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.

 
islam will dominate world

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 most of the 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. Muslims practice terrorism, intimidation, criminal acts, hijra, taqiyya, bribery and stealth jihad in Western countries. And Muslim Sunnis and Muslim Shiites battle each other in most of the Middle East.

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 leaderhip, 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 refugees 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)
Two Imperatives: "To ensure its long term survivability as the Jewish nation-state, Israel has to deal effectively with two imperatives: The Geographic and the Demographic. The first imperative calls for Israeli control (i.e. sovereignty) over all the territory east of the coastal plain up to the Jordan River—to prevent intolerable risks to its physical survival; the second imperative calls for significant reduction of the Arab presence in the territory under Jewish sovereignty to forestall the emergence of an intolerable demographic threat to its dominant Jewish character." (Martin Sherman; see here and here.)
Read More Quotes Here
FEATURED STORIES

July-October 2017

What we are talking about in the July–October 2017 Issue

  1. Theme of this Issue (Lipkin)
  2. Muslim Apostates (Joshi, Rizvi, Silas, Muehlenberg, Cline)
  3. Converts to Islam (Esman, Hoffman, Arasli)
  4. Lone Wolf Terrorists (Lipkin, Lenarz, Poole, Goudsmit, Gartenstein-Ross)
  5. Political Islam (Medoff, Harrod, Levy, Roy, Poller, Darwish)
  6. {Palestinian Arabs On The Temple Mount (Gerstenfeld, Silverberg, Elder of Ziyon, Shulman, Frisch)
  7. Arabs In Israel And The Territories (Weinberg, Ziri, Merkley, Shragai, Joffe, Greenfield)
  8. Israel's Legal Reponse To The Arab Problem (Ettinger, Beres, Baruch, Baker)
  9. Muslims In USA (Shaw, Bergman, Spencer, Peyser, Fitzgerald)
  10. Muslims in Europe (McCarthy, Kern, Watson, Milliere, Bawer, Kouri)
  11. Public Relations (Greenfield, Klein, Cravatts, Kedar)
  12. History Section (Shragai, Ben-David, Loewenberg, Ross, Izikovich, Cohen)
  13. Blog-Eds July-October 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.


THE THEME OF THIS ISSUE
This issue is about Islam and how it affects the religious practices and lifestyles of Muslims everywhere. A Rule of Thumb that holds up well (no pun intended): the more pious the Muslim, the more likely he is to promote Islam by marginalizing the natives of his host country, by putting sharia law above the law of the land, by terrorizing the public into passivity and a willingness to be dhimmi, by insisting his demands be met and, if his scheme doesn't work, playing the victim.
Return to What We Are Talking About

MUSLIM APOSTATES

Leaving one's religion, whether to atheism or to another religion is never easy. For a Muslim, it is particularly difficult, even if the ex-Muslim is not living in a Muslim country that punishes apostasy with death. The general Muslim community has no sympathy and his family is often blamed for this, which puts another emotional burden on the apostate. The ex-Muslim is leaving not just religious values, but an entire configuration of attitudes toward his community and the outside world. Tanveer Ahmed, a psychiatrist living in Australia, has written, [It] "is one of the biggest barriers to the reform of Islam, that Muslim identity is so tightly wrapped up in the expression of self. We may see hijabs and beards as external markers but they are fashion accessories to an inner outfit of historical injustice, moral superiority and a barely disguised middle finger to Anglo-Saxon, mainstream Australia." (see here.) This set of articles deal with this issue, including two scholarly articles on apostasy in Islam, one from the Muslim perspective, one from the Christian perspective.

Return to What We Are Talking About

LEAVING ISLAM IN NORTH AMERICA

by Hrishikesh Joshi

The more a Muslim country conforms to the precepts in the Koran, the harsher the punishment for leaving Islam. Moreover, there is strong grassroots support for the death penalty for apostasy. So it is unlikely that someone leaving Islam will find support from his family, friends or community. Hrishikesh Joshi writes about leaving Islam in the West. Even in the USA and Canada, many simply hide their atheism rather than confront family pressure or hostility towards his family. Hrishikesh Joshi writes of an support organization for ex-Muslims, which helps many. Considering the hostility of many on the Left to religion in general, we'd expect liberals to support Muslims leaving the mosque. Liberals certainly applaud a Christian becoming an atheist. But the attitude toward a Muslim leaving Islam is one of suspicion and anger. The Liberal is more likely to support the religious hierarchy and deny that practices such as female genital mutilation (FGM) exists.

In a related area, this is a video where students support religious freedom for Muslims, not Christians.

READ MORE
hrrule

APOSTACY IN ISLAM

by Sayyid Muhammad Rizvi

This is an authoritative paper on the laws of apostasy, particularly as applied to a convert of Islam. It was written by Sayyid Muhammad Rizvi, a Muslim scholar. It is important in that it counteracts the glib phrases Muslim proselytizers throw around such as 'There is no compulsion in the religion.' From Rizvi, we learn the 'if's' and 'but's' that change the conditions under which this actually applies. Rizvi deals with apostasy by Muslims that sign up voluntarily or by being born into a Muslim family and then decide to leave the 'only true religion.' If you follow him on his narrow path of reasoning, it sort of makes sense, sort of, that the only punishment that can possibly apply to the ex-Muslim is death. It helps if you believe as he does that "If a person is raised in a society which protects his soul from the impurities of atheism (kufr) and polytheism (shirk), or if a person is shown the Right Path and accepts it willingly -- can such a person reject the Islamic faith?" As the Prophet Muhammad himself said, "Every child is born with the believing nature (al-fitra), it is his parents who make him into a Jew or a Christian."

READ MORE
hrrule

THE PUNISHMENT FOR APOSTASY FROM ISLAM

by Silas

This is a sister article to the one by Ayyid Muhammad Rizvi above on Islamic law on apostasy, but written from a Christian rather than a Muslim perspective. A scholar who goes by the nom de plume of Silas writes on the consequences of leaving Islam. For 1400 years, the sentence for apostasy has been clear and unambiguous: death by execution for a man, life imprisonment for a woman. They have insulted Islam.

READ MORE
hrrule

ISLAM, APOSTASY AND THE DEATH PENALTY

by Bill Muehlenberg

Bill Muehlenberg writes that there are 12 countries — all of them Islamic — that punish apostasy with the death penalty and in another, Pakistan, blasphemy is punishable by death. Every other human on the planet -- i.e. non-Muslims -- has three choices: convert to Islam, become a dhimmi (a second-class citizen) or die. That is Islam's policy. When facts on the ground become propitious, Muslims will act on what their religion requires. Muehlenberg rejects current fallacious arguments that this doesn't represent "real" Islam by citing some pertinent Islamic books. This is a shorter but information-filled essay that nicely sums up what the articles above elaborate in detail.

READ MORE
hrrule

AN UNNECESSARY DICHOTOMY

by Edward Cline

In what might well become a classic essay, Edward Cline writes about the impact of Islam on a believer, even one who later rejects it. Islam is weirdly different in its strong grip even on those who knew it only as children. His 'case study' is Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a well-known Muslim apostate and women's rights activist. In recent years, she has modified her previous outright rejection of Islam because of its practices. In 2015, Ali wrote an article suggesting that "[t]o defeat the extremists for good, Muslims must reject those aspects of their tradition that prompt some believers to resort to oppression and holy war (here). Her current suggestions are how to bring Islam into the modern era and make it, truly, a religion of peace [emphasis added]. Whatever the dynamics that are going on in Ali's psyche, as Cline makes clear, Ali can't strip Islam of its intrinsic features and expect a gutted version with no theological-political legs to stand on to attract people looking for an all-encompassing super-power that at best tells them what to do and too often gives them permission to do the monstrous things they want to do.

READ MORE
hrrule

CONVERTS TO ISLAM

It is a fact that the majority of terrorist acts are committed by converts. Why this is true is speculation based on available data. The monograph at https://www.icct.nl/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/ICCT-Schuurman-Grol-Flower-Converts-June-2016.pdf discusses the literature on the overrepresentation of "converts to Islam in Islamist militancy and foreign fighting." It tentatively proposes several hypothesis:

(1) "Most converts, radicalised or not, are disillusioned to some degree with modern or Western life and have displayed some form of anti-social or stigmatised behaviour, such as alcohol or drug abuse, before converting. Such background factors therefore do not appear to be discriminating variables when it comes to accounting for how and why some converts to Islam embrace extremism and militancy."

(2) [They are] "targeted by extremist networks" and the influence of friends and partners with radical views."

(3) "Findings also emphasize the role that "inspirational preaching" can play."

The authors of the monograph don't feel there is yet sufficient data to come to firm conclusions.

The articles in this section examine aspects of the issue. One in particular, the essay by Jahangir Arasli, integrates data and context into a coherent summary. He doesn't disagree that the future terrorist has particular stresses, but the question is: what impels him to Islam? As Arasli writes, "The problems causing this crisis might be psychological, personal, social, or of a combined nature. But whatever the source of the problem, the individuals came to see conversion to Islam as a remedial solution to their troublesome life experiences." And does he see Islam as a benign religion that will calm him or as one authorizing rage and violence? The article makes an excellent starting point for more research into a subject that we must understand because it is vital to our security.


Return to What We Are Talking About

CONVERTS TO ISLAM AS JIHADISTS

by Abigail R. Esman, July 17, 2017

Abigail R. Esman writes about American and European converts to Islam. Surprisingly, native-born converts to Islam are "are four times more likely to become terrorists than those who are born Muslims." Most of these are women. Converts, particularly women, are actively recruited by terrorists organizations because they "operate freely in Europe, Asia, and North America without arousing the suspicion of security authorities." And they recruit others. This is making for new thinking in the counter-intelligence community on how to handle this new threat.

READ MORE
hrrule

ANSWERS TO WHY PEOPLE BECOME TERRORISTS

by Bruce Hoffman

Bruce Hoffman discusses the multiple possible and probable reasons why people become terrorists. He concludes, "At the start of the war on terrorism a dozen years ago the enemy was clear and plainly in sight. It was a large terrorist organization, situated mostly in one geographic location, and it was led by an identifiable leader. Today, when the borders between domestic and international terrorism have blurred, when our adversaries are not only identifiable organizations but enigmatic individuals, a complete re-thinking of our counterterrorism policies and architecture is needed."

READ MORE
hrrule

VIOLENT CONVERTS TO ISLAM: GROWING CLUSTER AND RISING TREND

by Jahangir E. Arasli

Jahangir E. Arasli provides us with an excellent historical overview, pointing out that the 9/11 attack "marked the beginning of a new stage of overt, broad confrontation of the Global Jihad Movement (GJM) against the Western world." The membership of the GJM is planet-wide. Arasli's descriptions of individuals who converted to Islam and became jihadists illustrate the "wide range of individuals, activities, and operational patterns" in the amalgamation of future converts, converts to Islam and Muslim immigrant communities in the GJM. There is sufficient evidence to start making some general statements of who is likely to convert, why he chooses Islam and how this leads to acts of terrorism.

READ MORE
hrrule

LONE WOLF TERRORISTS


Return to What We Are Talking About

THE MYTH OF THE "LONE WOLF" TERRORIST

by Julie Lenarz

Julie Lenarz provides us with information on terrorists who were labeled 'long wolf' but were nothing of the sort. She sums up her article this way: "In an interconnected world, so-called 'lone wolf' jihadists are almost always part of a lethal pack. And they will continue prowling for prey, undeterred, until we recognize them as such." It might be hard to convince those who, despite all the evidence, cling to the belief that each act of terrorism is unique, unaffiliated, local and random.

READ MORE
hrrule

TO MAKE A WESTERNIZED TERRORIST: COMBINE RESURGENT ISLAM AND AMERICAN SOFTHEADEDNESS

by Bernice Lipkin

[This is a reposting of an article that first appeared on Think-Israel April 30, 2013. Part 5 includes a section on the economic reasons why Lone Wolf and Small Group Terrorism using locals would increase, as it has, compared to spectacular and expensive stunts like using a flotilla to gain entry to Gaza. This was the introduction:]

Bernice Lipkin examines the determined efforts of jihadists, aided and abetted by an Administration that is an adherent of the ideology of "progressivism." An unforeseen consequence has been the emergence of the Westernized Muslim terrorist, who is native to the West or who has lived here much of his life. The Lone Wolf and small group terrorists, provided they are imbued with passionate commitment, have advantages over the imported jihadist. They have local knowledge and already "fit" into the environment. The most compelling reason for large terror organizations to utilize them is that it is cost-effective. As Lipkin points out, "Supplies are cheap and terror enthusiasts are plentiful. With reduced need for a large cast, synchronous operations and complicated equipment, the 'script writer' can more easily mock up a plot to use at an oncoming event that will guarantee attention." "There is likely to be more opportunity for roughly scripted rather than rigidly choreographed direction. The field workers may be given the plot and left to work out the details. Or some tasks may be carefully timed and others left for improvisation depending on the circumstances." Until America changes its ways, Islam's activities on behalf of Islamic supersessionism will continue.

READ MORE
hrrule

'LONE WOLF,' OR 'KNOWN WOLF'? THE ONGOING COUNTER-TERRORISM FAILURE

by Patrick Poole

[This is a reposting of an article that first appeared on Think-Israel, October 24, 2014. This was the introduction:]

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

SELF-RADICALIZATION IS A LEFTIST OXYMORON

by Linda Goudsmit

The term Lone Wolf suggests that with no pre-history of radicalism or dedication to Islam or urging by his family, friends or a jihadi group, some one wakes up one morning, suddenly suffering from — as Daniel Pipes calls it — Sudden Jihad Syndrome. The opposite is true. Linda Goudsmit points out, "Radicalization is an interactive social phenomenon. Radicalization happens socially in mosques. Radicalization happens socially in cultural centers. Radicalization happens socially in prisons. Radicalization happens socially in schools. Radicalization happens socially in homes. Radicalization happens socially on social media. Radicalization is not a monologue - it is a dialogue with Islam and there are no lone wolves." She points out that what characterizes the terrorist isn't being Muslim per se. It is being Muslim, following sharia law strictly and being imbued with the desire to make the whole world Islamic; in other words, Muslim terrorists are very pious Muslims.

READ MORE
hrrule

LONE WOLVES NO MORE; THE DECLINE OF A MYTH

by Daveed Gartenstein-Ross

Daveed Gartenstein-Ross writes of the growing skepticism that a single terrorist or a small group of terrorists are unaffiliated with a larger group that bolsters their morale, acts as handlers, trains them directly or and/or provides training material and instructs them how to use the equipment they need to carry out terrorist attacks. Nevertheless, the rate of rejection of the 'Lone Wolf' myth is so slow, I fear it will be a long time before we really understand that lone wolves are the foot soldiers of groups of salafists, who may have tactical differences but who are all dedicated to total war on everyone in the world who has not yet recognized that Islam is the master religion and sharia the law that must be followed.

READ MORE
hrrule

POLITICAL ISLAM

Islam is of course a religion. It does, however, demands of its adherents that they strive to make Islam the supreme religion in the world. The consequences have been — even disregarding for a moment its encouragement of acts of terror and violence — that Islam has been intrusive, disrupting the lives of people of other religions or no religion to an extraordinary degree. This set of articles is about the political aspects of Islam and some of the ways the very people that should be guarding our cultural mores and our lifestyle are corrupted.


Return to What We Are Talking About

BIASED TEXTBOOKS TURNING YOUNG AMERICANS AGAINST ISRAEL, RESEARCH SHOWS

by Rafael Medoff

Pro-Palestinian propaganda described as "educational" is no longer confined to the lectures of Arab and far-left academics on college campuses. Rafael Medoff discusses anti-Israel bias in high-school text material, in particular the Arab World Studies Notebook, a 540-page volume of "unabashed propagandizing" and false information. The Notebook is ubiquitous. Some parents have complained at local schools and the Notebook has been withdrawn in several schools. But there has been no general withdrawal. In fact the book's author, Audrey Parks Shabbas, "has claimed the Notebook has been distributed to more than 10,000 teachers, and 'if each notebook teaches 250 students a year over 10 years, then you've reached 25 million students.'" The Editor's Addendum contains a 2003 letter pointing out problems with The Arab World Studies Notebook. They have yet to be corrected! And the Notebook continues to indoctrinate school age children.

READ MORE
hrrule

GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY STUMPS FOR THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD

by Andrew Harrod

Many a University has been corrupted by Middle East 'donations' but Harvard, Columbia and Georgetown stand out for what they are willing to do for Arab money. President Bollinger of Columbia had the chutzpah to place Rashid Khalidi, one of Columbia's virulent Arab Jew-hating professors, on the search committee for the Chair of Modern Jewish Studies. The Harvard Kennedy School has been caught disseminating anti-Israel "work books" to high school teachers across New England. In this article, Andrew Harrod tells us of one of Georgetown University's attempts to whitewash the Muslim Brotherhood (MB), a major enabler of terrorism around the world. It was at an event called "Post-Arab Spring Middle East: Political Islam and Democracy," where speakers were willing to say that the MB "is traditionally a reformist, gradualist movement [which] is working on social change." Unbelievable, no? The moderator for the conference is the Director of the Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding (ACMCU), Jonathan Brown, who at another occasion tried "justifying the practice of slavery within Islam." This may all sound like moronic comedy, but it isn't funny. It corrupts educational faculty and they in turn no longer know how to teach students to think rigorously and impartially and base conclusions on evidence.

READ MORE
hrrule

MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD POLITICAL INFILTRATION ON STEROIDS

by Janet Levy, October 8, 2017

The Muslim Brotherhood (MB) has ambitious goals and the determination and resources to have a good shot at success. To make Islam supreme MB does whatever is necessary. It has talented operatives who can create working relationships with political leaders and it has assassins and terrorists, when it needs to pressure people to accept dhimmitude. In the USA, as Janet Levy writes, it "has focused on infiltrating all levels and branches of the U.S. government. More recently, the Muslim Brotherhood presence within the American political landscape has intensified, accelerated, and become more visible with the establishment of several nonprofit political action organizations." They are also running some of their people as candidates for Congress and state governments. This would increase their political clout, which they can supplement with well-placed donations to media, academics and politicians. They can hire people to turn out slick propaganda emphasizing their "multiculturalism and moderation. They work hard at achieving their goals and they don't waste time looking for "moderate Muslims". They leave that up to those who would like to deny that Islamic extremists have anything to do with Islam.

READ MORE
hrrule

POLITICAL ISLAM AFTER THE ARAB SPRING: BETWEEN JIHAD AND DEMOCRACY

by Olivier Roy

Some people still hold the view that terrorism and rioting and havoc by Muslims has nothing to do with Islam. This article by Olivier Roy is very much in keeping with such main stream writing on Islamization; i.e., terrorism is due to marginalization, poverty, feelings of rejection, anything but the direct action dictated by the Koran. Roy's view of Political Islam, to date, has had the predictive power of zero.

According to Wikipedia.org:

Roy wrote widely on the 2005 civil unrest in France, rebutting the suggestion that the violence was religiously inspired. He argues that Islamism is merely the rubric under which troubled youth enact their violent inclinations. A view adamantly opposed by Roy's intellectual rival, Gilles Kepel.

According to Judith Miller, in the wake of the September 11 attacks Roy argued that militant Islamism of the type represented by Al Qaeda had peaked and was fading into insignificance.

His book Secularism Confronts Islam (Columbia, 2007) offers a perspective on the place of Islam in secular society and looks at the diverse experiences of Muslim immigrants in the West. Roy examines how Muslim intellectuals have made it possible for Muslims to live in a secularized world while maintaining the identity of a "true believer." But Roy's thesis is not based in reality. At best it describes some atypical Muslims. As we learn more about Muslim terrorists, their families, their life style and their absorption of the teachings of the Koran, it becomes more obvious that Roy's image of a religious Muslim living harmoniously in Western secular society is invalid.

READ MORE
hrrule

THE ISLAM IN ISLAMIC TERRORISM: THE IMPORTANCE OF BELIEFS, IDEAS, AND IDEOLOGY

A book review by Nidra Poller, October 17, 2017

This is a review of a recent book written by Ibn Warraq, entitled 'The Islam in Islamic Terrorism: the Importance of Beliefs, Ideas, and Ideology'. The public has been conditioned to react as directed 'to the lethal narrative strategy of jihad conquest. They do not think rationally, they react Islamically to assaults of all varieties, on all levels, from hijab fashion that they glorify to atrocious murders that they cover with flowers, candles and denial. The intellectual ravages are concealed behind a curtain of consensus.' Poller writes that Ibn Warraq, himself an apostate, firmly states that the 'beliefs, ideas, and ideology' of the subtitle of The Islam in Islamic Terrorism, are enshrined in the Koran, extended in the hadith and sunna, clarified and confirmed by certified Islamic scholars, and translated into action from generation to generation, from the time of Islam's prophet to the present day." In sum, "Islamic ideology gives the jihadi the framework within which to exercise his brutalized will." And no stack of rosy portraits of Islam will change what has been the bitter truth since Islam came into being.

READ MORE
hrrule

THE OLD ARAB FEAR TACTIC THAT CAME TO WASHINGTON

by Nonie Darwish

Nonie Darwish writes about political Islam as practiced by such groups as the Muslim Brotherhood and ISIS from a point of view that is not often considered by Westerners, i.e., its impact on the stability and future of the Arab countries. Darwish also discusses how favorite "tactics of the Arab media — to accuse people of collusion in order to silence any opposition — have now moved into US mainstream media regarding Trump and Russia, which the US media would apparently like to regard as their new "enemies." These are the same media that defend sharia law and inaccurately insist that Muslim terrorists who shout "Allahu Akbar" have "nothing to do with Islam." What next!

READ MORE
hrrule

PALESTINIAN ARABS ON THE TEMPLE MOUNT

JDF capture Temple Mount

We all know this picture from 1967 when the Jews won back a piece of Jerusalem from the bad guys, the Jordanians, who had snatched it two decades before, just when the modern State of Israel was born, or, as some say, reincarnated. Do we also know that General Moshe Dayan, the Jewish guy with black cloth masking his lost eye, let the Arabs keep control of the Temple Mount, which is located in the piece of Jerusalem that the Jordanians had snatched? Big mistake. The conquered Arabs stopped being worried the Jews would do unto them as they would have done unto the Jews, had they won the Six-Day War. They started asserting their right to destroy Jewish archaeological finds at the Temple Mount and restrict Jews from coming there. So we had the ugly contrast of Arab children playing soccer on the Mount, while Jews stoop to all sorts of ruses to be able to pray at the holiest site in Judaism without being arrested. Now after only a half century, the Israeli Administration has forbidden soccer-playing. How long will it be before Jews can freely pray on the site of the Second Temple?

WATCH: Israeli police enforce 'no soccer playing' rule on Temple Mount, October 11, 2017.

Return to What We Are Talking About

RECURRING PATTERNS: THE TEMPLE MOUNT RIOTS

by Manfred Gerstenfeld, August 6, 2017

Manfred Gerstenfeld brings us up-to-date on the latest rioting on the Temple Mount: the Arabs stabbed two Israeli Druze policemen with weapons they had hidden in the al-Aqsa Mosque. Israel installed metal detectors to prevent Arabs from storing weapons in their mosques to have them on hand the next time they decide to stab someone. (Consider how many people in the Waqf had to know about the weapons and did nothing.) Palestinian preachers, angry at this restriction on their right to kill, stirred up their audience. The Arabs dutifully rioted. As it does too often, Israel foolishly backed down and removed the metal detectors. The riots continued.

Arab excuses change seasonally or because of some event, but the Palestinian Arab response is constant: rioting, nasty behavior, terrorism. If it didn't do so much damage, it would be a bore. Having the PA authorities start recurrent riots using some available excuse is such a recurrent pattern. Having the Arabs hide weapons in mosques, hospitals, UNRWA schools is a recurrent pattern. Having the foreign press blame the Jews is a recurrent pattern. Getting the Israelis to give the Arabs more concessions is getting to be less of a recurrent pattern. Who knows, maybe someday the Israelis will act like normal humans and stop the Arabs' obnoxious behavior. Now that might bring peace.

READ MORE
hrrule

THE TRUTH BEHIND THE TEMPLE MOUNT CONTROVERSY

by Mark Silverberg, August 1, 2017

Mark Silverberg considers some facts others ignore. Fact: the policemen that were stabbed were there to protect the site and the worshippers in the Mosque. Fact: it is a desecration to bring weapons to the Temple Mount. Fact: installing electronic security is done routinely in Mecca and Medina as it is in any important or populated place that would attract terrorists. Fact: many mosques have security installations. So why the uproar? Silverberg suggests that "[t]he essence of the struggle relates to a culture of hatred in Palestinian society that refuses to grant Jews in Jerusalem (specifically) and in Israel (in general) any status other than d'himmitude as non-Muslim subjects who must pay the jizya or head tax for protection in an Islamic-controlled Palestine that would stretch from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea. This is consistent with Islamic doctrine that states that any land once under Muslim control is an endowment that must inevitably revert to Muslim rule." Abbas and the Palestinian Authority — the good terrorists — have continuously exacerbated this core Islamic belief. Even the Nazis tried to hide their massacring of Jews. The Arabs rejoice openly. Each murder of a Jew or even a non-Muslim is seen as an occasion to gleefully celebrate. Arab mothers celebrate the suicide-murders of their own children. Arab children grow up dreaming of becoming martyrs. Under these conditions, Israel's withdrawing the metal detectors can only be seen as an Arab victory, giving them the confidence to try more disgusting acts of terror in the future.

READ MORE
hrrule

APPLYING HONOR/SHAME TO THE METAL DETECTOR FIASCO

by Elder of Ziyon, July 24, 2017

Elder-of-Ziyon sees this latest manifestation of Arab irrationality as yet another example of the Muslin honor and shame culture at work. That Israel had the power to close the Temple Mount for a couple of days would be "a source of deep shame that has been buried for years by the fantasy of Waqf control." So what does a barbaric honor/shame culture do? Meditate? Review its lifestyle? See what it can reasonably salvage from the situation? Not when it can restore its sense of superiority by making Israel look like a loser. Elder-of-Ziyon points out, "The PA's reaction is completely bonkers by any normal yardstick. If the world wasn't so reflexively 'pro-Palestinian' it wouldn't coddle the crazy demands, but the Palestinians have made an art form of these kinds of crazy demands that end up sounding reasonable over the years of constant repetition." Maybe it's time for Israel to act the grown-up. It's time to stop feeding the fantasies of what one reader called "The People Who Never Were in a Country That Never Was".

READ MORE
hrrule

NEW YORK TIMES MISLEADING ABOUT TEMPLE MOUNT RIOTS

by Richard H. Shulman, July 25, 2017

Richard Shulman points out that Jordan recently violated rules of diplomatic immunity by retaining a guard of the Israeli Ambassador. The guard had thwarted an terrorist attack, killing the terrorist. It was quietly straightened out eventually. The media made no buzz over what can still be a bad precedent internationally. Jordan incurred no bad press.

Shulman also has an interesting take on this puzzling fact: "The media keep falsely accusing Israel of violating international law. The Arabs keep violating international law, but the media mostly overlooks it." How do the media make this work? Shulman suggests that "the media often describes Palestinian Arabs as 'outraged.' It gives no explanation for that, leaving the incorrect impression that they might have justification and that maybe Israel mistreats them." The Arabs have learned the media are on their side, no matter what the facts are. This is certainly true in how the media reported the Temple Mount riots. It is certainly true in larger issues, where the media act as if the Palestinian Arabs own Samaria and Judea. Were they to check with their own fact-checking department, they would learn that Samaria and Judea belong to the Jews in an irrevocable trust by international law. I suppose we won't be seeing Israel reclaim its own land any time soon, if it was willing to jeopardize its security on the Temple Mount because the Arabs rioted.

READ MORE
hrrule

ISRAELI SOVEREIGNTY OVER THE TEMPLE MOUNT IS CRUCIAL FOR PEACE

by Prof. Hillel Frisch, July 24, 2017

As Professor Hillel Frisch writes, "Regardless of its direct security merits, Israel's decision to place metal detectors at the entrances to the Temple Mount has been transformed by adversaries and Israel alike into an issue of sovereignty over the Temple Mount. Power-sharing there has always constituted a slippery slope to disaster. The murder of two Israeli policemen at the Temple Mount is an appropriate moment to rectify the situation by reasserting Israeli sovereignty over the holy site."

READ MORE
hrrule

ARABS IN ISRAEL AND THE TERRITORIES

It is frequently said that the Arab population in the Territories is helpless to stop the barbaric acts of the PA and Hamas leadership. It would be more accurate to say that they have the same attitude towards Israel as their leaders. They rejoice when Jews are murdered and often volunteer as suicide-murderers. They see nothing wrong in kidnapping Israeli soldiers; they build tunnels to get at the IDF. They lend themselves as human shields to protect missile sites. As this video shows, they corrupt their children and train them as assassins.


Return to What We Are Talking About

EXPLOITED BY THE ENEMY

by David M. Weinberg, April 21, 2017

Jews and Arabs may live as neighbors but there is a big divide in their lifestyles and attitudes. This extends to large matters such as how much control someone should have over his own life and how much he can decide his own future. And it applies to what are considered 'weaknesses' in some societies: having compassion to one's enemies, showing kindness to strangers and helping those who need help. David Weinberg writes about the way some Arabs have paid back the medical treatment they received in Israel. Way back in 2005, people was shocked when an Arab girl who was having her face treated for massive burns was caught attempting to smuggle in explosives, so that she could blow up the people helping her. People were flabbergasted. It made no sense. To really twist the knife, she spoke enthusiastically about how many Jewish children she had hoped to kill. Nowadays, having women and even children attempt to smuggle in explosives and weaponry has become commonplace. David Weinberg worked at a medical center, where, at any time, Arab children from Gaza were a quarter of the patients. He tells the tale of a Arab who was the best match for his brother who needed a bone marrow transplant. Security was concerned because the older brother was a terrorist, but the medical staff overcame government and security objections and the Arab child got his transplant. News media don't let such incidents ruin their constant cry that Jews are evil.

READ MORE
hrrule

NEW UNRWA TEXTBOOKS FOR PALESTINIANS DEMONIZE ISRAEL AND JEWS

by Danielle Ziri, September 28, 2017

Danielle Ziri writes that schoolbooks in UNRWA schools have variations on three themes when talking about Jews: "delegitimization , demonization and indoctrination to violent struggle." Palestinian Arab children are taught that the Western Wall, Rachel's Tomb and even the Tomb of the Patriachs, where Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Sarah, Rebecca and Leah are buried, are Muslim holy places. Israel as a name is seldom used. Children are prepared for future war against the Jews. Killing Jews is a worthy goal. Considering that half of UNRWA's large budget goes to education, that's a lot of money going into poisoning the minds of Palestinian Arab children. The final irony is that UNRWA is an agency of the United Nations, which was created so that governments could resolved disputes peacefully.

READ MORE
hrrule

CAN CHRISTIANITY TAKE ROOT AGAIN IN THE ARAB WORLD?

by Paul Merkley, July 3, 2017

The future of Christianity in the Middle East is not promising. Paul Merkley writes that Christians, many of whose ancestors were living in the Middle East (ME) centuries before Muhammad, have been forced by Muslim mobs to flee their homes. They are welcome only in Israel, the one ME country where their numbers are growing. In Iraq in 1947, there were 4.7 million Christians. Now there are 200,000. They are persecuted by ISIS and by anti-ISIS groups. The local Kurds are hoping to create their own homeland, and the Christians remember the Kurds' attempted genocide of the Assyrians in the 1930's. Nor are the Europeans interested in their plight. So even if parts of Iraq are reclaimed from ISIS, it isn't likely the Christians will be returning to their homes.

READ MORE
hrrule

THE FABRICATED PALESTINIAN HISTORY

by Nadav Shragai

Saeb Erakat is the chief negotiator for the Palestinian Arabs. Saeb Erakat claims Canaanite descent. It is not unusual for the local Arabs, most of whom migrated into what is now Israel and the Territories within living memory, to claim kinship with one ancient people or another. Not letting actual history deter them, many claim linkage to ancient people who have been extinct for centuries. "As the argument goes, the Palestinians, by virtue of their being descendants of the Canaanites, or the Philistines, or the Jebusites, are the real indigenous nation that sprung organically from this land." It would be amusing except that after a while, the local Arabs begin to believe their own lies and get very annoyed at anyone who prefers the truth.

READ MORE
hrrule

PALESTINIAN SETTLER-COLONIALISM

by Dr. Alex Joffe, September 3, 2017

As Alex Joffe writes, "Evidence shows Palestinian Arabs descend primarily from three primary groups: Muslim invaders, Arab immigrants, and local converts to Islam." The Jews, on the other hand, "are the indigenous population of the Southern Levant; historical and now genetic documentation places Jews there over 2,000 years ago, and there is indisputable evidence of continual residence of Jews in the region." It would be accurate to say that it was the incoming Arabs that practiced colonialism, not the Jews.

READ MORE
hrrule

THE WAR FOR JERUSALEM

by Daniel Greenfield

When the modern state of Israel was born in 1948, her neighbors invaded, intending to take over the country and rid themselves of the Jews, once and for all. Jordan was more successful than the others. She managed to take control of a big chunk of the eastern part of Jerusalem as well as Samaria and Judea. It was during this time that the newish United Nations began to show how well it would carry out the dream of creating a space where countries could work out differences without going to war. Its way of handling Jews versus Arabs set a pattern. Jordanian Muslims shooting at Jews were ignored. Muslims building illegally were ignored. Jews daring to add to their houses were chastised. Jordan destroying Jewish synagogues, using grave stones as steps to the latrines and kicking out or killing every Jew in the newly-conquered piece of Jerusalem and the Territories was as pure an example of ethnic cleaning as there is. Yet no one objected. Certainly not the U.N.

Daniel Greenfield explores how differently the Jews and Arabs were treated. Another way of saying it is: the politicians condoned the Islamization of Jerusalem and did what they could to make it happen. We've progressed to where Jewish settlements (that is, Jewish towns and cities in Samaria and Judea) are considered obstacles to peace. What they mean is the Jewish residents are obstacles to giving away Jewish land. When Jordan joined the other Arab countries and invaded Israel again in 1967, Israel begged Jordan to stay out. Like so many with his political make-up, Moshe Dayan really didn't want to liberate Jerusalem. But Jordan went to war, lost and the secular Jews were stuck with having to handle their own property. What is puzzling is why the Jewish politicians and administrators continue go along with the pattern of unfairness the representatives of the governments of the world have established. Why don't they grow up and enjoy the gift of land that belongs to them?

READ MORE
hrrule

ISRAEL'S LEGAL RESPONSE TO THE ARAB PROBLEM

The Arabs loot, murder Jews with knives, guns and cars, kidnap citizens, set fires destroy orchards and steal cars. Israel responds, sort of. She jails murderers, and then pays for them to study for college degrees. She releases thousands of murderers for a couple of Jews or Jewish bodies. But, little by little, she is becoming stronger and more sensible. She is beginning to reclaim houses the Jordanians took from the Jews and filled with Arab squatters from neighboring countries. She is even working on stronger legal punishments against acts of terror. Slowly, little by little, she is beginning to accept her sovereign claim to the Territories and is beginning to act as normal people do when they are under attack.


Return to What We Are Talking About

CONCESSIONS TO PALESTINIANS: CHOKING OR INFLAMING TERRORISM?

by Yoram Ettinger, October 03, 2017

Yoram Ettinger examines the patterns of Israel's concessions to the Palestinian Arabs. Do these actions contribute to peace or increase acts of terror? The consequences of some of her actions were predictable. She released Palestinians from jail, many there for committing grotesque murders. As you would expect, the rate of recidivism was very high. She gave the Arabs control of an aquifer, an important asset in a water-short area. They promptly destroyed it. She kicked all the Jews out of Gaza in a pointless unilateral move. The Arabs destroyed the greenhouses and used the extra space to make home-made weapons of war. Hamas and other terrorist groups moved into the vacated space. Land for peace doesn't work. It's time to try something else, this time taking into account the safety of Jewish citizens.

READ MORE
hrrule

ISRAEL'S RELEASE OF SECOND RAMALLAH LYNCH MURDERER VIOLATES INTERNATIONAL LAW

by Prof. Louis René Beres

When two Israelis lost their way and drove to the Police Station in Ramallah, the Arab police turned them over to the gathering mob, which lynched and slaughtered the Israelis and ate their body parts. Israel has recently released the second of these monsters. Professor Louis Beres says it just right: this "is wrongly exculpatory, legally contrived, and nationally self-destructive." He points out, "A core element of longstanding international law is the rule Nullum crimen sine poena, or "No crime without punishment." He points out the consequences of releasing this criminal.

READ MORE
hrrule

ARAB SQUATTERS EVICTED FROM JEWISH PROPERTY IN JERUSALEM

by Hezki Baruch, September 5, 2017

Hezki Baruch writes a factual account of the reclaiming of a Jewish house occupied by Arab squatters. I wonder how many readers understand how rare such a story is. When Jordan invaded the new state of Israel in 1948, it gained control of the eastern section of Jerusalem, as well as Judea and Samaria (aka The West Bank). It killed and/or evicted every Jew from the area. It invited Arabs in from the neighboring areas to take over Jewish property. Israel regained the land when her Arab neighbors invaded again in 1967. But the Israeli authorities did not do what was right and just, namely, evict the Arab squatters and allow the Jews to reclaim their property. Instead, it has been a painfully slow and expensive process for Jews to reclaim their property, one house at a time. Either the Jews have had to buy out the Arab squatter or sue him in court; and the media, of course, portray the Arabs as the 'victims'. I had occasion to visit the area on an AFSI-conducted tour in 2002 and wrote about it in an article entitled "The Settlements Revisited" (see here.)

READ MORE
hrrule

HIJACKING THE LAWS OF OCCUPATION

by Amb. Alan Baker, September 3, 2017

Amb. Alan Baker points out, "The language of occupation law has been politicized, and partisan political expressions such as 'Occupied Palestinian Territories' have become common language by the UN and by such humanitarian organizations as the International Red Cross. This terminology has no legal basis and prejudges ongoing, agreed-upon, and internationally-endorsed negotiation issues between Israel and the Palestinians. Their use by humanitarian organizations such as the International Red Cross is incompatible with its own constitutional principles of neutrality and impartiality." Baker reviews other occupations and annexations, suggests that the "the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), the main repository and arbiter of the [Geneva] conventions, have given themselves an overly wide and liberal margin in interpreting accepted factual definitions in the international instruments" and concludes that "the actual and unique factual, political, legal, and historic situation of the territory [Judea and Samaria] ... sets it apart from the simplistic international definitions."

READ MORE
hrrule

MUSLIMS IN USA

In the States, salafists are doing honor killing and FGM. But they are also paying attention to propaganda. They haven't abandonned their aim of having sharia rule the world, but they are painting an image of forward-thinking feminists and progressives who welcome diverse points of view in a multicultural society. Of course, once sharia is imposed, the feel-good imagery will be stripped away.


Return to What We Are Talking About

LINDA SARSOUR CALLS FOR US MUSLIM JIHAD AGAINST ASSIMILATING

by Barry Shaw, July 9, 2017

Linda Sarsour in her own person appears to be a blend of the rigidly pious Muslim and the extremely progressive Socialist. She is completely devoted to jihad and sharia law, while speaking in favor of identity politics, multiculturalism and a fuzzy sort of Marxism. She is a strong believer in Islam, which treats woman as second class citizens, yet, paradoxically, she is in the forefront of the liberated woman's-rights movement. As a good and pious Muslim, she hates Israel, as does the new Far Left. Barry Shaw observes that "Sarsour has been hiding her agenda behind the cloak of liberal progressivism but, occasionally, her real identity emerges." She told her Muslim audience in a recent speech that their priority was not to assimilate and please any other people or authority. "Our top priority is to please Allah and only Allah."

READ MORE
hrrule

THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD: PEDDLING SHARIA AS SOCIAL JUSTICE

by Judith Bergman, March 30, 2017

The Muslim Brotherhood (MB) seems to be working on changing its image, if not itself. Judith Bergman tells us about the new MB. Its spokesmen claim to be tolerant, non-judgmental and believe in diversity. Either they've given up on believing in the conformity that Islamic sharia law imposes or they are lying. The spiritual leader of the Brotherhood, Yusuf al-Qaradawi, talks about a "non-violent conquest of non-Muslim lands." He says he believes in a gradual importation of sharia law. Despite the new slogans, he reassures us that when sharia does take over, hands will still be chopped off for theft, apostates will still be killed, and woman will still be beaten at their husband's whim. As the title of Judith Bergman's article says, the Muslim Brotherhood is peddling Sharia as Social Justice.

READ MORE
hrrule

MICHIGAN MOSQUE PAID DOCTOR TO PERFORM GENITAL CUTTINGS ON GIRLS

by Robert Spencer, June 14, 2017

In 2012, a report by the US Center for Disease Control and Prevention found that roughly 513,000 women and girls in the United States were at risk of undergoing FGM, which was more than twice an earlier estimate based on 1990 data. In 2016, Unicef estimated 200 million women in 30 countries had undergone the painful procedure. Spencer writes about a mosque that is said to have paid a Muslim docter to perform FGM on young Muslim girls.




READ MORE
hrrule

WE'RE SO AFRAID OF MUSLIMS WE'RE IGNORING DOMESTIC 'HONOR KILLINGS'

by Andrea Peyser

Andrea Peyser presents some recent cases of honor killings that took place in the USA. Fathers killed their daughters because the girls didn't want to marry men chosen for them or because they wanted to be and dress like other girls in the West. It's estimated that there's a couple of dozen honor killings a year in the States, but they receive little publicity and are often mislabeled as ordinary domestic violence.

READ MORE
hrrule

A TRIBUTE TO KAREN ARMSTRONG, HISTORIAN

by Hugh Fitzgerald, July 24, 2017

Hugh Fitzgerald writes about Karen Armstrong, a well-known apologist for Islam. She goes in for interfaith harmony and preaches the doctrine of "let's all get along.' She talks about a Charter for Compassion but she has a sharp enough tongue for those who challenge her vapid statements and meaningless prattle. She also has stories that she claims are about real events in Islamic history. In her version, Christians carried on murderous crusades against innocent Muslims. She writes that Muslims stopped trying to conquer countries in Europe once they lost Granada, their last stronghold. In the time stream most of us live in, while the Muslims did lose Granada, they were busy taking over in Greece and Albania and Rumania and Hungary and pitting their strength against the gates of Vienna. She would have it, as do other Islam apologists, that the Christians of Spain gave both the Jews and the Muslims the choice of convert or leave or die around the same time. The Jews were indeed given those options in 1492. The Muslims were not. They stayed on, free to practice their religion, free to work and trade and more around freely. She spins her stories as if both the Jews and the Muslims were twinsies in suffering, as if both groups were expelled from Spain on the same date. But, as Fitzgerald informs us, "Karen Armstrong has sympathy for the Jews in Spain only insofar as that sympathy can be transferred to the real objects of her pity, the Muslims, and she will do nothing to help readers to recognize the difference in the two cases, that of the Jews being one of undeserved mistreatment, that of the Muslims a matter of geopolitical prudence."

READ MORE
hrrule

MUSLIMS IN EUROPE

In Europe, Muslim salafists get a lot of help from Europe's politicians and leaders, who filter reality through their vision of multiculturalism and diversity being the keys to a well-run society. These leaders don't even try to do anything while Islam and Sharia law take over their countries. In England, lower class children were groomed for years for prostitution and the police ignored it for fear of being accused of islamophobia. It was an open secret, but the Mainline Press did not inform the public. Nowaday, people don't talk much about honor crimes of murder because the media tend not to label them as such. The politicians denied there were 'no-go' zones but people found out about them. Sweden has become the rape capital of the world since the Middle Eastern "refugees' started arriving. It's not hard to figure out that the more Muslims there are in a country, the higher is the crime rate. European natives who want to preserve their culture have to struggle not only against the activities of the Muslim migrants but their own politicians and their own media. There is no united front.


Return to What We Are Talking About

ISLAM AND THE JIHAD IN LONDON

by Andrew C. McCarthy

Andrew McCarthy reports that just as in the States, the media in England are the last to suspect that a Muslim running down a city street knifing people and yelling Allah Akbar is acting out of religious fervor, not poverty or rejection or a lack of self confidence. As in the States, they see the mosque as the equivalent of a church or synagogue, a place to pray. They don't seem to understand that a mosque in the West, as are mosques around the world, is "a center for sharia indoctrination, assimilation resistance, and anti-Western politics." Many Muslims in England have polygamous marriages and earlier marriages. They also have a high birth rate. The result is they are producing children at a much higher rate than the natives. In 2004 Bernard Lewis said Europe would be Islamic by the end of the century. Such population comparisons make his prediction likely.

READ MORE
hrrule

GERMANY: WAVE OF MUSLIM HONOR KILLINGS

by Soeren Kern, June 4, 2017

Soeren Kern lists a couple of dozen honor attacks that occurred in Germany in some five months in 2017. Men murdered their wives, girl friends and daughters for the Islamic crime of disobedience. This is likely the tip of the iceberg because, as Kern points out, police, politicians and the media don't want to inflame the public by letting people know the truth. He writes, "Increased censorship by the police and the media, aimed at stemming anti-immigration sentiments, makes it impossible to know the names and national origins of many victims or perpetrators, or the true circumstances surrounding many murders, which often appear to be honor killings but are downplayed as "domestic disputes." The fact that honor killings common in the Middle East are prevalent in Europe suggests that the Muslim immigrants have made little adjustment to their way of life to conform to the mores of European culture.

READ MORE
hrrule

NEW STUDY FINDS MUSLIMS & LEFTISTS RESPONSIBLE FOR VAST MAJORITY OF ANTI-SEMITIC HATE CRIME

by Paul Joseph Watson, August 25, 2017

In the USA, the media persistently write that right-wing groups such as the KKK, not the left-wing BLM and Anti-Fa, are the ones responsible for anti-Semitic hate crimes. In contrast, Paul Joseph Watson reports, "A major new study has found that left-wingers and Muslims are responsible for the overwhelming majority of anti-Semitic hate crime in several different European countries." It is more than likely that this is also true in the States but it doesn't get reported because it contradicts the prejudices of the press.

Muslims complain they are the major target of hate-crimes. This notion is reinforced by the media, which tend to report the number of crimes committed as a percent increase over the previous year rather than as percent of the total number committed in a particular category of hate. Thus, if in one year there are 10 hate crimes against a particular ethnic group, and the next year there are twenty, then the media can 'truthfully' say there's a 100% increase. The majority of the media reported a shocking increase in anti-Arab crimes based on Race/Ethnicity or Ancestry. But relative to the total number of hate crimes in this category, 4216 victims in 2015, only 1.1% were victims of anti-Arab bias. Note also we don't how many of these were crimes against property, not person. In comparison, 53.2% of the total number of crimes in the Bias Against Race category were because of anti-black bias; 18.7% of the total number of crimes were because of anti-white bias. Of the 1402 Anti-Religion hate crimes committed, 21.9% were victims of anti-Muslim bias, but many more, 52.1%, were victims of anti-Jewish bias. These figures come from
https://ucr.fbi.gov/hate-crime/2015/topic-pages/victims_final/. It was not reported, but I'd be willing to bet many of the anti-Jewish hate crimes were committed by Muslims.

READ MORE
hrrule

GEERT WILDERS AND THE SUICIDE OF EUROPE

by Guy Millière

Guy Millière wonders why so many politicians and media play 'blame the victim.' They blame Geert Wilders, the Dutch political leader, for violence when the violence is directed against Wilders. It doesn't come from Wilders. Like President Trump, he is the victim of unswerving hate. In his case, it is because he has been warning the Dutch that if they continue their generous immigration policy, they will lose their freedom and control of their country to Islam. It was so hard to find a reason to charge Wilders with a political crime, the prosecutors resorted to misinterpreting some words from a speech he once made. People don't want to hear the truh; it's too frightening. But ignoring what the Muslims are doing doesn't stop them from ethnically cleansing entire neighborhoods of the Dutch natives who once lived there.

READ MORE
hrrule

NORWAY'S DHIMMI-IN-CHIEF

by Bruce Bawer, July 3, 2017

Bruce Bawer paints us a picture of Erna Solberg, head of the Conservative Party in Norway and current Prime Minister. As Bawer puts it, "When it comes to Islam, she's always been a first-class dhimmi." For her, "Muslims are always the victims and Norwegians the bad guys," no matter what the facts are. Despite the damage Muslims do in Norway, Erna chortles on about "Norway as a place where Muslims and non-Muslims live together in harmony, and warned about certain unnamed mischief-makers at both 'extremes' who seek to sow division." Bawer wonders if, by 'division', she means the body parts "strewn all over promenades in Nice, bridges in London, and concert arenas in Manchester," courtesy of Muslim terrorists.

READ MORE
hrrule

SHARIA POLICE: GERMAN COURT RULES IN FAVOR OF ISLAMIST 'BROWN SHIRTS'

by Jim Kouri

After "a series of radical Islamist attacks, rapes and assaults," apparently the Germans feel they need help in controlling their recent immigrants. As Jim Kouri writes, a "criminal court in Germany has given its blessing for a quasi-squad of Muslim refugees and immigrants to act as de facto Sharia police." As a result, a merry band of faith cops have harrasing Muslims and non-Muslims to make them conform to sharia law. "Germany's political leaders are tolerating what amounts to a parallel German universe; one that allows Muslim immigrants and refugees to take the law into their own hands, often with tragic consequences."

READ MORE
hrrule

JEWISH PUBLIC-PRIVATE RELATIONS


Return to What We Are Talking About

THE JEWASHING OF GEORGE SOROS: MILLIONS OF JEWS ARE ANTI-SEMITIC FOR CALLING OUT AN ANTI-SEMITE

by Daniel Greenfield

Daniel Greenfield describes some things about George Soros's history that likely helped make him the loathsome Jew-hater he is today. "There's no denying that George Soros is a warped and twisted man. Especially when it comes to the Jews. But he's also the money man behind a great deal of leftist activism. Especially anti-Israel activism." And so such truth-seekers as the staff of the New York Times decry "'Israel's War Against George Soros'. That's right up there with Poland's war on Nazi Germany." "According to the New York Times, criticizing an anti-Semite whose Jewishness can only be found with a DNA analysis is anti-Semitic, but attacking millions of Jews defending themselves against genocide isn't." Greenfield points out that when not blaming Soros's victims, the Times is Jewashing Jew-haters. The New York Times may have been started by Jews but it is ending up as an instrument to destroy Judaism.

READ MORE
hrrule

ISRAEL-BASHER, BIASED HISTORIAN CANNOT HEAD CENTER FOR JEWISH HISTORY

by Morton A. Klein, October 24, 2017

Mort Klein writes about another Jew who has become a bitter enemy of the Jews and Israel. What makes this case so bizarre is that this Jew, David Myers, is head of "the prestigious Center for Jewish History (CJH), in New York." Mort Klein recounts many facts that would more than qualify Myers to be a hoodie, either a grand-pooh-bah of the KKK or the chief speaker at the start of yet another well-funded anti-Fa riot. As Klein writes, "The Center for Jewish History should be led by an honest, carefully accurate historian or other executive — not by hostile-to-Israel propagandist David N. Myers."

READ MORE
hrrule

UNMASKING STUDENTS FOR JUSTICE IN PALESTINE

by Richard Cravatts, September 19, 2017

Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) can be considered a predecessor of groups such as Anti-Fa, except SJP has an exclusive focus: how to destroy Israel. They are good at street theater and confrontation. They flunk on facts and honest information. As Richard Cravatts writes of them:

"SJP has a long history since its founding in 1993 of bringing vitriolic anti-Israel speakers to their respective campuses (now numbering over 200 with chapters), and for such collateral activities as sponsoring the pernicious Israeli Apartheid Weeks, building mock 'apartheid walls,' and sending mock eviction notices to Jewish students in their dorms to demonize Israel and create empathy for the Palestinian Arab cause."

SJP is not a model for how to hold rational civilized discussions on college campuses.

READ MORE
hrrule

DEPRESSING CONCLUSIONS TO BE DRAWN FROM THE SAD STORY OF THE KURDS

by Mordechai Kedar, October 23, 2017

In contrast to the Palestinian Arabs, who are not a people, but a propaganda tool created from the scratchings of Yasar Arafat's pen, the Kurds are a legitimate people. One would think that if any group merits a sovereign country, it is the Kurds. Mordechai Kedar points out that they "are the largest ethnic entity in the world, which does not have a state of its own." In recent years they have been the most important force fighting against ISIS. 90% of the Kurds support independence. Yet Turkey, Iran, Iraq and Syria say no, as do the USA and Europe. Why? There's oil in that area. Lots of oil. That's why.

For Israel, the expectations of the Kurds and the nay-saying by the neighboring Arab countries is a lesson Israel should take to heart. Because of the Iranian threat, the anti-Iran Arab countries such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt have become much more friendly to Israel. In Israel this has been greeted by some as the start of a strong union if only Israel accepts Arab peace proposals and establishes a Palestinian State. Kedar suggests that once the Iranian threat dissipates, no matter how much Israel helped the anti-Iran coalition, the warmth of the Arab countries will also dissipate. Kedar concludes, "Israel must not jeopardize its existence, security and interests by placing them in bankrupt Arab insurance companies."

READ MORE
hrrule

HISTORY SECTION


Return to What We Are Talking About

SECOND TEMPLE-ERA MIKVEH DISCOVERED UNDER AL-AQSA MOSQUE

by Nadav Shragai

Nadav Shragai writes, "Al-Aqsa mosque was destroyed in an earthquake in 1927. As it was being rebuilt, the British archaeologist Robert Hamilton documented the excavation of its foundations. He hid away the findings that the waqf found inconvenient. Today, thousands of findings, including a seal with the inscription "From Gibeon to the king" unearthed by Dr. Gabi Barkai and Zachi Dvira, shed light on the Temple Mount's Jewish period." This article and the next one discuss artefacts and structural details of the First and Second Temples.

READ MORE
hrrule

SECRETS UNDER THE AL-AQSA MOSQUE: A PHOTOGRAPHIC ESSAY

by Lenny Ben-David

"Jews believe that the "foundation rock" beneath the Dome of the Rock is atop Mt. Moriah, the site of the binding of Isaac. King Solomon built his Temple upon the rock in the tenth century before the Common Era (BCE), but it was destroyed in 587 BCE by the Babylonian King Nebuchadnezzar. Seventy years later, the second Temple was built by Jews returning from Babylon with King Cyrus's blessing. Years later it was rededicated by the Maccabees in approximately 160 BCE after its defiling by the Seleucids." It too was destroyed, this time by the Romans. When the Muslims invaded and captured Jerusalem, they built a mosque — the al-asqa mosque — on the area of the Temple Mount, as a symbol of their dominance. In 1927, much of the mosque collapsed. Robert Hamilton and another English photographer took advantage of the reconstruction period to photograph under the mosque. Hamilton promised the Waqf that he would make 'no mention of any findings that the Muslims would have found inconvenient' such as findings from the time of the Jewish Temples. The photographers documented the mosaics, passageways, cisterns, and lumber that apparently were part of the Temples." The photos in this article are some of those photographs.

READ MORE
hrrule

HOW AN EARTHQUAKE IN 1546 MADE THE "KOTEL" POSSIBLE

by Meir Loewenberg, July 4, 2017

Over the centuries, the area around the remains of the Second Temple was built up, blocking access to the Temple Mount walls. Meir Loewenberg tells us that what made the Kotel, the Western Wall, accessible was a massive earthquake in 1546, which destroyed many of the houses that had blocked access. The ruler at the time, Sultain Sulamein, had the ruins cleared and a small area was prepared where some hundred Jews could pray at a time. It was used in times of crisis. They started holding daily services there in the middle 1800s. When the Jews took possession of the Temple Mount, they reconstructed the area, making it accessible for thousands.

READ MORE
hrrule

HOW A NETWORK OF CITIZEN-SPIES FOILED NAZI PLOTS TO EXTERMINATE JEWS IN 1930s L.A.

by Steven J. Ross, October 8, 2017

As the Nazis started gaining momentum in Germany in 1933, a group of Nazis held their first meeting in Los Angeles. It was a time that many 'wannabe Nazi; groups were being formed, to rant about overthrowing the government and killing the Jews. Leon Lewis, a Jewish lawyer, decided to investigate these anti-Semitic groups. He recruited a small number of people, all but one of whom were Christian, to go undercover and join every Nazi and fascist group in the city. The initial plan was to find evidence for illegal activities and turn the evidence over to the police. Steven Ross tells us that soon after infiltrating the groups, they discovered a plot to take control of the armories in the vicinity. Lewis notified several of the Police, local FBI and Sheriffs. He was shocked to find they were all sympathetic to the nazi groups, seeing the radical lefties as the real threat. Between 1935 and 1945, they uncovered several plots. One was to kill a couple of dozen actors. Others were to kill Jews, steal munitions from the Armories and blow up military installations. Unable to make the authorities act, the citizen-spies were able to get some of these plans canceled by making the Nazi members worry about internal leaks and betrayals.

READ MORE
hrrule

MY AUNT HAD A DINNER PARTY, AND THEN SHE TOOK HER GUESTS TO KILL 180 JEWS

by Gili Izikovich, July 13, 2017

Gili Izikovich writes about a German journalist, Sacha Battyany, who discovered one day many years after the War ended that his aunt made a lunch party and afterwards took her guests out to kill Jews. He began an investigation into his family that lasted years. He interviewed family members, traced his grandfather's history, read a diary his grandmother kept, even talked to someone that was at the lunch. He also explored "the connection between his grandmother, Marita, and an Argentinean woman named Agnes Mandel, a Jewish refugee from the village in which the two grew up, one as the daughter of the local nobleman and the other as the daughter of village Jews who were murdered." The result was a book. "The picture that emerges from the book is well-rounded, moving from the personal to the historic, as it emerges that the victim and the criminal are part of the same family."

READ MORE
hrrule

'THERE WAS NO MASSACRE AT DEIR YASSIN'

by Shimon Cohen, July 18, 2017

There is supposed to have been a massacre of Arab residents by Jews during the Arab invasion of the new-born State of Israel in 1948. Arab who lived in Deir Yassin have reported there was no massacre. It was a hoax perpetrated by Arab leaders to incite the local Arabs. It boomeranged in that it make many Arab residents so fearful that they fled out of the country. Like the Rachel Corey and Al-Dura hoaxes, which have also been exploded, the Deir Yassin "Massacre" lives on in Arab mythology. Shimon Cohen writes about Professor Eliezar Tauber's new book on Deir Yassin.

READ MORE
hrrule

JULY-OCTOBER, 2017 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 July-October 2017 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

April-June 2017

What we are talking about in the April–June 2017 Issue

  1. Introduction (Lipkin)
  2. Scientizing Politics  (Richards, Lipkin, Burke, Frank)
  3. Tracking Islamic Takeovers (Duke, Cline, MacEoin, Kent, May)
  4. Samaria and Judea (Lowe, Traiman, ben Tzvi, Baker, Sherman)
  5. What do we do about Iran? (Rubin, Bryen, Brodsky, Kia, Kowsar)
  6. JINO Jews (Jews In Name Only) (Roman, Greenfield, Friedman, Uniyal, Rossomando)
  7. History Section (Dym, Bogdanor, Zuroff, Rose, Grobman, Farahat, Faigenbaum-Golovin, Chabin)
  8. Blog-Eds (April-June 2017 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.


THE THEME OF THIS ISSUE

We live in an odd time. A divisive time. For some, Donald Trump's election was a win for American values. For others, it was an unbearable impediment in what had been a fairly smooth transition to a global society, a utopia where national difference and borders were no longer a threat to peace because there were no national borders that mattered. Had all gone as planned, administrative control would eventually shift to some international body, a larger version of the European Union perhaps. Or maybe the UN or some similar structure. Concern for the environment would be used to quiet any objections individual groups might raise while the core of global control was being firmed up. There would likely be an internal struggle to decide which pigmented group would actually be in charge. It has been a given for years that whites had to be cut down to size. In the last decade we went from reducing pride in American exceptionalism to degrading the white race, eradicating 'white privilege'. One would suppose that WASPS would not smilingly expose themselves to a future of being powerless, discriminated against in the society they created and having to fight for any sort of equal treatment. But many many whites in the western countries had been persuaded to see their demotion as a good thing. They agreed with ex-Prez Obama that putting the USA and its dominant culture down a peg or two was a top priority.

In an augmented EU or a herniated UN-type government, the odd-couple symbiosis of global socialists and religion-focused Muslims would likely continue, despite their very different value systems.

The Muslims might no longer be a solid block but even when divided, they have common goals they are furthering using their oil money. They would certainly continue their religious mission to install sharia law everywhere. Success would mean a de facto global Caliphate. Whether an Iranian or a Saudi Arabian would be the Caliph they would decide later. They also have a common interest in preventing the West from exploiting its own oil and gas resources or restricting the expansion of Muslim communities.

The globalists also want to unify the world, but with a socialist agenda in redistributing wealth. The dream of many an academician and politician in the West is to unite countries within a socialist unification. Protecting the environment and undoing global warming are the levers currently being used to pry open a massive global effort to fight climate change and eliminate human practices said to be polluting the atmosphere. The stated policy of the Democratic party in the USA (2016 Democratic Party Platform, July 21, 2016, p45) is to lead this global enterprise. Given the complexity of the task, an over-the-whole-world government would be needed to organize the project. Surprise, surprise — such a government would also have the infrastructure to control the global economy and handle welfare and healthcare. At the moment, the envisioned control mechanism seemed to be a global glob, a fuzzy sort of socialism where the majority of people are dependent on the government and the super rich are the milk cows providing renewable money. Not all the very rich. Not the politician and administrators who run the show, of course. What appears to be envisioned by the globalists is more a two-tiered socialism where a small elite class lives for us, takes vacations for us, flies in comfort in their own planes for us — an expanded version of the Obamas taking vacations that cost millions while access to jobs and health care and education for the middle class diminished.

Into what some had seen as a marvelous future, Brexit and then Trump were the proverbial wrench in the machinery. In the USA, under the Trump administration, it is a time of rage, crumblings, new mottoes and simultaneously a time of satisfaction, sharpenings and new adhesions. The re-seating of reporters in the White House news briefings was emblematic — dissing the wise elders of the New York Times and allowing unvetted scamps from nowhere with no lineage to warm the best seats! It brings up the image of the unwashed commoner being allowed into Andrew Jackson's White House. Shockingly uncouth. But Trump is succeeding in overturning many of the arbitrary and ill-advised decisions of the previous administration. Nevertheless, to assume that the government's oligarchical power structure is being dissolved may be premature. Already we've seen some of Trump's choices bringing into power those who happily served in the Obama administration.

The Trump administration may end up as a brief stop on the road to socialism but it is at least a pause. Individualism, nationalism and free choice might yet survive. It's too soon to do an analysis. And so this issue of Think-Israel is a jumble of comments on some chunks that are coalescing in the chaos.


Return to What We Are Talking About

SCIENTIZING POLITICS

We have become accustomed to some politicizing of science. Savvy scientists have adjusted by linking their research to one politically important cause or another, however shaky the connection. In climatology it's easier to get funding and have your papers appear in the proper trade journals if you conform to the views promulgated by a group of climatologists that are politically powerfut and act as arbiters for the field. (For an interesting take on at least one of the arbiters, look at a video featuring Mark Steyn, who has been sued by the climatologist Michael Mann for defamation, here.) Now we are seeing the reverse. Not only is science being used to bolster and promote particular political goals, but many in the role of politician or evangalist or advocate is himself a scientist or science administrator. Believers in man-made global warming base their messages of environmental doom on scientific 'facts', but often these facts ignore contrary evidence, exceptions, areas of uncertainty and a multitude of possible environmental contributors to climate. The stated goal is to halt global warming. Whether the final solution is taxing western economies down to some degraded, barely-functional level or us installing a "one world government" to control climate, the end result will restructure our political system and limit our freedom of action. As Gary Stix wrote back in 2012, "Effective World Government Will Be Needed to Stave Off Climate Catastrophe," here. It is of little comfort that "Seven In 10 Brits Support 'World Government' To Protect Humanity From Global Catastrophes," (Ian Johnston 23May2017, here.)

For an excellent video on major topics in climate science and climate change, see here.

Alarmists sneer at contrary views by skeptical scientists, claiming they aren't really in the field. Listen to Dr. Judith Curry, a leading Earth and Atmospheric Sciences scientist and her sober talk on the current 'data versus dogma' polarization here.

Do 97% of Climate Scientists Really Agree? See here.

This video talks about Al Gore and how the global warming scare began. See here.


Return to What We Are Talking About

POLITICS DISGUISED AS SCIENCE: WHEN TO DOUBT A SCIENTIFIC 'CONSENSUS'

by Jay Richards

This is a very wise and a very sensible article by Jay Richards who suggests caution in accepting the premise that we are rapidly heading towards a global overheating of the earth. To avoid this, it is argued, we must overhaul our economy and politics and put ourselves in the hands of some global governmental institution such as the United Nations. Richards points out that a consensus that there is warming doesn't tell us about agreement or non-agreement on how much warming there is and what is causing this warming. He writes that "A consensus should be based on solid evidence. But a consensus is not itself the evidence. With well-established scientific theories, you never hear about consensus. No one talks about the consensus that the planets orbit the sun, that the hydrogen molecule is lighter than the oxygen molecule, ... The very fact that we hear so much about a consensus on climate change may be enough to justify suspicion."

READ MORE
hrrule

SCIENTIZING POLITICS

by Bernice Lipkin

Bernice Lipkin writes of the infusion of supposedly rock-solid scientific information into political arguments by supporters of Anthropogenic [man made] Global Warming (AGW) and the growing investment of scientists in participating in social activism, not as individuals but as scientists. She contrasts the modes of behavior when the scientist is acting as advocate and when he is behaving as a scientist.

READ MORE
hrrule

MOVING BEYOND IMPASSE IN CLIMATE CHANGE COMMUNICATIONS

by Katie L. Burke

In a most polite, politically acceptable way, Katie Burke lists some of the most commonly used ways to sell a product. Specifically, how can a scientist learn to persuade in ways that have been scientifically-determined to work? Stripped down, these tactics teach how to engage the audience, including emphasizing what you and the audience have in common. Be local in scale and approach. Talk about how AGW hurts them and their families. Let the audience know that the social groups important to them, the people they admire and trust, accept there's a problem with the climate changing. In fact, everyone except maybe a small number of foolish and ignorant deniers know there's a problem, and who wants to associate with them, anyway. Remember, the less intelligent the audience, the more (simple) pictures and slogans the better. And, for pity sakes, like any good politician, try out your speech on your own focus group before you go before a bunch of civilians.

There are some obvious tips that might be added to the list.

Don't waste your time explaining the difference between short-time weather and long-term climate. Any unusual weather patterns or odd events can be — and have been — blamed on man-made excessive warming. So let the audience tell you what they have or haven't seen in years. Don't reject these notions. You don't have to actually lie; just be suggestive.

Accentuate the positive; eliminate the negative. Push renewable energy sources, natural stuff like wind and sun. Don't talk about how these aren't close to ready to supply our energy needs.

Play up the horrors of excessive heat and how it's harmful to their family's health. Don't mention that the actual data don't support the idea that irreversible heating is just around the corner. They need to be roused. Tomorrow may be too late, if we don't stop our bad habits.

Coo in a dignified manner. Your body language and voice tones should say: You are doing the right thing joining us. You already share our values. Let's face it, guys. We humans are the reason why it's getting hot. And we have to do something about it. Together.

Share with them something related to AGW and supposedly not widely known that they can use next day in the office or while waiting for the kiddies to finish the game.

Content matters some. Delivery matters a lot.

This isn't education. This is salesmanship. Don't confuse the two. Your academic degrees are for show.

Choose your words carefully. Words have baggage. Labels count. Nuances are a sign of weakness. Keep it simple. (I wish there was a word like Mantrasize.)

It is interesting that Burke tells speakers not to follow the example of the Organizing for Action (OFA) group, that has been selling Climate Change by attacking conservative politicians directly. It has been, in Burke's opinion, a failure. I'd be interested on her take on why George Soros' OFA is interested in raising the alarm on Global Warming. I'd be hard-pressed finding anything Soros has done to strengthen America or protect it.

READ MORE
hrrule

WHAT'S WRONG WITH THE CLAIM THAT "97% OF CLIMATE SCIENTISTS AGREE" ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING?

by Neil L. Frank

If you google terms such as consensus 97% scientists global warming, almost all articles in the return list will report or cite reports that some 97% of climate scientists agree that there is global warming. Some articles go beyond the basic statement and add unsupported commentary and interpretation, often stressing the dangers of global warming. Few studies break down the summary numbers into distributed degree of support. Nor do the summaries tell us how many support the alarmists' certainty that a heat holocaust is around the corner. Neil L. Frank has posted one of the few papers that put the consensus mantra in context. He raises such issues as: how were the questions phrased, how reliable is it to infer attitude from an abstract, and what, exactly, were the scientists agreeing to. These are important considerations that the bald statement that '97% agree there's global warming' doesn't address. In fact, given how the data were obtained and the absence of "denier" articles in US journals, it is surprising the investigators didn't find 100% agreement.

READ MORE
hrrule

TRACKING ISLAMIC TAKEOVER OF WESTERN COUNTRIES

The set of articles below deal with some symptoms and indicators of the advancement of Islam's conquest of Western host countries. When the pious immigrant Muslims and their children born in Europe feel confident enough to exert their Allah-given rights of superiority, they start small by demanding hallel food in schools and hospitals and want any pig signs and drawings removed from books to piggy banks. As they progress, they demand substituting their political, cultural, educational and lifestyle values for what the native have or might want. They aren't blending in or giving into multicultural pressures, so anything that looks like assimilation is given publicity, sometimes prematurely. They encourage hate-the-Jews where ever they go. What's most ominous, they are working toward criminalizing criticism of Islam, which, in Muslim countries, is already treated as blasphemy. In another example not dealt with in these articles, Eileen Toplansky writes of artists and writers, so courageous in not visiting Israel to support BDS, who surrender up their freedom at home (American Thinker, 23apr17, here):

European writers, artists and museum directors admit that they are accepting their dhimmi status by:


Return to What We Are Talking About

MUSLIM 'REFUGEE' CALLED INTEGRATION SUCCESS — THEN SLIT HIS BOSS'S THROAT

by Selwyn Duke

Assimilation of the Middle Eastern refugees in Germany has been often asserted, but actual examples are hard to come by. So when a hair salon in Herzberg, Germany, hired a refugee Syrian, this was hailed as an example of successful integration. Then he slit his boss's throat. Selwyn Duke points out that, as much as the Germans deny it, there isn't any integration. "In fact, the only successful integration going on is that of many Germans, who've been integrated into delusion." 'They are just like us,' just isn't so. The multiculturalists build sand castles of diversification and integration and the Muslim immigrants wash them away, time and again.

READ MORE
hrrule

BRITONISTAN, OR DECONSTRUCTING BRITAIN

by Edward Cline

Edward Cline chronicles some of the multitude of changes the Muslims are forcing on the British, who not too long ago were confident enforcers of their own views of what constitutes civilized society. No longer. While terrorist groups insist they are the ones responsible for the ever-increasing terror attacks committed by Muslims, British politician deny it is "Islamic terrorism." The list of cowardly caving-ins in every aspect of Western life grows daily.

READ MORE
hrrule

ISLAM IN THE HEART OF ENGLAND AND FRANCE

by Dennis MacEoin

In the USA, successive administrations have been seeding the country with a steady influx of Muslims, distributing them everywhere (See here.) To date, given the size of the States, except for acts of terror, the impact hasn't been felt. But Britain and France are models of what happens when small colonies of Muslims grow to a size where they become confident enough to actively threaten the way of life of the natives. Dennis MacEoin writes about the city of Birmingham, which is said to be the most radicalized in England — some wards in the city are almost entirely Muslim and some public schools are controlled by Islamic religious leaders, who preach hate and intolerance. Terrorist attacks have increased sharply the past five years over all of Britain. Reports note there is a clear link "between highly-segregated Muslim areas and terrorism." France may be in worse shape. It has some 751 no-go zones, where French law is ignored. In general, the response to Islamist criminality is weak. To date, we in America haven't strayed from the path that doomed Europe — we continue to go along with the increasing demands of Muslims in school and the work place.

READ MORE
hrrule

MUSLIM EXTREMISTS DRIVE ANTI-SEMITIC VIOLENCE IN WESTERN EUROPE

by Simon Kent

Simon Kent writes about a new report that indicates Muslims are "major perpetrators of anti-Semitic violence in Western Europe." "Attitude surveys corroborate this picture in so far as anti-Semitic attitudes are far more widespread among Muslims than among the general population in Western Europe." While right-wingers may be severely anti-Semitic, the report indicates it is left-wingers who not only have strong anti-Semitic views but carry out hostile attacks.

READ MORE
hrrule

LETTING FREEDOM FADE

by Clifford May

In this article, Clifford May discusses self-censorship, an accurate indicator of how much the media recognize that speaking out against salafists might be bad for their own well-being. He notes that Canada is considering criminalizing any criticism of Islam, true or false. It is a pursuit that radical Islam has pursued for years. As May writes, "Canada's Muslim reformers understand that what is being contemplated is not so different from a blasphemy law. And they know the impact such laws have had in other countries."

Recently, a 52-year old convert to Islam created terror havoc at the House of Parliament. Aside from his obvious motivation, he left no explanation why he did what he did when he did. Douglas Murray (see here) has speculated what working journalists would want to know and how criminalizing 'Islamaphobs' would hamper them.

Would we be allowed to ask who ISIS are inspired by? The question must linger. It must be hovering over the mind of many a Canadian journalist as they ponder the terrorist attacks that have previously taken place in their country and wonder how they would go about reporting an attack such as that in Westminster last week.

Would they be allowed to say that the perpetrator was a Muslim? Would they be allowed to say that he was a convert? Would they be allowed to mention the Wahhabi point? Or would this tread into the realm of the "Islamophobia". Let us assume that they would be allowed to mention these things in print. Would they be allowed to go any farther? Would they be allowed to ponder in opinion columns or quote people in reportage who said that Masood and indeed ISIS had not got their ideas from nowhere? Would they be allowed to say that there is a tradition of violence within the Islamic religion, which has sadly permitted just such actions for a rather long time. Or would they have to lie?

READ MORE
hrrule

SHILLY-SHALLYING ON SAMARIA AND JUDEA

People who do not side with settlement demonizers focus on proving that Israeli Jewish settlements aren't evil and that settlements won't thwart peace. Some even dare say — in the face of a high-pressure campaign against Jewish settlements and settlers that has co-opted the moral high ground — that settlements are legal and settlers are ordinary Israeli citizens, which they are. And so we present some well-written articles on the actual status of the Israeli settlement policy.

That's not where the focus should be. It should be on how to reunite Israel and the territory that Jordan took in 1948 when she invaded the new state of Israel, territory that Israel recovered in 1967, when Jordan again invaded Israel. Israel needs to absorb the Territories and carry out the second half of the Middle East's exchange of populations. The first half happened in the 1940s and 1950s when the Arab countries expelled their Jewish populations. The 800,000 Jewish refugees quickly became full-fledged citizens of the State of Israel.

Martin Sherman is courageous enough to point out that it's time to act on the obvious. Any half measure — a two-state solution or a single bi-national state — will lead to Israel's loss of its Jewish character and likely its sovereignty. In the end, depending on what Israel does, the Land of Israel will end up either Jewish OR Muslim. It can not be both. If this seems too drastic a conclusion, consider that in a two-state solution, the Arabs will not allows Jews to live in their state. But in Israel, with a Jewish population of 6.5 million and where the Arabs are citizens, the number of Israeli Arabs has already grown from the 200,000 counted in the 1949 census to 1.8 million today. (In fact, the most popular boy's name given to Israeli newborns, Jews and Arabs combined, continues to be Mohammad, Times of Israel.) A binational state would start today with the additional 4.5 million or so Arabs living in Samaria, Judea and Gaza plus an unknown number of the 6 to 7 million Palestinian Arabs living in Arab countries and elsewhere. To see what this would mean, consider what the relatively small proportion of Muslims coming into Europe has already done to erode native European culture and civilization.

These videos are but a few of the many available that explain what is legal, namely, the Jews legally and irrevocably own the Jewish land allocated to the Jews by the international community at San Remo in 1920. (See the January-June 2016 issue of Think-Israel below for details, here.) The fact that so much effort has been expending on demonizing the settlements by the members of Peace Now and other treasonous JINOs (Jews In Name Only) suggests that they, like many others, ignore the stipulations of the various agreements and would like to create conditions that would make it easier to illegally gift the Arabs with Samaria and Judea. Many of them dream that this is the first step in an Arabs take-over of all of Israel.


our legal rights


Professor Avi Bell of U San Diego


Edwin Black is author of "IBM and the Holocaust"


Prof Eugene Kontorovich, professor at Northwestern Law


Return to What We Are Talking About

ISRAEL'S NEW SETTLEMENT POLICY: EVALUATED AND EXPLAINED

by Malcolm Lowe

Malcolm Lowe describes the current policy of the Israeli government on new construction in Jewish towns in Samaria and Judea. What is not new is that "All the settlements created by Israel before the Oslo accords are legitimate, including the new Israeli housing estates created in the extended boundaries of Jerusalem." New construction must be contained within the current construction lines; "the establishment of new wildcat outposts" is not permitted. The new stipulation is that new settlements are allowed but only when they are the legal substitutes for towns believed to be legal when they were built but subsequently shown to have private Arab ownership, so the Jews, who had bought their homes in good faith, had to abandon the sites. Lowe doesn't mention that the freeze on Jewish construction during the Oslo negotiations was for three months only. Yet Israel maintained a freeze on construction in the Territories, even in areas that, under the most idiotic giving away of land, would remain Israeli. The Arabs are yet to carry out any of their contractual promises, yet Israel has perpetuated a crippling restriction on itself. This noble self-sacrifice has not made the local Arabs any more willing to accept a Jewish state. Curiously, while any new Jewish building is greeted with 'international' outrage and is minutely monitored, the Arabs have no such restrictions in the areas they control. A deeper mystery is why Jewish officials remain silent about their legitimate claims to the land, affording the Arabs the opportunity to sprout all sorts of fantastic claims without hinderance.

READ MORE
hrrule

ISRAEL BALANCES US PEACE PUSH WITH GOAL OF BOLSTERING SETTLEMENT ENTERPRISE

by Alex Traiman, June 14, 2017

Israel is in a bind of its own making. By its foolish policy of curtailing building in areas of Samaria-Judea directly under its control, even by the Oslo Accords, it made itself vulnerable to foreign meddling. Every few years, when the diplomats can prop up some Arab 'leader' they can designate as 'peace partner', the world engages in a ritualistic 'peace process.' The Arabs are adamant that they won't give up a centimeter of 'their land', or they make some peaceful noises but everyone knows they won't keep any contractual obligation. Israel, on the other hand, makes generous, often self-destructive, concessions. Why would a diplomat waste breathe trying to persuade the Arabs, when the Jewish concessionists are so eager to screw themselves? It's a no-brainer that the 'peacemakers' will push only Israel for concessions. What has changed over the years is, as Alex Traiman writes, that pressure has built up for more housing in the Territories. As a spokesman for Hebron said, "We have hundreds of families on a waiting list. We haven't built anything new since 2005," Moreover, it's hard to convince Israelis that the Territories are under some evil Jewish occupation, when it's their friends and relatives who, except for the chronic terror attacks, vandalism and looting by the Arabs, are living ordinary lives in Samaria and Judea. In the words of an Israeli spokesman of a settlement, "Within Israel, most people understand that the 450,000 Israeli residents of Judea and Samaria are an irreversible fact."

READ MORE
hrrule

ARE ISRAELI "SETTLEMENTS" ILLEGAL?

by Orit ben Tzvi

In response to the assertion of a New Zealand lawyer that the Jewish settlements are illegal, Orit ben Tzvi has encapsulated some of the main points for what by now should not need restating: the Jewish communities in Samaria and Judea (aka the West Bank) are legal. When the Allied forces defeated the Ottoman Empire in World War 1, in recognition of the historic connection of the Jews and their ancient homeland, a small portion of the Ottoman land was set aside at the San Remo conference of 1920 as a future Jewish state. Samaria and Judea, as well as Israel 'proper', Gaza and much of the Golan are in perpetual, irrevocable trust for the Jewish people. The 1922 Mandate for Palestine was based on the San Remo Resolution. As ben Tzvi points out, "The only binding resolution of international law, a resolution which has never been countermanded, is the 1922 Mandate for Palestine." The rest of Ottoman land, some 99.9% of the Middle East, was given to the Arabs. It is a sorry fact that before the international community in the person of the League of Nations voted on this law in 1922, Britain excluded the land on the East side of the Jordan river (75% of the land allocated for a Jewish state) from the Jewish domain, giving it to the Hashemites to administer. Over the years until she withdrew from "Palestine" and the Jews finally got their state in 1948, she violated her oath to help the Jews develop the infrastructure of a viable state. She sided with with the Arabs, even helping the Nazis exterminate Jews by not letting them come into "Palestine." ben Tzvi also discusses the other points raised by the initial rejection of Israel's ownership of the land. For further information, go to the January-June 2016 issue of Think-Israel (see below).

READ MORE
hrrule

THE LEGAL RESPONSE TO TERRORISM

by Amb. Alan Baker

Alan Baker has written a brilliant summation of the legal ways available to respond to terrorism, whether local or international. Failed ways of dealing with terrorism include appeasement and negotiation. As Baker writes, "The enhanced ideological element of today's terrorism, seeking in many instances to enhance the rule of Islam throughout the world, defies any logic of negotiation or specific legislative or social change. This "zero-sum" form of terror knows no means of conciliation or compromise. It cannot be negotiated. It needs to be addressed assertively."

Nations have begun more effective measures — attempting to dry out the terrorist's money supply and increasing punitive measures. Israel, relatively late in the day, has increased its counter-terror legislation. "It increases punishments for organizers of terrorism and enables courts to convict terror cell leaders more easily."

But in truth, even these measures have fatal defects:

(1) When the terrorist leaders and inciters of terror are the very same people that are in charge, such as is case with Mahmoud Abbas and the Palestine Authority (PA), the lower-level criminal may be more easily imprisoned but the organizers and resource-suppliers have no fear of punishment. Even though the PA leaders brag openly of paying the family of terrorists and educate the Arab children to practice terror, they remain in power.

(2) Enough persistent acts of terror — synchronized, sequenced or random — will, after a while, overload any legal system that relies on careful investigation and identification, followed by a fair trial and multiple appeals.

(3) An unintended consequence of using the state's "crime budget" mainly to stop acts of terrorism before they occur and deal with those that they don't catch ahead of time is that there is little left to deal with 'normal' low-level crimes: small-amount embezzlement, fraud, petty theft, graft, battery and abuse. In the long term, allowing small-time crime to grow undeterred may be as damaging to the State as acts of terror.

Baker makes a case for stronger measures for quelling incitement internationally, but this is a formidable job, unlikely to be successful in the short term. In the next article below, Martin Sherman considers the need for Israel to expel the local Arabs. Demographic reasons aside, these Arabs are from the same pool as the Arabs that commit acts of violence. Transferring these Arabs either to their own sequestered State in some portion of the vast land holding of the Arabs or giving them citizenship in the Arab countries where they now reside would seem to be a way, both benign and efficient, to empty the pool where terrorism festers. And it would better the lives of the Arab refugees, who have living temporary for some four generations.

READ MORE
hrrule

MARTIN SHERMAN VS. CAROLINE GLICK — ON SOVEREIGNTY

by Martin Sherman

Martin Sherman speaks plainly on maintaining Israel as a sovereign nation, a Jewish state. He point out what's wrong with a partial or an entire absorption of the Arabs, limited autonomy, and other attempts at dealing with a recalcitrant group that doesn't wish to assimilate, while maintaining the character of the State as Jewish. If Israel is to survive, she must carry out two operations in synchrony. As Sherman writes, "She must satisfy two imperatives: the geographic and the demographic. The first of these imperatives calls for Israeli control (i.e. sovereignty) over all the territory east of the coastal plain up to the Jordan River—to prevent intolerable risks to its physical survival; the second imperative calls for significant reduction of the Arab presence in the territory under Jewish sovereignty to forestall an intolerable demographic threat to its dominant Jewish character.

In practice, this means: she must annex all of Samaria and Judea; they are, after all, hers legally. And she must carry out the second stage of a population transfer, which was begun when the Arab countries kicked out or killed their Jewish inhabitants in the 1940s. The Jews fled, forced to leave behind their property and valuables. The Arabs do not have to suffer by a transfer. Many implementations have been suggested, from 'buying' citizenship in one of the Arab countries to moving to Jordan or some other area in the vast space once owned by the Ottomans. (The suggestion by Lewis and Bernice Lipkin is to be found here.) In moving, he would be bettering his present condition.

READ MORE
hrrule

BUT WHAT DO WE DO ABOUT IRAN?

Our biggest, most dangerous concern is that rogue countries, Iran and North Korea, have or will soon have sophisticated, long-range nuclear weapons. The Trump administration has begun paying attention to North Korea. But the Mullahs of Iran are a wily bunch. They look exotic, not pudgy; they have the veneer of religion to clock their evil plans; they appear to be better at intimidating, persuading and bribing than North Korea; they have the sympathy of much of the media, having persuading news distributors that they should be able to do what they want to do.

Under consideration right now is the Joint Comprehensive Plan Of Action (JCPOA), that was said to solve our problems with Iran's nuclear ambitions. The JCPOA was to change the pace of Iran's progress toward acquiring nuclear bombs, and to make her more responsible when she eventually acquired such weaponry. The JCPOA is a curious document that is said to be binding on the United States, even though it is not a treaty. Congress didn't act on it. They did take a vote on whether to continue to debate it, which isn't the same thing at all. It is not even an executive agreement. It was passed internationally in a unique way. The representative of the involved countries (P5+1) and Iran did gather together in Vienna, Austria. But no one signed it. No one consented with raised hand. And the deed was done. (See here.)

The Iranian theocrats are a very large threat. At the least, they can use their technology to de facto control the Middle East. If they realize their dreams, they will possess nuclear missiles that can wipe out Israel in one blast and reach the USA to knock out much of America. For a thorough examination of the Iran Deal, see the July-October 2015 issue of Think-Israel.org here.


Return to What We Are Talking About

THE IRAN NUCLEAR DEAL: WORSE THAN WE THOUGHT

by Michael Rubin, April 25, 2017

Now that the smoke has dissipated and the mirrors swept away, it is becoming even more obvious that the JCPOA is a danger to our national security. As Michael Rubin put it, "it is long past time for Congress to demand the testimony of John Kerry, his chief of staff and top aides, in order to understand just what risks they were willing to inflict on the United States of America for what appears increasingly to be a Potemkin agreement."

To put it bluntly, ex-Prez Obama could not have done more to aid Iran carry out its plans for world domination. He told bold lies to maintain the fiction that the JCPOA was working out. He dropped charges against people illegally procuring US microelectronics and other equipment for Iran. He avoided Congressional supervision. He misrepresented the deal, describing it as a way to control Iran's nuclear productivity, while Iran was clearly stating it would brook no involuntary inspection and it would not curtail its own nuclear plans. And, as Claudia Rosett has pointed out (here), he committed the USA to "facilitate exchanges and visits to nuclear power plants outside of Iran." Let's spell this out: Iranians can legally come and examine our work on nuclear fusion, from whence cometh hydrogen bombs. A reader of her paper, Really Mike, pointed out "there is a secret codicil to Annex III, Section D, item 8, pages 4-5. It says: 'to help the Iranians decide which nuclear plant to visit, the US will provide complete architectural and engineering drawings for each facility under consideration.'"

READ MORE
hrrule

LOOKING THE WRONG WAY ON IRAN

by Shoshana Bryen, June 29, 2017

Thanks to Shoshana Bryen discussion of recent Middle East history, we can cut through all the misleading information the Obama Administration fed us about how the West was restraining Iran's nuclear and political ambitions. An improbable patchwork coalition of Shiites, Iraqi and Iranian, with America help, has been fighting the Islamic State, battling for Mosul and helping Bashar Assad continue to reign in Syria. While the West focuses on what to do about Syria, Iran, with help of its ally Hezbollah, is quietly taking over the "Shiite Crescent", the northwest route from Iran to the Mediterranean Sea, pushing Sunni Syrians out as it progresses. In the southwest, Iran generously supports the Houthi rebels in Yemen. And, as Bryen writes, "Iranian weapons brought in through Sudan and Eritrea threaten the stability of Sunni Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Algeria and Morocco, lining the Mediterranean Sea opposite NATO's Southern Command." Obama's "make nice" strategy has not made Iran less aggressive. The Iranian mullahs do not see themselves as pariahs. They see themselves as the protector of Shiite Islam, and however the West rationalizes its concessions to Iran, the mullahs have used the resources given them to solidify control of more and more of the Middle East.

READ MORE
hrrule

IRAN'S CHALLENGE TO AMERICA IN SYRIA

by Matthew RJ Brodsky

This article by Matthew JR Brodsky emphasizes Iran's strong reinforcement of Shiite Syria. It also underscores Bryen's point in her article above that Iran is working on many fronts, successfully so, to become the major power in the Middle East. Brodsky concludes that the USA's focus on ISIS and somewhat on Syria is too narrow. He writes, "Iran remains on the march and poses a greater long-term strategic threat to the United States and its allies than does ISIS.... for the United States, the war in Syria should be more about Iran than ISIS."

READ MORE
hrrule

MIDDLE EAST PEACE HINGES ON REGIME CHANGE IN IRAN

by Shahriar Kia

Iran is steadily growing in power. But she has some serious problems. Shahriar Kia writes about the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI) a highly visible group that opposes the current Iranian regime. They recently held a meeting, in which the NCRI president, Maryam Rajavi, said the Iranians are suffering from Mullah rule. As she put it, "The Iranian society is simmering." American conference speakers suggested that declaring the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) to be a terrorist group would be a good move. Kia writes that "[f]ormer and current members of Congress from both sides of the aisle in the U.S., along with a very prominent Arab world figure, were among the many others also seeking regime change in Tehran." Many believe that the goal of ridding "the world of Tehran's criminal mullahs" would already be attained, had the West not "adopted a disastrous policy of appeasement vis-à-vis Iran."

READ MORE
hrrule

THE SLOW DESTRUCTION OF IRAN'S WATER SUPPLY

by Nik Kowsar

A major problem for Iran is environmental. Because of unregulated over-extraction of the available water supply, she is losing her water supply. In the 1980's, simple techniques in controlling water distribution were beginning to pay off, and farming became more reliable, But, as Nik Kowsar writes, "The Islamic Republic has literally killed a large number of aquifers and alluvial plains, and blocked the rivers that fed these aquifers through its compulsive dam-building." During Rafsanjani's presidency, suggestions by experts on how to recharge aquifers were ignored. Kowsar writes of his own experience attempting to change water management during Mohammad Khatami's administration. The main result of his efforts was that he had to flee the country. Land erosion and water loss continue.

READ MORE
hrrule

JINO JEWS: JEWS IN NAME ONLY

As the Far Left showed more and more of its core hatreds, Israel was demonized by politicians, the media and Jews whose real religion is Marxism and/or Globalism. Thanks to the new Trump administration, things are somewhat better at the US State Department and some pro-Israel information is reaching the public. But the tepid Jews and the JINOS, Jews in Name Only, either don't fight back or fight against Israel. Inverting reality, Jews are called the bad guys, and the terrorists are said to be the victims. This video makes the point.


Return to What We Are Talking About

UNDER TRUMP, ISRAELI VICTIMS OF TERROR AT LEAST GET GENUINE CONDOLENCES

by Gregg Roman

Gregg Roman's article points up a notable fact: the US is no longer treating terrorist activity against Israel as if Israel were somehow at fault and should not respond to brutal attacks. Obama's leaving Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu alone in the middle of an official meeting to go off to have his supper was a calculated insult. His attitude was mirrored in how the American State Department behaved towards Israel directly and in the United Nations whenever Israel was attacked and responded. Considering that Israel is the USA's most reliable ally in the Middle East, the changing attitude towards Israel is obviously intelligent.

READ MORE
hrrule

GERMANY: PUBLIC OUTRAGE FORCES TV NETWORK TO AIR 'CENSORED' ANTISEMITISM DOCUMENTARY

by Vijeta Uniyal

Vijeta Uniyal writes about a documentary on anti-semitism in Europe — "Chosen and Ostracised — The hatred of Jews in Europe" — that a German network was reluctant to show. As Uniyal writes, "Anti-Israel campaign has some powerful political backers within the European ruling establishment. The documentary reveals that European governments contribute nearly €100 million each year to supposed charities and NGOs that run anti-Israel and anti-Semitic campaigns. The facts uncovered in the documentary will undoubtedly cause some embarrassment to leading German charities that turn a blind eye to antisemitic incitement peddled by their local partners operating in Israel and elsewhere." The pressure from the public was sufficient to make the Geman network run it. But, apparently, it is again 'unavailable.'

READ MORE
hrrule

THE ONE LESSON OF THE HOLOCAUST

by Daniel Greenfield

Despite the genuine sense of shock and anguish people experience visiting Holocaust museums and other memorial buildings, the impact of these memorials on increasing the determination of Jews and non-Jews to defend Jews currently under attack from Resurgent Islam and its allies has been minimal. Instead, Jews have generally put their hopes in promoting tolerance, to the point of becoming a danger to themselves. As Tom Umland, a reader of the original publication, commented, "Tolerance of that which ... in reality is intolerable or leads to the intolerable reflects only the hope of Jews that they themselves will also be tolerated - for once... It's an error of an overly simplistic understanding of their reality. That excessive or unthinking 'tolerance' can act to actually promote intolerant perspectives in others seems surprising at first but unchallenged attitudes lead to complacency. Sadly there are almost too many complacent Jews who take thinking about the Holocaust to be sufficient response to its reality. Glad to see that there are others who perceive more deeply. Yes, it can 'happen again', it already has, but not against Jews, thanks to Israel."

READ MORE
hrrule

WHAT HAPPENS WHEN FAMOUS NOVELISTS 'CONFRONT THE OCCUPATION' IN THE WEST BANK

by Mattie Friedman

Matti Friedman writes about the silliness of some American writers who hopped over to Israel, spoke (not necessarily literally) to some Arabs, and heard yet again of the horrors of having to wait at checkpoints. The Westerners swallowed all they heard and, without wasting time to check out the facts, hurried home to write about the effect the awful Israeli occupation has on Palestinian Arabs. A reader, Mendel, said about this article: "Well meaning fools. The Arabs have been playing the left for suckers for years. Much as the Soviets did 60+ years ago." But why, I wonder, do so many of these useful idiots have to be Jews? During Israel's retaliation in Gaza in 2014, Israel was urged to be more proportionate; which in practice would mean either building the Gazan Arabs the bomb shelters their leaders had not bothered doing OR destroying Israeli bomb shelters so more Jews would be killed to even things up. Similarly, in comparing the relative large proportion of (Leftist) Jews who criticize Israel to the total number of Jews versus the relative small number of articulate critics coming from the huge number of people belonging to other religions, shouldn't some Jewish Jew-haters retire, just to even things up?

READ MORE
hrrule

PANELISTS PROVE JEWISH VOICE FOR PEACE IS NEITHER

by John Rossomando

The Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) is another anti-Israel organization that wears a Jewish name. Founded two decades ago, it is focused on destroying Israel but it often changes its arguments, dressing its message in the latest in trendy Jew-bashing. At a recent panel discussion, John Rossomando tells us, JVP made it clear than Israel can not be allowed to exist because "... the problem is with the ideological foundation of the state itself: Zionism. Zionism at its core is white supremacy." A panelist, an Ethiopian Jew, lamented Israel's racist policy regarding Ethiopian Jews. She saw no irony in the fact that Israel rescued thousands of Ethopian Jews, who were living in primitive conditions, insecure, constantly in fear of their hostile neighbors. In a relatively short time Israel taught them how to thrive in the modern world. This panelist should be lamenting that the unrestricted freedom Israel gave her unfortunately also gave her the freedom to join groups which don't encourage her to accomplish much of anything. As a proper Marxist organization, JVP encourages 'minority' groups to feel 'victimized' and act down-trodden.

READ MORE
hrrule

HISTORY SECTION

Starting with some historic betrayals, this issue's History Section transits via Alex Rose's article to the history of the fallacious Arab claims to Jewish land. An article on the history of the Muslim Brotherhood, a major source of global instability, follows. The Section ends with the use of new techniques to clear up ancient mysteries.


Return to What We Are Talking About

BRITISH JEWS TO MAY, CORBYN: SUPPORT PALESTINIAN STATE TO GET OUR VOTES

by Susie Dym

The Jewish Board of Deputies (BoD) is urging British leaders to establish a Palestinian state! This is not as surprising as one might think, given its history since its founding in the 1750s. Susie Dym reviews its less than admirable history of failure to support Jewish integrity and growth.

READ MORE
hrrule

REZSŐ KASZTNER: THE MAN WHO BETRAYED 400,000 JEWS

by Paul Bogdanor

Paul Bogdanor writes of Rezso Kasztner, who aided the Nazis by not informing the Hungarian Jewish community that they were being tricked into going quietly to a concentration camp. Kasztner is certainly not worthy of the whitewashing now going on, which describes him as an "unknown hero" of the Holocaust. His actions were not heroic, but a disorganized community in denial of activities that hinted at their coming doom certainly didn't help matters.

READ MORE
hrrule

FULL JUSTICE REQUIRES PUNISHMENT

by Efraim Zuroff

From the end of World War 2 on, the level of specific proof was so high that relatively few Nazis have been punished for their crimes against the Jews and others. For a while, prosecutors believed things would change if they reduced the criminal charge to 'accessory to murder', which carried a lesser "penalty in Germany of five to fifteen years in prison." It hasn't worked because of a prolonged appeals system, where several convicted Nazis died before their appeals were exhausted. Because of its high cost and low yield, there is now pressure to abandon use of this accusation. Efraim Zuroff, however, suggests that the value of such prosecution to public education and historical documentation makes it worthwhile to retain the law.

READ MORE
hrrule

THE ROOT CAUSE

by Alex Rose

Alex Rose justifiably takes issue with Martin Kramer's article on the Balfour Declaration, which claimed that Great Britain had no authority to dispose of the land, i.e., the vast land area of the Middle East (ME), which had belonged to the Ottoman Empire until it fought on the losing side in World War 1 (WW1). Actually Arabs and pro-Arabs don't mind that the Arabs gained control of 99.9% of the ME. It's the paltry one tenth of one percent (Israel, including all of Jerusalem, Samaria, Judea, Gaza and much of the Golan) then known as Palestine and in trust for a Jewish State that bothers them. Rose demolishes the myths that Britain promised what was then called Palestine to the Arabs as well as to the Jews and that therefore the Arabs were cheated out of their land. The cheating Britain did was to renege on its contract to help the Jews build up Palestine, especially by not allowing Jews who managed to escape the Nazis to enter Palestine, legally set aside as the future State of Israel by the legal follow-ups of the Balfour Declaration: the San Remo Conference and the Palestine Mandate.

READ MORE
hrrule

THE MYTH OF JEWISH THEFT OF ARAB LAND

by Alex Grobman, Ph.D.

Alex Grobman has written a detailed and historically-accurate article exploding the oft-asserted Arab fabrication that the Jews stole land belonging to the Arabs. If the listener is ignorant, the Arabs will claim they had owned areas of great wealth and productivity in Palestine. In actuality, those Jews who returned to their homeland in the late eighteen hundreds found a small number of people from some fifty ethnic groups living in unsanitary conditions on mosquito-infested land that had lost its topsoil and had turned into swamp or desert. Yet, when the Jews bought this land, paying top dollars to often absentee owners, and, against all odds and after many failures, developed a thriving agriculture, the Arabs claimed they were cheated. The returnees also found a moribund economy and frequent raiding of defenseless villages by the Bedouins. They took steps to correct the situation both for themselves and the local Arabs. These improvements were not important to the wealthy Arab leadership, who happily sold large amounts of land to the Jews, but condemned establishing a Jewish homeland on land they continued to regard as theirs.

READ MORE
hrrule

THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD, FOUNTAIN OF ISLAMIST VIOLENCE

by Cynthia Farahat

The Obama administration with a straight face and full knowledge of the Muslim Brotherhood's ideology and terror activities claimed the Brotherhood was not extremist. Without equivocation, Cynthia Farahat points out that "The Muslim Brotherhood has operated as a terrorist entity for almost a century." And it has given rise to both open terrorist organizations such as Hamas and the Islamic State and "respectable" front organizations such as CAIR. Farahat writes of its history from its inception almost a century ago. It uses whatever tool is necessary: it hobnobs with powerful politicians, it funds social causes, it assassinates enemy leaders and bombs civilians, it creates riots and havoc — it instigated riots globally because some cartoonists had drawn an image of Mohammad. It has adherents on campus, in the Government and in all strata of society. With its huge supply of money, excellent organization, infra-structure and its dedication to making Sharia law the law of every land, it is a threat to the Far West, the Far East and all countries in between.

READ MORE
hrrule

MULTISPECTRAL IMAGING REVEALS BIBLICAL-PERIOD INSCRIPTION UNNOTICED FOR HALF A CENTURY

by Shira Faigenbaum-Golovin et al

This article by Shira Faigenbaum-Golovin and associates is about a way to read the writing on ancient shards, where the writing is no longer visible in ordinary light. Consider the implications for reassessing ideas that were based on less evidence. As one sentence in this article says, "There are almost 20 words on the recto with a changed reading (half of the total!)" There have been many articles summarizing this new approach to examining ordinary shards uncovered at archaeological sites. Some explain the technique; some its implications, some link it to political points-of-view. The article presented here is the original one. Considering that so many politicized scientists are spending their time promoting their political ideas, we thought it would be interesting to read a scrupulously performed and well-written account of a scientific study with a significant result.

READ MORE
hrrule

ON THE GENETIC TRAIL OF THE BENE ISRAEL

by Michele Chabin

The Bene Israel is a Jewish community that lived in India for several hundred years. Their history was unknown and when they came to Israel, their being Jews was questioned by the Israeli Rabbinate. Chabin writes how modern tools used in studying population genetics were used to delve into the Bene Israel's pre-Indian history. The techniques used can't tell who specifically is Jewish and it isn't certain when the community came to India. It may have been as early as two millennia ago, perhaps even earlier, in 175 BCE. By comparing members of the Bene Israel to samples from various Jewish groups as well as to non-Jewish groups in India and Pakistan, the researchers could conclude that "the Bene Israel have significant Jewish ancestry that likely originated from a group of Jews from the Middle East."

READ MORE
hrrule

APRIL-JUNE, 2017 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 April-June 2017 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

January-March 2017

What we are talking about in the January–March 2017 Issue

  1. This Issue's Theme
  2. Fake News (Schow, Keefer, Allcott&Gentzkow, Kupelian)
  3. Leaders of the 'Spontaneous' Riots (Vadum, Discover the Networks, Sperry, Barnes)
  4. National Insecurity Issues (Timmerman, Sellin, Harsanyi, McCarthy)
  5. Trivializing and Denying, With Sweden's Woes a Prime Example (Bawer, Fjordman, Morefield)
  6. Succour Thine Enemy, Endanger Thine Own (Barron, Miller, Leahy, Savage, Romirowsky)
  7. Jews Who Hate Jews (Plaut, Greenfield, Leibler, Danan, Grobman)
  8. History Section (Greenwald, Yad Vashem, Shaer, Rubin, Balint, Linde)
  9. Blog-Eds January-March 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.



THE THEME OF THIS ISSUE

This issue expands the section devoted to examining Propaganda and Public Relations. This issue we talk about lies — lies by omission, lies by puffery, lies by denying the obvious and observable, lies by trivialization, lies by turning oneself into a living lie. Lies by downplay, lies made out of whole cloth, lies by distortion, lies by willful misinterpretation and other such forms of fakery. They are seldom discrete. They overlap, they bump over each other, they change form, they compress becoming dense mantras, or expand into puffed-up lunacy. We can't cover every area, of course. That would take a 3-volume treatise. We start by trying to pin down what qualifies as fake news and some of its consequences.


Return to What We Are Talking About

 


FAKE NEWS

Fake News is a new term for an old malady. It's new enough that its borders are still fuzzy. Is fake news just a superabundance of typos and minor accidental errors? The news media pounced on President Trump for saying there was an immigrant riot the night before he spoke about a riot (actually, Trump was referring to a video he saw about the riot), while ignoring that Sweden has a real problem with its Middle Eastern refugees, who refuse to assimilate.

Or is fake news the equivalent of a less than a full understanding of the significant facts? We saw this when citizens of some Muslim countries were suddenly restricted from using their visas to come to America. The news media labeled them immigrants and ignored that the targeted countries were notorious for breeding terrorists and that's what we wanted to keep out.

Or, sliding along the scale from innocent error to deliberate lying, is fake news a distortion of some of the facts and omission of others? In any investigation, the facts are not all equal in value. After all, what makes a doctor a good diagnostician is his ability to pull out the significant facts from a welter of data. Yet, from another perspective, the facts considered significant are unlikely to be the same in both right wing publications and leftist ones. Nationalist publications will likely give facts different weights than do globalist ones. An organization devoted to identity politics is unlikely to highlight the same information as an organization designed to unite all around American core values. One might ask: when does emphasis on particular facts while ignoring other significant facts become distortion?

Or does fake apply only to the far end of the graph, where 'facts' are invented and informational items are trimmed and pasted together to form a complete distortion of reality? A notorious recent example (examined below) was when a former British intelligence agent, Christopher Steele, who had either retired or been dismissed from MI-6, was paid, it is said by Jeb Bush and/or other GOPers, for an unsubstantiated and implausible account of Trump's purported relationship to Russian leaders, including his supposed activities in Moscow when he was there as judge of a beauty pageant. Some items were contradicted by documented facts and the activities didn't fit Trump's way of doing things, yet John McCain passed the report on to the FBI and several journalists. Despite admission by Democratic leaders that the Trump-Russia collusion is fake ("Democrats Admit Trump-Russia Collusion Is Fake Finally" here), it has become part of the Democratic credo, accepted as truth. These are the same people that were not outraged when Hillary Clinton, with Prez Obama's approval, helped make it possible for Russia to acquire control of one-fifth of all of the USA's uranium production capacity, (NY Times, 23April2015).

It might be a while to come to a consensus on what constitutes fake news. But it is obvious that with undisciplined social media and agenda-promoting press and TV people, the spread of false assertions has clearly become more extensive. It doesn't help that supposedly reputable news sources make a habit of running headlines and inlines that are opposites in content. Assessing information has often become a bewildering chore, damaging our ability to make intelligent assessments of situations.

This set of articles makes a try at defining fake news and then judges its different impacts in several situations. A nice low-keyed video worth viewing is "How to Spot Fake News" from FactCheck.org here,


Return to What We Are Talking About

THE 4 TYPES OF 'FAKE NEWS'

by Ashe Schow

Characterizing fake news is not easy, if at all doable. In this article, Ashe Schow presents a reasonable way of discriminating fake news. A story that is completely made up is obviously fake news, while satiric stories are assumed to be fake but hope to cleverly make a point. Ashe includes other categories that are less clear. One thing is certain: if one considers why a story was written in addition to its actual compilation of facts, analysis can get very complicated.

READ MORE
hrrule

OUR MAN IN LONDON: THE SCANDAL OF THE 35-PAGE 'INTELLIGENCE DOSSIER' DIRECTED AGAINST DONALD TRUMP

by Prof. Michael Keefer

Does fake news affect opinion? We start with this article by Michael Keefer on the impact of a recently published dossier on President Trump's supposed collusion with Russia to win the presidency. Keefer focuses on plausibility in assessing the truth-value of the dossier. Too many people think as did Andrei Soldatov, writing in The Guardian, "despite all these failings ["factual confusion, unverifiable details"], Steele's representation of Kremlin procedures and motivations "sounds about right...whatever the truth of Putin's connections with Trump, makes it all pretty scary." Keefer concludes, "I would describe this reasoning—according to which a document whose analytical method is problematic and whose evidential basis is variously confused, unverifiable, highly questionable, or wholly absent, can nonetheless be accepted as plausible—as mental debris. If any categorical distinction can be made between thinking of this order and the kind of arguments that sent accused witches to the stake in the 16th and 17th centuries, I should like to know what it might be." The dossier may be implausible and unverifiable, but some, even in the media, have accepted it because it says what they want to hear.

READ MORE
hrrule

SOCIAL MEDIA AND FAKE NEWS IN THE 2016 ELECTION

by Hunt Allcott and Matthew Gentzkow. And a Separate Summary by Charles Hartwell

Hunt Allcott and Matthew Gentzkow did a controlled study investigating the impact of false stories on the 2016 election. Their results indicate that false defamatory stories about Hillary Clinton did not cause her to lose the election. And exposure to pro-Trump fake stories had almost no effect. In sum, fake news had virtually no impact on the election results. The introductory Executive Summary by Charles Hartwell is an independent article summing up Allcott and Gentzkow's detailed analysis of their experimental design and results. The influence of fake news might, of course, differ in other circumstances. Clearly, a search for patterns determined by examining the impact of false and/or misleading information in particular events and conditions would be a useful investigation.

READ MORE
hrrule

FROM FAKE NEWS AND FAKE MEDIA TO FAKE HISTORY AND FAKE TRUTH

by David Kupelian

David Kupelian considers the long term effects of fake news. He discusses how the Mainstream Media' (MSM) "has become the very enemy it condemns." "[C]oncern over 'fake news' [has become] a new weapon for attacking opposing viewpoints, 'conspiracy websites'" and [...] legitimate news." "Much, if not most, of what America's 'mainstream media' report today as news is either misleading or flat-out false." Thanks to a biased and corrupted media, too many believe a video caused the attack on the American compound in Benghazi and that anthropogenic global warming is a settled science and can not be questioned. Kupelian points out that "fake news, when codified over time, becomes fake history." What make this possible are the underlying assumptions that have conditioned our thinking; i.e., Islam is a religion of peace, America is a deeply racist nation, capitalism is inherently predatory, etc., etc. And this trend is increasing.

READ MORE
hrrule

 

LEADERS OF THE 'SPONTANEOUS RIOTS', RALLIES, RANTS AND RUMORS AGAINST A TRUMP PRESIDENCY

Marches, rallies and 'spontaneous' gatherings that deteriorate into riots are the most visible signs of discontent. They seems so down-to-earth, accidental clumpings of people attracted to a particular place on a particular day. If the media agree with the purpose of the gathering, the entire congregation is praised as serious and discerning. However, with patience, one can find internet videos of interviews of ordinary folk that haven't a clue why they are marching, or, maybe, they went to the wrong rally. Many are there to promote identity agendas. For others, it's a Fourth of July happy type of celebration, whatever the date. Others vent and growl on cue, when the cameras shine on them. Most walk placidly, carrying posters that, surprise, surprise, just happen to be just like those carried by half a hundred of their neighbors.

Nidra Poller said this about the highly publicized Woman's March that took place January 21, 2017, "The self-appointed female nation, outraged by the words and deeds of the new president, took to the streets on the 21st of January, the day after the inauguration. Protesters marched in a compact mass estimated at 700,000 to a million in Washington DC, with another million tallied in national and international sister marches[...]The world's media gushed with enthusiasm over the movement's scope and message, which was clicked into contemporary history on its own terms, in the name of women's dignity." Using sharia-devout Linda Sarsour as anchor, Poller provides a sobering analysis of the tainted ideology behind this seemingly virtuous movement. ("Feminine Spring," February 16, 2017, see here.)

One worrisome phenomenon in the turbulent and emotional acting out of anger at Donald Trump being elected president is the set of people who are reacting like sophomoric seniors. It isn't just trust-fund babies and IQ 80s, it's supposedly rational beings that run respected scientific organizations. People considered worthy of being elected to the prestigious honor society, Sigma Xi, are planning to join the March for Science in April. At least some of them are. It's not clear what they are marching for. Or against. But march they will.

Marches, even riots, often look staged. As they should. Too many are carefully contrived and coached. In addition to the uniform rants and foul-mouth ravings against the new administration, they share fixed sources of money and organization. The Trump administration realistically acknowledged (Newsmax, March 22, 2017) "there are people working in the government who are likely part of what has been called the 'deep state' — an inner core of Obama loyalists seeking to stop the Trump presidency." This section records some reality about the actual leadership of the discontented.

George Soros
George Soros

See also: "Everything George Soros Doesn't Want You To Know" on Soros using religious organizations to corrupt their belief system.


Return to What We Are Talking About

SOROS'S SMEAR SCRIPTS: WELCOME TO THE VAST, MEGA-FINANCED LEFTIST ASTROTURF CAMPAIGN AGAINST PRESIDENT TRUMP

by Matthew Vadum. A Discover the Networks addendum lists some of Soros' groups that also target Israel

Matthew Vadum writes of astroturfing where participants attempt to stack a public forum or townhall with their members to dominate the questions asked and appear to be the majority opinion. They are taught to denounce Trump's attempts to prevent terrorists from entering the US as unvetted refugees by following a slick script designed to elicit sympathy and ignore facts. Criminalize, islamophobia, xenophobia, pregnant mothers afraid to get prenatal care (aka illegal aliens), justice and love are important words in their vocabulary. As Vadum observes, "This language is reminiscent of communist revolutionary Ernesto 'Che' Guevara's famous statement that 'the true revolutionary is guided by a great feeling of love.'" The object is to convince Congressmen that they speak for the majority. The contacts listed in the script are members of organizations funded by George Soros. Another Soros-funded institute, The Center for Social Inclusion, teaches "Democratic congressmen how to smear their opponents as racist." The Center "practices the same pathological mixture of Marxism and identity politics that President Obama was raised on. The group was founded based on the assumption that America is an evil structurally racist country that systematically oppresses everyone who is not Caucasian." Repeated often enough, the belief that whites are racists becomes inculcated. As Vadum says, using the racist smear "to shut down open debate over government spending is a fascistic frontal assault on freedom of thought and expression that takes Alinskyite sliminess to new depths."

READ MORE
hrrule

LINDA SARSOUR

by Discover The Networks

DiscoverTheNetworks provides us with the history of Linda Sarsour, the quintessential islamophile. She labels people as islamophobic even if they have much reason to find Muslim terrorism loathsome. Like any pious Muslim, she will allow no criticism of Islam, warranted or not. A feminist in a hijab, she has won praise from the news media who either don't know her evil history or don't care. I always wonder about devout Muslim female believers in sharia law — say, someone like Huma Abedin's mother who works for a sharia takeover of the West — what would happen if sharia law were to win out? Will they go happily back to a sequestered harem, the chattel of their husbands or male relatives? Or do they envision a two-tiered Islam, with the commoners completely controlled by Mohammad's preachings, while the elites are allowed to run their lives as they see fit. It would be the Islamic equivalent of the two-tiered Socialism our political Marxist elite expected to come about, with Hillary elected as proxy for Obama's third term.

READ MORE
hrrule

HOW OBAMA IS SCHEMING TO SABOTAGE TRUMP'S PRESIDENCY

by Paul Sperry

All the fervor and energy and dedicated effort that people expected from Barack Obama during his presidency is finally being manifested, now that Obama is back to being a community organizer. With lots of money available to him and thousands of devoted globalists and socialists ready to be moles in the new administration or activists around the country, Obama and his live-in advisor/handler/motivator, Valerie Jarrett, are ready to run his new organization, variously described as deep state or shadow state, from his new home in Washington.

READ MORE
hrrule

THE MEDIA, OBAMA, AND THE DEEP STATE

by Robert Barnes

Robert Barnes writes of the Orwellian fashion in which the media attempt to restrict the meaning of "fake news" or "deep state" to to the needs of their own ideologies and agendas. Or they ignore the term; or deny, for example, that the deep state exists. Yet the notion of a power group setting up a structured organization running counter or in parallel with the official government has been studied for more than a half century. Working with intelligence sources, often government agencies, media implementers of the deep state's mission malign political people like Trump of Flynn, broadcasting innuendo loosely based on surveillance by these government agencies. Trump may have made the first cut into seriously looking into the deep government and its spying activities by suggesting that the "illegal intercepts and illicit leaks of those intercepts should be the scandal, not incredulous reports of collusion [e.g., with Russia] unsupported by the legally innocent conversations found on those intercepts." A major figure in the current deep state is ex-President Obama, who is putting to use his experience initiating spy operations on American citizens during his time in office.

READ MORE
hrrule

 


NATIONAL INSECURITY ISSUES

The anti-Trumpists scored a victory in getting rid of Michael Flynn, an ardent and savvy enemy of Salafist Islam. Two separate consequences have resulted.

First: Flynn was replaced by Gen. McMaster as National Security Advisor. Unfortunately, McMaster seems to be more concerned with downplaying Islamic terrorism than in dealing with it. He has distanced jihad terrorism from "true" Islam, ignoring that jihadists are pious Muslims acting in accordance with the Koran. They are enjoined to fight the infidel until the whole world embraces sharia law. As Robert Spencer has pointed out (here), "One cannot defeat an enemy that one does not understand, much less one that one refuses to understand. ... When one's duties include national security responsibilities, one has a professional duty to know the enemy or do due diligence to know the enemy. To fail to do so makes one professionally negligent in one's duties."

Second: when the news media revealed the surveillance conditions underlying the conclusion that Michael Flynn had unauthorized interactions with the Russian ambassador to the US, it popped open a large can of worms: members of the Obama administration appear to have been spying on the Trump election team for some time, as they have on journalists, congressmen and other American citizens. The story is that they were looking at foreign infiltration and just happened to listen to the Americans on the other end of the telephone or email. That doesn't explain, why, as they did with Flynn, they released the names of the Americans, a felonious act. Will these illegal activities be ignored as they were in the Obama administration?


Return to What We Are Talking About

THE NEXT NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR MUST BRING HIS OWN STAFF

by Kenneth R. Timmerman

When the Obama administration started, we were treated to a whole new vocabulary such as throw him under the bus, which described an activity the administration, unfortunately, would routinely indulge in. The Trump administration is barely in place and we need to learn a new vocabulary: the Deep State, political operative and shadow warriors, terms describing the malevolent activities ex-President Obama and his cronies have initiated. As Kenneth Timmermnan writes, "Want to know who broke the law by leaking information gleaned from a highly-classified U.S. intelligence program to monitor foreign diplomats about Michael Flynn? ... start by looking at former CIA director John Brennan, an Obama political operative." The president who spent quality time on the golf course during his presidency has suddenly become hard-working and politically involved. His first mate is the former CIA director, John Brennan, infamous for defining Islamic jihad as a spiritual journey and welcoming members of the Muslim Brotherhood into Federal agencies. Together, they have stuffed NSA with political operatives of their own choosing. To date, they have 'destroyed Michael Flynn before he could destroy them.' Clearly, President Trump needs to watch his back.

READ MORE
hrrule

WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO DISCREDIT RADICAL ISLAMIC IDEOLOGY?

by Lawrence Sellin, Ph.D.

Lawrence Sellin writes that Lt. Gen McMaster, who replaced Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn as National Security Advisor, has a weak strategy for defeating Resurgent Islam, which is working without let-up to replace Western democracy with sharia law. Unlike Flynn, McMaster views Islam's salafist ideology as a distortion of the true Islam. Actually, it is a valid expression of Mohammad's view of the world and his desire to put Islam above all other religions in the world. McMaster's solution is information warfare against what he sees as non-authentic Islam. However, as Sellin points out, "Pumping out more counter-propaganda, while leaving the sources of the ideology free to go about their dirty business" [is] "counter-productive."

READ MORE
hrrule

DEMOCRATS SHOULDN'T DISMISS NUNES' SPYING CLAIMS SO QUICKLY

by David Harsanyi

David Harsanyi writes of the growing evidence that President Trump, while he was a Presidential candidate and when he was President-elect, and his transition team were under surveillance by the Obama administration. Within the context of keeping tabs on foreigners, it is legitimate to record the conversations of Americans on the other end of the phone. What is not legitimate is uncovering the names of the Americans, when the conversations have no foreign intelligence value. What is appalling is disseminating the information. In a companion piece entitled "Here's Why Nunes' Obama Spying Revelations Are Such A Big Deal," Mollie Hemingway writes, (see here): "It matters not whether the Trump team were officially the targets, whether the targets were designed to obscure the real targets, or whether it truly was incidental collection." What is important is:

1) Information was collected on the Trump team by Obama administration agencies.

2) This information had no reason to be shared in intelligence reports to Obama officials.

3) Obama officials may have flouted legally required attempts to minimize and mask personal identifying information.

4) This had nothing to do with Russia.

To put it bluntly, as James Rosen wrote: ("Potential 'Smoking Gun' Showing Obama Administration Spied On Trump Team, Source Says," 24mar2017, here) "Republican congressional investigators expect a potential 'smoking gun' establishing that the Obama administration spied on the Trump transition team, and possibly the president-elect himself, will be produced to the House Intelligence Committee this week [...] The intelligence is said to leave no doubt the Obama administration, in its closing days, was using the cover of legitimate surveillance on foreign targets to spy on President-elect Trump ..."

READ MORE
hrrule

SUSAN RICE'S WHITE HOUSE UNMASKING: A WATERGATE-STYLE SCANDAL

by Andrew C. McCarthy

The media and such mags as The New Yorker have done a yeoman job minimizing the significance of Susan Rice's having intelligence-gathering agencies openly write out the names of Americans who had turned up in a report she got on Russian activities in this countries. In this article Andrew McCarthy makes the very important point that it is the intelligence agency — in this case it was the combined effort of three intelligence agencies — that writes the report that decides, with due regard to privacy issues, whether it is necessary to reveal the name when an American is mentioned. They rarely find it necessary. Susan Rice was not an investigator or collector of information, only a receiver, and, given the nature of the material, would know from context who the people were. So why would she ask for the names in clear, if not to make the leaking and utilization of the information more effective? And she did have Obama's backing. Herman Cain (here) in discussing McCarthy's article writes, "They could have told her no, of course, but she was the National Security Adviser and she worked directly for the president. Were they likely to tell someone with that kind of standing no?"

READ MORE
hrrule

 


TRIVIALIZING AND DENYING THE OBVIOUS, WITH SWEDEN'S WOES A PRIME EXAMPLE

Sweden has long seen seen itself as the best place to live, with personal freedom and government backup. Donald Trump pointed to Sweden's problems with its immigrant Muslims, incorrectly saying he'd seen a riot on TV, when what he'd seen was a TV discussion about Sweden. Surely, news editors and publishers know that Malmo is the rape capitol of the world, and that the Swedes are being terrorized by Muslim immigrants. Yet Trump's mistake became the high point of many articles flaying him and denying that anything was amiss in Sweden. When riots broke out shortly thereafter, the misplaced emphasis by the news media on Trump's mistake while denying Trump's important points — the high crime rate and lack of adaptability of the Muslim "refugees" in Sweden — became an excellent example of techniques that characterize some news now labeled 'fake news.' The sudden focus on Sweden brought to light that some Swedes, like other Westerns, were having belated buyer's remorse about their Muslim immigrants from the Middle East and Africa.


Return to What We Are Talking About

LAST NIGHT IN SWEDEN

by Bruce Bawer

This essay by Bruce Bawer can be read just for pleasure. But it does have a moral. It tells the story how the news media and politicians yet again lambasted President Trump, this time for saying Sweden had problems with its Muslim immigrants. Those who insist that Sweden is a model of civic harmony got their comeuppance when soon afterwards there was yet another ugly eruption by the migratory adherents of the religion of peace. The politicians continue to pretend there's no problem, while civilized living in Sweden's cities disintegrates. Bawer points out that the newscasters could have gotten the real story if they'd interviewed truth tellers. Instead they provided us with a neat example of news that is fake because it denies observable truth.

READ MORE
hrrule

SWEDEN: FROM ABBA TO ALLAH

by Fjordman

Fjordman paints a picture of a people who are under attack both by the foreign immigrants they have generously allowed into their once happy country and by their own native leaders who continue to deny the havoc the Muslims have caused. As he points out, "Swedes are ... attacked as an ethnic group [by the immigrants], but they are aggressively barred [by the native Swedes] from identifying and defending themselves as a group of people with a shared heritage and shared interests.." As a result, "[i]n just two generations, Sweden has become an increasingly dysfunctional and crime-ridden country. The main cause of this negative transformation is non-European mass immigration." Fjordman highlights the bizarre attitude, common not only in Sweden but in other Western countries including the USA, of condemning legitimate criticism of Muslim behavior while condoning nasty remarks about the native culture.

READ MORE
hrrule

SWEDE DEMOCRAT LEADERS PEN WSJ OP-ED IMPLORING AMERICANS TO AVOID THE MISTAKES SWEDEN MADE

by Scott Morefield

It may be true that by careful selection, one can prove that Swedes still believe their country is still Utopia or, contrariwise, that they are living fearful lives, harassed by a foreign clump of Muslims that doesn't assimilate and doesn't live by Sweden's rules of civility. That doesn't make the two opinions equally valid. Crime statistics validate the argument that Sweden has serious problems. And as Scott Morefield points out, the growth of the Swedish Democratic Party — it is Anti-European Union and advocates a severe reduction in immigration — is another indication that many Swedes are repudiating Sweden's immigration policy. Swedes have been suffering from having tried to absorb a religious group that refuses to assimilate, or even to live their own way but without threatening Sweden's native population. The pattern of Islamic aggression — riots and rapes — may be different than in Israel, where Muslims knife, stone, crash vehicles and snipe at individuals and small groups, but the result is the same: the country's citizens are fearful, angry and resentful.

READ MORE
hrrule

 


SUCCOUR THINE ENEMY, ENDANGER THINE OWN

The public has become more aware of the incoming Muslims in their neighborhoods because the newcomers have rapidly increased the crime rate and spread diseases not seen for years. The incomplete and mostly irrelevant response of left-leaning politicians and opinion-makers has been to push "compassion" and argue that "America is a country of immigrants." This may be true, but our immigrant ancestors that came through Ellis Island were sent back if they were diseased. Moreover, they needed someone to vouch they would not be a burden on the public treasury.

Articles in this set are concerned with how the government has been using religious organizations to 'welcome wagon' incoming refugees. It's been a win-win for the organizations that provide a veneer of godliness and for the Obama administration and its Islamic, Marxist, globalist and multidiversity adherents, eager to seed the USA with Muslims. The only losers have been ordinary American citizens, both in dollars and in security. Additional information is available in "Refugee Resettlement: The lucrative business of serving immigrants," written by James Simpson, published in July 2015 by Capital Research Center (CRC) and archived at https://capitalresearch.org/article/refugee-resettlement-the-lucrative-business-of-serving-immigrants/. A PDF version is available here. The impact on people neglected by or harmed by the religious groups who are busy caring for Muslim "refugees" is also examined.

Video Source: "https://needtoknow.news/2017/04/whistleblower-reveals-un-planned-invasion-refugees-us-already-underway/", March 22, 2017:

US: A Missouri woman is interviewed by radio-show host, Josh Tolley, and tells how she became involved in her state's refugee-immigration program and how the program is far more extensive and advanced than most people realize. She describes how the UN, under the heading of Agenda 2030, is planning immigration into the US similar to what is happening in Europe. The goal is to create chaos and lay the foundation for breaking the US into smaller political units with equal UN representation — and the end of America as a sovereign nation. -GEG

This video is an absolute must for understanding an insidious government program that brings in Muslims each year to all parts of the United States. In it, a Missouri official points out, the process to make the 'refugees' U.S. citizens starts immediately. They receive social security and free housing, free medical care, free food. They are not vetted. In fact, in many cases, their real names are not known. Many leave the area and there is no further information about them. The program was started by the Carter administration and was continued by every administration since then.


Return to What We Are Talking About

SUPPING WITH THE DEVIL: WHEN RELIGIOUS LEADERS TREAT WITH SUPPORTERS OF ISLAMISM

by Babs Barron

Babs Barron wrote this essay because of her unease viewing the collaboration of the Reform Synagogues Movement of which she is a member with Citizens UK, "a coalition of faith groups that include extremist Salafist and Muslim Brotherhood organizations." Together this inter-faith coalition brings Syrian refugees into the UK. It references a video that gives us a sense of what some participating Jews think this is all about. Filled with pride in what they are accomplishing, they ignore the elephant-sized problem that, thanks to the orientation of Citizens UK, too many of these "refugees" will, sooner or later, be a danger to the Jews and Christians who have so willingly come to their aid.

READ MORE
hrrule

HIAS SHOULD RETURN TO ITS ROOTS

by Abraham H. Miller

Abraham Miller writes, "The Jewish roots of HIAS go back to rescuing Jews from the Russian pogroms of the 19th century. Its role as a lifeline for Jews who had nobody else to help them is prominently displayed in its fundraising pitched to Jews, but the word 'Hebrew' might 'offend' the Muslim refugees from the Middle East that HIAS is now busy resettling in America." Like the Christian organizations that participate in settling Muslims in the USA, they are well-paid by taxpayers' dollars. After three months, they can dump the "refugees" on governmental welfare, which again comes out of the taxpayers' pockets. Miller suggests it's time for HIAS to return to rescuing European Jews, victims of the co-religionists of the Muslims that HIAS is "rescuing."

READ MORE
hrrule

UNHOLY ALLIANCE: CHRISTIAN CHARITIES PROFIT FROM $1 BILLION FED PROGRAM TO RESETTLE REFUGEES, 40 PERCENT MUSLIM

by Michael Patrick Leahy

Michael Leahy provides us with statistics about the cost of bringing in "refugees." The USA spends hundreds of millions of dollars resettling refugees across the USA, and providing many of them with free food, shelter and education indefinitely. The initial resettlement of the entering refugees is often handled by voluntary agencies (VOLAGS), who are handsomely paid for their services. Five of the top nine VOLAGS are Christian. After 3-4 months, the VOLOG can turn the refugees over to the local welfare office. The monetary rewards are so great that often traditional charity efforts are neglected, while a VOLAG concentrates resettling refugees. Over time, "more than a million Muslims have been brought to the United States through this program." As the number of Muslim refugees increases, the danger that some of these migrants from the Middle East may be potential terrorists increases. As more Muslims invade the USA, the public is being forced to confront this problem because they commit obscene crimes — raping children as young as a five — and re-introducing diseases not seen in a long time.

READ MORE
hrrule

DESPITE SETBACKS FOR ISLAMIC STATE, EGYPT'S COPTIC CHRISTIANS REMAIN AT RISK

by Sean Savage

Sean Savage write of one example of the terrorism that Christians are subjected to in many Arab countries. He writes of the Egyptian Copts, who are being terrorized and often slaughtered, victims of the Islamic State (IS). They are also targeted by followers of the Muslim Brotherhood because of their minority status and because Egyptian President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi has protected them. Many Christian churches in the West are committed to resettling Muslim Arabs from the Middle East. Or they side with the Palestinians Arabs, actively aiding BDS activities. Why do they take so little interest in the fate of their co-religionists in the Middle East?

READ MORE
hrrule

THE NATURE OF QUAKER EDUCATION

by Asaf Romirowsky

Quakers for peace is about as accurate as Islam is a religion of peace. Quakers may sound quaint and their thous and thees are charming but their best schtik is hate, with particularly hateful words directed towards Judaism. They have produced some highly virulent anti-Jewish propaganda. In this article, Asaf Romirowsky contrasts the Quaker reputation for promoting peace with their day-to-day advocacy for Banning, Divesting and Sanctioning (BDS) Israeli goods and products and otherwise isolating Israel from normal relations with other countries. YogiRUS said of this article: "The Quakers and their Washington lobby, the America Friends Service Committee, are one of the oldest, dishonest, and hypocritical anti-Israel operations in the nation's capital. They are involved in virtually every anti-Israel effort, always to remain anonymous, especially in recruiting other church groups to their cause. They are, beneath their pacifist camouflage, as anti-Semitic as they come. In effect, they are major supporters of the BDS movement and many Jews are unaware of this fact. By doing so, they underwrite terrorism. Kindly read [this article] carefully and forward it to many others. This is really important."

READ MORE
hrrule

 


JEWS WHO HATE JEWS

I was reading in the Jerusalem Post about Csanád Szegedi, a far-right Hungarian politician, who, as is typical for European anti-Semites, trivialized the Holocaust, was certain Jews were evil foreigners, and blamed them for anything and everything that is wrong with the world. Then he discovered he was one of them, the Jewish people, a people he despised (see here). One fact, small in the scheme of things, and his world view changed completely. It made me wonder if the inverse also works. Is there some small but weighty conviction, some shard of ideology, working in the minds of Jews who hate Jews, Judaism and Zionism? Is there some idea stuck in the Jewish anti-Jew's mind that swamps awareness of the amazing civilizing and moral impact Jews have had on humanity? Is there some ideological notion that can make him ignore how small Jewish 'crimes' are relative to the deeds of so many other countries? Bernie Sanders, for example, who was born around the time of the Holocaust, was apparently brainwashed for life in his hippy days so that forever after he has been promoting the interests of Hamas and Islam and Marxism against Israel and Judaism and nationalism. This section has other examples of Jews who don't identify as Jews except when needing credentials to be critical of Jews.


Return to What We Are Talking About

ANTI-ISRAEL MARXIST JEWS AT TEL AVIV UNIVERSITY

by Steven Plaut

Steven Plaut, who died January 17, 2017, was a Princeton-trained economist and professor of economics at University of Haifa. He was a most incisive critic of the stupidity of Israeli politicians and the fatuous fantasies of Jewish academics who filtered facts through their Marxist anti-Jewish ideology. His articles, both serious and humorous-sarcastic, were brilliant and on-the-mark. This article from 2011 is about Yoav Peled at Tel Aviv University. This article details Plaut's shrewd observation: "The worst enemy of radical Marxist pseudo-academics seems to be even more radical Marxist pseudo-academics."

I've no idea if they are related but I have just come across a video of an interview by Tavis Smiley with Miko Peled, a Jewish activist for the Arabs, who has recently written a biography of his father and himself. Pelo gifts Smiley with a nicely-voiced summary of the Arab fraudulent claim to Jewish land (see here). He seems to have no knowledge of modern Israel's history and the Jewish legal and moral right to the land of Israel, which includes Samaria and Judea (AKA the West Bank.) He certainly ignores facts that can, for example, be found in the January-June 2016 issue of Think-Israel, (here below). Or do historic and legal facts mean nothing when compared to whatever drives him to help the Arabs destroy Israel?

READ MORE
hrrule

AMERICAN JEWISH COMMITTEE PUSHES LETTER PROMOTING ISLAMIC TERROR STATE

by Daniel Greenfield

In the USA, the Muslim Brotherhood has a single objective: to replace US law with Sharia law. To fulfill its mission, it does whatever will work, from generating Muslim-defense groups, making the lives of Jewish students on campus miserable to encouraging 'lone-wolf' acts of terror. One of their spin-offs is Hamas. Another is the notorious Islamic Society of North America (ISNA). It is well-known ISNA is a front for collecting money for Hamas. Yet, as Daniel Greenfield tells us, the American Jewish Congress (AJC) and ISNA have formed the Muslim-Jewish Advisory Council, which promotes the Islamic version of peace between Jews and Arabs: Israel gives up land, the Palestine Authority and Hamas take and take — until there is no Israel.

READ MORE
hrrule

AMERICAN LIBERAL JEWISH LEADERS FUEL ANTI-SEMITISM

by Isi Leibler

Isi Leibler writes of the "crass political exploitation of their Jewish identity by American leaders of purportedly 'nonpartisan' mainstream Jewish organizations" in behalf of a 'progressive' anti-Trump political agenda. As Leibler writes, "... liberal Jewish leaders have declared a hysterical war against the Trump administration. Led initially by the Anti-Defamation League but rapidly joined by the Reform and Conservative wings of the Jewish community, many Jewish community leaders have exploited their positions to endorse a vicious campaign in which Trump is portrayed as a satanic anti-Semite promoting fascism and racism, representing the antithesis of Jewish values. This, despite the reality that his presidency highlights an unprecedented acceptance of Jews at the highest levels of government. ... in promoting their personal political agenda and vulgarizing and demonizing Trump while posing as Jews motivated by religious principles, they are hypocritically exploiting their leadership positions and fueling anti-Semitism. ...This becomes even more stark in contrast to the eight years of Obama's administration, during which not a single condemnation was uttered against the outrageously biased statements in relation to Israel." It is bitter irony that "... today, the prime global anti-Semitic threat emanates not from neo-Nazis but from the witches' brew of far-left and Muslim anti-Jewish incitement, which has transformed many American university campuses into hotbeds of anti-Semitism." I wish I could say that Leibler exaggerates. It is more the case that, if anything, he has understated the childish antics of America's Jewish leadership.

READ MORE
hrrule

ISRAELI POLICE: FBI ASSISTED IN ARREST OF JCC BOMB THREAT SUSPECT

by Deborah Danan

We're conditioned to discovering yet another intellectual Jew or academic Jew who can dish out Jew hate every bit as ugly as what comes from non-Jewish Marxists, globalists and Muslims. We are still in the head-shaking stage when we learn that yet another leader of a large Jewish organizations is working hard to bring in unvetted Muslims and/or is contributing to anti-Israel 'Jewish' organizations, while defending Muslim Brotherhood organizations. But what is unique among Jewish anti-Jews is the recent arrest of an 'ordinary' Jew who sent out a large number of bomb threats to Jewish schools and centers, disrupting the lives of Jews around the globe, engendering fear and paralyzing normal activities. The suspect, Michael Kaydar, a teenager, is a dual citizen of the US and Israel, and lives in Ashkelon, Israel. He used Google voice to sound like a woman, paid in Bitcoin, which isn't registered, and tapped into relays. In this article, Deborah Danan emphasizes the attention-getting aspects of making bomb threats. She cites articles by Brian of London that emphasize possible political agendas. Whether these are sufficient explanation, or even part of the explanation, we have yet to learn.

READ MORE
hrrule

THE PERVASIVE ASSAULT ON ISRAEL BY JEWS: WHY DOES THIS HATRED PERSIST?

by Alex Grobman

Visualizing Jewish Jew-hate as a virus, to quote from a citation in the article, "[t]hose infected with the virus exaggerate Israeli sins real or imagined, while excusing or rationalizing Palestinian Arab anti-Semitism and outrages against Jews." But why? Alex Grobman examines several possibilities. Noting that "[i]dentification with the aggressor is the defense mechanism by which one adopts the perspective of one's abuser," hating Jewishness can, in many cases, be the ticket to inclusion. This may explain "why Jewish self-hatred is so pervasive within institutions to which belonging carries prestige. From campus groups with popular coeds to elite private colleges to social registries, to think tanks to insider punditry, to Israel's Europhiles..." Grobman suggests ways to counter anti-Israel bias by presenting accurate information to specific questions. He suggests we ignore the Jewish self-haters and work with "organizations fighting against the delegitimization, and prepare ourselves and our children with the knowledge to fight back."

READ MORE
hrrule

 


HISTORY SECTION


Return to What We Are Talking About

THE JAPANESE HERO WHO SAVED MY GRANDFATHER FROM THE NAZIS

by Dovid Greenwald

Chiune Sugihara was a Japanese diplomat assigned to the Japanese Consulate in Lithuania. Defying his government's restrictions on visas, he issued transit visas to Lithuanian Jews to escape to Japan. Dovid Greenberg meditates on Sugihara's bravery and goodness and the impact he had on future generations of the Jews he saved. Sugihara's home in Lithuania is now a museum, maintained as a tribute to a brave man who did what was right.

READ MORE
hrrule

PHOTOGRAPHING THE WARSAW GHETTO: ALBUM OF A GERMAN SOLDIER

from Yad Vashem

The Warsaw Ghetto uprising took place in the spring of 1943 when the Polish Jews that had been forced into the Ghetto resisted the efforts by German soldiers to move them to Treblinka. Before this final act of resistance, many German photographers had come to the Ghetto and recorded the sheer misery suffered by the Jews who were starving, freezing and without medical care. Here are some of the pictures that have been preserved at Yad Vasham and other places.

READ MORE
hrrule

THE HOLOCAUST'S GREAT ESCAPE

by Matthew Shaer

Matthew Shaer writes of a story told about the escape of some Jewish prisoners from Ponar, a Nazi concentration camp near the city of Vilnius in Lithuania in World War 2. They had been part of a group forced to disinter and cremate the skeletons of Jews previously killed by the Nazis. The Germans were losing the war and wanted to erase all signs of what they had done. But no one knew how the Jews had escaped, so the story was considered a fable. Richard Freund, an American archaeologist, and other scientists, studying aerial photos and contour maps, and using tomography, have uncovered the escape route: the prisoners had, slowly with small scoops, dug a 3-foot wide tunnel under the woods past the barbed-wire fence.

READ MORE
hrrule

LETTERS SHOW ONE AMERICAN JEW 'SAVED MULTIPLE WORLDS' DURING SHOA

by Debra Rubin

Debra Rubin writes of one American Jew, who saved family members and their friends trying to escape from Europe during the Nazi period. America had a quota in effect. Moreover, as sponsor, he needed to demonstrate he had the financial means to support them, so they would not be a burden on the USA. The quota was not as restrictive in Cuba or Argentina, but the cost of a visa was very high.

READ MORE
hrrule

IMMIGRANTS PRESERVE EARLY HISTORY OF STATE OF ISRAEL

by Judy Lash Balint

About the time that Steven Spielberg got started recording the reminiscences of Holocaust survivors, Aryeh Halivni founded Toldot Yisrael (Chronicles of Israel) to record personal histories of Jews who lived through the Mandate period and the early years of the State of Israel. Judy Lash Balint writes of some of these recountings of raw history.

READ MORE
hrrule

50 YEARS LATER, AMMUNITION HILL HERO RECALLS KEY BATTLE FOR JERUSALEM

by Steve Linde

As written in Wikipedia, "Ammunition Hill (Hebrew: Giv'at HaTahmoshet) was a fortified Jordanian military post in the northern part of Jordanian-occupied East Jerusalem and the western slope of Mount Scopus." It was seized by the Jordanians, who invaded the new-born state of Israel in 1948, severing the connection between Western Israel and Mount Scopus. Steve Linde writes of some of the IDF heroes of the 1967 Sixth Day War who recaptured this part of Israel, when Jordan, together other Arab countries, again invaded Israel.

READ MORE
hrrule

JANUARY-MARCH, 2017 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-March 2017 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-December 2016

What we are talking about in the July–December 2016 Issue

  1. Our Most Surprising Election (Lipkin)
  2. Islamic Infiltration And The Process Of Takeover (Civilus Defendus, Belman, Pipes, Maceoin, Bat-Yeor, Williams)
  3. Islam In Europe (Condell, Prepper-forum, Daftari, Mcfadyen-Pallenberg, Dathan, Meotti, Buri, Levy, Freund)
  4. Jihad In America (Mclaughlin, Cutler, Counterjihad, Sperry, Bakhtavar, FuzzySlippers)
  5. Groups That Hit on Jews (Grobman, Harari, Geller, Korol, Israel-Academia-Monitor, Glick, Hornik, Ordman)
  6. Arab Refugees Old and New (Roth, Katz, Roosevelt, Gordon, Kouri, Inbari)
  7. Libya, Islamic State, Iran (ZeroHedge, Kouri, Kedar, Ross-Blackman, Daoud, Fleitz, Spyer)
  8. Politically Correct (Shulman, Sherman, Hausman, Loris, Prelutsky)
  9. History Section (Blum, Karsh, Bedein, Rogatchi, Foreign-Affairs)


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.


OUR MOST SURPRISING ELECTION:

Based on this observation, I was cautiously optimistic before the election: attendance at any Donald Trump get-together was huge and enthusiastic; Hillary Clinton could barely fill a gym and many of the photos taken there were photoshopped to show fill-in people. But Trump's incontestable win was a dream wish and a most welcome reality.

Ahead of the election, savvy watchers of election day illegalities were wary of illegals and others being trekked from voting site to voting site. Warnings were issued: look for a bunch of people that doesn't look like locals and who have come with a "handler". Viewers were encouraged to follow them to their next voting place; to report them immediately and to take pictures. (REF: Project Veritas). Moreover, there are already reports from early voters that they voted 'Trump-Pence', but when they checked the results, the vote now read 'Clinton-Kaine.' Unfortunately, electronic voting machines can be rigged. Some technical people in India have been circulating information about possible fraud in their elections for several years. In the US, we apparently have a similar problem. As one indication, the SmartMatic machine comes from a company owned by George Soras. We were cautioned that a way to thwart machine rigging was to demand a paper ballot. By law, a voter is entitled to receive one. Concern that a voter's wishes would be ignored by a variety of techniques was not a paranoid idea — in the 2012 election, for example, several counties in swing states had more votes registered than there were people living in these counties — it helped Obama win.

Before the election, Trump was excoriated for refusing to say he would unconditionally accept the election results; Hillary, in contrast, assured us she would not quibble with the count. After the election, things changed rapidly and rabidly, with Hillary indirectly and Prez Obama, both directly and indirectly, trying to foment a "grass roots" rebellion against the election results.

What's important is that America may have been stopped from its precipitous fall into economic and political ruin. The salafists and the globalists and the Marxists have weakened so much of the country's judicial, academic, political and media institutions, it is unlikely that one man can undo the damage in one, even two, terms. But the efforts to weaken America and destroy Israel will certainly slow down if not completely stop. And for that, we should be grateful.


Return to What We Are Talking About


ISLAMIC INFILTRATION AND THE PROCESS OF TAKEOVER

Every few years we post an article on the correlation of the number of Muslims in a host country and their increasing demands for perks and power until they are strong enough to take over. These articles are general observations about the process of takeover — and what cultural features of Islam and the West contribute to Islam's success.

muslim majority countries


Return to What We Are Talking About

4 STAGES OF ISLAMIC CONQUEST

by Civilus Defendus

This article is one of the core articles on Liberty versus Sharia on the Civilus Defendus website. As they write:

Sharia rejects freedom, embraces discrimination, condones misogyny, promotes subjugation and is eternally in conflict with infidels, with you and me. Muslims fare little better under this barbaric, dogmatic form of totalitarianism. No amount of political correctness, muticulturalism or moral equivalence will actually improve Sharia — it must be rejected outright.

Consider the 1400 year history islamification of Egypt, North Africa, Central and SE Asia and the current assault on nations across the globe including France, Kenya, the UK and US. Consider the murder of Jews, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists and both Muslims and non-Muslims by the followers of Islam as a dark and ominous glimpse into the future. We must take a stand to end the creeping annihilation of liberty and culture; to stop this islamic conquest. To not stand up is moral cowardice.

READ MORE
hrrule

TRUMP CALLS MUSLIM MIGRATION "THE ALL-TIME BIGGEST TROJAN HORSE"

by Ted Belman, September 26, 2016

Ted Belman describes the invasion of Europe by hordes of Muslims as a Trojan-horse tactic: the followers of Islam appear harmless but when the opportunity arises, they wage civil war against the natives, who by then have been lulled into inactivity or are too weak to oppose the Muslims. He makes the important point that because Islam has always refused to accommodate any other religious group and have maintained superior power by ruthlessly destroying competing groups, over the centuries they have kept control over the countries they have conquered.

READ MORE
hrrule

DENYING ISLAM'S ROLE IN TERROR: EXPLAINING THE DENIAL

by Daniel Pipes, Spring, 2013

Daniel Pipes writes of a major problem that impedes the West from intelligently fighting back against the salafists, namely,"[t]he establishment denies that Islamism—a form of Islam that seeks to make Muslims dominant through an extreme, totalistic, and rigid application of Islamic law, the Shari'a—represents the leading global cause of terrorism when it so clearly does." He substantiates his argument with examples of denial both in the USA and Europe. The more interesting question that Pipes tackles is: why the denial of the obvious?

READ MORE
hrrule

THE IMPACT OF ISLAMIC FUNDAMENTALISM ON FREE SPEECH

by Denis MacEoin, June 19, 2016

Free speech and freedom of expression appear to many of us as "there" as the air we breath. But the last few years have demonstrated, once again, that Thomas Jefferson was right when he urged the need for eternal vigil to safeguard freedom and independence. Denis MacEoin writes of the censorship of our freedom of speech by various sharia-promoting Muslim groups and Western groups that kowtow to Islam either out of conditioned conformity to political correctness or fear of reprisal, should they oppose Muslim teachings. MacEoin writes how "perceived irreverence towards Islam" is avenged and how anger toward the Muslim community that nurtures jihad is averted by Muslims claiming the Muslim community is the real victim. To date, it has too often been a winning combination.

READ MORE
hrrule

EUROPE'S COMPASSIONATE HATRED OF ISRAEL

by Bat Ye'or, December 22, 2016

There is one generalization that holds up: where ever Muslims come, hatred of some group, likely a minority, spikes. Hate crimes increase, many of them committed by the Muslim immigrants, others by natives of the host country, who are predisposed negatively against the minority and/or who, like good dhimmis, accept Muslim attitudes as part of their acceptance of (selective) diversity. In this article, Bat Ye'or details a specific example: Europe's hatred of the Jews of Israel. And some consequences.

READ MORE
hrrule

MULTICULTURALISM: A FAILED CONCEPT

by Walter Williams, June 29, 2016

Multiculturalism and diversity is a brilliant slogan. It sounds so civilized; so encouraging of harmony among people brought up in different environments, with different lifestyles and different values. In practice, it is a numbing phrase designed to subdue realistic "bad thoughts" about other groups, designed to encourage feelings of guilt in those that intuitively don't buy the hype. In practice, it is much used to persuade people to accept bad political gestures — to accept people who are unacceptable. As Walter Williams points out, it is oblivious to the fact that the different cultural values are not equally good. Multiculturalism is doomed to fail without mutual respect and tolerance. When the political system is working, the West encourages individual rights and freedom; while, for the most part, immigrant Muslims have no intention of conforming to the mores of the host country, or even meeting it half-way. Unfortunately, the virtue of believing in the equality of ideas stops people from reacting, and by the time they act — as Angela Merkel has finally seen the havoc wrought by yet another idea that thrives in academia, but is a menace in the real world — it's too late. In this case, the Muslims have taken over.

READ MORE
hrrule

 


ISLAM IN EUROPE

Hijrah is Jihad by large-scale immigration of Muslims to another country. In the main they resist assimilation but appear to fit in while their numbers grow sufficiently so they can begin to implement a takeover of the host country. Hijrah has been practiced quietly for decades in Europe. Except when a Muslim is outed as outrageously manipulating welfare benefits or turning native children into prostitutes, this method of takeover is mostly ignored. More recently, infiltration has increased sharply as Europe has welcomed refugees from Syria and other Middle East war zones. This may satisfy the egos of European leaders that they are being virtuous but it has proven to be a bad decision in several ways. First, it has provided a means for actual terrorists to come into Europe, with a sharp increase in acts of terror. Second, the new "refugees" have mainly been adult, working-age males, who account for the major increase in crimes and rapes in the countries that welcomed them. This video called "Europe's Last Chance" by Pat Condell is an excellent summation of what the so-called Muslim "refugees" are doing to destroy the European lifestyle.


Return to What We Are Talking About

WHAT IS HIJRAH?

by 1skrewsloose

This is an excellent summary of Hijrah as presented on the Prepper Forum. Hijrah was practiced initially by Mohammad himself, who left Mecca and went to Medina, where he began violent jihad against infidels. Today it is used to describe an invasion of a country by Muslims purporting to be peacefully intentioned. It is a way of infiltrating a host country with more and more Muslims until there are enough Muslims to start activities to take over the country. The article also includes a video by Dr. Bill Warner on Hijrah.

READ MORE
hrrule

MAJORITY OF PARIS ATTACKERS ENTERED EUROPE POSING AS REFUGEES

by Lisa Daftari

Lisa Daftari points out a specific danger in allowing unvetted refugees to enter a host country: it provides an easy route in for single terrorists and for a group of terrorists, who maintain contact and keep on schedule via cellphone and social media. Included are readers' comments that find these facts relevant to the Obama's administration's encouragement of unvetted Syrian and Somali "refugees" in the US.

READ MORE
hrrule

GERMAN ASYLUM SEEKERS REFUSE TO WORK INSISTING 'WE ARE MERKEL'S GUESTS'

by Siobhan Mcfadyen and Monika Pallenberg

As Siobhan Mcfadyen and Monika Pallenberg write, "ASYLUM seekers in Germany are refusing to undertake work to counteract boredom - using Chancellor Angela Merkel's generous hospitality as an excuse." This has been underplayed by the media, perhaps because the almost universal reaction has been open disgust. As one reader, Rick Nash, writes, "Ya Its not Merkel Of Germany Or Justin of Canada's Money being spent on them its our hard earned Tax money being wasted on them while we work day and night the f muslims refugees enjoy free hotel with hot halal food free cellphones and lap tops to all their multiple wives and their many kids many young strong men who are so disobedient and lazy? shower them with with welfare money Nice while we have to struggle everyday at work??? Good job our political correct leaders very nice". Angela Merkel herself has stated that "only 1 in 10K new migrants is employed."

READ MORE
hrrule

EUROPEAN HUMAN RIGHTS CHIEFS ORDER THE BRITISH PRESS NOT TO REVEAL WHEN TERRORISTS ARE MUSLIMS

by Matt Dathan

A recent report from the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) recommended that "the British media be barred from reporting the Muslim background of terrorists." Matt Dathan writes that the report is concerned that "when the media stress the Muslim background of perpetrators of terrorist acts, and devote significant coverage to it, the violent backlash against Muslims is likely to be greater than in cases where the perpetrators' motivation is downplayed or rejected in favour of alternative explanations." ECRI's concern for the Muslim community is certainly heartwarming, even if its comprehension of what's going on is limited.

READ MORE
hrrule

MEET THE WESTERN CHARLATANS JUSTIFYING JIHAD

by Giulio Meotti

Giulio Meotti writes about several current-day European philosophers that have taken up the cause of Islamic jihad, or, at the very least, justify Muslim barbaric behavior. It is a given that capitalism and the West are bad, hence Jihad is praiseworthy in that it is a way of countering the power of the West, of leveling the field. One of these philosophers, Michel Onfray, has become popular not only with the at-home French but also with French jihadists fighting in Syria and Iraq, presumably when they have some quiet time to read and aren't busy butchering their enemies. Like Barack Obama, Onfray puts much of the blame for whatever event is under discussion on George W. Bush. Other philosophers, sounding much like sociologists, excuse jihad for reasons such as 'revenge for humiliation', rootlessness, and inequality. And like the sociologists, they feel no obligation to check their generalities against the facts.

READ MORE
hrrule

FRENCH ISLAMISM AND THE FUTURE OF EUROPE: A BRIEFING BY GUY MILLIÈRE

by Joshua Buri

Joshua Buri summarizes a talk given by Guy Millière on the large increase in radical Islamic groups in France. Moreover, some of the major ones are no longer freelance but have ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. Aside from the increase in network linkages, there are more no-go zones and a prison system that allows Islamic preachers to attract potential jihadists. In addition, more people are "returning from the Middle East with radical beliefs and training." As terrorists have become more organized, politicians appear less able and less willing to handle these new developments. Yet people are reluctant to complain, given that they will be labeled fascist and racist and can be fined for criticizing Islam.

READ MORE
hrrule

ANTI-SEMITISM WAS REQUIRED, ANTI-ISLAMISM IS VERBOTEN

by Janet Levy

The 'sensitivity' of the Germans to the huge influx of Muslim immigrants is extraordinary — they tolerate the refusal of the Muslims to adapt to the German lifestyle, their destruction of property and high rate of crime, their refusal to work, their attacks on women. German politicians and police play down Muslim anti-social behavior, to the point of eliminating "'rape' from police reports." Some people assume that the Germans are being super-kind to make up for their fiendish cruelty to the Jews during World War 2. Using statistics on the current German attitudes toward Jews, Janet Levy points out that "a large percentages of Germans still harbor harsh, anti-Jewish sentiments" while adopting a "policy of acceptance and tolerance toward Muslims." Add to that the favoritism Germany extends to Muslim countries at the UN. Levy suggests that Germany's attitude toward the Muslims "may actually mask an underlying anti-Semitism that stubbornly remains despite the passage of time."

READ MORE
hrrule

AS THE EU CRUMBLES, ISRAEL SHOULD REJOICE

by Michael Freund, October 5, 2016

The might of the Europe Union (EU) continues single-mindedly to be turned against Israel. It also exerts more control over the member states than originally intended. Michael Freund points out that the Brexit movement, where the Britain electorate voted to leave the Union, is the start of the dissolution of the EU. He argues that this is a good thing for Israel. Some of the member states of the EU are more friendly to Israel than the EU allows them to be. And second, it means "a return to the idea of the nation-state, which has served as the basis of modern Western civilization." This can only benefit Israel, which could serve as prototype of what a nation-state can accomplish.

READ MORE
hrrule

 


JIHAD IN AMERICA

Fifteen years ago on a Tuesday, the eleventh of September, Resurgent Islam caught our attention long enough to announce dramatically that it was at war with us. Unlike the immediate impact Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor had in World War II and despite the growing number of terrorist attacks, it's not clear that the majority of Americans, even now, are aware we are at war. There are those who believe Muslims are just like anyone else and consider it islamophobic to single out the relatively few Muslims who exhibit extreme behavior. After all, out of the billions of Muslims on the planet, it is only some 10-15% estimated to be involved in acts of terror. They believe in the Moderate Muslim Majority as passionately as once they believed in the tooth fairy. They are incorrigible.

Another group, a very large group, many of whom are avid readers of the MSM such as the New York Times, recognize that Muslims who blow up malls or shoot their colleagues are indeed 'extremists'. This group is even willing to call terrorists 'terrorists' if they commit the act of terror locally. But they blame these acts of terror on outside factors. These poor souls are acting out their misery or their rage or their low self-esteem. They are poor. They are psychologically or socially or medically damaged. They are Muslims who are angry because society marginalized them or ignored them or because their marriages are dysfunction. Why call them terrorists? This attitude is fostered by a large group of bought media people and academicians.

Because so many opinion-makers have trivialized the problem, there has been no outcry that Muslims associated with Islamic terrorist front groups are welcomed into the White House and our security agencies. As I write this, it is finally coming out in the MSM that Huma Abedin helped Hillary Clinton, her boss, in using private servers for State Dept official business. What is less stressed is that she is the child of high-level members of the Muslim Brotherhood, an organization devoted to replacing Western values with Sharia law by any and all means, from infiltrating America's infrastructure to funding acts of terror. She herself worked for many years for a Muslim organization devoted to promoting sharia in the West. This information has been available for years. In fact in the July-August 2012 issue of Think-Israel, we had an article called "In The Matter Of Vetting People In High Places" that highlighted the fact that Huma, given her family connections, could not possibly have passed the vetting all government security positions receive. But apparently she passed or bypassed the vetting required by law. Another section in the 2012 issue, the Girls of the Brotherhood, contained more information on the entanglement of Huma and the Abedin family in terrorist groups.

In addition, there is a third group fighting on the side of the salafists and doing great damage to our country. These are the self-censors. It is epitomized by the NY Times which invokes freedom of speech to show contempt for religions other than Islam. Thus, the Times waxed poetic about Serrano's insulting Christ in Piss photograph. They had no fear of publishing cartoons of Jews dressed in Nazi uniforms stepping on or over a poor waif representing the powerless Palestinian. But the Times avoids provoking Muslims. The public is encouraged to be concerned with Muslim 'sensitivities'.

To add to the difficulty, the Obama administration has been importing 'refugees' from countries such as Somalia and Syria, countries that breed and train terrorists. Despite official reassurances, there is no way that these immigrants can be adequately (or even minimally) vetted. They are, in the main, men in the age group that become members of ISIS, al-Qaeda and other terror organizations. They are overwhelmingly Muslim; hardly any of them are Christian. They have started making significant contributions to crime statistics all over America.

And we've seen the growth of the 'grass roots' riots. They are selective. They only occur when a member of the majority (a white, particularly a policeman) kills a member of the black minority. They are not spontaneous nor are they generated locally. 70% of the arrested Charlotte rioters were from outside North Carolina. Similarly, previously in Ferguson, only 1 of the 51 people arrested was a local. The instigators at Ferguson were bought and paid for by George Soros (Washington Times, 14Jan2015), who is determined to do to Americans what he did to Hungarian Jews, when he betrayed them to the Nazis. These outside instigators waited in the hotel for the situation to ripen. Then they picked off the targets of the 'spontaneous riot': vandalizing local shopkeepers, looting, demolishing local businesses. These riots are becoming a major tool in denigrating western standards and intimidating local governments.

An effective response has been slow in coming. The Obama administration is clearly pro-Muslim and Prez Obama himself has made no secret of the fact that he wishes to clip America's wings. And the damage done by present-day academics and judges by deflecting the concerns of the public is yet to be fully assessed — we may not see the full impact until today's college students take over the government and the economy in the future. Here too, what has received the least attention has been the damage done by the self-censors, the timid publications that fearlessly slam the West and Israel, while softpedaling the barbaric behavior of the salafists. They have a direct and probably measurable impact on many of their readers.

Depending on what parameters and signs and symptoms you find significant, you can decide that we are finally waking up to our danger; or you can point at indicators that show we remain sound asleep, while the salafists poke holes into our judiciary and educational systems and media channels and fill them with Islamic propaganda on the beauty of the Islamic way of life. Are we falling in deeper into the hole Islam and its Marxist buddies are digging? Or are we coming to grips with Salifism and starting to wake up?


Return to What We Are Talking About

SYMPATHY FOR REFUGEES WEARING THIN IN MAINE

by Tom McLaughlin

Tom McLaughlin presents a clear picture of well-meaning, humane, civilized individuals in transition in their attitudes toward refugees. He described a townhall meeting set up by Catholic Charities Maine to gain support for bringing in Muslim refugees from Somali and Syria. McLaughlin himself is knowledgeable about jihad. Nevertheless, in a meeting intended to make people sympathetic to housing, feeding and accepting refugees in Maine, he was clearly pleased the audience was low-keyed and polite, not angry and emotional. He described one member of the audience as a man who became "rambunctious and interrupted" the propagandist on the podium to point out "that schools incur enormous costs to provide ESL (English as a Second Language) teachers for refugee children." Later, a reader wrote, "A day after the rambunctious man was driven from the meeting room by those who insist upon a certain blindness, pipe bombs went off in Manhattan and New Jersey, and a crazed Somali screaming 'allahu-akbar'" brandished his machete and slashed several innocent bystanders in St. Cloud, Minnesota. No one was killed, thankfully, and the rambunctious man, and a few impertinent town criers, are now vindicated.

READ MORE
hrrule

WEAPONIZED IMMIGRATION

by Michael Cutler

Michael Cutler writes of the importance in controlling borders and points of entry such as airports to counter terrorist attacks from outside-the-country terrorists. Unfortunately, immigrants coming from the same pool as potential terrorists usually have little paper documentation and there is no way to conduct field investigations to determine immigration fraud and bogus background stories. That means there is no real way to vet immigrants coming in as refugees from countries such as Somalia and Syria, where numerous terrorists live and train. The growing crime statistics confirm that the backgrounds of these Middle-Eastern immigrants is of serious concern. The difficulty is not reduced by officials arguing compassion and charity as reasons to ignore a realistic danger to America's security.

READ MORE
hrrule

STATE DEPARTMENT: UM, ISIS AGENTS ARE POSING AS REFUGEES

by Counter Jihad

Counter Jihad provides us with a case study documenting how ISIS terrorists have successfully blended in as refugees in Middle East refugee camps while, for a long time, the State Department tried to reassure the public that there were no terrorists among the refugees. Forced to back down from that assertion, they now claim their vetting process is adequate to keep terrorists out of America. Another lie. If the article minimizes anything, it is in implicitly suggesting ISIS is the main terrorist problem, just as, a few years back, al-Qaeda was the focus. In point of fact, there are hundreds of terrorist groups, of all sizes and resources, competing to see which can do the most damage to the infidel, or to Muslim sects with somewhat different ideology.

READ MORE
hrrule

BOMBING SUSPECT IS NO LONE WOLF, BUT A TERRORIST WITH A FAMILY OF SYMPATHIZERS

by Paul Sperry

Every time there is a terrorist attack, there is a slight arousal in the general public. Then like a candle lit with a damp match, the flame sputters and goes out. And the chant is repeat: this guy is not affiliated with real genuine Muslims. This is just a random act. But in truth, lone wolf terrorists seldom are without help and support from the mosque, clerics, family, TV and videos, and salafist groups that study the Koran. New York bombing suspect Ahmad Khan Rahami said he received instructions from terrorist leaders. In this article, Paul Sperry focuses on the help and "spiritual" support the lone-wolf often receives from his family.

READ MORE
hrrule

MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD'S TIES TO THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION

by Slater Bakhtavar

The Muslim Brotherhood has never hidden its strong efforts to replace Western practices with sharia law. It has conducted jihad in the West from stealth infiltration of western infrastructure — the Western media, judiciary, academic institutional, K12 educational textbooks and church groups. inter alia — and it has financially supported Hamas and other terrorist groups. It has developed a network of political friendships in many countries and it is capable of ginning up riots over a cartoon of Mohammad. It has many front groups, which, during Obama's administration have gained entrance to the White House and our security agencies. It has also been able to secure government positions for members of its front organizations. It is a measure of its success that Huma Abadin, a member of one of its leading families was privy to top secret information at the State Department, when Hillary Clinton was in charge. And had Clinton won the presidency, Abadin would be one of the people in control of the White House.

READ MORE
hrrule

GENERAL FLYNN: MILITARY FIRED ME FOR CALLING OUR ENEMIES RADICAL JIHADIS

posted by Fuzzy Slippers

The New York Times (NYT, 3Dec2016) noted that Lt. Genl Flynn has "argued that the United States faced a singular, overarching threat, and that there was just one accurate way to describe it: "radical Islamic terrorism." Clearly not the view of NYT. Nor that of Prez Obama. Flynn, himself, speaks clearly on the danger of radical Islam, flying directly into the stormy indignation of the many Muslim and pro-Muslim groups that would like to suppress his insights. He has, however, the backing of the collective opinion of counter-terrorism experts and specialists on Islamic law. And it is hard to dismiss the growing number of terrorist incidents as random acts of terror by free-lancers, when so many of the terrorists and their families move between the USA and fundamentalist Muslim countries, where adherents are trained to follow the dictates of the Koran precisely. Perhaps under Trump's administration, it will now be allowed to link Islam and jihad in the same sentence in government data bases, and specialists on Islam will not lose their jobs for daring to say that Islam's holy documents dictate that pious Muslims practice jihad and live by sharia law.

READ MORE
hrrule

 


CAMPAIGNS AND GROUPS THAT HIT ON JEWS IN THE USA AND IN ISRAEL

Are you surprised to learn that some of these groups are Jewish?


Return to What We Are Talking About

EXPOSING THE MYTH OF AN APARTHEID ISRAEL

by Alex Grobman

Alex Grobman writes about one of the more despicable lies anti-Jews, Jews and non-Jews, tell: they denounce Israel as an apartheid state. In this essay, he attacks them both for their ignorance and false statements and for the damage they do to Israel's reputation. The essay is also a thorough discussion of the features of apartheid as once practiced in South Africa and why it is inapplicable to Israel. As Grobman points out, "Apartheid is a legal system of segregation based on color, with a white majority in control of the government. Under apartheid, people of color could not vote, hold office or travel freely in their own country." That doesn't describe Israel. The apartheid concept has also been severely distorted in an attempt to cover very different situations: dealing with illegal African migrants that are not refugees but who come for economic benefits; and governing some 4% of the Arabs living in the Territories. Israel is always depicted as treating the Israeli Arabs badly so it is puzzling that these put-upon citizens of Israel will not give up their citizenship to live under the rule of the Palestinian Authority. Very puzzling.

READ MORE
hrrule

HALF A YEAR ON, DUMA 'SUSPECT' FOUND INNOCENT OF ALL CHARGES

by Orli Harari

After much brouhaha and insistence that there was evidence to indict several Jewish settlers for the crime of firebombing the home of Saad Dawabsheh in the Arab village of Duma on July 31, 2015, and causing the death of Dawabsheh, his wife and their 18-month old baby, all the suspects have been released except for one, Amiram Ben-Uliel, who, together with an unnamed minor, was indicted on January 3, 2016. Eye witness reports were found faulty; it was known that the Dawabsheh clan had been engaged in a nasty feud with another clan for years; there was no reason to go as far as the middle of the village to find a random target; and the external evidence made it unlikely a stranger in the village would have survived. There have been similar torchings of Dawabsheh clan houses before and after the July 2015 torching and these were ruled Arab arson, yet the only investigation made for the July firebombing was to find evidence against several Jewish settlers. Orli Harari describes what happened to one of the suspects.

READ MORE
hrrule

JEWISH LEADERS FUNDING BDS

by Pamela Geller

Just a few years ago, the claim that the head of the United Jewish Appeal (UJA), would fund the New Israel Fund (NIF), which openly funds vicious anti-Israel organizations and supports the BDS campaign to destroy Israel, would be rejected as scurrilous nonsense. Today, given our experience with the interacting anti-Israel organizations that call themselves Jewish and say they are working to benefit Israel but whose deeds promote Israel's destruction, it comes as a bitter fact but not as a surprise. Pamela Geller provides us with information on some of the people behind the UJA's support of NIF. Additional material from JCCWatch records actual amounts supporting several traitorous Jewish organizations, citing the UJA's JCF's annual reports. The only mystery left is why would Jews willingly support groups that operate to destroy Israel? Are these Jews just simple idiots easily manipulated by Israel's enemies or is the answer darker?

READ MORE
hrrule

THE ADL, HIAS AND J-STREET ARE BEYOND THE PALE

by Tabitha Korol

J-Street, New Israel Fund (NIF) and B'Tselem are known to be notoriously anti-Israel, but UJA, HIAS and ADL are old-time Jewish institutions and we don't expect them to be spending their time on projects that harm Jews, both as Jews and as American citizens. Admittedly, ADL has never been more than lukewarm protective of Jewish interests but never has it been as overtly hostile as now. ADL's new chief is intemperate in criticizing Israel and protecting Muslims. Moreover, the ADL is directly lobbying against "laws that would obstruct the Boycott-Divestment-Sanctions (BDS), claiming it suppresses academic freedom and inhibits Islamic speech." If that weren't bad enough, UJA, HIAS and ADL are currently promoting the importation of unvetted Arabs from sharia-compliant countries, seeding them everywhere. Why would any Jewish organization, or any organization that cared about Americans, help bring in Muslims bent on hijra (jihad by immigration)? Tabitha Korol tells of her experience trying to learn why. To say that the Jewish Federation and ADL were not forthcoming about their support of migrants coming from Arab countries that are chock full of terrorists is an understatement. It suggests they suspected donors might not feel their money was well-spent or even minimally contributing to their safety. As Korol put it, "Why are HIAS, Catholic Charities, World Churches, ADL and other multiculturalists saving the predators instead of the prey?" What we are seeing in not just a foolish waste of money; we are witnessing an invasion designed to soak up available welfare and destabilize America.

READ MORE
hrrule

SIMONA SHARONI, FORMER ISRAELI SCHOLAR PROMOTES FALSE ALLEGATIONS AGAINST ISRAEL

by Israel-Academia-Monitor

Some sixty five years ago, and for many years after that, in academia, the conservatives I knew were, for the most part, boring and humorless, and often openly anti-semitic. The liberal leftists were the defenders of tolerance, accepting all ethnic groups, and with a great sense of humor. But now the Democratic party that represents them has been taken over by a dour, constrictive group of people on the very far left. They are David Duke-style haters of those not conforming to their ideology. They consider their Marxist-based ideology, wrapped in euphemisms, the only acceptable policy. It is as if the current far left and the ordinary republicans have swapped places, with the lefties adopting anti-semitism as a core value — although they claim to be directing their animosity only at Israel and Zionism. They chant the same false pro-Palestinian slogans and know nothing of Israel's legal and historic ownership of the Land of Israel (see Think-Israel, jan-jun 2016 issue). They blithely talk about Israel's occupying Palestinian land and breaking international law, with not an iota of knowledge of the actual situation or applicable laws. This suggests they have little actual expertise and knowledge of the Middle East, despite their claims to be scholars. It suggests their enmity isn't based on fact but is a product of their political ideology. The chatter of these new democrats is rife with socialism's putative desire for a uniformity of wealth and a cargo-cult belief in a never-ending supply of freebies. They snicker at nationalists and patriots. They are believers in a global world order (which, to unbelievers, looks much like tired discredited old socialism). They believe they are working for a new and better way of life. Incongruously, they makes common cause with Radical Islam, whose medieval ideas of a good life includes mutilating girls and treating women like chattel, killing gays, chopping off hands for minor crimes and not tolerating any religion but their own.

This article is an editorial note from the Israel Academic Monitor about a faculty member in Gender and Women's Studies, who uses a fanciful analogy between the Palestinian as victim and her studies on rape to preach her activist ideology inside and outside the classroom. Academic freedom protects teaching and expressing a point of view presumably based on scholarship in the subject matter. It does not cover statements on other matters. Yet she claims academic freedom covers her non-academic activities, while insisting she is immune from investigation by those who seek the records pertaining to her hire by her university and conferences attended under the Freedom of Information Act.

READ MORE
hrrule

TWILIGHT OF AMERICAN JEWRY

by Caroline B. Glick

The previous article dealt with the radicalization and partiality of many of America's academics, one dreadful consequence being that many Jewish students now feel threatened and insecure in the toxic environment created by hostile pro-Muslim professors. The plight of the Jewish students can be seen as one aspect of what is happening, more generally, to American Jewry. After World War 2, when the events of the Holocaust became known and overt anti-Semitism was viewed as being in bad taste, American Jews prospered. The Jews were prominent in the professions and business. They were good citizens. They fit in well with the relaxed secular casual style of interaction they encountered. The liberality and neutrality of the Democratic Party suited most of them. But times have changed. The Democratic party has been taken over by illiberals, who are both anti-Jewish and pro-Muslim. More and more, Jews who are Democrats find themselves forced to conform or confront. If they support Israel, they feel the anger of the current leaders of the party: those involved in the BDS movement, those promoting an Israel-hating Iran and those who, favoring a global world order, regard Israel as a nationalist enemy. On the Republican side, neither the party or its members — aside from a smattering of Klansmen, skinheads and neo-nazis — are anti-Israel. Nor have Republican Jews been coerced into agreement with the fluctuating power plays of the election. Yet many prominent Jews pointlessly lambasted Donald Trump, even after he became the Republican candidate for president. Observing that the majority of the Jews are Democrats and they have lost political power — the anti-Semites that control the Democratic party almost succeeded in writing a plank in the Democratic platform proclaiming they sided with the Palestinian Arabs in the Palestinian versus Israel controversy — Caroline Glick, in a gloomy but possibly realistic prediction, writes of the twilight of American Jewry.

READ MORE
hrrule

HUGE HACK EXPOSES SOROS'S WAR ON ISRAEL

P. David Hornik

George Soros plays no favorites between the USA and Israel. He's out to destroy both. In the States, he works closely with Muslim groups; some of his billions have gone to weaken various counterterrorism measures that were intended to fight Muslim jihad (John Rossomando, IPT News, 7oct2016; algemeiner, 10oct2016). He worked to promote the Iran Nuclear Deal. He sponsored the out-of-town rioters in the Black Lives Matter Ferguson and Charlotte NC 'protests', designed to cause community destabilization and public mistrust of the police (plantfreewill.com, 23sep2016). His electronic SmartaMatic voting machine, used at many voting places, has been shown to be untrustworthy. He is a strong supporter of groups such as J Street and New Israel Fund, which call themselves Jewish, but whose efforts are aimed at destroying Israel and Zionism. Such an agenda is not surprising in an individual who, as a teenager, worked with the Nazis to rat out Jews and steal their property. It was, he has said, the happiest time of his life. In this essay, P. David Hornik focuses on Soros' funding of organizations that attempt to damage Israel directly.

READ MORE
hrrule

A LIST OF PRODUCTS AND SERVICES TO PROPERLY BOYCOTT ISRAEL

by Michael Ordman

It must be admitted that the campaign to boycott Israel's products and service has been haphazard, cherry picking some areas, ignoring others. In the interest of providing information on how to carry out a more effective boycott, Michael Ordman has written a complete guide to Israeli products and services so that the dedicated boycotter can perform the activities needed to properly boycott Israel. Unfortunately, as comprehensive as Ordman's guide is, it has missed some products made in Israel, the Bible, for one. A video on how to deal with that omission is available here.

READ MORE
hrrule

 


ARAB REFUGEES OLD AND NEW

The Arab refugees of 1948 were organized by clan and tribe. Steadily, from the early years of the 20th century, they had come as individuals in large numbers into Mandated Palestine where there were jobs. Many maintained their ties to their home countries. Over the years, as they became perpetual refugees with access to free medicine, education and food, they were rebranded as Palestinian refugees and have become corrupt, manipulating the refugee system, often keeping a job and/or citizen status while continuing to receiving UNRWA perks. In turn, they are prevented from living normally by the restrictive rules of their host countries and political administrations. The Arab leaders insist that, unlike any other refugee in the world, they can be resettled permanently nowhere but in Israel; they insist that even those 'refugees' whose (great) grandparents fled Israel when the Arabs invaded in 1948, have the right of return. A particularly egregious example is the Palestinian Authority (PA), which receives billions of dollars to benefit the local population, 40% of which are Palestinian refugees. The PA has refused to take responsibility for these refugees. In fact, the PA has announced that when there is a Palestinian state, these refugees will not be allowed to be citizens, nor will the PA provide them services.

Many of the new refugees from Syria and other Middle East war areas are genuinely in need of help. But much of the relief effort has not focused on women and children but on able-bodied men, used by their leaders to invade European countries and now, thanks to an Obama initiative, the USA. They disrupt the host countries, terrorizing the natives and soaking up the available welfare. Many have a 'world owes them a living' attitude; they are anti-social and increasingly responsible for the minor and major crimes in the host countries. They also make an excellent cover for terrorists to enter Western countries. The migrants have been, overwhelmingly, Muslim men, while Christians and Yazidis remain in the war zones, preyed upon by the different sides in the ongoing conflicts.

In the West, in addition to the immigrant terrorist manpower, there is increasing use of Muslim native-born or long-term residents that are capable of functioning as 'lone wolves'. As Ryan Mauro has pointed out (Mauro: Counterjihad 28Nov2016, and Kirby: LifeZette, 23Mar2016), there are some 22 compounds providing guerrilla training in the US and 70 percent to 80 percent of U.S. mosques are estimated "to have ties to radical Islam, either from the textbooks they use or the content of the sermons that imams preach." These facilities are reinforced by TV sermons and Muslim outreach groups that act as talent scouts.

While terrorist training and activities are becoming more decentralized, the Palestinian Authority, a major center of training and terror activities, is unraveling. The discontent in the populace, refugee and not, has led to civil unrest throughout the Territories. It is a reasonable prediction that if this insurrection boils up into sustained civil warfare, the end result will be another "Arab Spring", i.e., a takeover by whatever group (or takeovers split among several groups) is the most religiously fundamental and bloodthirsty.

time machine


Return to What We Are Talking About

WERE THE ARABS INDIGENOUS TO MANDATORY PALESTINE?

by Sheree Roth, Fall, 2016

In 1938, well before Israel became a state, William Ziff published The Rape of Palestine, in which he provided evidence indicating that the British, who were by Mandate honor-bound to help the Jews develop the infrastructure for a state, instead, did all in their power to keep Jews out of then Mandated Palestine, and thwart their efforts at statehood. This included allowing Arabs to commit acts of terror and come in freely, while they hunted down Jews, who were illegal according to the illegal British regulations. Sheree Roth points out the importance of the book is that it substantiates later scholarly works indicating that the Arabs were Johnny-come-lately and not indigenous and not returnees. They came because the "Jewish settlers made it an attractive and prosperous place."

READ MORE
hrrule

ARAB REFUGEES

by Samuel Katz

This is Chapter 2 of Samuel Katz's book, 'Battleground.' It is a meticulous account of the history, the politics and the dynamics of the creation of that unique entity: the Arab, now the Palestinian, refugee. As Samuel Katz writes, "The Arabs are the only declared refugees who became refugees not by the action of their enemies or because of well-grounded fear of their enemies, but by the initiative of their own leaders. For nearly a generation,[Battleground was published in 1973] those leaders have willfully kept as many people as they possibly could in degenerating squalor, preventing their rehabilitation, and holding out to all of them the hope of return and of 'vengeance' on the Jews of Israel, to whom they have transferred the blame for their plight." Almost a half century later, conditions have deteriorated even more: there is little work on creating the infrastructure of a civilized community and there is more emphasis on the barbaric murder of Israelis.

READ MORE
hrrule

ARAB AND JEWISH REFUGEES

by Eleanor Roosevelt

After the death of her husband, President Franklin Roosevelt, Eleanor Roosevelt was a human rights activist, promoting the civil rights of blacks and of women. She urged the United States to join the United Nations, which was envisioned as a permissive environment in which countries could settle differences peacefully and in a civilization fashion. She also had a weekly radio show and wrote a daily newspaper column called "My Day." This article is the My Day column of March 23, 1956. Roosevelt recognized then what is still not well-understood: for there to be even the start of relations leading to peaceful coexistence, the Arabs need to accept that Israel exists, that it is a Jewish State and that it will continue to be a Jewish state.

READ MORE
hrrule

THE PALESTINIAN 'REFUGEE' DODGE

by Evelyn Gordon

Nowadays, as Evelyn Gordon writes, while the Palestinian refugees continue to receive generous UN help, the new refugees from the wars in the Middle East suffer from inadequate facilities in Middle East countries. Gordon points out that the Palestine Authority (PA) in Samaria and Judea (aka the West Bank), despite receiving billions of dollars to benefit the local Arabs, has refused to take responsibility for the heredity Palestinian refugees, who constitute a large part of the local population. This is hardly fair, considering how useful they have been as a prop for anti-Israel, pro-Arab propaganda. Much of the sympathy the world lavishes on the Palestinians is because people pity the refugees, who, thanks to the leadership in the Arab countries and the Territories, have remained 'homeless' these many years.

READ MORE
hrrule

OBAMA'S DHS DETECTION OF REFUGEE FRAUD A SHAMBLES

by Jim Kouri

Jim Kouri writes about determining refugee fraud, one duty of The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which was set up to protect America from terror attacks. When the House of Representatives requested a report on asylum claims, including "the extent to which DHS and DOJ have designed mechanisms to prevent and detect asylum fraud," results indicated that some key information was not being captured for the individual application, and DHS has not implemented assessment of "fraud risks across the asylum process, in accordance with leading practices for managing fraud risks." In such circumstances, vetting Muslim refugees can not be done thoroughly.

This video points out another problem with DHS and other security agencies: by executive decree from the Obama administration, these agencies scrubbed references to radical Islamic terrorism; i.e., the information on Islam, jihad and Muslim in security databases has been purged. (This is not a joke.)

READ MORE
hrrule

THE FRAYING PALESTINIAN POLITICAL ENTITY IN THE WEST BANK

by Pinhas Inbari, August 2, 2016

The present-day leadership of the Palestinian Authority (PA) doesn't have as firm a grip on the Territories as did Yassir Arafat. Pinhas Inbari details some new dynamics in three major cities under PA control: Hebron, Nablus and Ramallah. There are, for example, direct challenges to PA rule; there are attempts to link up with Iran or Jordan; there are attempts to organize NGOs into a political force. And in some places, there is a complete collapse of administrative organization and government. Inbari warns, "The fragmented Palestinian West Bank will be a weaker entity than the weak states that collapsed in the Arab Spring. When the Palestinian entity collapses, the vacuum will be filled by the negative forces that have become the nightmare of the world."

READ MORE
hrrule



LIBYA, ISLAMIC STATE, IRAN

LIBYA: Libya is a study in When Amateurs Meddle, from murdering Gaddafi to dealing with the consequences inadequately. The Response Action Network summed up the final House report on the Benghazi attack in 2012 this way: "The final report of the House Select Committee on Benghazi found that senior members of the Obama administration, including then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and senior White House adviser Ben Rhodes, twisted the facts during and after the Sept. 11, 2012, terror attack in Benghazi, Libya, to preserve the illusion that the threat of terrorism was fading, just weeks before President Obama's re-election." (ResponseAction, June 28, 2016.)

There is much of the story of the 9/11 2012 Benghazi terror attack that is still known only in sketchy detail (see "The Benghazi Smudge-Out," Sep-Oct, 2012; the second half of the source text contains additional notes on the attack and the aftermath): why wouldn't Clinton allow the security detail to carry guns in America's Cairo embassy and why was she already apologizing for the Life of George movie that the Obama administration insisted was responsible for fomenting unrest in Cairo and violence later in Benghazi; in August 2012, why did Clinton not renew the contract with the ex-Seals who were providing excellent security for the U.S. ambassador in Libya, and why did she then hire a group of local al-Qaeda-affiliates, who fled when the terror attack began; why was ex-Seal Tyrone Woods forbidden to go help defend his fellow Americans (he did anyway and lost his life); why did Obama not sign the papers to dispatch the planes that were standing by, ready to come to help the US personnel fighting off the terror attack? Did Clinton and Obama stay in the Incident Room and watch the attack on the compound in real time or did they leave?

ISLAMIC STATE: A year and a half ago, this was an accurate description of the Islamic State. It was written by Mordechai Kedar, who, in a more recent article (see below), describes the Islamic State in decidedly different terms because IS's circumstances have changed so radically.

The organization called Daesh appeared on the Middle Eastern stage in the middle of 2014, although it was founded 14 years earlier as the Iraqi arm of Al Qaeda. The world paid the organization scant attention until it suddenly began to take over wide areas of northwestern Iraq and eastern Syria with record speed. At first, international attention focused mainly on the videos in which the organization's soldiers were seen butchering foreign journalists.and even now, the world considers this group of Jihadists a terrorist organization, despite the fact that in June 2014, that organization declared itself a state, "Islamic State" and began calling its leader a Caliph.

[...]

Islamic State is growing by leaps and bounds, more and more organizations are joining it and more and more people are adopting its ideas. This state did not exist a year and a half ago, but it has metamorphosed into the latest thing in international politics. It is a serious threat to Western civilization and if the West does not begin serious military action, the danger will turn into an existential one. The longer the West waits to respond, the harder, longer and dearer the war — and yes, it is going to be a real war — against Islamic State. ("Daesh: It's not an Organization, It's a State," 9Jul2015)

IRAN: Although Prez Obama made Iran's hegemonic expansion a key feature of his foreign policy, as Bob Blackman, M.P., UK House of Commons, has said ("It Does No Good to Expect the Best from Iran," 2Aug2016): "Through its repeated test-firings of nuclear-capable ballistic missiles, its provision of weapons to foreign conflict zones, and its general antagonism toward Western powers and the world community, the Islamic Republic has clearly been violating the 'spirit' of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the nuclear agreement concluded by Iran and six world powers last July. Various indicators have included a rising tide of executions and politically motivated arrests, as well as Tehran's undiminished sponsorship of terrorism and its escalating involvement in the affairs of Middle Eastern countries including Syria, Iraq, Yemen, and Lebanon. According to the well-reasoned conclusion in a July 18 UN report, Tehran's activities are still at odds with the interests of most democratic nations. Whereas the Western powers had hoped to provide concessions in order to promote the evolution of a kinder, gentler and friendlier Islamic Republic, what they got instead was a regime that is taking advantage of a financial windfall to go on doing whatever it wants, while also crying foul any time anyone dares to criticize and oppose it."


Return to What We Are Talking About

BRITISH PARLIAMENT CONFIRMS LIBYA WAR WAS BASED ON LIES

by 'George Washington'

As this article concludes: "the Libyan war [2011] was based on fake intelligence, was carried out for reasons having little to do with national security or protecting civilians, destroyed a nation and created a 'shit show', spread terrorism far and wide, and created waves of refugees." By murdering Gaddafi, who had renounced hostilities against the West in favor of negotiation, the US taught other Muslim dictators it didn't pay to placate the USA. Even worse, because the US did not secure these arsenals, Gaddafi's huge stock of weaponry was looted and these weapons ended up in the hands of different groups of terrorists all over the Middle East, increasing warfare and terror and, in general, increasing the destabilization of the region. To bolster Obama's 2012 election propaganda that terrorism had been significantly reduced, senior US officials, including Hillary Clinton, played down the burgeoning terrorism. This included ignoring the pleas for help by Ambassador Stevens and the US Government personnel working in the CIA compound in Benghazi when local terrorists attacked. (See next article below.)

READ MORE
hrrule

OBAMA-CLINTON CIA GUN-RUNNING OPERATION IGNORED IN HOUSE BENGHAZI REPORT

by Jim Kouri, July 1, 2016

The final House report on the Benghazi attack in 2012 wrote of the political underpinnings of the Obama administrations failure to protect the US personnel in Benghazi before and during the terrorist attack. But as Jim Kouri writes, the House report says little about the Obama administration's gun running of Gaddafi's guns to the Syrian rebels. Another question is why Obama failed to sign off on orders to send available and ready rescue teams to the besieged US personnel, when they were attacked by a hoard of local terrorists affiliated with al-Qaeda.

READ MORE
hrrule

ISLAMIC STATE, LTD

by Mordechai Kedar, December 18, 2016

Both Syria and Iraq are successfully fighting back against the Islamic State. Just a few months ago, Islamic State was vicious and sadistic and growing rapidly. It is still vicious and sadistic but it has lost significant amounts of land and resources. It is still dangerous. Mordechai Kedar notes that what is happening "to thousands of IS fighters is what happened 15 years ago to the earlier version of avant-garde Jihadism, that is, al Qaeda. On October 7, 2001, less than a month after 9/11, the war began against Mullah-led Afghanistan, which had become al Qaeda's host state." In that war, al Qaeda's infrastructure was destroyed but its scattered members formed new branches in many Middle East countries. Similarly, "we are in the midst of the process of the export of jihadists from the Islamic revolution to all four corners of the globe, with emphasis on those with Islamic populations, as those residents extend a friendly welcoming environment to Jihadists, provide them with easy access to ways of enlisting more militants, and offer available shelter in case government law enforcers look for suspects."

READ MORE
hrrule

ISIL'S VIRTUAL PLANNERS: A CRITICAL TERRORIST INNOVATION

by Daveed Gartenstein-Ross And Madeleine Blackman, January 4, 2017

The main news media like the idea of an supposedly independent "lone wolf" act of terror — they don't have to figure out how to absolve the peaceful religion of Islam yet again. But "lone-wolf" attacks don't just happen. They have to be scripted and detailed; equipment, props and extra actors need to be supplied and coordinated. Finally, the last piece in the chain, the suicider, needs to be motivated and more or less trained to carry out his/her role (see, e.g., To Make A Westernized Terrorist, Part 5, here). This may involved direct contact with the handler, but, depending on the simplicity of the plot, direction and inspiration can often be done long distance without actual contact, by what Daveed Gartenstein-Ross and Madeleine Blackman call "a virtual planner." "Planners are integrated into ISIL's geographical command structure ... according to their nationality and linguistic skills, and are tasked with planning attacks in familiar areas. The available social media and ease of communication have facilitated 'virtual contact' and extended ISIL's reach. "[A]daptations in jihadists' external operations efforts are outpacing states' efforts to find effective ways to counter them."

READ MORE
hrrule

IS ISIS DISTRACTING US FROM A MORE SERIOUS IRANIAN THREAT?

by David Daoud, November, 2014

David Daoud wrote in 2014, "In its quest for global cooperation in the fight against ISIS, the U.S. and its partners are turning to Iran for help. But it is the ayatollahs, not the caliphate, that the West should be worried about." Here it is years later and the US continues to believe it can work with imperialistic Iran for mutual benefit. The Iranian leaders use our fear of ISIS to gain concessions and flip from appearing to be civilized to having fear-inducing temper tantrums. But they have never changed their minds that the West and Israel as their enemies and they haven't stopped working on ways — everything from terrorism, conventional warfare, directly or by proxy, to nuclear bombs — to destroy us. Iran's aim to cripple the West and destroy Israel is all of a piece with its plans to control the entire Middle East, and probably beyond. Iran is much more of a threat than ISIS is.

READ MORE
hrrule

YES, TRUMP'S GOING TO DUMP THE IRAN DEAL

by Fred Fleitz, November 14, 2016

The JCPOA (better known as the Iran Nuclear Deal) was passed with a show of silence at the UN, a non-vote in Congress and a flurry of self-congratulatory nonsense by the Obama administration that covered up that the USA had committed itself to helping Iran gain access to information about hydrogen fusion while Iran committed itself to doing just what it wanted to do, even to the point of it being the one to collect the 'evidence' that would show whether or not it was cheating on the deal. Fred Fleitz tells us why the Nuclear Agreement is not binding and why it should be "either discarded or substantially renegotiated,". In addition, he specifies the terms of a meaningful nuclear agreement.

READ MORE
hrrule

PATTERNS OF SUBVERSION: IRANIAN USE OF PROXIES IN THE MIDDLE EAST

by Jonathan Spyer, September 5, 2016

Jonathan Spyer writes about the Iranian support of "proxies in major conflicts in the following areas: Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Lebanon, and the Palestinian territories. In addition, there is evidence that Iranian agencies are active among Shi'i populations — as yet without major effect — in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Bahrain. The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action adopted in October of 2015 has produced no major impact on the pattern of Iranian regional commitments. However, the release of tens of billions of dollars in sanctions relief has enabled the Iranians, who were in some danger of overstretch, to now freely commit to supporting more strongly their various allies and proxies in the Middle East."

READ MORE
hrrule

 


POLITICALLY CORRECT

When the speeches by the eminent authorities who have taken it upon themselves to regulate various aspects of our lives are blather while factual informative reports are suppressed or distorted, Houston, we have a problem.

The dynamics of Political Correctness (PC) seem simple enough. People are encouraged by their peers, their teachers, by the media to go with the flow, where the flow is controlled by whoever or whatever group has the muscle to psych out the timid. He or they can then decide what opinions are worth having, what speech mannerisms are acceptable. These are politically correct.

George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty Four provided a vivid example of how restricting vocabulary limits freedom of thought. As George Carlin concluded, "Political Correctness is Fascism pretending to be Manners."

This video, "The History Of Political Correctness," is important background information on how our intimidation by PC came to be. What is surprising is that our most supposedly ethical and 'caring' posture is grounded in Marxist philosophy and its purpose was to suppress undesirable speech, where those in charge defined undesirable.

(Occasionally, the video stops working on my computer but is directly available at
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjaBpVzOohs
or
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujdG7TxX40w)


Return to What We Are Talking About

ASSESSING PERES

by Richard H. Shulman

Richard Shulman offers us two assessments of Shimon Peres, who died at the age of 93 on September 28, 2016. The first is by Steven Plaut, who noted "that for most of his career, Shimon Peres was a great man." Unfortunately, he "spent his last 25 years committing Oslo, endangering the very existence of Israel with his delusions." The second assessment, by Peter Baker of the New York Times, is just what one would expect from someone who shares the New York Times rigidly left ideology. Shulman refutes Baker concisely and to the point. Also included are some quotes from Peres, collected by Roger A. Gerber and Rael Jean Isaac under the title: What Shimon Says: Shimon Peres In His Own Words and available from Americans for a Safe Israel (AFSI) at
https://www.afsi.org/pamphlets/WhatShimonSays[1].pdf

READ MORE
hrrule

ISRAEL IN WONDERLAND

by Martin Sherman, October 7, 2016

In the second half of his life, Shimon Peres rarely let facts overshadow his fantasies. It was as if he truly believed that 'wishing will make it so.' At his funeral and in most of the media, the eulogies had the same lack of ballast. As Martin Sherman puts it, "The demise of Shimon Peres unleashed a tidal wave of mendacity and hypocrisy that underscores the dominance the delusional dictates of political correctness have over political discourse in (and on) Israel." Sherman's examples would be amusing if the thinking they represent weren't so dangerous to Israel's security.

READ MORE
hrrule

A DIASPORA MENTALITY OR A JEWISH DISEASE?

Know before Whom you stand - and conduct your politics accordingly

by Matthew M. Hausman, December 14, 2016

Muslim front organizations of the Muslim Brotherhood and other terrorist organizations have co-opted many a rabbinical group, especially those groups that are committed to trendy social and humanitarian causes, disregarding their obligation to safeguard "the religious and national integrity of the Jewish people." Matthew Hausman discusses one such situation, where the Muslim group CAIR, an anti-Jewish group committed to advancing sharia law in the West, persuaded rabbis to act as their agents in suppressing a synagogue discussion on radical Islam, when knowledge of Muslim tactics is very important to maintaining the security of the Jewish community. How do we explain rabbis who worry about Muslim sensitivity (an important word in the vocabulary of PC) when what is needed is "Jewish assertiveness, support for Israel, and criticism of radical Islam"? Hausman includes an interesting discussion of how the Diaspora mentality, strong during the Roosevelt presidency, continues to encourage "self-rejection and identification with hostile critics."

READ MORE
hrrule

CLIMATE DATA DENIERS ARE TRYING TO 'BORK' TRUMP'S EPA TRANSITION LEADER

by Nicolas Loris, December 1, 2016

Nicolas Loris writes about Donald Trump's pick for head of the EPA. Myron Ebell will cut back on the out-of-control regulations the EPA generated during the Obama administration. Moreover, he will take a non-believer's view of current policy on global warming. As Loris writes, "As costly as our current energy and climate policies are to the economy (they would cost the U.S. a net loss of 400,000 jobs and up to $2.5 trillion), they are projected to have negligible impacts on global temperatures—even if you believe the questionable climate models of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). When judged by their actual effect, it becomes clear that the real goal of international climate policies is a power and money grab that no one, not even its most vocal supporters, believes will have much impact on the climate."

A comment by Richard Willson pretty much summed up most of the arguments that had convinced many of us. He wrote:

"The C02 anthropogenic global warming (CAGW) hypothesis has not withstood the test of time. CAGW is based on predictions of the flawed, 1980's vintage global circulation models that have failed to match observational data both prior to and since their fabrication. Climate changes continually and is determined by natural forces - primarily small variations in solar radiation - that humans have no significant control over.

The CO2 content of the atmosphere is a response to climate change, not a cause of it.

There is no reason to sabotage the world's developed economies and relegate the third world to poverty by failing to use fossil fuels, the most cost effective form of energy. Renewable energy currently provides less than 5% of total usage at great taxpayer subsidy expense, and only that when the wind blows and the sun shines, and it will be a very long time before it is available in quantities and at costs that can replace fossil fuel"

He didn't mention how the data were processed. Remember the hacked emails from British climate scientists a few years back? One programmer cheerfully admitted that when he multiplied two negative numbers and got a negative number, he knew just what to do. He tossed out sensor data (where any one sensor covers a very large area) until he got a positive result. I also found troublesome what was to be done with all the money and power to be given the UN to help control climate. I could understand if efforts were devoted to developing face masks that broke down CO2 or long-lasting diapers that blocked the methane from cow farts or distributing rafts for polar bears made homeless when polar ice melts. But I don't understand giving my money to a third-party so other countries can continue pouring CO2 into the atmosphere. That doesn't make much sense.

READ MORE
hrrule

THINGS NOBEL & NOT SO NOBLE

by Burt Prelutsky, November 14, 2016

With tongue resting comfortably in cheek, Burt Prelutsky explores the wisdom of the choices made by those who select common earthlings for prestigious Nobel prizes. And then there's the question: how do they do it? Until Prelutsky mentioned it, I'd never wondered how "they determine that those who write prose or poetry in French, German, Italian, Spanish, Finnish, Russian, Icelandic, Polish, Nigerian, Egyptian, Portuguese, Hungarian and Hebrew, are worthy of the million-dollar windfall?" How indeed, considering the vast number of obscure poets and novelists writing in languages unlikely to be the mother tongue of any one on the committee. While I'm still trying to come up with a solution that will have the Committee finish examining the combinatorics in time to hand out the next big prize, Prelutsky is on to politically important people who may sound PC but have been shown up as totally corrupt by their own emails. One thing you can say, the amounts of money the Clintons got for selling influence was on a scale befitting those that held high office in a powerful country. Pikers with other people's money they are not. As William Stoecker commented, "the Nobel prizes are part of a larger pattern. The elites, and especially their slimestream media whores, give prizes, titles, and accolades to one another to convince the dumbed down sheeple that they are ruled over by the most saintly and brilliant people imaginable, when the truth is the exact opposite."

READ MORE
hrrule

 


HISTORY SECTION

In addition to Holocaust material, we have a study in contrasts: Israel's taking in Holocaust survivors and the Jewish refugees expelled from the Arab countries when Israel was reborn and its rescue of the Jews held captive in Entebbe versus its signing onto the Oslo Accords and then expelling the Jews from Gaza.

An interview with James G. McDonald, first US \ ambassador to Israel, from May 12, 1952, when Israel was taking in all the Jewish refugees being expelled from the Arab countries, young, old, healthy, ill:

Israel's terrible mistake, the expulsion of the Jews from Gush Katif in Gaza in August, 2005:


Return to What We Are Talking About

ENTEBBE AND A SAD FOURTH OF JULY

by Ruthie Blum, July 4, 2016

Some of us remember the Israeli rescue of the Jewish hostages in Entebbe on July 4, 1976. The mission coincided with the celebration of the 200th anniversary of the adoption of the Declaration of Independence in the USA. TV and radio time was so finely choreographed that it was initially hard finding details about Israel's amazing feat. Ruthie Blum bemoans the fact that in today's Israel, "the ability or will to execute such missions, rather than negotiate with and capitulate to terrorists' demands, has diminished considerably." As she says, nowadays, Israeli teachers and television teach that "peace is a goal, rather than a byproduct of victory."

READ MORE
hrrule

WHY THE OSLO PROCESS DOOMED PEACE

by Efraim Karsh

Efraim Karsh recounts the history of the Oslo Accords, the first of which was officially signed between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) on September 13, 1993. They stand out "as the starkest strategic blunder in [Israel's] history." They have been no better for the local Arabs living in Samaria, Judea and Gaza, currently subjugated to "the corrupt and repressive PLO and Hamas regimes." They have erased "the astounding economic boom [that] begun under Israel's control [1967]". The core problem continues to be that the Palestinian Arab's view of the Oslo process has never changed; it was seen "not as a springboard to peace but as ... a 'Trojan Horse' designed to promote the organization's strategic goal of 'Palestine from the [Jordan] river to the [Mediterranean] sea' — that is, a Palestine in place of Israel." The Arabs and their European backers and the UN continue to ignore the PLO's violations of their contractual obligations. The obligations the Accords impose on Israel jeopardize Israel's security, especially now that so many Israeli Arabs have become radicalized and treasonous, while the Arabs in the Territories focus on a variety of hate-filled suicide and missile attacks against Israel, which do nothing to better their own lives. Though Karsh is hopeful that someday the Territorial Arabs might begin to "value the virtues of coexistence," I believe the more recent history of Arab repudiation of the Oslo Accords in favor of making deals with a politicized UN makes it all the more urgent that Israel formally free itself from the dead weight of the Accords.

READ MORE
hrrule

REMEMBERING HILLEL KOOK: A GIANT OF 20TH CENTURY JEWISH HISTORY

by David Bedein

David Bedein reviews "Shake Heaven & Earth: Peter Bergson and the Struggle to Rescue the Jews of Europe" by Louis Rapoport. Hillel Kook (aka Peter Bergson), during World War 2 (WW2), came to the USA to organize efforts to rescue Jews from being slaughtered by the Nazis. He was "a man of with tremendous organizational agility, who operated under the worst of hostile circumstances," including battling establishment Jews led by Rabbi Stephen Wise, who was persuaded by President Roosevelt not to make WW2 a Jewish war, as if one of Hitler's major objectives was not to exterminate Jews and Judaism.

READ MORE
hrrule

RUSSIA AND RAOUL WALLENBERG: UNFINISHED BUSINESS

by Inna Rogatchi

The details of the death of Raoul Wallenberg, who saved thousands of Jews during the Holocaust, remains a mystery. Inna Rogatchi suggests the answer may be found in the Russian Presidential Archive. She rejects the authenticity of the evidence available in the biographies and diaries of several prominent Russians and offers another answer to the mystery of Wallenberg's death. She believes it is unfinished business until "three elements are implemented:[...]admission, apology and compensation."

READ MORE
hrrule

WHAT HEIDEGGER WAS HIDING: UNEARTHING THE PHILOSOPHER'S ANTI-SEMITISM

a review essay from Foreign Affairs, November/December 2014

Martin Heidegger has been regarded as a most influential Western philosopher since the publication of his Being and Time in 1927. He was an adherent of the Nazi party from 1933 until its termination and never renounced it, its deeds or its ideology. It was known he was anti-Semitic but his admirers dismissed — and continue to dismiss — his anti-Semitism as being part and parcel of the 'times' or a defect in his character, and not intrinsic to his philosophy. But as this review of Peter Trawny's Heidegger und der Mythos der jüdischen Weltverschwörung (Heidegger and the Myth of the Jewish World Conspiracy) makes clear, a reexamination, prompted by the discovery of Heidegger's Black Notebooks, indicates that he had his own polished idiosyncratic version of standard Nazi cant. As did the Nazis, he believed the Jews were thwarting the German race from fulfilling its destiny. No matter what he knew of the concentration camps and the condition of the Jews, he regarded the Germans as the real victims, because of Jewish manipulation.

What is happening now in Germany seems a fitting ending to the Holocaust. Having rid themselves of their loyal and productive Jewish population, the Germans are now being overwhelmed by immigrant Muslims, who believe in the superiority of Islam and who, for centuries, have practiced large-scale genocide even more ruthlessly than the Germans have, except perhaps in the Nazi era.

See also: Adam Kirsch, "Heidegger Was Really A Real Nazi," Tablet Magazine, September 26, 2016, here; and Richard Wolin, "National Socialism, World Jewry, and the History of Being: Heidegger's Black Notebooks, Jewish Review of Books," Summer 2014, here.

READ MORE
hrrule

 

 

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, Cravatts, Kaganovich&Butler, Iannone)
  13. QUESTION 3. ARAB MEDIA PROPAGANDA: 
  14. What Are The Techniques Used To Demonize Israel And The Jews? (Cravatts, 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 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 Cravatts 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 Cravatts 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 Jewish neighbors 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 Hashemites. 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 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 that 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 law 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, "‚ÄéToday, 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 Somali 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