." Meantime, "Muslim Supremacist anti-Semitism remains interested in persecuting and killing Jews.

READ MORE
hrrule

HISTORY SECTION

Aspects of World War 2


Return to What We Are Talking About

WILL AMERICAN JEWRY AGAIN FAIL TO CONFRONT HISTORIC THREAT?

by Atera Beck

With the declared threat by Iran to wipe out Israel when they get the bomb the lack of indignation by the general population, and the lack of strong response by the Jewish organizations, it is beginning to look much like it did in the 1930s, when Hitler was just getting started. Atara Beck asks whether American Jewish leaders are repeating the same tragic mistakes of the Nazi era? She writes that in the 30s, grassroots American Jews wanted to help their co-religionists in Europe, but the major Jewish organizations did little, and some actually fought the idea of helping the Jews in Europe. In the year 2015, while Iran broadcasts it can't wait to get nuclear weaponry to use on Israel, the American administration, particularly Secr.-State Kerry and National Security Advisor Rice attacked PM Netanyahu for voicing his concern that Iran's nuclear program hasn't yet been stopped. Rabbi Boteach placed an ad in the New York Times "castigating rice." At the that point, many American Jewish organizations "rushed to denounce Boteach for daring to insult Rice." Will they never learn!

READ MORE
hrrule

THE NAZI A-BOMB WAS FOILED

by Bernard Shapiro

If I tell you that Moe Berg spoke fifteen languages and went to Princeton, the Sorbonne and Columbia Law School, you might think this will be about yet another Jewish intellectual/academic. What if I add that he played baseball so-so but he won the Medal of Freedom and it is displayed in the Baseball Hall of Fame? Bernard Shapiro tells of Moe's wartime exploits during World War 2, one of which won him the medal.

READ MORE
hrrule

AUSCHWITZ SURVIVORS RETURN SEVENTY YEARS LATER

by Auschwitz Survivors

On January 27, 1945, Auschwitz was liberated. Seventy years later, three hundred survivors of Auschwitz returned to the Camp.

These videos are about their return to Auschwitz and Auschwitz itself:

READ MORE
hrrule

NAZI DIARY REVEALS BRUTAL TACTICS EMPLOYED AGAINST LODZ JEWS

by Kobi Nachshoni

Nazi officers kept a record of day-to-day life in the Lodz Ghetto. A diary containing their notes has been uncovered. It records punishments they inflicted and the brutal ways they had to obtain information. They hunted Jews that had managed to stay out of the ghetto. They were cruel and created a reign of terror. They recorded the details of what they did but in sanitized language. This is contrast to Muslim salafists who take pleasure in broadcasting videos showing them decapitating and shooting their victims.

READ MORE
hrrule

January-February, 2015 BLOG-EDS

 This is where our readers get a chance to write opinions and editorials and share articles they find informative. The Blog-Eds page for the month is updated every few days.

There is a separate file that is the index for the articles on the Blog-Ed page. You can access an article immediately from this index by clicking on the item in the index.

To access the Index, click the "Blog-Eds List" box in the Blue Strip on the top of the Blog-Ed page.

January 2015 BLOG-EDS
February 2015 BLOG-EDS

Please note that The Blog-Ed pages for January and February 2015 are not currently available.

Different Blog Ed pages will be down intermittently until the Archive structure is in place. We apologize for the inconvenience.

Return to Feature Index hrrule

PLEASE NOTE THERE IS NO NOVEMBER-DECEMBER 2014 ISSUE

hrrule
FEATURED STORIES

September-October 2014

new year nurit


aterat cohanim

yad

apt

jerusalem365

What we are talking about in the September–October 2014 Issue

    PART 1:
  1. A New Phase In The Jihad Invasion of the USA (Bender, Chesler, Shulman, Glick)
  2. Europe And Islam (Wilders, Bare Naked Islam, Lipkin, Thornton)
  3. Public Relations (Spencer, Korol, Goodman, FirstOneThrough, Sand, Haber)
  4. Britain And The Jewish People (Brand, Levin, Rose, Honig)
  5. History Section (Freund, Ben-David, Tapson)

  6. PART 2:
  7. Poorly Understood And Poorly Implemented Counterterrorism (Gorka, McCarthy, Poole, Brown, Greenfield, Ibrahim)
  8. Shifting Alliances In The Middle East (Haivry, JCPA, Ledeen, Ettinger, McCarthy)
  9. The Pious Arab And Salafism (Cline, Millière, Kedar, Eidelberg)
  10. Blog-Eds (September-October 2014 Blog-Eds)

This issue breaks naturally into two sections. Part I focuses on our usual concerns: the salafi jihad against Israel and the West. Part II is an high resolution look at Counter Terrorism and the state of the Middle East States.



PART 1

The Islamic Jihad continues tirelessly, comprehensively and successfully to pacify the West. Occasionally their efforts are overt and dramatic acts of terror. For the most part, they work quietly and effectively. They convince our churches to become instruments spewing hate. They infiltrate our entertainment, educational, political, judicial and defense institutions. They corrupt our media and destabilize our society. Our media people tell us how nice most Muslims are, so why fuss about the few percent that aren't. A TV show had a Christian killing his daughter because she is serious about a Muslim man — talk about reversing reality! The ACLU sniffs out any attempt to introduce Christianity in public schools, but I've not heard any complaint from them about school children being taken to mosques, dressed in burkas, and taught how to pray like Muslims do. If a terrorist act is so blatant it can't be ignored — beheading pedestrians on the street, say — we are immediately reassured that this is an aberration in Islam. We are not told the truth: in the Muslim religion, decapitation is an acceptable way to deal with those who won't submit to Islam and are therefore, by definition, enemies of Islam. We don't want to be labeled islamophobic, do we?

Except when expediency stayed their hand, much of Europe and the American State Department have been hostile to the modern state of Israel from its beginning. We include in this issue essays on Britain, a prime example. In the first World War, the Palestinian Jews fought for England while the English Administration in Palestine helped the Arabs, who for the most part cooperated with the Nazis. Its handling of the Palestine Mandate, which it had taken on with the understanding that it was to midwife a viable state of Israel is a sorry history of constricting Israel's growth. Currently, English culture is itself under siege from England's Muslim population. Britain's response is to cooperate with the Muslims, especially against Israel, which, because of its location, is on the forefront of the fight against a Muslim takeover of the West.

In American academia, in mainline churches, in much of the media, in the UN and in the US Administration, Israel is the enemy. No one thinks the campaign to delegitimize Israel, isolate it and destroy its economy is contextually bizarre. Israel is not praised for its pinpoint retaliation of Hamas's bombing. Other countries can kill hundreds and thousands of civilians without media or 'humanitarian' complaint, but Israel is accused of war crimes if it kills a single child used as a human shield. In contrast, despite all evidence to the contrary, the Muslim Brotherhood, which has spawned multiple terrorist organizations, is lauded as a reasonable and friendly organization that means the West no harm. In fact Huma Abedin, a member of a family prominent in the Brotherhood, was deputy chief of staff in Hillary Clinton's State Department. Clearly, if we are on a wartime footing, it is not with the perpetrators of 9/11.



A NEW PHASE IN THE JIHAD INVASION OF THE USA?
The ongoing and systematic jihad by Resurgent Islam appears to be climbing to new heights, and has the open support of traditional native anti-Semites while it has succeeded in cowing many defense groups into silence. Whether it is direct from Arabia or initiated by some of their local supporters, the Arab story of their victimization is now echoed by the Metropolitan Opera, which, with huge money problems, is nevertheless staging a lavish production of an anti-Jewish opera. On campus, academic unions ban Israeli colleagues while attacks on Jewish students that inhibit their ability to live normal lives have increased. Think-tank reports can no longer be taken for granted as accurate and complete. This section provides examples and, in addition, suggestions on ways to stop the onslaught of Islam on the West.
Return to What We Are Talking About

HAMAS-BACKING QATAR ALSO FUNDING BROOKINGS INSTITUTE, HOME OF FORMER U.S. MIDEAST ENVOY INDYK

by Dave Bender

A comment that came to Think-Israel acutely summed up that the salafists had purchased another way to influence public opinion: "Qatar is buying Washington clout by funneling large amounts of cash into the Brookings Institution, a leading progressive DC think tank, through Martin Indyk, who evidently has been co-opted by their money... Brookings serves as a major source of policy for Democrats in Congress...It is also a classic example of the mainstream press ignoring a major conflict of interest story willfully." In this essay, Dave Bender emphasizes that Qatar also funds Hamas and, as do other Middle East Arab countries, it expects value for its money from grantees, terrorists and "non-combatants" alike. The discovery that Qatar was a major contributor to Brookings took on additional significance because it highlighted a major conflict of interest. Martin Indyk, a high echelon member of the Brookings Institute, while posing as neutral in his role as US negotiator, blasted Israel, claiming it, and it alone, was responsible for the latest collapse of the so-called "Peace Talks". Was he speaking from his experience as a negotiator or as a hireling of a foreign power?

It is important to recognize that the Brookings Institute isn't an isolated example. Unfortunately, many supposedly objective Washington research groups and think-tanks have been corrupted — in the sense that their awareness of their funding sources' interests leads them to self-censorship. They ignore or downplay or distort important information. It is also true that toeing the line is often openly a required condition of future funding.

READ MORE
hrrule

THE HIJACKING OF HISTORY BY OPERA: THE DEATH OF KLINGHOFFER

by Phyllis Chesler. With examples of script falsification by Richard H. Shulman

Phyllis Chesler examines the artistic and not so artistic aspects of The Metropolitan Opera staging of "The Death of Klinghoffer," a reenactment of the 1985 hijacking of the Achille Lauro by a group of Arab terrorists, who shot a wheelchair-bound passenger, Leon Klinghoffer, in the head and then threw him overboard. Their reason? He was a Jew and they were homeless because of the Jews. Putting aside the fact that the Jews hadn't stolen the land from the Arabs because the Arabs didn't own the land, call me stupid, but I don't get how killing a defenseless Jew can be presented as an inevitable or effective or even expected way to assuage anger and loss. If, as is claimed, this is an attempt to understand humans acting out their agony, shouldn't the script have probed deeper? Are killing and torture routine responses to being deprived of a home? If so, why aren't Jews terrorists? After all, at the very least, some 800,000 Jews were forced to flee Arab countries roughly around the time the families of the stage Arabs agreed to leave their homes at the behest of the Arab countries invading the new state of Israel. So maybe there's something in the nature or nurture of the Arab 'victims' that drives them to bestiality. But the opera doesn't go there. It follows the trite formula of pitting the good guys against the bad guys, with the terrorists and the Jewish passengers acting as stand-ins for Arabs and Israelis. The terrorists sing good-guy lyrics, so we know they must be good guys. Richard Shulman points out the gross tampering with historic facts that was required to make the terrorists seem to be good guys and the libel needed to make villains of the Jews. What an inversion of history!

Actually, there is one aspect of the opera's conception that is worthy of exploration: the appealing vision of terrorists who have a human concern for lost homes and wrecked families was concocted by the composer/librettist. The real terrorists hijacked the boat to force Israel to release another terrorist, Samir Kuntar, in prison for invading an Israeli home, seizing a father and his four-year old daughter, and smashing the head of the child against a rock in front of her father. As Chesler writes, the librettist, bought up as a Jew and now an Anglican priest, appears enamored of the theme of murder-crucifixion of a Jew. The composer is an admirer of Edward Said, who falsified his own history and used his academic standing to strengthened the illusion that the Palestinian Arabs were an actual people. So there is the interesting question: was the substitute plot designed to enhance the opera's artistry or was it because even a librettist much more talented than the Klinghoffer librettist could not have squeezed out sympathy for the real terrorists, who like beasts of the field did what they did with pride and the admiration of their families, but without human conscience.

We are left to ask: why did the Met, which prefers to keep dramatic controversy tidily on the stage and not moving into the audience, put this on? Not surprisingly, many people automatically assume that the Arab Jihad, having secured a forum for its world view in academia, is now ready to tackle the arts. Even if the lavish presentation was not pre-soaked in oil money, it says something about the anti-Semitic climate the Arabs have been paying to create that the Met had no qualms putting on such a show.

The actions of some Jewish Met donors have also been called into question. As Mark Langfan of AFSI (see here) noted: not one rich black donor would support an opera that explained the 'perspective of a white lynch mob' lynching a black man... But, today, with this evil opera glorifying the terroristic Palestinian murder of an American Jew, there are still many, many rich American Jewish Metropolitan Opera donors who are still going to donate millions upon millions to the Metropolitan Opera. And, that ... is sickness." Even worse, the large Jewish organizations that have ignored the harassment of Jews at colleges and the hostility of the Obama administration towards Israel remain stuporous, even though this malodorous production at the Met looks like the start of yet another phase of Arabs spewing money to encourage holocaust-level Jew-hate while Jews pretend it isn't happening.

READ MORE
hrrule

IT'S TIME TO BEAT THE JEW HATERS

by Caroline Glick

Too many Jews respond to the growing overt antagonism to Jews by Jew-haters who lie deliberately or distort the truth by using the "everyone is entitled to speak" argument. Caroline Glick spells out how far we've come from small acts of violence against Jews to systematic bans, divestments and sanctions. Dock unions won't unload Israeli goods; academic unions won't affiliate with Israeli universities; Jewish students are subjected to harassment and violence, which the university administrations ignore. Increasingly, as Glick puts it, "another dam has been breached. Another safe zone has become a no-go zone." and there is no end in sight. Yet the Jews have been slow to respond and when they do, their quiet remonstrances have been ignored. There are better ways to deal with the wave of non-random attacks designed to demonize, terrorize and isolate Jews. For example, ZOA demanded that those major Jewish donors that continued to donate after the Met staged a propagandist anti-Jewish opera be called to "account for their decision not to revoke their multi-million dollar support for the opera house." Responding to anti-Jewish thug tactics should be by exposing the front group's backing and ties to terrorism. Intimidation can be met by restraining orders and filing criminal complaints. Lawsuits against academic administrators who allow Jewish students to be subjected to attacks ranging from verbal abuse to physical assaults are more effective than writing polite letters suggesting the administrators do when they already know they should be doing and have no intention of doing. As Glick suggests, "an aggressive campaign of legal, political, social and financial opposition to those who seek to demonize Jews and deny Jews civil rights as Jews as well as those who enable them can go a long way toward making members of these hate groups and their supporters rue the day they decided to go after the Jews."

READ MORE
hrrule


EUROPE AND ISLAM

Experts have written off Europe. It has been conquered by the Muslims. Europe's welfare systems pay to produce Arab babies. Europe's ideology of multiculturalism is an invitation to inflict the Muslim singular way of life on the native populations. Europe's nervousness at meddling in religion is used by the Muslims to try to make Islam top dog, while demonizing Judaism and denigrating Christianity. And it doesn't help that Europe is highly susceptible to anti-Semitism. Perhaps I'm clutching at straws, but I think the arguments for Europe's slide into cultural oblivion may be premature. Though not organized, many people are more savvy than the dhimmi media and politicians that speak for them.


Return to What We Are Talking About

STOP DENYING THE OBVIOUS: ISLAM IS A PROBLEM

by Geert Wilders

Over many years, Geert Wilders has fought the Islamic Jihad by political action and educational means. Although a member of the Dutch parliament, he was put on trial for the hate crimes of telling the truth about Islam in articles and making a documentary called Fitna, which had the audacity to quote passages directly from the Koran. In this article, he asserts we must do more than "bomb its strongholds in the Middle East." It is also necessary to confront Western-born Muslim jihadists at home in the West. As Wilders says, "war has also come to our streets" and every Westerner is a potential target. This, in many ways, is more difficult to do, because it runs counter to political correctness and insists that homeland security is more important than subscribing to the ideology of multiculturalism.

READ MORE
hrrule

GERMAN POLICE RAID MOSQUE, ISLAMIC CENTER, AND MUSLIM FLATS OVER SUSPECTED TIES TO THE ISLAMIC STATE

by Bare Naked Islam

This article records an unusual happening: the German police rounding up those with connections to ISIS. As in other European countries, the police don't want to be perceived as persecuting a minority religion, especially Islam. In an unusual move, German police arrested members of ISIS in several raids. This article appeared in Bare Naked Islam. Several comments suggested the Germans would act stronger if they weren't inhibited by their reputation for brutality, which they earned by slaughtering Jews in World War 2.

READ MORE
hrrule

HOW BRITISH NEWSPAPERS HANDLE MUSLIM CRIMES AND ACTS OF TERRORISM

by Bernice Lipkin

Bernice Lipkin describes the discrepancy between the shallow way Islamic terrorism and Islamic crimes are handled in the British Press — the major objective is to keep the peace — and the savvy understanding of what's actually going on by many of their readers, who recognize that too many of their Muslim neighbors have no intention of fitting into Britain's culture but wish to remold England's style of life to suit their own needs as Muslims. In this instance, the public was made aware that some Muslims, though born in Britain, have chosen to fight for ISIS in the Middle East and perhaps to destroy some of their fellow citizens when they return home. At the same time, the newspapers headlined that Muslim gangs have been grooming white lower-class British children as prostitutes. Yet the main concern of the press was not why the Muslims were so destructive to the English life style. Instead they worried that people might resent what was happening and make life hard for their Muslim neighbors.

READ MORE
hrrule

THE INCOHERENT EXCUSES FOR HATING ISRAEL

Bruce Thornton

Scenes of Islamic terrorists who wish to make European institutions Islam-compatible fighting police are dramatic, but it is some of the subtler types of Islamic influence that are the greater danger. Bruce Thornton writes of the illogical, sometimes absurd, arguments used to bolster hate of Israel, As Thornton writes, "there is no question that hatred of Israel reflects the continuing existence of anti-Semitism in Europe, intensified by millions of Muslim immigrants for whom hating Israel is theologically justified."

READ MORE
hrrule


PUBLIC RELATIONS

This is how Diana West answered Americans who are "still genuinely puzzled as to how it could be that our presidents and secretaries of state and generals and pundits keep hammering home the big lie that Islam has nothing to do with jihad, that the religion of conquest is a 'religion of peace'". It's done, she explained, because, as in the convincing case that communism, unlike Nazism, is not linked to the horrors it caused, disassociation works. [see here.] The converse is also true. Israelis are falsely accused of being child killers, even though they meticulously attempt to avoid hitting Arab children serving as human shields for terrorists. It is perhaps a task for future historians to determine how many incidents are necessary to create a linkage. Certainly the first article in the set would seem to be grotesque enough to sear an association. But few in the media have broadcast the story and so it can not spread enlightenment very far.


Return to What We Are Talking About

MUSLIMS STONE WOMAN TO DEATH FOR ADULTERY

by Robert Spencer

In skill in persuasion, public relations by Salafists such as IS is even more amateurish than Israel's. The only difference is that the global media doesn't disseminate every Muslim mumble and fumble. Robert Spencer describes a gory event somewhere between an honor killing and group entertainment, where a woman accused of adultery was stoned. Her father had the honer of hurling the first stone. The participants were recorded by a devotee of sharia law using modern technology. Will it have any impact on the certainty by so many that Islam is a religion of peace? Unlikely.

READ MORE
hrrule

NEGATING THE PROPAGANDIST RUSE OF NPR

by Tabitha Korol

As demonstrated by Tabitha Korol, NPR is likely to do for an autodidatic education what Peace Now and Oxfam have done for human rights, namely, destroy its good name. NPR has proven itself untrustworthy as a vehicle of education in that it is notoriously agenda-driven, describing the terrorist cohorts of Islam as following a religion of peace, innocent victims of the very same Israelis that they slaughter. Conversely, NPR describes Israel's precision in targeting enemy missiles while avoiding civilians in terms that suggest that Israel deliberately targets civilians. A mite of logic would suggest that the Arabs wouldn't hide their weaponry in the midst of women and children if they didn't know the Jews care more about Arab civilians that the Arab governments do. They'd lose too many of their weapons.

READ MORE
hrrule

ARE AMERICAN JEWS PURPOSELY WEARING BLINDERS?

by Shari Goodman

There was a time when Israelis were trying to convince themselves that the thuggish, Jew-hating Arafat and his buddies could, for the right price, give them peace. Their official and unofficial spokesmen would go on such shows as Charlie Rose on TV and blather that their desire was to see a Palestinian state neighboring or inside Israel. That aberration seems, for the most part, to have worn itself out, but Israelis, when given the opportunity to tell it as it is to Jews in a position to spread the word, still yack on about the desirability of peace, not the impossibility of compromising with those who have a monomaniacal desire to kill Jews. They don't say straight out that war and jihad and terror and killing infidels and raping and beheading and looting are not aberrations in Islam; they are what Mohammad wanted his followers to do. Shari Goodman recounts an evening when Michael Oren, once Israeli ambassador to the U.S., spoke at a parlor event. He pooh-poohed Muslim infiltration in the White House and US defense agencies, knowledge of which is so widespread that some has even reached the mainstream media. Most egregiously, Oren saw Arabs hostility as a land claim and not as what it is: an all-out war where the only endpoint the Arabs will accept is an Islamic victory over all other groups with a different religion or ideology, with the Jews being an immediate target. From all indications, Israel will have to work hard just to get up to the starting point of educating the world, let alone doing an effective job.

READ MORE
hrrule

DOES ISRAEL HAVE FREEDOM OF THE PRESS? NEW YORK TIMES: "NONSENSE"

by First One Through

To get one's news mainly from the New York Times (NYT) is to believe that Israel restricts the press. It's true that Israel has been appraised as having a free press by Freedom House. It's the only country in the Middle East that does. Another authoritative group, the Foreign Press, has protested Hamas's censorship of reporters in Gaza. But why bother with statistics, when an NYT Bureau chief claims to have contradictory evidence from unnamed sources. The White Queen of the Times declared of Israel's record of freedom of the press, "Nonsense." And she, herself, has said it. Though it isn't to her credit. Nor does it help counter the decline of the NYT as a reputable source of information.

READ MORE
hrrule

HOW I STOPPED BEING A JEW

by Shlomo Sand. With Foreword by IAM Editor and Review by Gordon Haber

Half a dozen years or so ago, Shlomo Sand, who was something of a mediocrity, academic-wise, realized there was a easy route to fame and fortune. He could capitalize (I hope that Sand, a Marxist in good standing, won't find the term offensive) on two facts: he was born Jewish and he had an academic union card. All he needed to do was change his audience. Since then he has written an anti-Judaism trilogy that has succeeded in bringing comfort and confirmation of their every belief to Jew haters everywhere, particularly those in Europe. His first two books attempted to rip Judaism from its historical and theological roots. His latest book details how he stripped away his own Jewish identity. It provides no world shaking insights or original philosophy, but his saying "I stopped being a Jew" seems on the mark. I wonder though — now that he has denied himself the right to use Jewish credentials to certify how evil Judaism is — will his assertions be worth as much to the Jew-haters he has inspired?

READ MORE
hrrule


BRITAIN AND THE JEWISH PEOPLE

mandate land 1920
The Future State Of Israel, 1920, was to be on both sides of the Jordan (courtesy of Eli Hertz, www.MythsandFacts.org)


The map was used in justicenow4israel.com to point out that both sides of the Jordan were in trust for a Jewish Homeland. Article 25 of the Mandate for Palestine states that,

The wording, "postpone or withhold application of such provisions of this mandate as he may consider inapplicable to the existing local conditions is by the nature of the wording a temporary action. That action was only valid until there was a change in the conditions leading to that decision. It did not authorize the British to permanently cut off portions of the land and turn it over to a foreign people.

This section recounts the history of Britain's treacherous behavior towards the Jews in the context of the Arab-Jewish conflict. One of the most egregious example was Britain's stealing 78% the land assigned by international law at San Remo in 1920 for a Jewish homeland. It became today's Kingdom of Jordan. The question remains: why, when the Arabs acquired through no effort of their own more than 99% of the enormous Middle Eastern territory of the Ottoman Empire, why did Britain have to steal from the tiny amount of land assigned to be the Jewish homeland?

Because much of the information in this Section on Israel's claim to Jewish land depends on legal concepts, we post here "The Palestine Mandate in a Nutshell", written by Wallace Brand. The "unshelled" version is at
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2385304. See also Brand's recent discusssion of the roots of Israel's sovereignty here and here.

The text of San Remo Agreement provided: "The High Contracting Parties agree to ENTRUST... the administration of Palestine . . .

Trust law for non-lawyers

After finding an intention to set up a trust, look for:

  1. The "settlor", the person or entity setting it up. He contributes the trust res.
  2. The cestui que trust or "beneficiary" of the trust.
  3. The trustee.
  4. The trust res or the thing place in trust.
  5. The purpose of the trust.
  6. The term of the trust.

These are the vital elements of a trust. Some are expressed; others may be inferred. For example if you place a delicate Ming dynasty bowl in trust for your daughter aged 5, others may infer that the purpose of the trust that is to vest when she is 30 is to preserve and protect it until she is capable of doing that herself.

The 1920 San Remo agreement of the Allied Principal War Powers contained the British Balfour Declaration of Policy word-for-word. The 1922 Palestine Mandate approved by 51 countries that were members of the League of Nations, and also by the United States, filled in the details needed to apply the Balfour Policy.

One. At San Remo, the settlor of the trust was the Supreme Council of the Allied Principal War Powers in WWI. They defeated Germany who commenced the war and the Ottoman Empire who joined Germany in making war on the Allies. Under customary International Law, the victors in a defensive war may negotiate with the vanquished to establish new boundaries for it and keep all the territory outside the new boundary. In this way the Ottoman Empire was reduced to Turkey. The remaining Turkish territory in Europe was allocated by the Supreme Council at the 1919 Paris Peace Talks. Claims for territory in the Middle East — Syria, Mesopotamia and Palestine — were resolved at the reconvening of the group at San Remo, the following year. At the Paris Peace talks the Allies set up the League of Nations including Article 22 of its Covenant that provided for "mandates". These were combination trusts and guardianships for countries that had been colonies of Turkey for 400 years. The Mandatory was to provide stability and tutelage for their political development to become independent representative governments over time.

Two. The cestui que trust is the beneficiary. The beneficiary has no right to go to a "law court" to protect his rights. That is only the right of the trustee. He has legal dominion over the trust res. For a tangible piece of property, such as a Ming dynasty bowl, only the trustee has the right of possession. If it is stolen, only the trustee can go into a court of law to reclaim it. The beneficiary is limited to protecting his rights against abuse by the trustee. He is entitled to go into a court of equity. The beneficiary here was the Jewish People or World Jewry. It was the Jewish people and the Arab people who had submitted competing claims for collective political rights to Palestine at the Paris Peace talks. Woodrow Wilson's Commission of Inquiry in searching for those throughout the world having the right of self-determination had said of the Jews that Palestine was "the cradle and home of their vital race" and noted that the Jews were the only people that had no other land.

An express term of the trust made the World Zionist Association the formal advisor to the mandate government. Another term required the trustee to facilitate only Jewish immigration so the Jews could become a majority.

Three. The mandate was based on English law concepts of trusts and guardianships. Britain volunteered to be trustee or "mandatory" and was selected.

Four. The thing placed in trust, the trust res, was an intangible, the collective right of a group to establish a government and provide for its administration. This is referred to as "group political rights". An individual political right, sometimes referred to as included in "civil rights", is the right to one vote for each citizen.

Five. The purpose of the trust was, in the case of most of the mandates, providing a stable government until such time as the majority of the people in the territory of the state developed politically and could represent themselves - there having been no opportunity in the last 400 years for the inhabitants of the former Turkish colonies to do that. It was also, in the case of the Palestine Mandate, to avoid an antidemocratic Jewish government. At the time the Jews were in the minority in the entire territory of Palestine and if they had legal dominion over the political rights, an antidemocratic government would be in power. One purpose of the Palestine Mandate was to delay representative self-government until the Jews were in the majority within the area to be ruled.

Six. The term of the trust — it was to end when the Jewish population in the area to be ruled was in the majority and the Jews had the capability, just as any European Government to exercise sovereignty. That would avoid an antidemocratic government such as later was founded in Syria by the French, of a minority of Alawites that under Hafez Assad and Bashir Assad has caused so much misery and destruction.

Historical note

In 1948 the Jewish population within the Armistice Line in Palestine became the majority. The trust res partially vested. In 1967 it became completely vested. Coincidentally the UN Partition Resolution 181 was enacted on November 29,1947, not long before 1948 when Israel proclaimed its independence. That is why many people believe that Resolution 181 is the root of Israel's sovereignty. But the Arabs rejected this Resolution. By law it was only a recommendation that must be approved by all involved before becoming international law. It died at birth when rejected by the Arabs.

In 1964 the PLO charter was drafted in Moscow. It posited that there was a "Palestinian Arab People". In the '60s also the Soviet Diplomats at the UN promoted two International Conventions dignifying the right of any "people" to have the right of political self-determination not just under natural law, but also under international law. These became effective in 1976. But the drafters at the UN made sure that these rights under international law were subordinate to the right of a preexisting state to territorial integrity because since the new world order was established after the Peace of Westphalia, national boundaries of sovereign states have been inviolable.


Return to What We Are Talking About

PERFIDIOUS ALBION

by Kenneth Levin

Joan Swirsky, who sent this article by Kenneth Levin to Think-Israel, wrote: "This essay traces British animus (strongly virulent) against the Jews. Thwarting Jewish safety, toadying to Arab prejudice, preventing Jewish defense, encouraging Arab violence by offering false charges as 'cover' for Arab attacks." British sympathy to the Arab cause remains as true as it was a hundred years ago. As Levin notes, "But even beyond the context of violence, anti-Israel distortions of realities in the territories are pervasive in Britain." As example, when Israel gained control of Gaza, she improved the lives of the Arabs still living in refugee camps by building them permanent homes with electricity and running water and finding them employment in Israel. This radically changed when Hamas gained control. But to read the British media, the exact opposite is true: Hamas is painted as a fair-minded governor, while, inconsistently, the Gazans suffer under (phantom) Israeli occupation.

READ MORE
hrrule

WAS BRITAIN'S SEVERING TRANSJORDAN FROM THE JEWISH HOMELAND AN ACT OF PREJUDICE, MISJUDGMENT OR BETRAYAL OF THE JEWS?

by Alex Rose

Thomas Jefferson once said it was not honorable to take legal advantage when it was contrary to justice. Alex Rose provides us with a comprehensive analysis of what seems a bizarre act by Britain when it held the Mandate for developing the ancient land of Israel as a homeland for the Jewish people. The entire area set aside was a minuscule piece of the Ottoman Empire while the Arabs were given over 99% of the area. Yet when England wanted to reward the Hashemite Abdullah a consolation prize because the Saudis, a rival clan, got Mecca and Medina and a huge land surround, Britain chopped three-quarters of the one percent destined to become Israel, using as pretext that these Arabs would merely administrate the land, not own it.

READ MORE
hrrule

OLD ANTIPATHIES DIE HARD

by Sarah Honig

Sarah Honig summarizes succinctly what the other articles in this section flesh out in detail and brings the story up to the present day. She also puts the lie to the notion that the foreign policy of a supposedly rational country is primarily determined by calculated national interest. As she makes clear by describing Britain's behavior, ideology and historic prejudice may counteract self-interest.

READ MORE
hrrule


HISTORY SECTION


Return to What We Are Talking About

A TIME FOR SPIRITUAL HEROISM

by Michael Freund

This is the season that we celebrate the start of the new year of 5775. It is a time that we are encouraged to reflect and think about bringing a sense of service to HaShem into our everyday lives. If we choose to do so, circumstances are seldom much of a hindrance. Michael Freund writes of a Rosh Hashanah in Auschwitz, when Naftali Stern, a cantor, took upon himself the task of conducting a full Rosh Hashanah service in the camp, where just surviving was almost impossible. To do so, he swapped his bread rations for pencil and sacks on which he wrote out the prayers for Rosh Hashanah from memory. And on Rosh Hashanah, he held a service for the assembled Jews.

READ MORE
hrrule

THE U.S. NAVY SAVED JEWS OF ERETZ YISRAEL 100 YEARS AGO

by Lenny Ben-David

It was 1914. World War 1 was starting, and the Ottomans, then the rulers of the Middle East including the land that would become the modern State of Israel, were massing troops, preparing to move against the British. Their preparations including looting food and supplies and conscripting the locals, including the local Jews, who were already living close to the edge of disaster, suffering from poor crop yield, plundering by government officials and the enforced enlistment of their breadwinners. They needed money to tide them over. The money was forthcoming from some American millionaires. The problem was how to get the money to the needy by avoiding the sticky fingers of Turkish officials. The U.S. navy came to the rescue. American ships monitoring the eastern Mediterranean between Beirut and Cairo carried money and supplies to sustain the beleaguered Jewish community.

READ MORE
hrrule

REMEMBERING THE BATTLE OF TOURS

by Mark Tapson

In 732, the hitherto unstopped conquest of the Middle East and Europe by the Muslims was brought to a halt at Tours, some 175 miles from Paris. The victorious army was led by a Frankish duke who earned his sobriquet Charles Martel (Charles the Hammer) at the battle. It wasn't a one-shot victory, but it marked the beginning of Europe's ability to fight off the Muslim invaders. Mark Tapson tells the story, with emphasis on the contrast between Charles the Hammer and the present-day dhimmi, Prince Charles, who inter alia has encouraged the demographic invasion of England by Muslim immigrants. The Islamic means are different; the goal the same.

READ MORE
hrrule

PART 2


We have no systematic or coherent plan to fight the war Resurgent Islam has declared against us. If anything, we spend more effort fighting and denigrating those in our society that see the danger in Islam. Homeland Security has no problems with Muslims from known terrorist organizations such as CAIR strolling through their offices but warned that American soldiers returning from Afganistan might be a danger. After 9/11, our leaders insisted Islam was a 'religion of peace' and spoke of fighting terrorism, as if terrorism were an independent entity and not a tool, like a knife or a gun. Nowadays, thirteen years later, we talk about fighting terrorists, but in terms of fighting a specific terrorist group — the 'bad terrorists' awardee of the month — that is more or less independent of other terror groups. We may even highlight some of the atrocities committed. But we ignore that these groups all have the same mission.

It is a major defect in our response to Islamic Jihad that we ignore that it is the supremicist ideology of the Koran that fuels and sustains Muslims engaged in terrorism. Instead, we act as if terrorism were caused by environmental conditions such as poverty. We accept the masks of friendliness that Middle East rulers wear for some occasions as genuine, and fantasize that they have permanently changed attitude and are finally willing to accepting Western values. We give priority to not offending Muslim sensitivities over and above preserving our democratic institutions and our way of life. We believe we can make model citizens from "moderate" terrorists such as PA's Mahmoud Abbas. We don't see the Islamic Jihad as a global war. Instead, we pick a group to fight, "dictators" one day, Al-Qaeda another. Currently, we are focusing on ISIS. Were we to examine the situation intelligently, we might notice that the only urgent problem — in the sense of the world-changing political, economic and environmental damage that it can do in the near future — is Iran's acquisition of nuclear weaponry. Our cognitive distortions help prevent us from operating at full power against the salafists, with a view to extirpating their belief in Islamic ideology, the force behind their actions. At some point we will have to return to the methodology of World War II, where first we devoted our energies to conquering the Axis countries and then we reeducated the Germans and Japanese sufficiently so that their ideological underpinnings were no longer strong enough to threaten us.



POORLY UNDERSTOOD AND POORLY IMPLEMENTED COUNTERTERRORISM

This section discusses the differences between fighting terrorism versus fighting terrorists versus fighting terrorists and their ideology. To fight terrorism per se is as contributory to effective action as accusing the producer of the Life of George/Mohammad of inciting Libyans to attack the American compound in Benghazi.

Our views on what makes someone become a terrorist and whether we believe barbaric acts of terrorism are condoned or condemned by Islam determine how we go about countering terrorists and whether we believe in the existence of the unaffiliated lone wolf and the moderate Muslim. This set of essays deals with four mistaken ideas:

  1. We are fighting violence and extremism. NO. We must recognize we are fighting terrorists who are more or less violent. But even this is insufficient. We must also focus on the Koranic sources that make violent behavior a religious duty.
  2. Lone wolves are independent and are unaffiliated with terror groups. They commit random acts of terror, and we can't know ahead of time. NO. They are inculcated with a sense of mission, and usually they act under supervision and tutelage of the local mosque and/or an experienced terrorist group. Discovering who they are is not done by infiltrating a "cell" but by watching those in whom jihad recruiters show particular interest and those in the Muslim community who have recently rejected their previous 'Western' life style, basing their new behavior on the Koran, growing a beard, giving up ordinary entertainment, urging others to follow their example, etc.
  3. The Muslim community can be divided into two groups: a small group of terrorists and their supporters and everyone else: 'moderate Muslims', who are peaceful. NO. There are pious Muslims at one end of the scale and secularized Muslims at the other, with degrees of piety in between. As a rule of thumb, the more pious the Muslim, the more likely it is that he will condone terror and be willing to participate in acts of terror. Islam is not a peace-generating moderate religion. Its religious practices are modeled not only on what Mohammad said but on what Mohammad did, making it almost impossible to restructure or reinterpret barbaric Islamic practices. Acts of terror are intrinsic to Islam.
  4. We can work with salafists that don't (often) display violence and thus avoid dealing with violent terrorists. NO. Interfaith groups and politicians may think members of non-violent Muslim Brother spinoffs such as CAIR are interested in being good citizens and adopting a 'live and let live' attitude towards their neighbors. But there are no moderate terrorists. They have the same mission as any other salafist in the West: making sharia the law of the land in the West as it is in the Middle East.

Return to What We Are Talking About

THE FLAWED SCIENCE BEHIND AMERICA'S COUNTER-TERRORISM STRATEGY

by Katharine C. Gorka

The Obama administration and its academic expert advisers hold that Islamic terrorism is the response to legitimate grievances. Consequently, countering Violent Extremism (CVE) must be done by addressing environmental causes — we must attack poverty, alienation, low political and social status, and other such traumatizing experiences. Others in the Counter-Terrorism community, with greater real-world experience and knowledge of the Muslim psyche, struggle to make the public understand that Islamic jihad is not another expression of societal unrest and discontent. As Katharine Gorka makes clear in this plainly written study, terrorism is a weapon traditionally used by pious Muslims, salafists, who, no matter what their socio-economic status, believe that Muslims have a religious obligation to make Islam prevail over the adherents of all other religions and belief systems. No matter how much the government restructures the terrain and softens the experiences of Muslim immigrants and chants mantras about the virtues of multiculturalism, it won't change the fact that Islam is intrinsically incompatible with the Western belief that the individual matters and is capable of running his own life to actualize his own goals. She makes clear that until we correct the diagnosis, we will not rid ourselves of the disease.

READ MORE
hrrule

THE LONE-WOLF CANARD

by Andrew C. McCarthy

In an essay on the Boston Massacre (see here.) I pointed out that the so-called lone wolf was a cost-effective way for a terrorist group to create a terror incident. "Supplies are cheap and terror enthusiasts are plentiful." I suggested that "specific training in particular weaponry could be reduced if preparation ... created a fervently strong emotional commitment to Islam. [...] Complete top-down hierarchical control wasn't necessary. This didn't imply the terrorist was a free agent, unaffiliated with an organized group of terrorists." Just the opposite. In this article, Andrew McCarthy informs us that the term 'lone wolf' "is actually a surveillance-law concept", designed to allow investigators to track individuals doing things like buying explosives or casing a bridge. Even if they did not yet know what terrorist group was running him, "the involvement of a foreign terrorist organization" was presumed. Thanks to denial politics and political correctness, 'lone wolf' has come to mean just the opposite, i.e., it now signifies an unaffiliated individual who has somehow radicalized himself without access to jihadist literature and/or to those who preach dedication to Islam. It is now an article of political faith that his actions have nothing to do with Islam, "no matter how many 'Allahu Akbars!' are shouted as bullets fly, bombs blast, or heads roll." Deciding ahead of time that the lone wolf is unaffiliated makes it unnecessary to pursue possible associations. So investigators don't have to go against the Obama administration's decree that jihad and Islam must not to be linked. And only the public suffers.

READ MORE
hrrule

'LONE WOLF,' OR 'KNOWN WOLF'? THE ONGOING COUNTER-TERRORISM FAILURE

by Patrick Poole

Patrick Poole writes about other consequences of the fallacious belief that we need to Counter Violent Extremism (CVE) rather than fight devout Muslims willing to be extremely violent in the service of Islam, sustained by the certainty that Mohammad would approve of what they do. Poole makes the case that far from being untraceable nonentities, "terrorist actors are almost always part of a network who were involved in recruiting and tasking terrorist activity." As evidence, he writes of cases we've all heard of. As one example, Russian Intelligence had alerted the FBI that Tamerlan Tsarnaev, one of the brothers who blasted people watching the Boston Marathon, was a radical Islamist. He was also readily tied to the near decapitation of three Jews, one of whom was said to be Tsarnaev's best friend, in what may have been a terrorist 'rite of passage'. But there was no follow-up. Major Hasan at Fort Hood is another example. I don't know what else Hasan could have done to alert people that he was fanatical about protecting his people, other Muslims. Yet the army authorities ignored all indications because he was a Muslim. Which raises another question: why would the Obama administration lay the blame for terrorist acts on everything but what the Koran decrees is acceptable behavior in the service of Islam?

READ MORE
hrrule

THE MYSTERIOUS MODERATE MUSLIM

by Carol Brown

Carol Brown points out that one can't claim the Koran preaches peace because the 'peaceful' verses in the Koran are abrogated by the later verses that advocate mass murder and mayhem in the service of Islam. And these teachings are followed today as 'religiously' as they were a thousand years ago when Mohammad's followers sliced through a crowd as if they were scything grass. As Brown says, "there are those Muslims who are not outwardly violent (yet), but who support those who are and/or who participate in creeping Sharia. Throw taqiyya into the mix and it becomes extremely difficult to know or trust who is the ever-elusive moderate Muslim."

READ MORE
hrrule

MODERATE ISLAM IS OUR NEW RELIGION

by Daniel Greenfield

In an article entitled "When Will Uncle Sam Pursue American, Not Islamic, Interests?" (here), Diana West wisely pointed out that in the Middle East it is a waste of time and money to support whichever group is judged at the time to be 'moderate' "as a means of defusing the 'extremism' of Islam." Currently, "President Obama plans to fight against ISIS in Iraq and to support ISIS-allied forces in Syria." She suggested it's time we "acknowledge publicly that 'moderates' in the Islamic world are as common and/or as reliable as unicorns, and 'extremism' is the basis of Islam, and formulate new policy." Muslim leaders and clerics never tire of telling us, there is only Islam; there is no moderate Islam. But we and our policy makers don't listen. As Daniel Greenfield puts it, "You won't find the fabled land of moderate Muslims in the east. You won't even find it in the west. Like all myths it exists in the imagination of those who tell the stories. You won't find a moderate Islam in the Koran, but you will find it in countless Western books about Islam. [...] 'Moderate Islam' isn't what most Muslims believe. It's what most liberals believe that Muslims believe." When we assert there is a form of Islam that is moderate and that people who follow this version are Moderate Muslims, we are actually talking about secular Muslims who follow Islam only minimally, if at all. It is the more or less secular Muslim, mislabeled as Moderate, that liberals in the west believe in, religiously. Their faith remains unshaken, no matter what the facts. They will hear no evil spoken against moderate Islam because it makes possible their belief in multiculturalism and the brotherhood of man. Why they hold such beliefs is another question.

READ MORE
hrrule

ISLAM'S 'GOOD COP/BAD COP' ROUTINE

by Raymond Ibrahim

There is a mistaken belief among many academics and "experts" that we can work with non-violent salafists. They forget that methods and deadlines may differ, but all salafists work towards the same goal: "the resurrection of a Sharia-enforcing caliphate." Raymond Ibrahim discusses a tactic where the efforts of a 'moderate' terrorist group are combined with an openly terrorist group. He phrases it in terms of the good cop-bad cop routine that severely rattles a detainee and then gives him a way out of his difficulty by suggesting he cooperate with the good cop. When the players are salafists and the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) is cast as the good cop, the persuasive argument is that the West should deal with the supposedly non-violent MB, thus avoiding violence from any one of a number of overt terrorist groups (that the MB has spawned).

Israelis are familiar with the version practiced by the Palestinian Authority (PA) in the Territories and Hamas in Gaza. Both hate Jews and want to destroy Israel. To the extent that the PA acts in an almost civilized fashion when compared to Hamas, it has been foisted on Israel as a partner for peace by a world that refuses to look too closely at the real situation. The PA plays the role of rehabilitated thug and only occasional terrorist. One might describe the PA collectively as moderate terrorists, if this description weren't nonsensical, given the history of Fatah. The members of Hamas are openly terrorist, reminding Israelis that if they say out loud that the PA is no different than Hamas, they will have to admit that both these groups of Palestinian Arabs are the enemy that they actually are.

READ MORE
hrrule


SHIFTING ALLIANCES IN THE MIDDLE EAST: THE PLAYING FIELD, THE RULES OF THE GAME AND THE TEAMS, THEY ARE A'CHANGIN'

These graphs below are from the summer of 2013 and appeared on the Democratic Underground website. Since then, ISIS has topped the A-List of terrorists, and, except for some allied terrorist groups, everyone professes to hate ISIS, especially Syria, which, nevertheless, has bought oil from it ever since ISIS captured a major Syrian oil field. Qatar has also emerged as an important player. Once in accord with the Saudis and the US, it now hedges its bets by supporting the US in bombing ISIS but supports the Muslim Brotherhood, ISIS and al-Qaeda through private channels and via Kuwait. Qatar also supports Hamas, which is on the US terrorist list (and believe me, it's hard to get on the list these days if you're really a terrorist, Major Hasan at Fort Hood, for example). Operationally, Prez Obama more visibly does what the Muslim Brotherhood does, unless forced by circumstances to do otherwise. He certainly says he doesn't like al-Qaeda, which, according to him, is withering away. But as part of the Syrian rebel groups, they get their share of American largess and what came out of Libyan storehouses when Gadaffi was murdered. He and the European Union and the U.N. openly support Hamas with money and political clout, while Hamas has stated its hatred of the West, and the US in particular. Contrariwise, Prez Obama professes to care about Israel, while doing all he can to prevent Israel from stopping Iran from making nuclear bombs. When Iran has the bomb, structured alliances will collapse — the regional states will be too busy blaming each other for letting it happen, while sucking up to Iran, who won the game.

middle east alliances

middle east alliances


Return to What We Are Talking About

SHIFTING ALLIANCES IN THE MIDDLE EAST

by Ofir Haivry

Ofir Haivry subdivides the current major "teams" in the Middle East into five geographically-fuzzy coalitions, which he describes as "loosely ideological confederations." These are (1) the Autocratic Sunni Coalition led by Saudi Arabia; (2) the Sunni-Populist Coalition led by Turkey and propelled by the Muslim Brotherhood; (3) the Shia-Radical Coalition led by Iran, which keeps the Bashar al-Assad regime in Syria from collapse; (4) the Sunni-Jihadist Coalition led by ISIS, whose boldness and unequivocal savagery have captured the loyalty of Sunni Arabs, especially young recruits from around the world; and (5) the Coalition of the Nation States, which until recently consisted of one member — Israel — which alone carried the banner of democracy and national self-determination, goals now starting to be sought by some of the region's oppressed groups such as the Kurds and the Druze of Lebanon and Syria. Haivry makes the important point that the goals of the first four groups "are shaped by some shade of Islamism ... where political opposition is crushed, women are subjugated, and Salafist Islam rules..." The good news is that the Middle East countries haven't, except for Qatar, wasted much time supporting Hamas. The bad news, not discussed by Haivry, is that the US, the UN and the EU have taken on the role of major supporters of Hamas and its anemic sister, the PA. Haivry's sensible advice is that the US should not by worrying about which of the first four groups to support. It should be "strengthening the critical alliance with Israel, supporting the Kurds, and exploiting the weaknesses of the four other coalitions."

READ MORE
hrrule

QATAR'S SUPPORT OF HAMAS AND JIHADIST FORCES IN THE MIDDLE EAST

by JCPA

As the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs (JCPA) notes, in the fluid restructuring of alliances in the Middle East, Sunni Qatar stands out because — while appearing friendly to the West and its Sunni neighbors — it is using its enormous oil wealth lavishly to support jihadist groups such as "Hamas, Muslim Brotherhood, Jabhat al Nusrah, al-Qaeda affiliates, Libyan Islamists, and even ISIS" and to undermine other Sunni countries: "Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Bahrain." It is also one of the few states in the Middle East devoting much effort currently on trying to destroy Israel by supporting Hamas. The constant in all this support to salafist movements in the Middle East and in various African states appears to be Qatar's need for muscle in its hassles with Saudi Arabia over land and power.

READ MORE
hrrule

LATEST BIG LIE: 'WE HAVE NO STRATEGY'

by Michael Ledeen

The major way the public is instructed an event is significant is by way of the newspaper and TV media broadcasting it, explaining it, cogitating on it and doing so again and again. But the mechanism of media is largely broken. And so the public is often ignorant of major changes in policy, though these are independently recognized by think-tankers and experts in counter terrorism. Although Iran is moving steadily towards acquiring nuclear weaponry, it has become clear that the Obama Administration has shifted its allegiance from Sunni Saudi Arabia to Shiite Iran. We can expect therefore he will help by convening conferences and blathering about sanctions, but will do nothing to stop Iran. Indeed, we can expect the US to continue to run interference and not let any other country stop Iran or its proxy, Syria. And any harm we do to ISIS will enhance Iran's position.

READ MORE
hrrule

THE ENEMY OF MY ENEMY IS MY ENEMY

by Yoram Ettinger

Yoram Ettinger notes that the enemy of my enemy is my friend (EEMF) credo that has guided Western and Israeli policy over decades is decidedly wrong in the Middle East. "The misguided characterization of Iran" as a potential ally because it is fighting ISIS "could produce a nuclear conflict, a mega-trillion dollar cost to the U.S. taxpayer, an unprecedented level of fatalities, a tidal wave of global anti-U.S Islamic terrorism, and tectonic eruptions of insanity throughout the globe." Similarly, "[t]he victory of wishful thinking over reality was also the basis for Israel's 1993 policy toward the PLO — the enemy of Hamas — which was gullibly expected to align itself with Israel's war on Palestinian terrorism, in return for the unprecedented Israeli territorial concessions of the Oslo process. Instead, since 1993, Israel has been a victim of an unprecedented wave of PLO/Hamas anti-Israel terrorism..." A policy based on EEMF can't work because it flies in the face of the mission of salafist Muslims, whether Sunni or Shi'ite, to make Islam the supreme religion in the world, with all other religious and ethnic groups subservient to it.

READ MORE
hrrule

TERROR GROUP KHOROSAN SAID TO POSE MORE OF A THREAT TO U.S. THAN ISIS. GROUP TURNS OUT TO BE OBAMA HOAX

by Andrew C. McCarthy

As if we didn't have enough problems trying to determine who's on what team and how to keep tabs on the more than one thousand terrorist groups in Syria, the Obama administration has introduced unnecessary noise in the system. In June of this year, the news media began writing about an extremist group called the Khorasan Group. It was said to be more dangerous than the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). By September, the media informed us the US had initiated some airstrikes against both ISIS and the Khorosan in Syria. This information carried with it the not so subtle message that Obama wasn't ineffective, at least not in war. He had put together a working coalition of Arab countries — Jordan, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Qatar and Saudi Arabia. The air strikes against ISIS, some sloppily hitting largely civilian areas, did indeed occur. There is only one problem The Khorosan Group was a hoax, a fictitious name the Obama administration invented with malice a forethought. Andrew McCarthy tells us about it.

READ MORE
hrrule


THE PIOUS ARAB AND HOW SALAFISM CAME TO BE

This section deals with the foundation and history of the development of what we might call the generic pious Arab. And why, as Professor Eidelberg explains, you can't make peace with the "Religion of Peace." You can only submit or fight.


Return to What We Are Talking About

PORTRAIT OF A PSYCHOPATH

by Edward Cline

This essay by Edward Cline is based on a recent book by F.W. Burleigh entitled It's All About Muhammad: A Biography of the World's Most Notorious Prophet. Islam is as it is because Muhammad was as he was. Islam is not based just on what Muhammad said. It is equally true that whatever Muhammad did is approved behavior for everyone for all time. What makes today's Islam and jihadists tick? As Cline says, "Basically, it's Muhammadan insanity armed with a razor-sharp sword looking for a convenient neck to strike, or an empty, weak, malleable mind to fill. And whether they're called al-Qaeda, or the Taliban, or ISIS, or Hamas, or Hezbollah, or the Muslim Brotherhood or any of its sundry and cousinly franchises, they are all nihilistic psychotics."

An Addendum from The Muslim Issue website entitled "Islam — The Crimes of Prophet Mohammed" is a list of specific acts we in the West regard as criminal or at least immoral. They are acceptable and even admired in Islam; they serve as a model for how to behave properly. Thus, child marriage is acceptable because Mohammad married a 6-year old.

READ MORE
hrrule

RADICAL ISLAM, ISRAEL AND AGITPROP

by Guy Millière

Guy Millière writes a brief but excellent contextual history of the modern development of Resurgent Islam, which began when it became obvious to Muslim clerics and leaders that Islam was far behind the West. Some leaders looked to the West for solutions. Others, despising what they saw in the West, proposed, as reformation, a return to the "original principles" of Islam. A corollary ambition was the re-creation of a single sovereign government for the Arabic-speaking people of the Middle East. This dream suffered when the League of Nations in the early 1920s split the conquered Middle East empire of the Ottomans into many Arab states and one Jewish state by separate mandates for Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, Transjordan and Mesopotamia, creating states that ranged from fundamentalist (Saudi Arabia) to secular (Turkey). While the concomitant growth of modern Zionism, a national liberation movement, was compatible with regimes that held different world views, the theology of both Islamic fundamentalism and Arab nationalism was not, because it was based on the intolerant supremicist principles of early Islam. Radical Islam crystallized with the formation of the Muslim Brotherhood in 1928. It promoted a meticulous return to living by Muhammad's words and deeds; but it was also "influenced by Western totalitarian dogmas: Marxism, Leninism, fascism, National-Socialism." It is capable of blatant lying about its history, tenets and goals to gain adherents and disarm opponents; clever in creating a faux people, the Palestinians, to make spurious claims to Jewish land; and brilliant in building networks and bribing, blackmailing and bullying its way into Western infrastructure. Yet basically it simply divides the world into the House of Islam and the yet to be conquered House of War. As Millière points out, while Israel has brought fruitful inventions to the world's store of technology, science, art and medicine, Radical Islam has become "the most destructive force of the twenty first century. It brings only chaos and sterility; it is dangerous and has no future."

READ MORE
hrrule

THE MIDDLE EAST MASQUERADE PARTY

by Mordechai Kedar

Mordechai Kedar writes about the false images Middle East leaders project and the false claims they make. An egregious example is the supposed "Pan-Arab Nation" — the commonality of history and mission that is said to bind all Arabs together. In actuality, as Kedar points out, "The idea of the Pan-Arab Nation never succeeded in replacing the loyalties of many Arabs to traditional, secondary frameworks such as the tribe, religion (Muslim, Christian, Yazidi, etc.) or sect (Sunni, Shiite, etc.)." As do other Arab leaders that Kedar describes, Qatar's rulers flip between incompatible persona: they consistently fund terrorist organizations that target Westerners, while proclaiming themselves friends of the West. They even, when necessary, join the coalition of countries that plan to wage war against IS, the Islamic State. Kedar emphasizes that it is important for Israel to understand it can not "build its future relying on the temporary masks hiding the faces of Saudi Arabia, Jordan, the Emirates and Egypt."

READ MORE
hrrule

THE FUTILITY OF 'LAND FOR PEACE'

by Prof. Paul Eidelberg

This is an essay in two parts, both written by Professor Paul Eidelberg but published separately. Part 1 argues that peace and land can not be compared so their degrees of value can not be compared. They can, however, be examined in relation to the motivational and cognitive environment of the particular culture. The Israelis have gone to extreme, almost suicidal, lengths to obtain peace, starting with returning the entire Sinai Peninsula, when President Sadat of Europe hoped for a return of a small amount, and they have honored the terms of the 1993 Oslo Accords, which gave administrative control of land legally owned by Israel to the PLO. The Arabs have not provided the peace they promised. In fact, they met none of the terms they'd agreed to. Part 2 discusses the differing cognitive environments of the two cultures and how Israeli efforts for peace are futile, given how Arab culture influences Arab behavior.

READ MORE
hrrule


September-October, 2014 BLOG-EDS

 This is where our readers get a chance to write opinions and editorials and share articles they find informative. The Blog-Eds page for the month is updated every few days.

There is a separate file that is the index for the articles on the Blog-Ed page. You can access an article immediately from this index by clicking on the item in the index.

To access the Index, click the "Blog-Eds List" box in the Blue Strip on the top of the Blog-Ed page.

September 2014 Blog-Eds
October 2014 Blog-Eds

Please note that The Blog-Ed pages for September and October 2014 are not currently available.

Different Blog Ed pages will be down intermittently until the Archive structure is in place. We apologize for the inconvenience.

Return to Feature Index hrrule
FEATURED STORIES

July-August 2014

What we are talking about in the July–August 2014 Issue

  1. GAZA  (Lipkin, Shulman, Engelhard, Sharpe)
  2. WHAT WAS WRONG WITH THE GAZA CAMPAIGN? (Editor)
  3. GAZA WAS ABANDONED BY ISRAEL (Dunetz, Lipkin, Saperstein)
  4. A CHANGE IN ATTITUDE? (Berman, Kramer, Nandy and Mishra)
  5. JIHADISTS HARD AT WORK GLOBALLY (Atbashian, Jolly, Kaplan, Kassam, Kerstein, Murray)
  6. REGIONAL WARFARE (Karsh, Glick, Freedman and Gordon, Segall)
  7. PUBLIC RELATIONS AND PROPAGANDA (MidEastTruth, Beck, Poller, Amler, Levinson)
  8. HISTORY SECTION (Bostom, Bohr, Meyer and Wiegrefe, Schwimmer)
  9. BLOG-EDS (July-August Blog-Eds)

GAZA

This issue of Think-Israel examines the continuing attacks by Hamas of Gaza on the Israeli civilian population, Israel's response and some of the fallout. It also looks at some Jihadist operations in the West, internecine fighting among the Muslim States of the Middle East and the consequent restructuring of alliances. These are all different aspects of the unrelenting determination of the Salafists to make Islam the dominant power in the world.

Operation Protective Edge became the latest round of a chronic war. It is a war that Resurgent Islam, flush with money and salafist dedication, resurrected against the capitalist West and against Communist Russia and China. It is a war aided and abetted, consciously or not, by anti-Israel Western liberals, particularly some in the media and academia. It is as if whoever engineered Islam's fiendishly clever ways of winning said: These are our objectives. First, we will control the framing and distribution of information by the media, by textbooks and by the professorial class. We will be the ones who say who the good guys are and who should be shunned — facts are irrelevant. Two, using the noble concept of multiculturalism, we will marginalize the natives in countries where we settle, while sopping up available welfare funds. Third, Israel is foremost in thwarting our designs. Let us demolish her before Westerners wake up and take action against us.

If Israel continues to be indecisive and if the West only gathers strength to resist Muslim domination episodically, this war might go on as long as the Christian-Muslim encounters of the Middle Ages. Or Iran could trigger a round of fighting using nuclear weapons. Neither is a pleasant prospect.

READ MORE
hrrule

WHAT WAS WRONG WITH ISRAEL'S CAMPAIGN IN GAZA? ANSWER THESE AND YOU'LL KNOW:

  • Does wearing civilian clothes transform a terrorist and his family into civilians that must not be strafed?
  • Does using a building as a school nullify its use as a weapons depository?
  • Do prayers at a mosque five times a day trump the 24 hours per day when the mosque is serving as a military command and control center?
  • Should a hospital that shelters Hamas leaders be treated as a medical center?
  • Does providing food and education for refugees-in-perpetuum in a U.N. building override its use as a warehouse for wartime explosives that could be set off in situ?
  • Jewish children, often terrified, spend much of their time rushing to safety as missiles rain down from Gaza. Arab children in Gaza have only to be somewhere, anywhere, to increase the probability that the location is safe from Israeli counterattack. Because Arabs believe they are superior, do the Israelis have to agree with them by giving Arab children such respect?
  • Should Israel abort a mission to destroy mortars guarded by Arab children, allowing these mortars eventually to terrorize and even destroy Jewish children?

Israeli politicos seem to think the answer is "YES" to all of these.

In practice, no other country does.


Return to What We Are Talking About

GAZA 2014

by Richard H. Shulman

Richard Shulman presents facts about Gaza that many in the news media avoid or de-emphasize, in their attempt to whitewash Hamas. As example, the UN acts as if it were neutral and impartial. In point of fact, most of staff of the UN agency, UNRWA, which provides Arab "refugees" with cradle-to-grave welfare, are themselves Palestinian Arabs. And the UN peacekeepers have a record of conspiring with terrorists. He also dissects the war the media, in particular the New York Times, wages against Israel, while purporting to present a balanced view. It's time people asked why the media are horrified by the 2000 deaths in Gaza and ignore the 200,000 deaths in Syria, let alone the deaths in the civil wars in many other Arab countries. Shulman explains why a diplomatic solution won't work with a jihadist enemy, and why Israel's way of waging war is also defective: Israel loses the element of a surprise attack by messaging civilians that they are going to bomb an installation containing weaponry in a few minutes. (BTW: Israel's reward for such civility is that organizations such as Human Rights Watch (HRW) think that's insufficient notification; HRW ignores that many Israelis have only 15 seconds warning that a rocket is about to strike near them.) He also points out that Fatah, though presenting a slicker veneer, is no better than Hamas.

READ MORE
hrrule

GAZA: A JUST WAR FOUGHT CHELM-STYLE

by Jack Engelhard

When the war began, Jack Englehard brushed aside the mean, the vicious, the trite and the silly reasons for ignoring Hamas's constant barrage of missiles extending further and further into Israel. He focused on the main issue: Hamas needed to be taken down. It was a long-due just war. The troops were dedicated and trained, Israelis were almost unanimous in wanting Hamas destroyed, the military had the technology to end the operation in hours, take Gaza over in two day, conquer it completely in seven days and would be in a favorable position to destroy terrorist infrastructure, which will take another two years. (Freund, JPost, 18Aug2014) — and this against a very nasty group of people. But Israel has a major weakness — pusillanimous politicians, so afraid of "the world's opinion" they don't protect their own citizens. And so it was that the IDF fought, as Englehard writes, as if the battle plans were designed by the sages of Chelm.

READ MORE
hrrule

THE CONTINUING BLUNDER OF RETREAT

by Victor Sharpe

Victor Sharpe writes critically of the 2005 "'disengagement plan,' a euphemism for unilateral retreat from Gaza,' where Israel evacuated every Jew living in Gaza. That made it possible for Hamas to take over Gaza and have an easy time manufacturing explosives and lobbing missiles into Israel and the Territories. In this latest foray by Israel into Gaza, Israel meticulously pinpointed targets and warned civilians to evacuate targeted areas, a strategy that can be billed as highly moral but which has little impact on turning the Gazan Arabs against bombing Israel. There is concern that instead of being effective by wiping out Hamas, the politicians will return to the familiar game of offering real land — this time parts of Samaria and Judea (aka the West Bank) — for an ephemeral "peace." There's one problem with this approach — Hamas was designed for one purpose only: to destroy the Jewish state, not live peaceably next to it. It's in their charter and they abide by it.

READ MORE
hrrule

GAZA IS WHAT IT IS TODAY BECAUSE ISRAEL ABANDONED IT IN AUGUST 2005

It was August 2005 right after Tisha B'Av that Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, who had been elected on the strength of his promise to deal more firmly with the Arab terrorists living in Gaza, arbitrarily and capriciously expelled all the Jews, some 10,000 people, from their homes and orchards and synagogues in Gaza, leaving it to become a terrorist haven, uncontrolled, unmonitored, with complete freedom for the new owners to lob missiles into Israel, which they did, by the thousands-ful. We wouldn't keep reminding you what a disaster the expulsion of the Jews from Gaza was — except that there is a strong possibility that many a politico in Europe, the USA and even in Israel can't wait to stop the current Gaza War (which would never have happened if the Jews hadn't left Gaza), so they can get back to their variant of trying to square the circle: planning out a two-state solution that would make much of Samaria and Judea and the eastern part of Jerusalem into the next internationally-certified terrorist state.


Return to What We Are Talking About

THE LAST TIME LAND FOR PEACE DIDN'T WORK

by Jeff Dunetz

Jeff Dunetz reminds us of the great expectations Ariel Sharon voiced when he expelled a patriotic and productive group of Jews from Gaza in August 2005. To others, unfortunately a minority, it was a daft idea grounded in a nebulous hope, not experience. And so it has proven to be. Besides contributing to the economy and to new technology, the Jews were also a sort of early warning system, able to monitor incipient terror plots and military training and weapons manufacture, activities that continues to absorb the energy of many of the Arabs of Gaza. The expulsion didn't make for peace. Quite the contrary.

READ MORE
hrrule

GAZA 2005

by Bernice Lipkin

Bernice Lipkin recalls the story of the idealistic and technically skilled Jews who lived in Gaza and grew wonderful vegetables, while keeping an eye on their Arab neighbors, who were prone to initiating new and clever ways to kill Israelis. All the Jew was expelled from Gaza in 2005, leaving it to the terrorists groups to squabble over. Synagogues were replaced by terrorist training camps. Public buildings became bomb factories. Thriving businesses were replaced by mosques preaching Jew-hate. Gaza was soon taken over and governed by Hamas. Thanks in large part to the funds sent it by the UN, EU and the West including the US, Gaza's larders were filled with missiles and its murderous inclinations became more ambitious. In 2014, we are still paying the price for acting on the idiotic idea that giving land to terrorists who want to decapitate you will make them peaceful and neighborly.

READ MORE
hrrule

PROPORTIONATE RESPONSE; DREAM THE IMPOSSIBLE DREAM; TWICE BETRAYED; and other essays

by Moshe Saperstein

These essays by Moshe Saperstein help us understand what it is like to live in a trailer exposed to the missiles constantly being launched from Gaza, while trying to live a normal life. He and his wife Rachel were among the 10,000 Gazan Jews that became refugees in their own state when, in 2005, the Sharon government expelled all the Jews living in Gaza in the bizarre belief that this would cause their terrorist neighbors to make peace. Left to their own devices and no longer monitored by the local Jews, the Arabs of Gaza used the extra elbow room to train terrorists and manufacture and/or assemble ever more sophisticated weaponry. It is bitter irony that all Israel is suffering from missile attacks from Gaza and this would never have happened if Israel hadn't kicked settler Jews like the Sapersteins out of Gaza in the first place.

READ MORE
hrrule

A CHANGE IN ATTITUDE?

It has become blatantly obvious that the Arabs of Gaza will continue to kill Israeli civilians and soldiers until their stock of weaponry is used up — they're saving the new stuff for later. It's become obvious that nothing Israel does will change the determination of the Salafists, including Hamas, to destroy Israel. It's so obvious that it has forced a departure from the previously unquestioned belief that Israel is the culprit who treats the noble savages of Gaza real bad and for no particular reason. Whether this will hold is yet to be seen.


Return to What We Are Talking About

FACTS OVER FEELINGS

by Amanda Berman

Amanda Berman discovered people she had once respected actually harbored ugly notions about Israel, while showering sympathy on the Arabs of Gaza. They suppressed or trivialized the fact that Hamas murders, stones, booby-traps and kidnaps Israelis and hangs those of its own people who won't conform. They were even capable of ignoring the fact that Hamas uses its women and children to shield the terrorists and their weaponry. The essay contains an excellent precis of facts that should be common knowledge. They serve as anchor references when confronted by Jew-hate disguised as humanistic concern for Arab "civilians".

If I have any quarrel with the article, it is that I disagree with Berman's opinion that "occupation" is a legitimate topic of debate. From context I assume she doesn't mean Arab illegal encroachment on Jewish land, which is a fact, but is referencing the fable that Jews are occupying Muslim Arab Palestinian Land. Oh, if only the Israeli Government were bold enough to throw away its investment in promoting a non-viable two-state solution and would broadcast that Samaria and Judea as well as Gaza and Israel itself are Jewish property, made so at San Remo in 1920 by the same international consensus that created most of the current Arab states.

How much more neurons must flash, how many more dendrites must integrate data before the airheads of the world figure out what's going on? How long before those that claim wide-ranging spiritual lives with a deep appreciation (pronounced ah pree see A shun) of the finer things of life, how long before these aesthetes in jeans acquire sufficient imagination to even describe the current reality accurately, let alone understand it in a multi-layered fashion.

READ MORE
hrrule

FIGHT, DON'T TALK

by Steve Kramer

Steve Kramer describes the prevailing attitude of Israelis toward the attacks on them by the Arabs in Gaza, who have broken every one of the recent ceasefires the diplomats have forced on Israel. He uses as example the partial change in attitude by the well-known, well-to-the-left Israeli author, Amos Oz, who send an autographed copy of of his books together with a love letter to Marwan Barghouti, terrorist and mass murderer of Jews (See Meotti, INN, 13May2014). As recently as two months ago Oz had no difficulty ignoring life-threatening rock throwing by young Arabs while denouncing young Jewish activists as neo-Nazis supported by "numerous nationalist or even racist legislators, as well as rabbis". At the end of July, in an interview in Deutsche Welle predictably he said that Israel's ground offensive in Gaza was excessive. What was different was that he made clear Israel's dilemna in how to handle Hamas's use of civilians and their houses to store weaponry and launch rockets. In a pretzel-like conclusion, he declared, that "at least in some points the military action is excessive - justified, but excessive." Huh? Ah well, it's a start toward reality.

READ MORE
hrrule

EVIDENCE OF A SHIFT TOWARDS ISRAEL IN INDIA?

articles by Chandan Nandy and by Mrutyuanjai Mishra

Despite harassment and terror attacks by Muslims, for many years, India was solidly against Israel and voted with those condemning Israel for anything and everything in the U.N. The articles and comments below indicate there has been a shift. How much is yet to be seen. Some writers were far ahead of the politicians, but starting in around 2011, political attitudes began to show change publically. The article by Chandan Nandy focuses on a recent pro-Israel rally in Kolkata that attracted some 20,000 participants. Mrutyuanjai Mishra discusses the expansion of the jihadist war against the world. The comments to his article would suggest many of the readers of the Times of India are more knowledgeable about what's going on in Gaza than the readers of the New York Times.

READ MORE
hrrule

JIHADISTS ARE HARD AT WORK IN THE USA AND EUROPE — ACTUALLY, EVERYWHERE IN THE WORLD.

A major reason for the change in attitude towards Israel is due to the actions of the Muslims themselves. In Gaza, no matter how often the New York Times intimated that Hamas was blameless or at least not very effective at killing Jews so what did it matter, it became common knowledge that Hamas leaders were using the locals as human shields. It's true most of the Arab population was delighted when an Israeli was murdered or kidnapped. But they weren't happy when their own houses were at risk, because they were shielding launch pads or tunnels or were wired with explosives. To make it worse, Hamas wouldn't let them leave, even when the Israelis made it clear they would be bombing some of these houses. It also became harder to blame Israel for occasionally unintentionally injuring an Arab child, when Hamas warriors surrounded themselves with these children while they launched missiles. Then too, the world was shocked to learn Muslims weren't just angry at Israel and the Jews. Islamists have beheaded Westerners in London as well as on their own territory. They've taken over areas in Paris and won't permit non-Muslims to enter. They've raped so many Swedish women that some natives dye their hair black to protect themselves. So, little by little, despite the best efforts of much of the media to downplay the damage done by resurgent Islam, people are becoming aware that the most pious of the Muslims have declared war on all of us. It is becoming understood that the Salafist Muslims who activated and continue to maintain a well-organized and well-funded jihad globally are determined that Sharia law will rule the world. This set of essays identifies some of the ways jihad warfare has infiltrated the USA and other countries, often indirectly in ways that appear non-threatening. In the West, Islamists take advantage of our belief in individual freedom to infiltrate our educational, judicial and political structures. In other parts of the world, their ways are more brutal and overt. They spare no country. No part of the world is safe.


Return to What We Are Talking About

HOW ISLAM BUILT THE VERY FABRIC OF AMERICA

Oleg Atbashian

With his jaunty air and extraordinary ability to fabricate, Prez Obama asserted that Muslim Americans have contributed much to "the very fabric of our nation." Some people responded that until 9/11 the major Muslim contribution to USA history was the Barbary Pirates preying on American ships. Oleg Atbashian at The People's Cube Blog takes a different tack: he show us what governmental fabric woven by Muslims would look like. Unlike Obama's version, Atbashian's depiction of a Muslim-influenced America isn't made out of whole cloth.

READ MORE
hrrule

ISIS MUSLIM RADICALS INFILTRATING US VIA MEXICAN BORDER

by Dave Jolly

As if we didn't have enough problems because of illegal immigrants, now we need to think seriously about Islamic terrorists coming into the States through our porous border with Mexico. It's been known for years that Korans and prayer mats have been found at the border, but the major media have ignored the implication that members of sleeper cells are likely being put in place. Now Dave Jolly tells us that reliable analysts believe "Muslim radical members of ISIS may be infiltrating the United States." At this point, we can demand confirmatory evidence — positive evidence such as another 9/11 — or we can agree with the Mexican newspaper editor who wrote this headline, "The Arab terrorists were here!" Putting it another way, we can wait for Prez Obama to think about deciding it might be an idea to deal with it in the future indefinite, or we might lend the border states political reinforcement so they will deal with it.

READ MORE
hrrule

BACKGROUNDER: STUDENTS FOR JUSTICE IN PALESTINE (SJP)

by Lee Kaplan

The organization called Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) is misnamed. It is not led by students. And it isn't interested in Justice in Palestine. As Lee Kaplan makes clear, SJP is yet another organization supported by Arab oil money and devoted to destroying Israel. Led by devotees of sharia law, it is well-organized and runs effective training sessions, disruptive demonstrations and dramatic street theatre. It works hand in hand with other pro-Palestinian groups such as the International Solidarity Movement (ISM), which sends young Westerners such as Rachel Corrie to act as human shields for Arab terrorist groups. Kaplan recounts the history of the SJP, "a conglomeration of ISM activist types, former or secular Jews, mostly Muslim Arabs, but some Christians and radically socialist communists." The glue holding these disparate groups together is unabashed anti-Semitism. Before the Arab countries found themselves fighting for their own lives, the major ambition of these pious Muslims, Sunni and Shi'ite, was to see Islam taking its rightful place as the most important religion in the world. For hundreds of years, Muslims have fought for supremacy. They conquered the Middle East and encroached on Europe and the East, the American continents not being "discovered" as yet. Nowadays, two major blocks hinder this ambition, the big Satan, the USA, and the little Satan, Israel. Were Israel to be extinguished, they could devote their monetary and political clout to bringing sharia to the West without hindrance.

READ MORE
hrrule

LABOUR MP: BRITISH MUSLIMS ARE DOING 'HUMANITARIAN WORK' IN IRAQ/SYRIA, JOINING ISIS NO DIFFERENT TO JOINING ISRAELI ARMY

by Raheem Kassam

Yasmin Qureshi is the epitome of the moderate Muslim. She was born in Jhelum, Pakistan and moved to the UK when she was nine. She is married, lives in Bolton South East, and practices law as a Barrister in Manchester. She has been actively involved in community work for over twenty years with the Citizen Advice Bureau and local law centres. She has been the governor for a college and three schools. She was the Head of the Criminal Legal Section of the UN Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) and later the Director of the Department of Judicial Administration in Kosovo. She is a past President of the Pakistan Club (UK). She is the former Chair of the Human Rights and Civil Liberties Working Group of the Association of Muslim Lawyers. And, as Raheem Kassam writes, she defends Muslim terrorists, asserting that the British Muslims fighting for ISIS are humanitarians.

READ MORE
hrrule

THE GLOBAL POGROM

by Benjamin Kerstein

Benjamin Kerstein writes about the global pogrom that has been underway for well over a decade. "[It] has taken lives. It has destroyed property. It has injured, brutalized, and terrified Jews and Jewish communities in many nations." He writes mainly about the atrocities that have occurred in France; in fact, in 2013 40% of all hate crimes in France targeted Jews. Because of its large Jewish and large Muslim populations, the systematic harassment of the Jewish community by Muslims is very clear in France, but the same trend is to be seen all over Europe. A chilling fact is that the Muslims may be the instigators, but the participants in the sieges, street violence, looting, store burnings, fire bombs, vandalism and hate-filled rallies are both Muslims and Europeans, and usually the police look the other way. The Pogrom mentality has spread to the USA, Canada and even Australia. In the Muslim countries, which expelled Jews when Israel was created, there is the phenomenon of anti-Semitism without Jews, where medieval anti-Jewish confabulations are taken as facts. The one country which has had Jews in any numbers since the 1950s is Turkey. Egged on by the current Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan, the pogrom is in progress there, too. Everywhere, "for all practical purposes, [there is] no distinction between hatred of Israel, hatred of Zionism, and hatred of the Jews." Kerstein expects this anti-Jew fury to spread where ever there are Jews. He might also have noted that this hate will not be satiated with Jewish blood. It is likely that, as is the usual sequence, the Jew may be the first to be attacked, but he is never the last.

READ MORE
hrrule

STOP BLAMING ISRAEL AND WAKE UP: THE BLACK FLAG OF JIHAD IS THE REAL THREAT TO THE WORLD

by Douglas Murray

Those who blame Israel for the ills of the Middle East, if not those of the entire world, are right about one thing: there is a single cause riling up the world's lemmings and making trouble for other cultures. But it's not Judaism. It is, as Douglas Murray writes, resurgent Islam, split into separate groups but united in this single cause and waving the same black flag of terror. He makes the important point that the current spate of anti-Semitism is causing problems for Jews today, but tomorrow people in other countries and other ethnic group will suffer from the same Muslim hatred and violence. As Murray puts it, "Israel is not the cause of the world's problems. It is simply on the front line of them."

READ MORE
hrrule

REGIONAL WARFARE

It is clear that pious Muslims, Salafists — Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, Hezbollah, Al-Qaeda, Lashkar e Taiba, IS (previously ISIS), Al-Shabaab, Al-Nusraa, Boko Haram and the many less well-known small gangs, (There's around one thousand bands operating in Syria. That's groups, not people. See here.) — all want the end or the weakening of all cultures except Islam, so that Muslims and Sharia law will rule the world. In the Middle East, they have begun fighting among themselves about which groups will run the world before finishing the war against the West and the Far East.

Warfare in the Middle East is so different from what we expect. The war between the Sunnis and the Shi'ites is definitely on but the players and colleagues and subsidiaries on both sides don't have stable affiliations. They shift allegiance and split, then reunite partially but often with major changes in their allies. They don't have an identifiable team shirt or mascot or team song. It's chaotic at best and, to outsiders, totally illogical. Why should Sunni ISIS kill Sunni al-Qaeda leaders and sell oil to Shi'ite-allied Syria? Why should Shi'ite Iran support Sunni Hamas which is on the outs with Syria, which is strongly supported by Iran? Why should Sunni Qatar support the Sunni Muslim Brotherhood and ISIS, while Sunni Saudi Arabia want to destroy them? At the same time, ISIS and the Muslim Brotherhood, which should be natural allies, are saber-rattling — or should that be sword-slicing — at each other.

The only players more illogical are the Westerners looking for an opening. Why should the American administration want to work with Iran to eliminate ISIS, when Iran has vowed to destroy the USA and Israel. If we succeed in destroying ISIS, it will only strengthen al-Qaeda, which has vowed to destroy us. Middle East alliances are so unstable that the West is hard put to know which terrorist group to support, but, shucks, you gotta support some team, dontcha?


Return to What We Are Talking About

THE MYTH OF PALESTINIAN CENTRALITY

by Efraim Karsh

Despite Obama's shallow view of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict as central to the instability of the ME, the facts are otherwise. While the Arab states are vocally for the right of the 1948 Arab refugees to return to Israel — they fled in 1948 when the neighboring Arab countries invaded the newly-declared modern State of Israel — and for statehood for the local Arabs calling themselves Palestinians, operationally speaking the locals are only useful for creating sympathy for the Arab mission of destroying the Jewish State. Their major objective is the creation of a single Arab state, which, ironically, is what was initially envisioned after the Western Allies defeated the Ottomans in World War 1. The major subsidiary issue is: which Arab group is going to control the single Arab state or caliphate that is envisioned by pious Sunnis. Giving the Palestinian Arabs a state carved out of Israel is not a cure for the Arab craving for a pan-Arab state that will control the world. This essay provides an excellent historical analysis for understanding the non-connection of the lip-service for a Palestinian state and the Salafist obsession for a renewed Caliphate.

READ MORE
hrrule

UNDERSTANDING THE ISRAELI-EGYPTIAN-SAUDI ALLIANCE

by Caroline Glick

There is an unofficial alliance to repel Iran's ambition to dominate the Middle East and influence global politics. As Caroline Glick points out, this is a direct consequence of the American president's policy of punishing friends such as Israel and Egypt and cozying up to declared enemies such as Iran and the Muslim Brotherhood. She might have also pointed out that when confronted by a situation as in Syria where the Assad regime is protected by Iran but is fighting Al-Qaeda, one of Obama's not-so-secret friends, he dithers. When I asked a friend raised in the Middle East how a Muslim can hug you with one arm and knife you with the other, he said, "That's the nature of the Middle East." It's not behavior Westerners can understand intuitively, if at all.

READ MORE
hrrule

THE GROWING SHADOW OF ISIS

by Ilana Freedman and Jerry Gordon

Resurgent Islam continues to try to dominate the world. In the West, except for some isolated incidents, quickly forgotten, Muslim Salafist groups have not drawn much attention to their activities. And like lobsters in water that is slowly heated, Westerners have adapted. We haven't noticed how much our educational and political systems and media have been infiltrated. In the Middle East different groups of pious jihadists are in control of some or all of many Arab countries and openly wage war against secularists, non-Muslims and even other Salafists. They have bombed, lobbed rockets, sniped, stoned, gouged, waterboarded and fought but, over time, even these acts have become familiar, dreaded but expected. Occasionally, an murderous act have gained attention by being particularly shocking — a woman who wouldn't repudiate Christianity had a large cross shoved down her throat, an al-Qaeda terrorist ate the liver of someone he just shot, three Israeli teens and 300 Nigerian girls were kidnapped, a honor killing was coupled with a beheading, Christian women and children were beheaded. In this essay, Illana Freedman and Jerry Gordon write about ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria), one of the known groups, which recently morphed into something rather new. Outlandishly brutal but with military discipline and competence, it has great confidence and — thanks to a talent for robbing banks and looting weaponry — a couple of billion dollars, part of which it spends not only on equipment but on artful propaganda, which has attracted many foreign-born Muslims to come to be trained as terrorists. What really set them apart is that they didn't just yearn for the reestablishment of the Caliphate, they announced they had brought it about and their leader was Caliph for all Muslims. The immediate impact was to delight some and enrage others, with few undecided. They might be scary enough to wake up the world to the dangers of Resurgent Islam.

READ MORE
hrrule

ACROSS TIME AND DEATH: IRAN AND THE ISIS CHALLENGE

by Lt. Col. (ret.) Michael Segall

Michael Segall assesses the ISIS phenomenon mainly from the point of view of its confrontations with Iran, and the likely regional and global consequences. ISIS has been able to ride roughshod over the Iraqi army and is fighting Hizbullah on its homeground in Lebanon, so it has become "a real threat to Iran's strategic assets in Syria and Lebanon and especially to its aspiration to restore Shiite supremacy." Segall is almost unique in emphasizing that Iran will "leverage its influence and deep involvement in Iraq, along with its common interests with the West (and even with some of its regional adversaries) when it comes to containing ISIS's expansion southward in Iraq and westward to Jordan. The aim of this leverage will be to extract concessions on the nuclear issue."

I believe, the worst thing that can happen in the region is for Iran to acquire nuclear weaponry. If that happens, it won't be a quantitative difference. It would take the current chaos and the battling and the shocking deaths and the rearrangement of borders and the shifts in the power structure to a totally different place, good for no one except perhaps the Iranian government. So why does the USA want to help Iran destroy ISIS when it is in our best interest to let ISIS damage and distract Iran? It is awful what ISIS is doing to civilian Yazidis, but the Obama Administration is able to ignore that Syrian children are being slaughtered in the thousands. Actually, we could rescue the relatively few Yazidis quietly by airlift, just as the Israelis patch up wounded Syrian civilians in field hospitals near the Syrian border. We can let ISIS and Iran duke it out in the Middle East, while we focus on curtailing ISIS's (and al-Qaeda's) ability to attract and train Westerners and Muslims born in the West, because these trained terrorists would be a direct threat to America, Europe and Israel when they return home.

READ MORE
hrrule

PUBLIC RELATIONS AND PROPAGANDA

shopping carts pix

(From the 19Aug2014 MidEastTruth website.)


Return to What We Are Talking About

A LOVE LETTER FROM HAMAS TO ISIS (WITH 10 TIPS)

by Noah Beck

Noah Beck packs a lot of information about Hamas's and ISIS's tactics in what purports to be advice on how to be a evil perpetrator yet be accepted by most of the media as innocent victim. A reader, Daniel, adds this tip: use the language of "freedom" — West loves it. For example: "Free Iraq from colonial powers", "Free Syria from oppression", etc. West has hard time opposing such slogans, for example "Free Gaza" or "Free Palestine" are very popular, and nobody is bothering to check the facts...

Hamas and Isis have the same religious and political ideology and the same sense of mission, and they both enjoy behaving barbarically. As Benjamin Netanyahu said, "Hamas is ISIS, ISIS is Hamas." There is, however, a difference in how they are perceived and treated. Prez Obama rushed to save the Yazidis who have been under siege by ISIS but when Israel finally responded to daily bombardment from Hamas, he stopped shipping missiles to Israel until it agreed to stop bombing Hamas, even though it had not completed the job of dismembering Hamas.

READ MORE
hrrule

THE TRUTH IS HANGING ON BY A THREAD

by Nidra Poller

A reporter, Matti Friedman, in an article called "An Insider's Guide To The Most Important Story On Earth", observed that "there was a malfunction in the practice of journalism" in that when it comes to reporting on events involving Israel, reporters come into the Middle East being anti-Israel. As example, he pointed out that "[m]ost reporters in Gaza believe their job is to document violence directed by Israel at Palestinian civilians." In this essay, Nidra Poller describes how unshakable their built-in prejudice is. Many in the mainstream press are scrambling to keep themselves from examining their cheerleader attitude on behalf of the Salafists. At the moment, reality has them under strong assault but they are resisting with all their might the meaning of ISIS's latest contribution to global entertainment: the beheading of James Foley, a journalist who like them was fanatically anti-Semitic and a strong supporter of Sharia and the Arab jihad.

Assassinations were easier to ignore when Jews or half-Jews that lived in Arab villages like the actor Julian Mer-Khamis, who lived in Jenin and marched to a Salafist drummer, were exterminated by their hosts. Obviously, Mer-Khamis should not have invaded the village; he wasn't welcome. It was easy for them to understand the Muslim Brotherhood stoning, flaying, beheading, burning and pushing large crosses down the throats of Egyptian Coptic Christians. After all, did Christians behave all that differently when they ruled the region? When Daniel Pearl was beheaded, they could argue that Daniel Pearl was a Jew, so in some collective sense he deserved beheading. But James Foley was one of them. As Daniel Green writes (see here) "James Foley was one of a new breed of activists calling themselves journalists. He didn't travel to report on a story, but to promote an agenda... Foley came to Syria to support the Sunni Islamist rebels against the Syrian government. He was a vehement advocate and while he didn't necessarily side with any single group, he echoed the one sided narrative rather than telling the truth about the Islamists." It was their ox that was gored. James Foley was unblemished ideologically and his death was deliberate.

Poller writes that the truth hangs in the thread joining ISIS and Hamas, both believers in Sharia law, both beheaders of their own people, but it's unlikely the media will make the connection. They will continue to believe that if they blame the Jews, they are ensuring their own safety. Foley's execution might be an intimation of what's in store for other Western reporters, no matter how committed to the jihad. Nevertheless, all things considered, it is predictable the journalists will overcome this shock to their ideological system. Unfortunately for them, troublesome facts are emerging. Back home, their own Muslim immigrants refuse to behave in a civilized fashion. And thousands of their citizens who went off fight for jihad will return with terror skills and a hatred of their native land. What then?

READ MORE
hrrule

I DON'T LIKE JEWS BECAUSE...

by Justin Amler

Justin Amler rakes up for our edification notions about Jews much of the world believes are true: Jews are stubborn, Jews don't listen to their friends like the UN and the Arab League, Jews are aggressive and attacked the Gazan Arabs for no reason at all, etc., etc. With tongue-in-cheek, he suggests these depictions of the Jews must be true because reliable sources from the Main Stream Media and international political groups like the UN right down to Yasser Arafat and Bishop Tutu have said so, again and again. It's not the world's fault the Jews are to blame for all the problems of the world, is it?

READ MORE
hrrule

MAKE RACHEL CORRIE INTO ISRAEL'S ACTIVIST

by William A. Levinson

William Levinson argues that in fighting the battle of words, the best defense is an offense. Tools used by the enemy can be taken and used against them. He uses as example the story of Rachel Corrie, who was manipulated by ISM to act as shield for the Arabs against the IDF. When she died, struck by debris while playing "chicken" with an Israeli bulldozer, she was billed by ISM as a idealistic activist, martyred in the cause of peace. In fact, the first eye witness reports claimed the driver backed up and ran her over again. That accusation ceased when it was realized that would have left her as flat as a pancake; (it did lead to her being called St. Rachel of IHOP.) ISM acknowledged Corrie was more useful to them dead than alive, so Levinson suggests Israel should have agreed she was an idealist but should have emphasized that she was duped by ISM, which knowingly and recklessly endangered her life. Essentially, he is suggesting jiu-jitsuing the arguments of the anti-Israel organizations against them. As he says, "PsyWar is an offensive weapon" and speed in structuring the way an event is described is essential. Unfortunately, Israel continues to lose this important war.

READ MORE
hrrule

HISTORY SECTION


Return to What We Are Talking About

ISIL'S OTTOMAN "CALIPHATE" FORBEARS BRUTALLY SLAUGHTERED 250,000 ASSYRIAN-CHALDEAN, AND ORTHODOX CHRISTIANS A CENTURY AGO

by Andrew G. Bostom

Andrew G. Bostom describes a massacre by the Ottomans that took place during World War 1, between 1914 and 1919 in what is now northern Iraq and eastern Anatolia. Of the 250,000 people killed, most was slaughtered between June and September 1915. All the victims were Christians; the murderers were mostly local Muslims armed with knives and rocks, who were incited by State officials and politicians. Thousands of ordinary villagers participated in the orgy of slaughter. The victims were unarmed and were tied up. They were shot, stabbed, stoned, drowned and decapitated; their throats were crushed and they were thrown off roofs — just as infidels are treated in the Middle East nowadays when Arabs riot or when terrorists murder Israelis. As is the case currently when Muslims go on the rampage in the Middle East and Africa against their Christian neighbors, the "massacre was accompanied by serial mass rape of the women. Young girls were abducted as sex slaves and children as household servants." Other Christians were forced to flee. Many of them were massacred primarily by the Muslim Ottoman army or were attacked by local Arab gangs. How modern it all sounds. I wonder what excuses were used to justify routine Muslim barbarism.

READ MORE
hrrule

INTERVIEW WITH AN AUSCHWITZ GUARD: 'I DO NOT FEEL LIKE A CRIMINAL'

interview by Felix Bohr, Cordula Meyer and Klaus Wiegrefe

Felix Bohr, Cordula Meyer and Klaus Wiegrefe interviewed a 91-year old man named Jakob who had been a guard in Auschwitz. He denies he ever hit a prisoner but he no longer denies, as he did in earlier years, that he knew about the wholesale killing of Jews at Auschwitz. Now he says strongly, "When the crematorium is constantly burning, then everyone knows tha something is going on." After the war, most everyone involved and those living in the neighborhood of the camp denied knowing. Jakob has come forth to bear witness that they knew.

READ MORE
hrrule

THE WEDDING GOWN THAT MADE HISTORY

by Helen Zegerman Schwimmer

Helen Schwimmer writes of a wedding that took place more than a half century ago. What makes this wedding different is that Lilly and Ludvig, the bride and groom, had survived the Holocaust and were now incarcerated in a Displaced Person's (DP) camp in Bergen Belsen. Lilly dream of being married in a white gown was fulfilled because a German ex-pilot swapped his useless parachute for coffee beans. A seamstress cut the parachute into the wedding gown that the bride wore when she was married in the synagogue the DPs had renovated. Lilly's sister wore it soon after, and then a cousin, and then one bride after another in the camp. Some 50 years later the gown, stitched, restitched, redesigned, and redecorated very many times was donated to the Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, D.C. where it is on display. As Schwimmer writes of Lilly and her sisters, "As young brides, they had stood underneath the chuppah and recited the blessings that their ancestors had been saying for thousands of years. In doing so, they chose to honor the legacy of those who had perished by choosing life."

READ MORE
hrrule

July-August, 2014 BLOG-EDS

 This is where our readers get a chance to write opinions and editorials and share articles they find informative. The Blog-Eds page for the month is updated every few days.

There is a separate file that is the index for the articles on the Blog-Ed page. You can access an article immediately from this index by clicking on the item in the index.

To access the Index, click the "Blog-Eds List" box in the Blue Strip on the top of the Blog-Ed page.

July 2014 BLOG-EDS
August 2014 BLOG-EDS

Please note that The Blog-Ed pages for July and August 2014 are not currently available.

Different Blog Ed pages will be down intermittently until the Archive structure is in place. We apologize for the inconvenience.

Return to Feature Index hrrule
FEATURED STORIES

May-June 2014

What we are talking about in the May–June 2014 Issue

  1. IN MEMORIAM (lipkin, plaut, solway)
  2. ISLAM IN THE WEST (Leibler, Kern, Steyn, Ibrahim, Robbins, Dardick, Fjordman)
  3. MUSLIM PRACTICES, IDENTITY AND IDEOLOGY (Chesler, Baker, Perlmutter, Ibrahim, Rhode, Landes)
  4. EXPLOSIVE GROWTH OF TERRORISM IN THE MIDDLE EAST (Merkley, Nisman, Spyer, Taheri, Soffer, Kedar, Konrad)
  5. PUBLIC RELATIONS AND PROPAGANDA SECTION (Levy, Catz, Alexander, Dann)
  6. HISTORY SECTION (Medoff, Ghert-Zand, Bingham, Schwartzwald)
  7. Blog-Eds(May-June 2014)

murdered hebron yeshiva boys

IN MEMORIAM


TIME TO RETHINK

by Bernice Lipkin

As Israelis absorb the horror of the murders of the Hebron Yeshiva boys, they have drawn close together. Recognition of their kinship as a single family has blossomed. The response to learning the boys are not alive has not been rioting or violence. The mood of the country is outwardly quiet. It has become a time of reflection on what unites Jews as a people. Young and old, proudly secular and unswervingly religious, simple people and those who consider themselves sophisticated, villagers and members of the world community — they have come together in Tel-Aviv, at the Kotel, in large groups and small around the country, to pray for the safety of the boys, to mourn their deaths.

For individuals, it's been an acknowledgment and an affirmation of a common identity. A bonding. Its effect on governmental policy, in contrast, is ambiguous at best. Cynics can be forgiven for suggesting that the government's hustle and bustle, its huffing and puffing, is cosmetic. Israeli Arabs are increasingly more assertive, more demanding, more arrogant. But the inertia of the Government is profound. It continues to mouth obsolete notions that peace is attainable - we just have to try a little harder to find the right approach. And when they are honest, the politicians admit to being more afraid of Arabs rioting than Jews crying.

Yet this could be an interval to reassess the effectiveness of the Jewish state's response to Arab violence these past years. That resurgent Islam has grown in confidence and has attempted more and more acts of unbelievable evil is too in-the-face to ignore. Now is a good time to ask whether Israel's policies need reformulating to handle the spreading chaos.

What is an appropriate response to the ever more harrowing attacks on Jews?

READ MORE
hrrule

REALLY REALLY HARD

by Steven Plaut

Steven Plaut said of this essay, posted a day after the bodies of the three teenagers were discovered on June 30, 2014 and three days after the IDF entered Gaza: "Three days of intensive military action in Gaza with virtually no terrorists killed? More 'signaling that Israel is deadly serious'? Yes, we are back to the RRH doctrine." This essay on the Really Really Hard Doctrine (RRH) was published in 2005. It is still right on the mark. That in itself speaks volumes about what is wrong with the IDF's genteel designed-to-fail approach to stopping local terrorism.

READ MORE
hrrule

THE TIME FOR MEANINGFUL ACTION HAS COME

by David Solway

In response to the kidnapping-murder of Eyal, Gilad and Naftali, the people of Israel have come together in uncommon nationalistic unity. But, as David Solway writes, the extreme Left-wingers and Jewish Jew-hating NGOs such as the New Israel Fund and J Street continue to advocate measures the serve the Arabs. The local Arabs demonstrate their attitude towards peace with the Jews by three-finger hand waving, jubilation and handing out candy. The government, too, has acted as if it were business as usual. It has issued meaningless threats; it temporizes; it continues to threaten IDF soldiers with punishment should they even start to think their lives are worth more than the life of an Arab child proudly serving as shield to his terrorist Daddy or Mommy. It is time to change strategies. Solway suggests, among other necessary measures, that "[t]here is, really, no other effective way of dealing with a musteline pack of jihadist predators and barbarians than to credibly threaten it with extinction." And if nothing changes, something will change: the local Arabs will become bolder and bloodier.

READ MORE
hrrule


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Editor's Note:

Think-Israel tends to use salafist rather than extremist or Islamist or militant or fundamentalist to describe generically a pious Muslim, one who sticks as closely as possible to the unfiltered words and actions of Mohammad and the first three generations of Muslims, including, especially, the Companions of the Prophet. In modeling himself as closely as he can on the preachings and practices of Mohammad, a Salafist can in modern terms be precisely described as an uninhibited terrorist, a political supersessionist who believes his religion must dominate and a social barbarian. Thanks to the high quality of white wash supplied by Islamic propagandists, he seldom is so described.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ISLAM IN THE WEST

In this section, we examine some areas where Islam has impacted Western host countries negatively, yet the West continues to ignore the danger. A major cause for concern is the increase in radicalization of Westernized Muslims. Yet little has been done to counter Salafist proselytizing at local mosques and mullahs preaching fundamentalism on the internet. European administrators are reluctant to make any effort, let alone a strong one, to confront Muslim hostility and bullying behavior. They do, in fact, invent excuses for Muslim behavior that Muslims find annoying. A case in point is the Western invention of the 'Moderate Muslim' to describe a pious Muslim who believes in tolerance of all religions — though this is a contradiction in terms. Expanding on this, they claim the majority of Muslims are moderate. Western administrations are also often energetic in reinforcing the Muslim's hatred of Jews — to the point that more and more Jews are leaving Western Europe. But given the general hatred of Salafists for Western culture, siding with Islam against Judaism won't protect Europe's Christians from their Muslim neighbors.


Return to What We Are Talking About

AS EUROPE SLIDES INTO A DARK AGE, JEWS MUST REVIEW THEIR FUTURE

Isi Leibler

In plain language, Isi Leibler explains why Jewish life in Europe has become problematic. As he writes, "... although 70 percent of the French population fear Islamic domination, that has not stemmed the tide of traditional anti-Semitism... What is more depressing is that, as a rule, the public is even more anti-Semitic than the government and perceives Israel as the principal source of global evil — no different to the Middle Ages when the Jews were regarded as the source of all natural disasters such as plagues and famine."

READ MORE
hrrule

A MONTH OF ISLAM IN EUROPE: APRIL 2014

by Soeren Kern

Soeren Kern provides us with a snapshot of some of the incidents that happened in the month of April of this year in the European countries. They have in common that all involved Muslims. In addition to the usual rapes and vandalism, Muslims distributed anti-Jewish books and attacked Jews, collected charity money for Hezbollah, and attacked churches. The police were able (or were not able) to stop Muslims leaving the country to participate in jihad in the Middle East and Africa. Muslim groups lobbied for expanding the teaching of Islam in schools, while in Lutheran Finland, administrators worried that singing a Christian song during school ceremonies might offend the Muslims. A new law allows Swedes to be put on trial for the heinous crime of criticizing Islam. Muslim immigration in general is high, while in Sweden emigration by natives has increased considerably.

READ MORE
hrrule

HASHTAG DIPLOMACY

by Mark Steyn

When empty gestures and polished phrases via the social media outlets substitute for effective action, we call it Hashtag diplomacy. Mark Steyn comments on a recent example: the First Lady showed she cares about the kidnapping of young girls by Boko Haram by posing with a hashtag on a poster. This is useless as a rescue effort. Steyn calls it "moral preening." The hashtag as non-action action serves as graphic imagery for the general lethargy that characterizes the way administrators in the West are handling Muslim demands and anti-social behavior. European school administrators respond to the harassing and even the stabbing of Jewish school children by Muslims by suggesting the Jewish children keep a low profile. Schools have stopped teaching the Holocaust and the Crusades, because these subjects offend the Muslim community. It's just too much trouble to fight Muslim anger and dissatisfaction. And this, while the percent of Muslims in the population is still relatively low.

READ MORE
hrrule

THE 'RADICALIZATION' OF WESTERN MUSLIMS

by Raymond Ibrahim

Raymond Ibrahim and many others write about the fallacy of assuming there exists a group of Muslims who are deeply religious but practice a moderate form of Islam. As he put it in a recent article, "'moderate Islam' is an oxymoron." Nevertheless, with pious certainty but no factual underpinnings, Western media and academia continue to claim, "'True' Islam ... is intrinsically free of anything 'bad.' It's the nut-jobs who hijack it for their own agenda that are to blame." While the public is diverted to focus on the hunt for the moderate Muslim, it has ignored a real danger to Western society: the radicalization of Muslims born in the West. The native-born children of immigrant Muslims are much more apt to harass non-Muslims, commit robberies and become jihadists than their parents. This goes against the politically correct piety that given economic opportunities and freedom, jihad will wither away. It won't. In fact, given greater resources and less fear of consequences, it will expand.

READ MORE
hrrule

WHEN TERRORISTS BECOME PHARMACISTS

James S. Robbins

It is fairly well-known That Muslim groups that front for Muslim terrorists are involved in smuggling and selling illegal drugs. What is novel is that terrorist groups are now manufacturing and/or repackaging legal drugs. James Robbins describes how Hezbollah is using the skills and resources it developed to smuggle cigarettes, diamonds, cars and drugs to distributing legal medications. And it has started manufacturing some of them — without supervision or regulation.

READ MORE
hrrule

THE MYTH OF THE MODERATE MUSLIM MAJORITY

by Fred Dardick

Westerners invented the sub-genre, the Moderate Muslim — defined as a Muslim who believes and conforms strictly to Mohammad's words and deeds yet is tolerant of neighbors with different ideas. They ignore that pious Muslims deny that a pious Muslim can accept that Jews and Christians and Buddhists and Hindus are equal to a Muslim. Westerners not only believe in the Moderate Muslim but they claim that very few Muslims are radicalized, i.e., believe strictly in what the Holy Books of Islam preach. Fred Dardick demonstrates that Westerners haven't got this right, either.

READ MORE
hrrule

OPTIMISM OR CARELESSNESS?

by Fjordman

The centuries-old goal of Islamic theology "for Islam to be triumphant across the entire world, including Europe and the Western world" is often dismissed as anti-Islam conspiracy theory. The mainstream media often omits mentioning that the WHO doing the robbery, murder or arson is a Muslim. In the USA, when members of terrorist fronts hob-nob with administration officials, even in the White House itself, it is treated as another social event. In this essay, Fjordman takes the pulse of various European countries and concludes that Europe has become very sick from massive Muslim legal and illegal immigration. Western administrators, opinion makers, gate-keepers, the media — the white corpuscles of defense — don't do their job. They leave the public feeling that the major changes in demographics and culture caused by Islamic infiltration aren't a serious concern. By not presenting the facts sharply, by pooh-poohing incidents and by omitting crucial information, they give the impression that things will eventually stabilize and the Muslim immigrants will be absorbed. Actually, the rate of Islamic thuggery, rioting, murdering, vandalizing, looting, raping, blocking non-Muslims from entering Muslim-dominated parts of a city, remodeling institutions to make them Islam-friendly and modifying and/or discarding native cultural icons — i.e., colonizing Europe and marginalizing the natives — is increasing very rapidly and many Europeans are persuaded that this is a good thing. In line with this, the number of radicalized Muslims is increasing. So what does it take to make a Salafist out of a Muslim? As Fjordman writes, study the Koran [or an authentic translation] and take it seriously.

READ MORE
hrrule

CONNECTIONS BETWEEN MUSLIM PRACTICES, IDENTITY AND ISLAMIC IDEOLOGY

This section focuses on how Muslim identity and Salafist ideology continue to influence life styles and religious practices. It includes essays on what affiliations define identity. And how the honor-and-shame-based Arab culture views peace negotiations with Israel. That the Jews avoided extermination is seen as an affront. Generous terms by Israel do not wipe out the insult. In fact, the more the appeasement, the greater the insult. Only destruction of Israel by Arab efforts will soothe Arab shame.

The West may see honor killings, beheadings and shameless lies as barbaric aberrations, but Muslims proudly see them as religious practices sanctioned by Mohammad, the founder of their religion. Thus, flying in the face of known facts and ignoring Western insistence on logic and coherence, Arabs are willing to manufacture preposterous historic and geographic claims. A recent one asserts that the Palestinian Arabs predate the entry of the Biblical Jews into their land.


Return to What We Are Talking About

BOKO HARAM AND THE HISTORY OF CHILD RAPE IN JIHAD

by Phyllis Chesler

Nonie Darwish has said (see here), "It is a tragedy and a shame that it had to take the mass kidnapping and sexual enslavement of 300 Nigerian girls by Muslim jihadists for the world to finally express its outrage over Sharia's evil deeds. Similar stories of Christian girls being kidnapped, forcibly married and converted to Islam by their Muslim captors, have been a reality for decades. But unfortunately, and tragically, they have been ignored by our mainstream media." In this article, Phyllis Chesler provides us with a concise but clear history and context of this horrifying practice. [As an update, some 60 girls have escaped but the others were sold into sexual slavery or forced into marriage with Muslims. The going rate is said to be $12 USD per girl.]

READ MORE
hrrule

CHANGING THE HISTORICAL NARRATIVE: SAEB EREKAT'S NEW SPIN

Amb. Alan Baker

Alan Baker provides us with excellent information on the Arab invasion and immigration into the Land of Israel over the centuries. This is in context of an examination into the recent assertions of Palestinian Arab leaders that their ancestors were the ancient Canaanites, hence, they predate the Jews in the Land of Israel. While this makes a tidy case for historic ownership of the land (although inconsistently they arbitrarily dismiss Jewish ancestral claims), if true, it would also prove the so-called Palestinians are not Arabs from the Arabian Peninsula, not descendants of the original followers of Islam and not kin to the Arabs who conquered the land, thus, from a Muslim point of view, making it Arab Islamic territory forever. I should think one could argue further that if it weren't for Israel's strong protection of their human and civil rights, these "Canaanites" would be in the position of the original Egyptians, the Egyptian Copts, who live as third-class citizens in a state ruled by non-Egyptian Arabs. In other words, their historicity by itself would give them little political advantage, whereas the claim by the Jews to their homeland is not only backed by the Bible and history, but by international law and conquest.

Currently, a strong claim of ancient historical rights might be useful, considering that it is beginning to be recognized that the majority of Palestinian Arabs didn't come into Mandated Palestine until after the Jews came in large numbers to redeem their homeland. It does have the problem that the Jews killed off the ancient Canaanites. But who ever claimed that logic and consistency were necessary when making a pro-Palestinian point?

READ MORE
hrrule

JIHADIST TROPHIES OF WAR

by Dawn Perlmutter

Jihadists see such acts as beheading and eating the enemy's liver as trophies of war, where trophies may be physical parts of the body or captured women, who are used as sex slaves. Dawn Perlmutter writes that photography has become a more recent way to prove victory. Videotaping atrocities has become popular, with many hostages slaughtered and beheaded to provide a cast for future films. Perlmutter points out that Western analysts are wrong to treat the taking of trophies as deviant behavior. It is, as Perlmutter points out, authentic Islam. As another example of Western misapprehension, putting atrocities onto tape isn't "intended as a justification for his actions it is a recruitment video, a brilliant piece of propaganda that will appeal to sexually frustrated men who will join the fight just so they can engage in morally sanctioned sex.[...] Al Qaeda understands that sex, violence, heroism and other rewards of battle sells. The history of Islam is a history of trophies of war."

READ MORE
hrrule

ISLAM'S 'PROTESTANT REFORMATION'

by Raymond Ibrahim

In a sense, Islam has already had a reformation — salafism is a point-by-point attempt to mimic the ways of the originator of the religion. Its practitioners wish to improve religious practice by being more like the early practitioners. But reformation has produced different behavior patterns in Muslims than in Christians, because, as Raymond Ibrahim points out, the fundamentals of the religions are different. Christianity preaches love — even if it doesn't always practice it. Islam began by preaching submission to the commands of Allah as demonstrated by Mohammad. Any softening of behavior is a weakness when measured by the original Islamic standards. Civility and tolerance are considered "compromises and half measures." They will always be "vulnerable to challenge by purists," the real reformers. So it is that the true reformers, the Salafists, instead of shedding barbaric behavior and becoming more tolerant, have come ever closer to the brutal behavior and intolerant attitudes of the founder of Islam.

READ MORE
hrrule

IDENTITY AND LOYALTY IN ISLAM AND THE MIDDLE EAST

by Harold Rhode

For Muslims in the Middle East, as Harold Rhode writes, "religion and political identity almost always trump everything else—including citizenship." Allegiance to a particular state has never replaced identity by religious sect: Sunni versus Shiite "is probably the most important over-arching identity throughout the Muslim world". Other associations also define identity. When parents are from different ethnic groups, family identity is via the father. As Rhode writes, "Identity is not a matter of choice. A man is what his father is and a woman is what her husband is." Conversion to Islam is easy; conversion from Islam "is punishable by death." Another major factor contributing to the Muslim's sense of identity is his extended family: his tribe, his clan, his family. Altogether, identity in the Middle East is complicated and very different from Western ways of placing oneself in time and place.

READ MORE
hrrule

WHY THE ARAB WORLD IS LOST IN AN EMOTIONAL NAKBA, AND HOW WE KEEP IT THERE

by Richard Landes

Western culture is guilt-based, where morality — doing what is right and what is wrong — is determined by a set of coherent and interlocking behavioral precepts and commandments set by God. They are to be followed, whether the action becomes known to others or not. Arab culture, in contrast, is shame- and honor-driven, meaning that the individual responds with shame when he knows his actions are, or would be, judged negatively by his group. Situations are more context-dependent. Consistency between activities isn't important. Essentially, good behavior is modeled on what Mohammad, God's prophet, did and said. Richard Landes notes that the defeat of seven Arab armies in 1948 by Jews, who had been dhimmis to Islam for centuries, was an affront to Arab honor, that Arabs still feel the need to avenge. In guilt societies, the individual tends to blame himself; in the shame societies, he blames others. As we have seen, the Arabs blame the Jews for their defeat. That the Arabs were the ones to start the war by invading Israel is irrelevant. The same urgency to punish Israel for not allowing itself to be destroyed is at work in the large — to assuage Muslim anger and shame, Islam must dominate the entire world. Offerings of appeasement and compromise by other countries and cultures are not insufficient, they are dangerous steps going in the wrong direction.

READ MORE
hrrule

THE EXPLOSIVE GROWTH OF TERRORISM IN THE MIDDLE EAST

In modern times, ever since the oil-rich countries in the Middle East acquired a never-ending supply of money and the human engineering resources their money can buy, they have promoted different styles of salafist Islam around the world by infiltrating foreign governmental infra-structure, donating to foreign educational institutions, investing in the arts, networking with politicians, religious leaders and financiers and creating huge media propaganda mills, which include clerics to convert less religious Muslims. These 'peaceful' methods are supplemented by sending out colonizing immigrants especially to Europe in overwhelming numbers. The massive propaganda campaign involving churches and academia to demonize Israel is intended to crush a major block to Islamic ambitions. Small and large acts of overt terrorism are increasing globally. Muslim terrorists are being 'trained' in the Middle East wars and return to practice their trade in their native countries, including Israel.

Activities to re-establish a global Caliphate have resurfaced among the Sunnis, this time anchored in plentiful resources. Salafist terror groups are bringing the fight back into their home countries. They view the breakdown of governments in the Middle East, hostilities between Shiites and Sunnis and the waffling weakness of the West as their opportunity to take over territory for the Caliphate. And they have the necessary support of the majority of Muslims. As Andrew Bostom put it, "2/3s of Muslims from Morocco to Indonesia want a Caliphate. Post U.S. liberation of their countries, 91% of Iraqis and 99% of Afghans want sharia." Among Muslims, there is "the overwhelming desire for application of the Sharia—Islam's liberty-crushing, religio-political totalitarian system that encompasses the smallest details of religious practice, to the largest issues of politics." (See www.andrewbostom.org, June 21, 2014.)

It may seem surprising that Muslims support the idea of a Caliphate, which would bring back the good old days of unquestioned male dominance, illiteracy for women, strict theocratic regulation of every facet of life, and harsh punishments. How will that differ from what many Muslim-majority countries now have? In the Caliphate, Muslims will dominate not only the minority ethnic groups in their own countries but everyone in all countries.


Return to What We Are Talking About

THE SHIA AND SUNNI FEUD

by Paul Merkley

Paul Merkley has an excellent section of the origins of the Shia-Sunni quarrel, essentially a difference of opinions on who was most worthy to carry on after Mohammad, a quarrel that hasn't been resolved in some 1400 years. The recent meeting in Geneva of Iran and the Western countries on curtailing Iran's nuclear program made it obvious that, barring the unexpected, the US has given Iran the green light to develop nuclear weaponry. For the Jews, Geneva confirmed that "the moment has come to compensate for the reduction of America's commitment to its security by 'seeking new allies.'" The Saudis voiced their understanding that the change in the American Administration's attitude meant that Persia was the enemy to focus on, not Israel. It isn't that they like Israel any better. But as the hatred between the Sunnis and the Shiites continues to intensify, they fixate on each other. To utter a soul-satisfying insult, one side has to accuse the other of conniving with Israel, of being a tool of the Zionists.

READ MORE
hrrule

EGYPT'S THREE-PART TERRORISM THREAT AND WHAT CAN BE DONE TO STOP IT

by Daniel Nisman

Daniel Nisman points out that although Egypt's al-Sisi has contained, or perhaps even crippled, the Muslim Brotherhood, the Jihadi threat has expanded and is coming from the Sinai Peninsula, Cairo and neighboring Syria. "For now, Sisi and the transitional government have only to thank the staunchly anti-Brotherhood Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Kuwait for keeping Egypt's economy on life support, allowing it to continue its one-foot-after-the-other counter-terrorism campaign." But to counter terrorism long term will require new tactics, such as amnesty and jihadist rehabilitation, as well as engaging the cooperation of the local community.

READ MORE
hrrule

IS SAUDI ARABIA SHIFTING COURSE TOWARDS IRAN?

by Jonathan Spyer

The Sunni Saudis and the Shiite Iranians have been the lead players in Sunni-Shiite confrontations in the Middle East. But the Saudis are dependent on the USA to protect them from invasions and take-overs. With Prez Obama cuddling up to Iran, it would appear according to those who read political entrails that King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia may be reversing his adamant rejection of Iran's nuclear ambitions and most any other grand regional plans Iran has in the works. Jonathan Spyer's take is that Abdullah will be accommodating — minimally. This suggests Abdullah is treading water, waiting for a more astute US leadership to take over — hopefully, before Iran acquires nuclear weaponry and dominates the Middle East.

READ MORE
hrrule

THE MAD DREAM OF A DEAD EMPIRE THAT UNITES ISLAMIC REBELS

by Amir Taheri

The salafist JundAllah is a world-wide Sunni organization that is fighting to reestablish the Islamic Caliphate. One of its branches [Da'esh or Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS)] has been increasing its holdings rapidly in both countries to the point that the media have started taking notice. Amir Taheri believes they share with al-Qaeda, Boko Haram and the Iranian mullahs inter alia political ambitions, where "God plays a cameo role at best." What is certain is they split the world up into three segments: the 57 Muslim-majority countries; countries that Muslims have ever ruled, even briefly; and the outliers such as America and Japan, that were never part of the caliphate. The main point of contention is who will be Caliph?

READ MORE
hrrule

WHO ARE THE SYRIAN REBELS? ARE THEY A THREAT TO ISRAEL?

by Ari Soffer

As part of the assertion that Islam is a religion of peace, George W Bush reduced the size of our terrorist enemies to a small cadre — a resolute headman Osama bin Laden by name and his throat-slitting band of al-Qaeda men. Later, Obama reduced the number of enemy terrorists to one - Osama himself. Obama was finally forced to concur with the military that it was the right time and place to take out Osama. Once the raid succeeded, he took full credit. The root was dead. The few remaining terrorists would soon abandon the fight. To those that believed him, it may come as a surprise that, instead of withering away, the number of Salafists and the number of Salafist groups has grown tremendously — there is said to be around 100,000 fighters, members of 1000 terrorist groups of varying size and different affiliations, in Syria alone (Jane's, September 2013).. Ari Soffer describes the major squabbling gangs that, lumped together, are the Syrian rebels. Ideological clones, they often disagree on who to kill first and the degree of barbarity to unleash. For Israel, the major issue is: which ones among them are most likely to have Israel on their priority kill list. Most appear too busy fighting the Syrian government and the Shiites to waste time on Israel. But ISIS and al-Qaeda have links with jihadi groups in Gaza and the Sinai and several of the groups have made forays into Lebanon to attack Hezbollah, which sides with Iran.

READ MORE
hrrule

WHY THE SAUDIS AND MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD HATE EACH OTHER

by Mordechai Kedar

This article is indicative of what may be viewed as a counter trend to cooperation among the terrorists, and among their State supporters. As terrorist groups multiply, they maintain their goals, but squabbles among them can grow to deadly confrontations. Similarly, terrorist supporters often have a falling out. The Saudis and the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) were and are strong supporters of universal sharia law by whatever means are at hand, including terrorism. As Mordechai Kedar notes, "Saudi Arabia was once a safe haven for Muslim Brotherhood leaders who fled persecution in Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Iraq. Now the Saudis are pouring money into Sisi's regime in order to destroy them." It is true the Saudis and the MB vie for supremacy; they have different attitudes about the role of religion; and they view the West differently. Until recently, these differences haven't seemed strong enough to disrupt their similar goals and religious ideology: both are Sunni and both actively propagandize for a strict adherence to the Koran. Nevertheless, they no longer cooperate in projects and their hostility is more open and unrestrained. Kedar discusses why that is.

READ MORE
hrrule

LET THEM KILL EACH OTHER

Mike Konrad

How should the West solve the Shiite Sunni feud? Mike Konrad has a simple solution: Do nothing. Let them kill each other. It may not work. It probably won't. But what has?

READ MORE
hrrule

PUBLIC RELATIONS AND PROPAGANDA SECTION

The pro-Palestinian gang-up on Israel comes from many sources. In this issue, we look at a few of them: pseudo-tourist groups, academics, magazines. Jews are often in the leadership of those attacking Israel. And even the Red Cross has lent a hand.


Return to What We Are Talking About

NEW YORKER BLOG DRIPS WITH HATRED OF ISRAEL

by Sarit Catz

Sarit Catz reports on a New Yorker article by Bernard Avishai about Israel's Independence Day. In Israel, Yom Haatzmaut is a joyous occasion with bitter-sweet memories, particularly as it is positioned just after the Day of Remembrance when Israelis mourn the victims of terror and their soldiers who died defending them. Since The New Yorker, once blithe and amusing, became self-consciously didactic, it is probably not surprising that it did not deviate by a nuance from the ugly view of Israel promulgated by the Left, where The New Yorker places itself politically. But the tone of the article is monotonically nasty, the condemnation shrill and context-free and the error rate extremely high. Considering that part of The New Yorker's sales pitch is its supposed sophistication, why do they publish Avishai, who has been making the same not only false but boring and discredited arguments for some four decades? As Catz suggests, "it is time for The New Yorker to find someone else to write about Israel."

READ MORE
hrrule

JEWS AGAINST THEMSELVES: THE BDS MOVEMENT AND MODERN APOSTASY

by Edward Alexander

Using Vassar as example, Edward Alexander describes the anti-Israel atmosphere that predominates there as on many a campus. It is almost not to be believed that Vassar, which once preened itself on its intellectual standards, now not only tolerates but admires crude anti-Israel promoters, who win by intimidation and thuggery, not by clear thinking or factual foundations. Unfortunately, this type of discourse isn't confined to a small group of ignorant students but appears to represent the one-sided way many of the staff present academic material on Israel. Jewish professors — including the head of the Jewish Studies Program — are to be found among those that have decided Israel is singularly evil and act on this belief. If there are those that disagree, they are most mousy quiet.

Alexander makes the point that hatred of Judaism by Jews has taken various forms over the centuries. Today, vilifying Israel appears to be the most satisfying way to handle incompatibility between their natural identity and the attitudes they need to adopt to be considered liberal. It is not surprising that "the leaders of [the BSD] movement are 'disproportionately,' if not preponderantly, Jewish apostates ..." One wonders what they are trying to destroy by trying to destroy Israel.

READ MORE
hrrule

THE ICRC AND 'THE LAW'

by Moshe Dann

Moshe Dann writes that the International Red Cross (ICRC), in the person of Anton Camen, decided "unilaterally and arbitrarily" and incorrectly that Israel was violating international law and, in taking possession of Samaria and Judea, was occupying land belonging to the Palestinian Arabs. The poorly constructed arguments are easily demolished. Nevertheless, even though legal savvy isn't ICRC's strong point, "because the ICRC has official 'observer' status at the UN and is affiliated with most other international organizations, its decisions are considered authoritative — and are therefore unquestioned." Note that material on Israel's strong legal claims can be found in the Levy Report (see for example, here). A more general understanding of the international law that granted Samaria and Judea to the Jewish People can be found in Think-Israel articles by Howard Grief and by Wallace Brand on the San Remo conference.

READ MORE
hrrule

HISTORY SECTION

For additional historical insights into pre-World War 2 Jewry, we recommend you take a look at the collection of photographs taken by Nazi soldiers of small Jewish towns in Poland. (The photos are from the Knesset Photo Exhibit and are online at
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/180008.)
Also look at:
http://www.eretzyisroel.org/~dhershkowitz/pic43b.jpg, a collection of photos of the Holy Land during the 1800s and early 1900s, with photos listed by geographic area by David Hershkowitz. What is striking in the older pictures is the poverty of the people, the emptiness of the land and the paucity of buildings and people. It was an archeological treasure and a living hellhole.
Read "The True Identity of the so-called Palestinians" at http://palestineisraelconflict.wordpress.com/2014/03/17/the-true-identity-of-the-so-called-palestinians/
and
Louis René Beres, "Israel's Survival Imperatives: The Oslo Agreements in International Law and National Strategy," ACPR Policy Paper No. 25 (1998), http://www.acpr.org.il/pp/pp025-beresE.pdf


Return to What We Are Talking About

D-DAY AND THE BOMBING OF AUSCHWITZ

by Rafael Medoff

The non-bombing of the Auschwitz Concentration Camp during World War 2 is another of the bleak "if only...." events of that time. The strike could have been made from Italy and the Allies had already started a scheduled bombing of a cluster of synthetic oil factories that the Germans set up in that area, close to where the death camp prisoners were housed. We now know more about the lack of support in the West for saving Jews. The Camp should have been bombed. But it wasn't. Rafael Medoff tells us why.

READ MORE hrrule

HOLOCAUST WHISTLEBLOWER JAN KARSKI HONORED BY GEORGETOWN

by Renee Ghert-Zand

Renee Ghert-Zand writes that the commemoration of Jan Karski's 100th birthday at Georgetown University. Karski witnessed the wholesale murder of Jews and on July 28, 1943, he told the USA President, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, what he'd seen. To no avail. After the war Karski taught at Georgetown U, committed to perpetuating the memory of the Holocaust victims.

READ MORE
hrrule

THE JEWISH CONTRIBUTION TO D-DAY: A PERSONAL ACCOUNT

by Walter Bingham

During World War 2, on June 6, 1944, the Allies landed massive forces on the Normandy coast, opening a second front in their fight against Nazi Germany. It was the beginning of the end of the war. Walter Bingham was one of the troops. In this essay, he writes of how much the Jews who were lucky enough to escape the Nazis and reach England contributed to the war effort. Those with German or Austrian passports were treated as enemy aliens early in the war; they weren't trusted with weaponry and were given low-skills jobs. But eventually, they, and Jewish refugees from other European countries, were able to put their skills and training to use. They were interpreters and teachers. And many became soldiers, where they were in double jeopardy. Aside from the usual hazards of war, "if they were captured, they would be executed as spies and traitors. Not to mention what would have happened to them had they been discovered to be Jews."

READ MORE
hrrule

UNRAVELING THE HISTORY OF THE ISRAELI NAVY

by Jack L. Schwartzwald

Jack Schwartzwald writes of the Israeli Navy, using anecdotes to highlight its history. He writes of men who shaped the force, including Paul Shulman, an American who intended a career in the US Navy but who in the 1940s helped smuggle Jews from Europe who were interned by the British in post-war camps in Cyprus. From fumbles and mis-starts, by the end of the Six Day War, Israel's navy had both conventional boats and a daring commando group of frogmen. Innovative refinements and novel usage of their equipment were the hallmarks of the Navy's successful performance during the Yom Kippur War, when the emphasis was on protecting the large percent of the population concentrated along the coastal plain. In the 1970s and '80s, they were successful in shoring up coastal defense to contend with PLO terrorists raids, usually striking from Lebanon. From the 1990's on, the Navy's improved and modernized arsenal has seen much action. Intercepting terrorist arms shipments is routine and blockading entrance to Gaza necessary. As part of their vigilance, in 2010, they fought Turkish terrorists by boarding one of a flotilla of boats engaged in high-visibility propaganda, bringing out-of-date medical supplies and banned equipment to Gaza. And, as Schwatzwald points out, "The recent discovery of offshore gas fields has placed novel defense responsibilities on the Israeli Navy..."

READ MORE
hrrule

May-June 2014 BLOG-EDS

 This is where our readers get a chance to write opinions and editorials and share articles they find informative. The Blog-Eds page for the month is updated every few days.

There is a separate file that is the index for the articles on the Blog-Ed page. You can access an article immediately from this index by clicking on the item in the index.

To access the Index, click the "Blog-Eds List" box in the Blue Strip on the top of the Blog-Ed page.

Please note that The Blog-Ed pages for May and June 2014 are not currently available.

Different Blog Ed pages will be down intermittently until the Archive structure is in place. We apologize for the inconvenience.

Return to Feature Index hrrule
NOTE: There is no March-April 2014 issue.
FEATURED STORIES

January-February 2014

What we are talking about in the January–February 2014 Issue

  1. IT'S 2014. (Hammond, Carter, Cooper )
  2. PALESTINIAN ARABS TRYING TO STEAL JEWISH LAND AND JEWISH HISTORY (Galili, Cherson and Molschky, Bukay, Cohen, Fawstin, Sharpe, Bukay)
  3. CHURCHES AND ISRAEL (MacEoin, Appelbaum, Levy, Nicholson, Merkley)
  4. CHAOTIC ENEMIES. FAIR-WEATHER FRIENDS. TIME FOR ISRAEL TO GROW UP? (Devolin, Goldman, Juarez, Brand, Gvitzman, Green, Inbar)
  5. ISRAEL'S PEACEFUL NEIGHBORS (Burr, Durie, Greenfield, al-Qaeda map, Ibrahim, Vadum, Glick, Monroe-Hamilton, Ehrenfeld, Lewis, Spyer, Bardos)
  6. PUBLIC RELATIONS SECTION (Fawstin, Halevi and Yashar, Lademain, Solomon, Hazony)
  7. HISTORY SECTION (Lebor, Rennell, Honig, Rosenberg)
  8. BLOG-EDS (January-February Blog-Eds)


Every so often, at the beginning of a new year, we reprint a report connecting the increase in size of the Muslim population in a host country and the increase in Muslim aggressiveness. Last year, "Overview Of Islamic Takeover" by Professor Butrick made the point by estimating when the size of the Muslim population encourages Muslims to become more and more assertive in the USA. (Read Overview Of Islamic Takeover here.)  Starting with the September-October, 2013 issue, we serialized R.K. Ohri's book The Long March of Islam, which, chapter by chapter, meticulously examined the impact of a growing Muslim population on Hindu India. This year we repeat what was part of a blog-ed by Steven Shamrak in January 2010:

Progression of Islamic Expansionism
Extracted from Dr. Peter Hammond's book, Slavery, Terrorism and Islam: The Historical Roots and Contemporary Threat.

Islamization begins when there are sufficient Muslims in a country to agitate for their religious privileges. When politically correct, tolerant, and culturally diverse societies agree to Muslim demands for their religious privileges, some of the other components tend to creep in as well. Here's how it works:

As long as the Muslim population remains around or under 2% in any given country, they will be for the most part be regarded as a peace-loving minority, and not as a threat to other citizens. This is the case in:

United States- Muslim 0.6%
Australia ------- Muslim 1.5%
Canada -------- Muslim 1.9%
China ----------- Muslim 1.8%
Italy ------------- Muslim 1.5%
Norway ---------Muslim 1.8%

At 2% to 5%, they begin to proselytize other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups, often with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs. This is happening in:

Denmark --------- Muslim 2%
Germany --------- Muslim 3.7%
Spain -------------- Muslim 4%
Thailand ---------- Muslim 4.6%
United Kingdom--- Muslim 2.7%

From 5% on, they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population. For example, they will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature halal on their shelves — along with threats for failure to comply. This is occurring in:

France -------------- Muslim 8%
Sweden ------------ Muslim 5%
The Netherlands --- Muslim 5.5%

At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves (within their ghettos) under Sharia, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islamists is to establish Sharia law over the entire world.

When Muslims approach 10% of the population, they tend to increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions. In Paris, we are already seeing car-burnings. Any non-Muslim action offends Islam, and results in uprisings and threats, such as in Amsterdam, with opposition to Mohammad cartoons and films about Islam. Such tensions are seen daily, particularly in Muslim sections, in:

Guyana — Muslim 10%
India ------ Muslim 13.4%
Israel ----- Muslim 16%
Kenya ---- Muslim 10%
Russia --- Muslim 15%

After reaching 20%, nations can expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings, and the burnings of Christian churches and Jewish synagogues, such as in:

Ethiopia --- Muslim 32.8%

At 40%, nations experience widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks, and ongoing militia warfare, such as in:

Bosnia ---- Muslim 40%
Chad ------ Muslim 53.1%
Lebanon — Muslim 59.7%

From 60%, nations experience unfettered persecution of nonbelievers of all other religions (including nonconforming Muslims), sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon, and Jizya, the tax placed on infidels, such as in:

Albania --- Muslim 70%
Malaysia — Muslim 60.4%
Qatar ----- Muslim 77.5%
Sudan ---- Muslim 70%

After 80%, expect daily intimidation and violent jihad, some State-run ethnic cleansing, and even some genocide, as these nations drive out the infidels, and move toward 100% Muslim, such as has been experienced and in some ways is ongoing in:

Egypt -------- Muslim 90%
Indonesia --- Muslim 86.1%
Iran ---------- Muslim 98%
Iraq ---------- Muslim 97%
Jordan ------ Muslim 92%
Pakistan ---- Muslim 97%
Syria -------- Muslim 90%

100% will usher in the peace of 'Dar-es-Salaam' — the Islamic House of Peace. Here there's supposed to be peace, because everybody is a Muslim, the Madrasses are the only schools, and the Koran is the only word, such as in:

Afghanistan — Muslim 100%
Saudi Arabia — Muslim 100%
Somalia ------- Muslim 100%
Yemen -------- Muslim 100%

This year we add two other topics of consequence. The first is the story with the most misshapen mislabeling in years: the Fort Hood massacre. To describe it as workplace violence is wrong on so many levels. Take it as a glaring sign that our leaders haven't a clue to what is going on or they think that we don't. Or both. The label acts as a benchmark showing the high degree of contempt our politicos have for us ordinary citizens. They longer seem to need to hide their cynicism; they believe we are willing to believe anything. It highlights that our military has been cowed into ignoring obvious signs of radicalization and isn't yet allowed to switch to sensible action and rational thought. It certainly shows a lack of respect by the administration for our military, and a lack of self-respect in some of the army's higher echelon — both are bad relationships, especially now. Most of all, it is simply insane-asylum moronic. The second story is our candidate for the topic most guaranteed to give you nightmares as our Secretary-of-State and our Prez pirouette around the globe, ignoring what's important, ignoring that Iran will soon have nuclear weaponry and can't wait to use them.


Return to What We Are Talking About

HOW OBAMA AND THE ARMY BETRAYED THE VICTIMS OF FORT HOOD

by Sara Carter

Many events ignored by the media have refused to fade into oblivion. As an outstanding example, Benghazi is still with us, bits and pieces dribbling out through the Administrations stonewall. But the story that wins the award of The Most Misnamed, The Most Orwellian, the most blatantly bizarre is the Fort Hood Massacre. That Major Nidal Hasan murdered a baker's dozen of people and wounded thirty-two others — awful as that was — doesn't make it outstanding. What makes it notoriously emblematic of how the Administration and the Army handle what they regard as politically sensitive is the pusillanimous way they handled Hasan. First they ignored all the signs of his instability and growing dedication to Islam. Then, after the deed was done, they dug their way further into Orwellian ThinkMode by labeling the whole thing Workplace Violence. In this article, Sara Carter tells the story properly — from the point of view of Hasan's victims and their families.

READ MORE
hrrule

OPEN LETTER ON THE THREAT FROM THE GULF OF MEXICO

by Ambassador Henry F. Cooper

For those Americans who graciously are willing to sacrifice Israel to Iran's nuclear weapons, in the unrealistic belief that we will thus gain peace in the Middle East, consider this sobering article by Ambassador Henry F. Cooper. He writes, "If you live near the Gulf of Mexico, you are the front line to an emerging existential threat to all Americans. The electromagnetic pulse (EMP) from a nuclear weapon exploded a hundred miles above the U.S. could kill 60-90 percent of all Americans. Though efforts in 2013 made progress in gaining awareness of this key problem, much remains to be done to get the powers that be to address this well-known threat that could be launched by Iran or Terrorists from a ship in the Gulf." It does put a different perspective on the Iranian threat, doesn't it?

READ MORE
hrrule

THE PALESTINIAN ARABS ARE TRYING TO STEAL JEWISH LAND AND JEWISH HISTORY

Eli E. Hertz (www.MythsandFacts.org) put it well and pithily: PALESTINE IS JEWISH. It is a fact that "51 member countries — the entire League of Nations [Today's UN] — unanimously declared on July 24, 1922: "Whereas recognition has been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country."

"The 51 member countries of the League of Nations as of July 24, 1922: Albania, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, British India, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, El Salvador, Estonia, Finland, France, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Italy, Japan, Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes, Latvia, Liberia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Persia, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Republic of China, Romania, Siam, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Union of South Africa, United Kingdom, Uruguay, and Venezuela.

"Palestine is Not a State, it is the Name of a Geographical Area.

"Palestine is a name coined by the Romans around 135 CE from the name of a seagoing Aegean people who settled on the coast of Canaan in antiquity — the Philistines. The name was chosen to replace Judea, as a sign that Jewish sovereignty had been eradicated following the Jewish Revolts against Rome. "In the course of time, the Latin name Philistia was further bastardized into Palistina or Palestine. Palestine was never a sovereign independent Arab state belonging to any people, nor did a Palestinian people distinct from other Arabs appear during 1,300 years of Muslim hegemony in Palestine under Arab and Ottoman rule. Historically, before the Arabs fabricated the concept of Palestinian peoplehood as an exclusively Arab phenomenon, no such group existed. This is substantiated in countless official British Mandate-vintage documents that speak of the Jews and the Arabs of Palestine — not Jews and Palestinians."

This section deals with setting the record straight. And it asks: what is there about the Arab character that drives their attempt to steal Jewish identity?


Return to What We Are Talking About

THE BIG MAP OF THE EMPTY LAND

by Zeev Galili

In 1878, less than a hundred and fifty years ago, what is now Israel, Gaza, Samaria, Judea and Jordan was a "desolate arid wilderness, almost empty." It was barely able to sustain the estimated 100,000 to 250,000 Arabs, Circassians, Jews, Christians and other scattered groups who lived there. Zeev Galili writes of a map done at the time, showing all the settlements and their sizes. It is a guide to a realistic estimate of the population at that time.

READ MORE
hrrule

PALESTINIANS: THE INVENTED PEOPLE

by Y.K.Cherson and Rachel Molschky

Y.K Cherson and Rachel Molschky recount the non-history of the Palestinian Arabs. They seem to have been known to no one in earlier civilizations. The Assyrians knew the Jews. They didn't know the Palestinians. The Babylonians didn't write about them. In Roman writing and sculptures and friezes, there's no mention of Palestinians. Isn't that odd, considering that the Romans and the Jews mixed it up in exactly the same spot for years? And then one day, Yasser Arafat said, "Let there be Palestinians." And the world immediately believed in this miraculous birth. There is an addendum by Dr Rivka Shpak Lissak that deals with the question: when did the Arabs come into "Palestine." Note, we said Arabs, not Palestinians.

READ MORE
hrrule

PALESTINIAN MYTHS: THE RIGHT OF RETURN OF THEIR REFUGEES

by David Bukay

David Bukay writes of a myth the Arabs have fostered: that the Arabs who fled Israel in 1948 and who were relabeled as Palestinians are entitled to return to their homes, they and their children and their grandchildren and their great grandchildren. Retroactively and much later than the events of 1948, their supposed loss of what is now the State of Israel came to be labeled nakbah, a disaster. They had no problem ignoring that the local Arabs never were in control of the land. They simply covered the facts with a fantasy that their identity, hitherto proudly Syrian, was always Palestinian. Their fantasy and their status as refugees would ordinarily have disappeared in a few years, except for the fact that they were put on life support by the UN and given an agency, UNRWA, that tends exclusively to their needs, sustaining them physically, educating them, medicating them and keeping their fantasy fresh.

READ MORE
hrrule

THE BIG LIE AND MORALITY

by David Cohen

David Cohen writes of the disparity between the real history of the Jews in Palestine, which the media ignore, and the invented history of the "Palestinians", which the media accept without asking for documentation. The Arabs have mastered the Big Lie and the elite accept it. This is immoral. If the newer generations of Arabs apparently believe their own lies and act with hostility, then, as a reader, Mark, points out, "You cannot negotiate with any entity that disrespects, hates , deceives, lies, denies, murders, falsifies and dishonours you to the extent that those within the PA leadership, terrorist groups and I warrant the majority of 'Palestinian Arabs' do. Good try, but not good enough.

READ MORE
hrrule

MUSLIM ROULETTE

Bosch Fawstin

Another popular myth — this one held by Westerners as well as being promulgated by Arabs "to make Islam appear harmless" — is that there is such a thing as a moderate Muslim. As one reader summed up this article by Bosch Fawstin, "Just as there are no such aberrations as vegetarian T-Rex, lions and leopards, so is it with moderate muslims." Fawstin own comment on the article is good advise: "We have to start with reality and go from there, not from wishful thinking."

READ MORE
hrrule

A CRIME AGAINST HISTORY AND RELIGION

by Victor Sharpe

A significant part of the Palestinian Arab campaign to separate Israelis from their homeland is to destroy Jewish holy places and historic artifacts, thus obliterating the connection between Jews and their history. Together with destroying the physical evidence of a long relationship between Jews and the land of Israel, the Arabs insist that Jews have no long-term connection with the land. Victor Sharpe tells the story of one of their lies: that there was no Temple on the Temple Mount. What is more incredible than the disrespect the Arabs show to other religions, is that the Israeli Government allows it to happen.

READ MORE
hrrule

ISLAM AND THE OTHER: THE AL-WALA' WAL-BARA' DOCTRINE

by David Bukay

What powers the Muslim's shameless attempts to destroy non-Muslims physically and culturally rather than live peaceably with them is the al-Wala' wal-Bara' doctrine. Muslims see themselves as peaceful and non-Muslims as aggressors. So Muslims must defend themselves. David Bukay describes it this way: "...Muslims can viciously attack at almost every possible opportunity while crying out they are victims of oppression and aggression. They can perpetuate obscene inhuman acts of violence, terrorize and intimidate, while they accuse the other of colonialism, apartheid, racism, and Islamophobia." In this binary world, "... it is the right against wrong; and it is the pious against the evil-doers; it is Paradise or Hell. There are no legitimacy, consensual recognition and acceptance of the other, unless he becomes Muslim or he is subdued to Islamic rule."

READ MORE
hrrule

CHURCHES AND ISRAEL

While some churches have become more obnoxious in the way they treat Israel, others have become more devoted and sincerely see Judaism as the root of their belief system. This section contrasts the two views.


Return to What We Are Talking About

A LETTER TO ST. JAMES CHURCH

by Denis MacEoin

Perhaps borrowing from Arab street drama shtick, St. James Church in London erecte