War Crime!: Placing a Note in the Western Wall


Alan Dershowitz

 

Alan Dershowitz is a Left-Winger. Or at least I’ve always believed so. BUT his recent support of Constitutional law that benefits President Trump rather than fellow Leftist Dems has led to place Dershowitz as more Center-Left than Left-Wing. AND NOW I just finished reading an article that fully supports Israel sovereignty over religious sites that have a Judaic history over pseudo-Palestinians who desire to usurp that Israeli sovereignty.

 

JRH 5/14/19

Your generosity is always appreciated:

Please Support NCCR

***********************

War Crime!: Placing a Note in the Western Wall

 

By Alan M. Dershowitz

May 14, 2019 at 5:00 am

Gatestone Institute

 

  • I urge all visitors to join me in a conspiracy to violate the UN Security Council Resolution…Obama, himself, engineered the Resolution. He pushed it through the Security Council despite some reservations by other members, including Egypt, which believed that the Resolution itself could become a barrier to a negotiated two-state solution. After all, if Israel’s control over Judaism’s holiest site is deemed illegal, then Israel would have to negotiate its legality with the Palestinians.

 

  • These Jewish areas were illegally occupied by Jordan between 1948 and 1967 and lawfully recaptured by Israel in a defensive war, started by Jordan when it fired mortars at civilian targets inside pre-1967 Israel…. Yet there were no United Nations Resolutions, campus protests or other organized shows of opposition by the international community. Only after Israel liberated these historically Jewish areas, did the world, and Obama, decide — in violation of international law — that they were illegally occupied.

 

  • Declaring the Western Wall to be illegally occupied territory is akin to declaring the Vatican, Mecca or other religious, holy sites to be occupied by those who pray at them. The Western Wall is lawfully part of the nation state of the Jewish people. It will remain so as long as Israel exists. If there is to be any hope of peace between Israel and the Palestinians, the world must recognize that historic, moral and legal reality.

 

Pictured: Notes placed by visitors in the cracks of the Western Wall in Jerusalem, Israel. (Photo by Uriel Sinai/Getty Images)

 

Last week, in Israel, I committed a flagrant violation of international law. This “war crime” consisted of placing a note asking for “peace, salaam, shalom” in the Western Wall, Judaism’s holiest site. The reason the note requesting peace constituted “a flagrant violation of international law” and a “war crime” is that the United Nations Security Council, in a Resolution adopted in December 2016, declared that all areas captured by Israel during the 1967 War are illegally occupied territories. That includes the Western Wall, the Jewish Quarter of the Old City of Jerusalem and the access roads on Mount Scopus to the Hebrew University and Hadassah Hospital.

 

Former US President Barack Obama demanded that his permanent representative to the United Nations not veto this one-sided, wrong-headed, ahistorical, bigoted, and anti-peace Resolution. Obama changed American policy by allowing such a resolution to be enacted by the Security Council as revenge on Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who, quite correctly, opposed the very bad deal Obama made with Iran enabling it to develop nuclear weapons.

 

Although Obama himself had once stood in front of the Western Wall and placed a note in it, he now apparently regards Judaism’s holiest place as territory illegally occupied by Israel. He is dead wrong, but that does not change the Security Council Resolution.

 

So now I, and doubtless many others, have not only willfully and deliberately committed a violation of international law, we are also guilty of a war crime, because building or using civilian structures on illegally occupied territory is a war crime; and Israel built, and I used, the promenade in front of the Western Wall after Israel recaptured it during a defensive war.

 

Let me be clear: I intend to commit this crime during every visit to Israel. Call it an act of civil disobedience, or call it an act which simply recognizes the absurdity and illegality of the Security Council Resolution, despite its passage and lack of veto by the United States, which abstained.

 

The United States abstention was designed to give the Obama administration political cover at home. It could claim that it did not vote for the Resolution. But it did much more than vote for the Resolution. Obama, himself, engineered the Resolution. He pushed it through the Security Council despite some reservations by other members, including Egypt, which believed that the Resolution itself could become a barrier to a negotiated two-state solution. After all, if Israel’s control over Judaism’s holiest site is deemed illegal, then Israel would have to negotiate its legality with the Palestinians. This would give the Palestinians an incomparable bargaining chip. As a former Prime Minister of the Palestinian Authority once rhetorically asked me, “How much would Israel be willing to give up to get back its most important religious shrine?”

 

Israel will never accept the Security Council Resolution. Nor should any decent person. I certainly do not, and will continue to violate it during every visit to Israel, by putting notes in the Western Wall, eating kosher falafel in the Jewish Quarter and driving on the access road to Hebrew University, and if I need to, Hadassah Hospital. I urge all visitors to join me in a conspiracy to violate the Security Council Resolution.

 

These Jewish areas were illegally occupied by Jordan between 1948 and 1967 and lawfully recaptured by Israel in a defensive war, started by Jordan when it fired mortars at civilian targets inside pre-1967 Israel. During the Jordanian occupation, King Hussein engaged in war crimes by ordering the destruction of ancient synagogues, burial places and other historical sites and by “ethnically cleansing” this historically Jewish area of all Jews. Yet there were no United Nations Resolutions, campus protests or other organized shows of opposition by the international community. Only after Israel liberated these historically Jewish areas, did the world, and Obama, decide — in violation of international law — that they were illegally occupied.

 

Declaring the Western Wall to be illegally occupied territory is akin to declaring the Vatican, Mecca or other religious, holy sites to be occupied by those who pray at them. The Western Wall is lawfully part of the nation state of the Jewish people. It will remain so as long as Israel exists. If there is to be any hope of peace between Israel and the Palestinians, the world must recognize that historic, moral and legal reality.

 

Alan M. Dershowitz is the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law Emeritus at Harvard Law School and author of The Case Against the Democrats Impeaching TrumpSkyhorse Publishing, 2018. He is a Distinguished Senior Fellow at Gatestone Institute.

 

_______________________

© 2019 Gatestone Institute. All rights reserved. The articles printed here do not necessarily reflect the views of the Editors or of Gatestone Institute. No part of the Gatestone website or any of its contents may be reproduced, copied or modified, without the prior written consent of Gatestone Institute. [Blog Editor: I did not seek permission to re-post; ergo if requested, the post will be removed.]

 

About Gatestone Institute

 

“Let us tenderly and kindly cherish, therefore, the means of knowledge. Let us dare to read, think, speak, and write.”
— John Adams

 

Gatestone Institute, a non-partisan, not-for-profit international policy council and think tank is dedicated to educating the public about what the mainstream media fails to report in promoting:

 

  • Institutions of Democracy and the Rule of Law;

 

  • Human Rights

 

  • A free and strong economy

 

  • A military capable of ensuring peace at home and in the free world

 

  • Energy independence

 

  • Ensuring the public stay informed of threats to our individual liberty, sovereignty and free speech.

 

Gatestone Institute conducts national and international conferences, briefings and events for its members and others, with world leaders, journalists and experts — analyzing, strategizing, and keeping them informed on current issues, and where possible recommending solutions.

 

Gatestone Institute will be publishing books, and continues to publish an online daily report, www.gatestoneinstitute.org, that features topics such as military and diplomatic threats to the United States and our allies; events in the Middle East and their possible consequences, and the transparency and accountability of international organizations.

 

Gatestone Institute is funded by private donors and foundations. We are grateful for your support. Gatestone Institute is a 501(c)3 not-for-profit organization, Federal Tax ID #454724565.

 

Nina Rosenwald, President
Naomi H. Perlman, Vice President

 

6 DEM SENATORS SELL OUT JEWISH TERROR VICTIMS TO RESTORE CASH TO ISLAMIC TERRORISTS


Hamas (pseudo-Palestinian) is a designated terrorist organization. The Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO – Brief Summary, Soviet involvement, PLO-PA Transition & Greater Detail) is a terrorist umbrella organization that serves essentially as a confederation of Jew-hating Islamic terrorists. The Palestinian Authority (PA – DTN, Gatestone & American Thinker) is basically the PLO legitimized by idiotic Oslo Accords to set the stage to give non-existent Palestinians a Jew-Hating independent State of Palestine. (Thank God that idiocy has not materialized!)

With that brief background of a group of Arab mostly Muslim created for the sole purpose to Destroy Israel and kill Jews, Daniel Greenfield exposes six Dem Party Senators trying to pass legislation to insure the Fake-Palestinian continue to receive humanitarian aid that is actually used for Islamic terrorism.

 

JRH 4/24/19

Your generosity is always appreciated:

Please Support NCCR

*******************

6 DEM SENATORS SELL OUT JEWISH TERROR VICTIMS TO RESTORE CASH TO ISLAMIC TERRORISTS

Terrorists need their guns more than their victims need surgeries.

 

By Daniel Greenfield

April 24, 2019

FrontPageMag.com

 

Dianne Feinstein PLO Garb Political Cartoon

 

In 2002, Shmuel Waldman, an American from New Jersey, was shot while boarding a bus in Israel. The terrorist attack killed 2 people and left 40 injured. Among that 40 was Shmuel whose leg was blown apart, forcing him to undergo multiple surgical procedures, and leaving him suffering from PTSD.

 

The terrorist who shot him was Said Ramadan, a “police officer” working for the terrorists who run the Palestinian Authority. The attack had been planned by senior Palestinian Authority officials and the Palestinian Authority viewed Ramadan as a hero. Waldman joined other victims of terrorism in a lawsuit against the terrorist group, which is funded by American taxpayers, under the Antiterrorism Act.

 

Waldman v. PLO resulted in a record award of $655 million in damages against the Palestinian Authority terror network. But the verdict was thrown out because an American court lacked jurisdiction over the terrorist group even though the United States provides much of the cash flow that its terrorists rely on.

 

The Anti-Terrorism Clarification Act was introduced and approved to make it clear that accepting security assistance for its “police force” would place the Palestinian Authority under judicial jurisdiction for lawsuits such as these. The PA could stop funding terrorism or face lawsuits from its victims.

 

A ruthless battle was waged against ATCA by a variety of groups which understood that the Palestinian Authority would not stop funding and promoting terrorism under any circumstances. These groups falsely claimed that ATCA would undermine American and Israeli security. That was a blatant lie.

 

The only thing that ATCA would undermine was the flow of tax dollars to Islamic terrorists.

 

Last year, the Palestinian Authority informed the United States that the terror group would no longer accept any aid from the United States that would expose it to ATCA lawsuits. The terror group’s letter suggested that it might revisit its refusal if the law were changed. That’s just what 6 Democrat senators, led by Senator Dianne Feinstein have set out to do, using the false claim of a humanitarian disaster.

 

“President Trump’s refusal to provide humanitarian aid to the Palestinian people is a strategic mistake,” Senator Feinstein claimed, accusing him of “denying funding for clean water, health care and schools in the West Bank and Gaza.”

 

Senator Chris Coons urged that, “It is critical that we restore lifesaving aid to the West Bank and Gaza.” Senator Jeff Merkley insisted that, “Aid to innocent civilians should not be caught up in broader geopolitical battles. We can and should restore aid to children and other vulnerable populations at the same time as we stand steadfastly by Israel’s security.”

 

But the real agenda revealed by their resolution shows that it’s not about humanitarian aid, but about restoring funding to the Islamic terrorists of the Palestinian Authority.

 

While Feinstein claims that Trump is preventing “clean water” and “health care” aid, her own resolution actually begins by admitting that, “the Palestinian Authority’s interpretation of the Anti-Terrorism Clarification Act… led the Palestinian Authority to reject all forms of United States assistance.”

 

The problem isn’t Trump. It isn’t the United States. It’s that the Palestinian Authority is a terror group.

 

The Palestinian Authority, on whose behalf Senator Feinstein is advocating, rejected the money that Dianne wants to give the terror group, because it doesn’t want to face American terror victims in court.

 

Rather than telling the truth about that, Senator Feinstein and her five accomplices start out by lying about the problem, and about what they want to accomplish, while assuming that the media will never report the truth. They are almost certainly right about that. But wrong about everything else.

 

The resolution, “Expressing the sense of Congress regarding restoring United States bilateral assistance to the West Bank and Gaza”, specifically demands $196 million for the Economic Support Fund, $60 million for International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement; and another million for anti-terrorism.

 

But the Palestinian Authority is a terrorist coalition. Some of its components, such as the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, are even officially listed as terrorist groups by the United States. Palestinian Authority “police” deserve the name the same way that ISIS cops did. They’re armed members of a terrorist network with a history of participating in terrorist attacks. This network was set up with United States aid in the Clinton era. Senator Feinstein is vocally insisting that we continue funding terrorists.

 

If Feinstein, Coons and Merkley were really just concerned about humanitarian assistance, they would not have pushed for funds for the armed components of a terrorist network. This is not about “clean water”, it’s about dirty cash flowing to the enforcers for a terrorist group while leaving their victims out in the cold.

 

The six senators want the PA’s thugs to get paid, while their victims are left unable to sue them.

 

Feinstein is joined in this charade by Senator Patrick Leahy, Senator Chris Coons, Senator Chris Van Hollen, and Senator Catherine Cortez Masto, and Senator Jeff Merkely.

 

Senator Van Hollen claims that he wants to help “millions of children” with this resolution.

 

“There are thousands of children and families in the West Bank and Gaza who need the aid the United States has historically provided,” Cortez Masto appealed.

 

Is it thousands or millions? Since it’s not about the children, the fake numbers don’t actually matter.

 

If the senators read their own resolution, they would see that it frees terrorists from being sued for the foreign aid they receive from American taxpayers by their American victims in United States courts.

 

No wonder that Feinstein, Coons, Van Hollen, Cortez Masto and Merkely keep talking about children. Caring about children sounds a lot better than trying to help terrorists defraud terror victims.

 

A number of the Dem senators invoke Trump, attacking and blaming him, but as their own resolution concedes, it was the Palestinian Authority that turned down ATCA aid. How is that Trump’s fault?

 

Why blame President Trump when your own terrorists would rather kill Jews than take your money?

 

Senator Feinstein is broadcasting support for her resolution from a variety of “humanitarian” groups. A number of these groups, such as Churches for Middle East Peace, are involved in BDS and other anti-Israel activities. Islamic Relief has been accused of supporting Hamas. As has another NGO on the list.

 

Feinstein, Van Hollen, Merkley, Coons and Cortez Masto are touting support for their “humanitarian” effort that respects “Israeli security” from Islamic USA whose chair, Khaled Lamada, has allegedly praised Hamas, and distributed conspiracy theories which claim that, the Jews are causing Egyptian Muslims to have sex, plan to invade the Nile Valley and that the Egyptian president is a secret Jew.

 

Democrats are using support from BDS, anti-Israel and anti-Semitic groups to back this resolution. And they are doing so while lying and misleading about the resolution, its aims and its purpose.

 

Senator Feinstein and her allies have failed to explain what ATCA is or what “legal liabilities” the Palestinian Authority is attempting to evade. That’s because the plain truth is that the six Senate Democrats are trying to defraud terror victims like Shmuel Waldman under the guise of helping children.

 

But the “children” they’re helping are grown men who need our money for their guns.

 

Officially, the United States doesn’t buy guns or bullets for the terrorist police forces. But money is obviously fungible. The funds that the United States puts into terror groups frees them to buy weapons.

 

It is ironic that Senator Dianne Feinstein, who has been known for her militant opposition to Americans owning firearms, and for holding firearms manufacturers liable for gun violence, wants to force those same Americans to pay for guns for terrorists while exempting those same terrorists from liability.

 

Palestinian “security officials” don’t just carry pistols, but Kalashnikov rifles. Those aren’t the weapons of law enforcement, but of a terrorist and guerrilla organization. They’re not meant to police, but to war.

 

Senator Feinstein hates “assault rifles” when Americans have them, not when Islamic terrorists do.

 

The resolution isn’t really about humanitarian aid. It’s about allowing terrorists to get away with murder. It’s about stealing money from their victims. And about weakening America’s negotiating position with a terrorist group by exempting it from accountability to the courts, to its victims and to our government.

__________________________

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical Left and Islamic terrorism.

 

© COPYRIGHT 2019, FRONTPAGEMAG.COM

 

About FPM

 

FRONTPAGE MAG IS A PROUD PROJECT OF THE DAVID HOROWITZ FREEDOM CENTER

 

The DHFC is dedicated to the defense of free societies whose moral, cultural and economic foundations are under attack by enemies both secular and religious, at home and abroad.

 

The David Horowitz Freedom Center combats the efforts of the radical left and its Islamist allies to destroy American values and disarm this country as it attempts to defend itself in a time of terror.  The leftist offensive is most obvious on our nation’s campuses, where the Freedom Center protects students from indoctrination and intimidation and works to give conservative students a place in the marketplace of ideas from which they are otherwise excluded.  Combining forceful analysis and bold activism, the Freedom Center provides strong insight into today’s most pressing issue on its family of websites and in the activist campaigns it wages on campus, in the news media, and in national politics throughout the year.

 

David Horowitz began the Center for the Study of Popular Culture in 1988 to establish a conservative presence in Hollywood and show how popular culture had become a political battleground. Over the next 18 years, CSPC attracted 50,000 contributing supporters and established programs such as The Wednesday Morning Club, the Individual Rights Foundation, and Students for Academic Freedom.

 

FrontPage Magazine, the Center’s online journal of news and political commentary has 1.5 million visitors and over 870,000 unique visitors a month (65 million hits) and is linked to over 2000 other websites.  The magazine’s coverage of and commentary about events has been greatly augmented over the last two years by the presence of four  Shillman Fellows in Journalism underwritten by board member Dr. Robert Shillman. FrontPage has recently added a blog called “The Point,” run by Shillman Fellow Daniel Greenfield, which has tripled web traffic.

 

 READ THE REST

 

Unwitting Embrace of Leftist Utopianism due to Jew-Hatred


John R. Houk

© April 23, 2019

I find it quite disturbing and extremely sad that there exists people in America who claim patriotism yet express racist statements indicating Jew-Hatred and Anti-Israel sentiments.

 

These so-called Patriots will lump all Jews monolithically as something repugnant because people of Jewish heritage have been or (startlingly) currently are supportive of Left-Wing ideology too often to the point of Marxist-Leninist-Maoist Communism.

 

In case you didn’t realize it, lumping Communist-oriented Jews are representative of all Judaism is like lumping all Americans with Communism because many people of a Western Civilization heritage (yet non-Jewish) embraced atheistic Communism. Western Christians such as Friedrich Engels and Vladimir Lenin (born as Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov) abandoned their faith and heritage to embrace a violent-revolution concept like Communism.

 

Sure, people of a Jewish heritage devoted themselves to Communism, for the most part these Communist devotees abandoned their faith and heritage in the same fashion as the Communists who abandoned their Christian heritage. The attributed inventor of modern Communism in Karl Marx is an example. Another example of abandoning his heritage to embrace Communism is Mao Zedong (aka Mao Tse-tung).

 

For people looking for a form of Leftist Utopianism, Communism is the antidote regardless of heritage and religion. Ultimately the Communist antidote seeks to transform society enforced by a government even if it means massive murders for society to forget their past heritage.

 

Those Americans calling themselves Patriots yet hate Jews are unwittingly aligning themselves with Leftist Utopianism which would lead to Communism. To be clear, Communism eradicates Liberty and Freedom as the Leftist ideology seeks to make people the Natural Rights endowed by Nature’s God.

 

This brings me to the Pro-Israel organization that non-Jewish Leftists; self-loathing Leftist Jews and Muslim Apologists love to hate – the Canary Mission. I have posted twice on the Canary Mission HERE and HERE. If you are a Jew-Hater that erroneously describes oneself as a Patriot, I pray the Canary Mission exposes your racism.

 

JRH 4/23/19

Your generosity is always appreciated:

Please Support NCCR

*********************

IN DEFENSE OF CANARY MISSION

The courageous group exposing the campus Israel/Jew-hating industry becomes a target.

 

Canary Mission screen capture

 

By Harry Onickel

April 22, 2019

FrontPageMag.com

 

Jews have had a long history of engaging in wars with enemies who fight by rules that Jews find abhorrent. Rather than fight by those rules, Jews have held themselves to more humane standards. While this is morally admirable, it’s not always martially effective.

 

On his way to establishing control over the Arabian Peninsula, Mohammed’s armies fought and conquered the Jewish tribes that had lived there for centuries. Jews of the Nadir tribe, living around Medina, wouldn’t fight on the Sabbath. Even during wartime, due to a biblical injunction, they refused to cut down their enemy’s fruit trees. Mohammed had no such qualms. He had his soldiers cut down the Nadir’s date palms on which they depended for food and for trade. And he did it on the Sabbath. The Nadir surrendered and were exiled.

 

Israel has been battling the terrorists of Hamas ever since abandoning Gaza in a futile attempt at peaceful coexistence. The IDF is the most moral army in the world and fights as hard at avoiding civilian casualties as they do at fighting against Hamas. Hamas works hard at creating civilian casualties, its favorites being Gazan children that their media allies can blame Israel for. And so this war drags on.

 

On university campuses throughout North America, Israel and Jewish students are vilified and harassed by BDS supporters including Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) and their allies. Campus Jews think this is an ideological disagreement. Jewish students don’t understand that BDS and SJP are fighting a war, and so they continue the custom of fighting by different rules. Jewish students see BDS and SJP as organizations that they can debate in order to sway the larger student population.

 

Meanwhile, BDS proponents, in this endless war against the Jews, use every anti-Semitic/anti-Israel lie they can muster. They use theater, public demonstrations, and displays designed to demonize Israel. They crush dissent by protesting and shouting down pro-Israel speakers. They demand free speech rights, but deny them to campus Israel supporters. They feel emboldened enough to tweet messages like, “Hitler should have killed the Jews when he had the chance that dog” and “What do you call a flyin Jew?….. Smoke.”

 

Jewish students, who because they are at college to get an education, are at a terrible disadvantage facing paid BDS activists, who are on campus to demonize Israel as part of a long-term strategy to bring down the Jewish state and return Jews to their Sharia approved roles as “dhimmis.” While Jewish students have formed grass-root organizations to fight BDS, BDS groups, including SJP, are the American arms of Hamas and are well trained and well funded by Hamas.

 

The main Hamas to SJP conduit has been American Muslims for Palestine (AMP), a group founded by U of C Berkeley professor, Hatem Bazian. AMP’s board membership includes various anti-Israel activists, terror supporters, and former members of the Holy Land Foundation, an organization that was shut down in 2009 after a lengthy FBI terrorism investigation and federal trial.

 

In addition, Omar Barghouti, founder of the BDS movement, who was denied entry into the U.S. in April 2019, has extensive terrorist connections. A group he co-founded, the Palestinian Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions National Committee (BNC) receives support from a who’s who of terrorist organizations that not only includes Hamas, but also: Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, Palestine Liberation, Front, Palestinians Islamic Jihad, and many others.

 

Barghouti’s father, Marwan Barghouti, along with Yassir Arafat, was a founder of the PLO, which Omar Barghouti states, “was very much a part of our family . . .” The elder Barghouti also ran the terrorist Tanzim force and founded the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades. One does not engage in reasoned debate with these people.

 

Recently, groups like Zionist Organization of America, StandWithUs, and the Lawfare Project, have begun steering more resources into training and supporting beleaguered Israel advocates. These adult organizations have gained experience over the years of struggle and have begun fighting back more aggressively, going so far as bringing lawsuits against some of the most unfriendly-to-Jews universities.

 

Even with this outside help, Jewish students still refuse to go all out. They still insist on holding back even as they themselves on some campuses are wary of looking too Jewish by wearing a kippah or other noticeably Jewish outerwear, lest they be harassed. Like the IDF, they insist on fighting with one (or more) hand(s) behind their backs.

 

Three years ago, a new anti-BDS group, calling themselves “Canary Mission,” entered the fray. They take their name from the recognition that Jews are the “canary in the coal mine,” the first to face irrational discrimination when societies enter into periods of increased bigotry and self-destruction. Their motto is, “If you’re racist, the world should know it.” Their members remain anonymous. They work at exposing campus anti-Semites, including students and professors, on the Left and on the Right. And they use the anti-Semites’ own words from their own social media posts to do it. They’ve created an online database full of anti-Semitic and anti-Israel tweets and Facebook rants, and dedicated pages listing personal and organizational ties to Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood and other terrorist groups.

 

The Middle East Studies Association, an organization that backed a University of Michigan professor in his refusal to write a recommendation for a Jewish student to study in Israel, has a page on its website dedicated to “exposing” Canary Mission. They claim that Canary Mission’s “profiles are filled with falsehoods, misrepresentations and errors,” but provide no examples. They misrepresent Canary Mission’s “political agenda” and denounce its members as being “extremists.” Without a trace of irony, they accuse Canary Mission of seeking to “silence free and open campus discussion of, and teaching about, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.” Canary Mission is lumped with organizations like CAMERA, Honest Reporting, StandWithUs, and other pro-Israel and media watchdog organizations that MESA falsely associates with a “rise of Islamophobia.”

 

The Electronic Intifada has posted Steven Salaita’s diatribe, “A guide to surviving Canary Mission,” from which we learn about “Zionist thuggery,” “messianic compulsions of settler-colonization,” and facilitation of “sexist, racist and homophobic abuse.” His advice is, don’t talk to Zionists. Recall that Salaita had a University of Illinois job offer rescinded after some of his vicious anti-Israel tweets came to light.

 

Mondoweiss calls Canary Mission “a settler-colonial scam, an ethnonationalist slur, and a malicious, well-funded, underground machine set to destroy the lives and careers of real people.” People exposed by Canary Mission are referred to as “Palestinian human rights advocates” who are smeared by Canary Mission, but again, no “real people” examples are offered.

 

In addition to these long-standing Israel-hating sites, there is now, “Against Canary Mission.” In addition to slamming Canary Mission, this site also houses rehabilitative counter-profiles on people previously profiled by Canary Mission. These profiles are much shorter and contain much less detail. They are much friendlier. There is also an option for “activists” to write their own profile. To be fair, I could not find that option on the Canary Mission website.

 

The legal director of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee has accused Canary Mission of using “dirty tactics.”

 

Blowback from groups like the Middle East Studies Association and these other Israel hating websites are predictable. The fact that these sites are so offended by Canary Mission and so eager to slander and discredit it, tells us that Canary Mission is effective and that the campus Israel/Jew haters and terror supporters are afraid of being revealed as the hateful bigots they are.

 

Unfortunately, Canary Mission is so effective that it is also scaring the Jewish students who have been subjected to the bullying tactics of the people Canary Mission has profiled. And the Jewish students, in their panic at possibly being labeled as “racist” or “Islamophobic,” are siding with their enemies against Canary Mission.

 

In April and again in October 2016, the David Horowitz Freedom Center, using information provided by Canary Mission, put posters up on the U of C Berkeley campus, showing Students for Justice in Palestine’s links to Hamas. In addition, names were named. The posters were denounced by campus SJP members as “hate speech.” An attorney with Palestine Legal criticized the university “for allegedly creating a hateful environment for SJP.” This is the same campus that employs Professor Hatem Bazian, who has a deservedly long Canary Mission page documenting his founding of AMP and co-creating SJP. This is in addition to Bazian’s fund raising activities for a Hamas-linked charity and his unabashed promotion of anti-Semitism.

 

Besides being Hatem Bazian’s home campus, U of C Berkeley is also infamous for hosting a course calling for the destruction of Israel. It’s the university where Rachel Beyda was almost denied a student government leadership position because she is Jewish. Even so, the president of the Jewish Student Union condemned the posters, stating, “. . . This does not allow us to have any room for conversation from the pro-Israel or pro-Palestinian side.”

 

When the posters also appeared at San Francisco State University, which is currently being sued for discriminating against Jewish students, an advisor to the General Union of Palestine Students stated, “This is very racist, it is Islamophobic.” San Francisco’s Hillel executive director condemned the “offensive messages.”

 

At UC Davis, Aggies for Israel allied themselves with student groups including the Muslim Student Association (another Muslim Brotherhood front group, many of whose leaders graduated to terrorism), to pass a resolution, part of which accuses Canary Mission, again without irony, of creating “a toxic atmosphere of fear and paranoia among fellow students, thus infringing upon students’ ability to freely express their opinions.”

 

At the University of Michigan, a pro-BDS resolution was recently passed on its eleventh try. Part of the blame was laid at the feet of Canary Mission. BDS proponents, who were savvy enough to play on Jewish students’ insistence on fair play, pulled out their victim card, expressing worry about future repercussions due to Canary Mission’s “blacklist” and “McCarthyite tactics.” In return Jewish student organizations rolled over, submitting to a secret ballot, thereby allowing anti-Israel/anti-Semitic student government officials to escape responsibility for their anti-Israel vote. The Jewish students lost because they allowed BDS to set the rules and control the battle.

 

Following the vote, two students wrote a letter, which was signed by several universities’ Hillel Governing/Executive Boards and pro-Israel organizations, rejecting Canary Mission. “We view much of the rhetoric employed to villainize these individuals as hateful and, in some case, Islamophobic and racist. In addition, Canary Mission’s wide scope wrongfully equates supporting a BDS resolution with some of the most virulent expressions of anti-Semitism and anti-Israel rhetoric and activity. . . we expect credible Jewish and pro-Israel communal organizations to help us combat anti-Semitism . . . in a diplomatic manner that seeks to protect our community rather than shaming the other side anonymously.”

 

One would expect SJP members to condemn the coverage of their terrorist ties. When Jewish students and Jewish organizations side with SJP because they want to combat anti-Semitism in a diplomatic manner and not shame the other side’s vile ethnic hatred, it’s clear that the Jewish students do not understand the nature of the enemy or the enormity of this fight.

 

Sun Tzu said, “If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.”

 

BDS proponents know their enemy, and they know how easy it is to control Jewish students who are truly interested in fairness and decency, with cries of “racism” and “Islamophobia.” Jewish students, who have grown up in bubbles of comfort, don’t even know that they have an enemy.  The lesson from our Passover Haggadah that: “in each and every generation, they rise up against us to destroy us” hasn’t been taken seriously. Students don’t know enough Jewish history to understand that this is just the latest manifestation of an ancient war against the Jews that began in Europe with the rise of Christianity and in the Middle East with the rise of Islam. They really believe it’s all about Israel, when Israel is just the latest excuse. They don’t understand that they are pulling the wool over their own eyes and doing some of SJP’s (and Hamas’) work for them.

 

Mohammed said, “War is deceit.” Deceit, implicit in campus “apartheid walls,” die-ins, and mock checkpoints, is the strongest weapon in the Israel-haters arsenal. Their second greatest weapon is Jewish students’ naiveté.

 

We know there is a double standard when it comes to Jews and Israel. University officials are willing to overlook campus anti-Semitism if it is masked as anti-Zionism. The anti-Semites have worked hard to create a false separation between Judaism and Zionism in order to justify and promote their hatred.

 

When a group of Wisconsin high school students stupidly posed for a school photo giving a “seig heil” salute, there were calls for their suspension. And, we were told, “. . . the image could have far-reaching consequences for the young men pictured there . . .” Meanwhile, Canary Mission has screenshots of SJP members tweeting things like: “The world would be soooo much better without jews man”, and “Lol let’s stuff some Jews in the oven.”  Shouldn’t these publicly posted sentiments have far-reaching consequences? Not according to Jewish students. But just like Israel’s fight with Hamas, the misguided insistence on fair play insures that this fight will continue long after the current crop of students has graduated. And as long as these students support Israel, they will always be denigrated. They will always be insulted as bigots by real bigots.

 

Using Canary Mission’s information, Jewish university students can take the offensive in order to hamper BDS efforts. If the BDS movement were a white supremacist or neo-Nazi group, there would be no reservations about using Canary Mission to expose them. This is a double standard Jewish students are imposing on themselves.

 

It’s not McCarthyite or bigoted if they’re telling the truth. Canary Mission recently posted a video in which SJP members disrupt a UCLA Students Supporting Israel event and threaten the speakers. SJP denied having anything to do with the disruption. But thanks to advances in digital technology, the SJP bullies are highlighted in the video along with screenshots of some of their troubling tweets. McCarthyism? No. This is revealing the truth and exposing SJP as not only bullies, but also as liars. This is fighting back. [Blog Editor’s bold text] It is aggressively taking the fight to the bigots on the public relations field where Jews and Israel have been taking a beating due to their insistence on either engaging in free and fair debate or not fighting back at all. Unlike the campus Israel haters who depend on deception, it is the Jewish pro-Israel students who have the truth on their side.

 

We know that a juicy, outrageous lie that gets one’s blood boiling is easier to accept than a boring truth, especially if that lie is about Jews or Israel. Exposing the bigoted hatred of the SJP liars and their admiration for Hitler and Nazis, who, they mourn, should have finished the job, would do a lot more for the campus pro-Israel cause than reasoned debate. In that debate, lies carry the same weight as truth to students who don’t know enough about Israel or its history to tell the difference. Anyone though, even a brainwashed university student, can identify as anti-Semitic, a tweet that says, “@BarackObama shut up about gay marriage and go kill all the Jews.” Display enough of these detestable social media posts and expose enough links to terrorism, and the true intentions of the posters would be undeniable, even as they whine about being victims.

 

That would be a strong first step toward defeating and shutting down the campus Israel/Jew-hating industry.

____________________

Unwitting Embrace of Leftist Utopianism due to Jew-Hatred

John R. Houk

© April 23, 2019

_________________

IN DEFENSE OF CANARY MISSION

 

© COPYRIGHT 2019, FRONTPAGEMAG.COM

 

About FPM

 

FRONTPAGE MAG IS A PROUD PROJECT OF THE DAVID HOROWITZ FREEDOM CENTER

 

The DHFC is dedicated to the defense of free societies whose moral, cultural and economic foundations are under attack by enemies both secular and religious, at home and abroad.

 

The David Horowitz Freedom Center combats the efforts of the radical left and its Islamist allies to destroy American values and disarm this country as it attempts to defend itself in a time of terror.  The leftist offensive is most obvious on our nation’s campuses, where the Freedom Center protects students from indoctrination and intimidation and works to give conservative students a place in the marketplace of ideas from which they are otherwise excluded.  Combining forceful analysis and bold activism, the Freedom Center provides strong insight into today’s most pressing issue on its family of websites and in the activist campaigns it wages on campus, in the news media, and in national politics throughout the year.

 

David Horowitz began the Center for the Study of Popular Culture in 1988 to establish a conservative presence in Hollywood and show how popular culture had become a political battleground. Over the next 18 years, CSPC attracted 50,000 contributing supporters and established programs such as The Wednesday Morning Club, the Individual Rights Foundation, and Students for Academic Freedom.

 

FrontPage Magazine, the Center’s online journal of news and political commentary has 1.5 million visitors and over 870,000 unique visitors a month (65 million hits) and is linked to over 2000 other websites.  The magazine’s coverage of and commentary about events has been greatly augmented over the last two years by the presence of four  Shillman Fellows in Journalism underwritten by board member Dr. Robert Shillman. FrontPage has recently added a blog called “The Point,” run by Shillman Fellow Daniel Greenfield, which has tripled web traffic.

 

READ THE REST

 

BDS Propagandizing Documentary ‘1948’


John R. Houk

© April 17, 2019

I continue to be amazed on the number of Left-Wing Jews joining pseudo-Palestinians to rail against Israel’s existence by being supportive of the Jew-hatred motivated movement called Boycott, Divest and Sanction (BDS) of all things Israel. I use the preface “pseudo” before the word “Palestinian” because a Palestinian people has never existed prior to Arab nations labeling Arab-Muslim citizens residing in the British Mandate for Palestine to provide a lame excuse to prevent the Jewish people to return and govern themselves to the Land of Jewish heritage.

 

Surrounding Arab nations used the excuse of protecting Arab Muslims to invade the newly declared (1948) Independent nation of Israel to NOT create a Palestinian State, but rather to absorb conquered land to be divided among the bordering Arab nations.

 

SURPRISE! The underfunded and under-armed Jewish military actually defeated FIVE invading armies of which some actually had air forces. The Arab League of nations began calling the Arabs that were encouraged by Arab nations to flee to avoid harm Palestinians.

 

Truth be told there were atrocities committed by both sides in Israel’s war of Independence. But the reality any atrocities committed by Jews against Arabs were exacted in response to Arab atrocities against Jews. AND atrocities blamed on Jews were simply the era’s version of Fake News to use as a propaganda tool against the new Jewish State of Israel.

 

A BDS sponsored movie called “1948:  Creation and Catastrophe”, was shown in West Hollywood on April 16 that told a story of Israel’s Independence largely from Fake News Pseudo-Palestinian perspective. Left-Wing Jews had a major part in sponsoring the movie that utilizes the largely discredited information from Jewish revisionist historians such as Ilian Pappé and Benny Morris.

 

What makes this Pseudo-Palestinian Jew-Hatred documentary “1948” a travesty pertaining to its showing in West Hollywood, is the significant Jewish population that was subjected to this hate-propaganda. The documentary did become a bit of a controversy in which the West Hollywood City Council was lobbied to not show the Anti-Israel documentary, but alas Left-thinking Jews and Pseudo-Palestinian activists prevailed as the City Council gave the green light to the showing.

 

A Panel was put together evidently for a post-screening discussion of the documentary. Unsurprisingly the Panel was constructed of individuals favoring the propaganda as this news release indicates from Israeli-American Civic Action Network (ICAN) shown below. ICAN illustrates the “Zionophobic” nature of the Panel by the refusal of beheaded Daniel Pearl’s father Dr. Judea Pearl refusing to be a Panel participant.

 

Dr. Judea Pearl

 

JRH 4/17/19

Your generosity is always appreciated:

Please Support NCCR

****************************

Dr. Judea Pearl Refuses to Sit on Zionophobic Panel

 

News Release Contacts:

Norma Zager, Spokesperson

Dillon Hosier, CAO

News Release via Israeli-American Civic Action Network

Alert sent from Ari Bussel

Sent: 4/15/2019 4:44 PM

 

WEST HOLLYWOOD, Ca. — April 15, 2019 — Dr. Judea Pearl, president of the Daniel Pearl Foundation, Chancellor’s professor, University of California, Los Angeles, and father of slain journalist Daniel Pearl has declined to appear on a panel set to promote a highly controversial anti-Israel movie shown in the city of West Hollywood, April 16.

As part of its Human Rights Speakers and Film Series, the City of West Hollywood will be showing a movie claiming to be documentary (relying, inter alia, on Holocaust Deniers and anti-Israel “experts”) regarding the establishment of the modern State of Israel in 1948.

The movie producers and promoters are BDS activists playing the role of victims and attempting to dehumanize the people of Israel as a means to delegitimize their state.

The City Council, after listening to more than 60 speakers and reviewing more than 600 written correspondences, decided 3/2 to allow the movie screening claiming freedom of speech trumps historical inaccuracies, agenda-driven propaganda and hateful assault on the identity of many city residents.

Thus, the City of West Hollywood, despite having an anti-BDS resolution and an MOU (memorandum of understanding) with Israel, is sponsoring an anti-Israel propaganda movie.

As an eyewitness to the creation of Israel in 1948 and the genocidal Arab assault on the emerging state, Prof. Pearl was asked whether he would be willing to join the panel set to discuss the movie after the screening. But he declined categorically.

“After examining the composition of the panel, my answer is ‘absolutely not!’ I will not sit on the same panel with promoters of a racist movement called BDS (Boycott, Divest, Sanction Israel) who, posing as historians, attempt to bestow credibility onto an a-historic movie while, at the same time, advocate the destruction of a people’s homeland. I cannot confer moral symmetry onto “scholars”  who commit six and a half million human beings, refugees and descendants of refugees, to eternal statelessness at the hands of genocidal neighbors,” Pearl added.

Prof. Pearl offered to provide a separate eyewitness testimony to residents of West Hollywood and neighboring cities, “and convey to them an accurate personal account of what the foiled Arab genocide of 1948 meant to us, its human targets, and what scars it has left on my generation, survivors of the Arab assault of 1947-1948.”

Pearl said airing the movie in West Hollywood is not a free speech issue. “It is a public deception issue. As a president of an organization dedicated to interfaith dialogue and cross-cultural understanding, I do not question for a moment the right of the producers to air their product in a place of their choice.”

Prof. Pearl said what he does question is the appropriateness of selecting a propaganda film as part of West Hollywood’s Human Rights Speakers Series, “despite its glaring distortions and omissions pointed out by many members of the community, and despite the obvious agenda of the movie promoters to delegitimize Israel’s birth so as to undermine her existence at the present.”

Pearl went on to say that the destruction of Israel is a human-rights issue, for Israel protects the life and dignity of eight million human beings, Jews, Christians, Muslims, Bahai, Druze and numerous other minorities, straight and gay, women and men. “Deniers of those rights need be shunned, not welcome by any city that has written human rights on its banner.”

The City of West Hollywood is the first government entity at any level to sponsor this movie, thus encouraging hostilities against Jews and other supporters of co-existence in the Middle East.

Efforts by a local coalition including the Jewish, Christian, Persian, Russian, Israeli and Gay communities failed to dissuade the City from proceeding with the showing.

Students Supporting Israel is planning a 250-strong demonstration outside the Council Chambers in West Hollywood where the screening is slated to take place.

__________________________

BDS Propagandizing Documentary ‘1948’

John R. Houk

© April 17, 2019

_____________________

Dr. Judea Pearl Refuses to Sit on Zionophobic Panel

 

About the Israeli-American Civic Action Network: The Israeli-American Civic Action Network is a 501(c)(4) advocacy organization dedicated to empowering Israeli-American immigrants to create change through civic engagement and advocacy education for a better America, a more secure Israel, and a stronger U.S. – Israel alliance. Learn more at: IsraelUSA.org.

 

Like the work we do? Contribute and help us build a better America, a more secure Israel, and a stronger U.S. – Israel Alliance: DONATE

 

Bolton: ‘Palestine’ is not a state


National Security Advisor John Bolton stated the obvious about the Arabs pretending to be Palestinians; viz., Palestine is not a State.

 

The remarks came at a White House presser announcing the USA is no longer a party to the world body International Court of Justice (ICJ). The move primarily asserts that the United States will not lose its National Sovereignty to a world government body. And secondly the remarks thumb a news at those who interfere in Israel’s National Sovereignty by telling the Jewish State where and where not it can place its Capital City within the (true) Nation’s national borders.

 

JRH 10/5/18 (Hat Tip: Ali H. of G+ Community United We Stand One Nation Under God)

In this current state of media censorship & defunding, consider chipping in a few bucks for enjoying (or even despising yet read) this Blog.

Please Support NCCR

***********************

Bolton: ‘Palestine’ is not a state

 

By Batya Jerenberg

October 4, 2018

World Israel News

 

US National Security Adviser John Bolton speaks during a briefing at the White House in Washington, Oct. 3, 2018. (AP/Susan Walsh)

 

It’s not a state now. It does not meet the customary international law test of statehood,” US National Security Adviser John Bolton stated.

 

US National Security Adviser John Bolton put the Palestinian Authority’s (PA) official status into perspective at a Wednesday press briefing when he announced that the United States would no longer be a signatory party to the United Nations’ International Court of Justice (ICJ).

 

“The president has decided that the United States will withdraw from the optional protocol and dispute resolution to the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. This is in connection with a case brought by the so-called state of Palestine naming the United States as a defendant [in the ICJ], challenging our move of our embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem,” Bolton said.

 

White House reporters immediately jumped on the adjective, asking whether calling the Palestinian Authority (PA) a “so-called state” was “productive,” considering that President Donald Trump had said he was working towards a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

 

Bolton’s answer was unequivocal.

 

“It’s not a state now. It does not meet the customary international law test of statehood,” he said. “It doesn’t control defined boundaries. It doesn’t fulfill the normal functions of government. There are a whole host of reasons why it’s not a state.”

 

“It could become a state, as the president said, but that requires diplomatic negotiations with Israel and others,” he added. “So calling it the ‘so-called state of Palestine’ defines exactly what it has been. [That’s] the position that the United States government has pursued uniformly since 1988, when the Palestinian Authority declared itself to be the State of Palestine.”

 

VIDEO: At White House presser, National Security Advisor Bolton insists Palestine has no claim to statehood

 

[Posted by Raw Story

Published on Oct 3, 2018]

 

Bolton might have been referring to the fact that 137 countries have recognized the PA as a state since that date. He reiterated the US rejection of this position on a bipartisan level.

 

“We don’t recognize it as a state… We have consistently, across Democratic and Republican administrations, opposed the admission of ‘Palestine’ to the UN as a state because it’s not a state.”

 

Although the PA is only a “non-member observer state” at the UN, it was allowed to formally join the International Criminal Court in 2015. Since the court’s decisions are binding, the US, by leaving the protocol, blocked the Palestinian case.

 

Bolton added that the withdrawal was part of a general effort by the Trump administration to protect US sovereignty from the reach of the international court.

 

“We will commence a review of all international agreements that may still expose the United States to purported binding jurisdiction dispute resolution in the International Court of Justice,” he said. “The United States will not sit idly by as baseless politicized claims are brought against us.”

________________________

World Israel News 

 

About WIN

 

World Israel News (WIN) is an online news outlet that presents
readers with important news from Israel and around the world.

 

Our audience consists of people who are concerned about Israel and
seek the truth. They want to know what’s really happening in Israel
and how these events can impact the world.

 

The goal of this website is to provide easy access to the latest news from Israel, presented in a truthful, honest way, with a focus on maximizing the user experience.

 

Constructive debate and exchange of ideas about the Jewish State is warmly welcomed.


We encourage our readers to participate openly and honestly.

 

It’s important to constantly improve the World Israel News website. Therefore, feedback and suggestions are greatly encouraged and appreciated!

 

Click here to contact us.

 

Israel is Jewish, That’s My Ultimate Deal


John R. Houk

© September 23, 2018

 

President Trump has long formulated an “Ultimate Deal” between Israel and the Arabs that call themselves Palestinians. I am not going to lay out the perceived details of such a deal because so far those details seem to be a bit fluid. Meaning the Trump team hasn’t nailed down an internal agreement. My guess for that is negativity against potential details from Leftist supporters of the fake-Palestinians and some Jew-hating Muslim apologists globally as well some Arab nations.

 

In full disclosure, I’m a Christian Zionist. In case you haven’t realized it, ultimately that means I have little sympathy for the pseudo-Palestinian Arabs that can never pinpoint a historical period in which an Arab speaking nation of people called Palestinian EVER existed. INDEED, the current Arabs calling themselves Palestinians are overwhelmingly descendants of migrating Arabs outside the area who showed up after returning Jews began modernizing the land then managed by Ottoman Turks made employment attractive.

 

Prior to Arab immigration, the longstanding inherent Arabs were exploited peasants at the mercy of rich Muslim tenant owners who mismanaged the Land of the Jews into swamps and unusable agricultural land further impoverishing the shrinking peasant tenant farmers.

 

Thus my stand on Israel is leads toward disenfranchising hostile Arabs deporting them for sedition even if it means a forced depopulation of Arabs that do not accept the existence of the Jewish State of Israel. My Christian Zionist predilection of believing in the Jewish return to their Biblically promised homeland is my primary reasoning. And yes, I realize in the realm of political correctness, my ultimate plan for a One-State Solution is incomprehensible to Leftist Multiculturalists. I don’t care. Whatever hastens the return of Jesus the Messiah is the only realistic solution for world peace. (And yes I realize the Messiah concept produces misgivings among Observant Jews. But remember, I am not calling for any harm to Jews. I believe the Return of Jesus will inspire Jews rather than irritate them. SO, I stand with Jews for the Jewish State of Israel.)

 

The inspiration for these thoughts is some commentary by Martin Sherman on the President Trump initiative for the “Ultimate Deal” for Israel/Arab peace in the Middle. I found it in Ted Belman’s Israpundit.

 

JRH 9/23/18

In this current state of media censorship & defunding, consider chipping in a few bucks for enjoying (or even despising yet read) this Blog.

Please Support NCCR

**************************

INTO THE FRAY The rumored “ultimate deal”: Potential payoffs and possible pitfalls.

 

By Martin Sherman

Intro by Ted Belman

Email Alert Sent: 9/22/2018 3:17 PM

Israpundit

 

T. Belman.Martin’s point is that the “ultimate deal” must include incentivised emigration. I agree. In my article Trump’s Deal of the Century, I made no mention of this as I considered it to be the second stage of the process. First things first, namely end the Oslo Accords, UNRWA and the “peace process”. And finally destroy the Palestinian narrative. I did not want to jeopardize those very significant gains by suggesting that incentivised emigration must be part of the first deal.

Nevertheless the first deal as described by me includes a Jordanian initiative to incentivize emigration of Palestinians by providing free housing and jobs as the incentives. Also there is nothing to prevent Israel or others from providing further incentives.

I made it clear that the first deal, (Deal of the Century), includes Israel sovereignty west of the Jordan River. Pursuant to that sovereignty, Israel would appoint administrators of the former Area A namely a friendly Jordan. It is understood, though not mentioned, that Jordan would amend the text books and cirriculae [sic] for all students under its care to one acceptable to Israel. Jordan would be no more than the agent of Israel while admistering [sic] Area A and in no way autonomous.

 

By Martin Sherman

 

Trump EO to move U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem

 

The potential impermanence of the positive measures already undertaken by the Trump team should not be the only reason for Israeli concern over the brewing “ultimate deal”

 

…we will not put forth a plan or endorse a plan that doesn’t meet all of Israel’s security issues because they are of extreme importance to us—Jason GreenblattAssistant to the President & special representative for international negotiations, JNS, September 12, 2018.

 

…To defend itself Israel must retain control over the Jordan valley…[A]ny future arrangement must include Israeli control of the mountain ridge and a demilitarized Palestinian state…[T]o defend itself Israel must control the airspace over the West Bank—Israel’s Critical Security Needs for a Viable Peace, The Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, May 25, 2010.

 

…Arab officials say, Mr. Kushner is pushing the idea of a confederation between Jordan and the Palestinian rump of the West Bank. Far from new thinking, this recycles one of the oldest mantras of Israeli irredentism: that the Palestinians already have a state—Jordan.—David Gardner, “Trump’s ‘deal of the century’ offers nothing good to Palestinians”, Financial Times, September 5, 2018.

 

In recent weeks, there has been a spate of media speculation that the White House is soon to release details of the Trump administration’s ultimate peace deal to end the century-long conflict between Jew and Arab over control of the Holy Land.

 

Although almost no details have been revealed by official sources, rumors abound as to some of its more important components—and others have been inferred on the basis of some already implemented elements of Trump’s Mid-East policy.

 

Some transformative measures

 

Opening of US Embassy in Jerusalem: May 14, 2018.

 

Since the start of his presidency, Donald Trump has undertaken some bold, far reaching measures that have, in some significant ways, potentially transformed the discourse on the Israeli-Palestinian impasse. These have all been unequivocally favorable to Israel and considerably undermine long-held Palestinians positions.

 

Thus, Trump has largely preempted the question of the status of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital—albeit not its precise geographical extent. Likewise, he exposed the enduring and egregious anomaly of the Palestinian “refugee” ruse, terminating all US funding to UNRWA (United Nations Relief and Works Agency(, the UN body charged with dealing with the Palestinian-Arab refugees and their multi-generational descendants. This burgeoning population has been held in political limbo for decades as stateless refugees until such day as they can exercise their illusionary “Right of Return” and reoccupy their now non-existent homes inside Israel, abandoned in 1948 and 1967.

 

As a direct derivative of the decision to defund UNRWA and to dispute the refugee status of millions of Arabs of Palestinian descent—resident in Arab countries for decades—there has been a flurry of reports suggesting another ground-breaking US initiative. According to these reports, the Trump administration is seriously considering engaging Arab countries over the permanent resettlement of the Palestinian-Arabs living as “refugees” within their borders, and their absorption as citizens of their host nations.

 

If implemented, such an initiative—which this writer has been promoting for almost a decade-and-a-half—would clearly take the “Right of Return” off the table and remove one of the most intractable—arguably the most intractable—issue from the agenda.

 

The question of durability

 

Although these are, of course, greatly welcome developments from Israel’s point of view and were totally inconceivable under earlier administrations—the previous one in particular—a word of caution is called for.

 

After all, just as such measures were unthinkable under the Obama administration, there is no way to ensure their durability under a post-Trump administration. Indeed, given the pathological animus toward the president from his political adversaries on the one hand; and the growing anti-Israel sentiment in the Democratic Party, on the other, there is good reason for concern that if a Democratic president were to be elected, a concerted effort would be made to undo anything perceived as a “Trump’s legacy”—including, perhaps, especially—his Mid-East policy initiatives.

 

Thus, just as a presidential decision precipitated the US’s exit from the Iran nuclear deal, the moving of the American embassy to Jerusalem, the shuttering of the PLO office in Washington, the defunding of UNRWA and emerging rejection of the “Right of Return,” so can any contrary presidential decision reverse them—or at least largely neutralize them.

 

Moreover, the closer Israel is perceived to be to the Trump administration, the harsher and more vindictive the backlash is liable to be, should the Democrats regain the White House?—?particularly with the growing erosion of bipartisanship over Israel.

 

The hazards of hubris

 

Of course, this caveat should not be interpreted as a call for reticence in accepting the GOP’s warm embrace. Indeed, that would be both detrimentally counterproductive and inappropriately ungrateful.

 

It should however, be seen as warning against complacency and as a caution that more inclement times may well be ahead. For, at this stage, little can be more hazardous than hubris.

 

It is essential that Israel now undertake a vigorous initiative to cement these unexpected favorable developments and ensure that they cannot be easily undone by future administrations.

 

This must be accomplished by a comprehensive strategic endeavor, both at the diplomatic level, aimed at changing hearts and minds and at the physical level, aimed at changing facts on the ground.

 

The diplomatic component must be directed at undermining the Palestinian claims to statehood west of the Jordan River—by discrediting and delegitimizing the “Palestinian narrative”. The physical component must be directed at making the Jewish presence in Judea-Samaria irrevocable—by launching a largescale construction drive to increase the Jewish population beyond “the point of no return”.

 

Without such a strategic initiative, any welcome gains that have accrued to Israel because of Trump’s largely unexpected—and certainly unpredicted—electoral victory will remain potentially ephemeral—exposed and vulnerable to the vicissitudes of the bile or the bias of some anti-Trump successor in the White House.

 

Rumors cause for concern?

 

But the potential impermanence of the positive measures already undertaken by the Trump team is not the only reason for Israeli concern over the brewing “ultimate deal”. For the rumors swirling around the ongoing contacts between US officials and various figures in the Arab world could also well be cause for alarm.

 

These rumors relate to the eventual source of authority envisioned for the governance of the territory beyond the 1967 lines in Judea-Samaria and Gaza. Some rumors refer to giving Jordan (whether under the current Hashemite regime or under some yet-to-be determined successor) a range of civilian powers to govern the Arab residents there. Others raise the possibility of likewise empowering a reformed and repentant Palestinian Authority—with or without some affiliation to Jordan. Yet others relate to the possibility of engaging “alternative Palestinians” as a more pliant alternative to the recalcitrant Abbas, to manage the civilian affairs of the Arab residents of Judea-Samaria.

 

All these suggested alternatives miss the most crucial point for the future of Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people.

 

This is that they all entail the permanent presence of a large, potentially hostile Arab population, resident in territory vital to Israel’s security-and nurtured on decades of Judeocidal incitement and exposed to irredentist influences from the wider Arab/Muslim world. It therefore makes little difference what/who the envisaged source of formal authority is over this population, since its continued presence in the commanding highlands adjacent to Israel’s most populous area will render any “deal” –ultimate or otherwise?—?inherently unstable and potentially perilous for Israel.

 

Accordingly, if all the steps taken hitherto by the Trump administration do not converge towards synthesis of a single, unequivocal outcome, they will—despite all their positive features—eventually be of little—if any—avail. At least if the goal is for Israel to endure permanently as the nation-state of the Jewish people.

 

The autonomy paradox?

 

As I have been at pains to underscore repeatedly in the past, for Israel to indeed endure as the nation state of the Jews, it must extend its sovereignty over all the territory between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River—including the highlands that protect Israel from invasion/infiltration from the East, and ensure the security of its coastal megalopolis in the West. But Israel’s sovereignty over this territory is incompatible with providing authority to any other party that does not acknowledge the legitimacy of that sovereignty.

 

This is something that the rumored formats of Trump’s “ultimate deal” seem to overlook. After all, the only reason to suggest allowing Arab governance (whether Jordanian or Palestinian) over the Arab population in Judea-Samaria is that they reject the legitimacy of Jewish sovereignty.

 

Indeed, this highlights the underlying contradiction in any attempt to confer “autonomy” (i.e. limited authority) on any Arab entity under Israeli sovereignty (i.e. unlimited authority) in the context of the conflict between Jew and Arab. For any “autonomous” arrangement to be inherently stable, it is essential that the autonomous entity acknowledge and accept the legitimacy of the sovereign entity (Israel). But this is precisely the reverse of the underlying rationale of all the proposals to grant some Arab entity limited authority to govern the Arab population in Judea-Samaria.

 

Here, such authority is being granted precisely because the legitimacy of Jewish sovereignty is rejected and hence, every limitation imposed on the authority of the Arab entity will be resented, and rejected—creating endless potential for friction.

 

The sovereignty imperative

 

Carcinogenic emission from Palestinian charcoal production

 

This will be particularly acute at the interface between areas under full Jewish sovereignty and those under Arab autonomy and in contending with cross-border issues, such as pollution (particularly the carcinogenic emissions of the wide spread charcoal industry), sewage, pollution from industrial effluents, agricultural run-offs, treatment of transmissible diseases, compulsory inoculation of livestock and rabies and so on Who would be charged with setting standards for dealing with these matters and for enforcing those standards? Israel or the Arab entity? If the Arab entity, how would Israel protect its citizens from the resultant hazards if those standards were not enforced? If Israel, what would remain of the authority of the Arab entity, which would be virtually emptied of all substance?

 

Similar questions could be raised for almost every walk of life. Would Israel impose standards of road safety for vehicles on its roads? If not, what would the consequences be? Would Israel determine the content of education to prevent continued incitement? If so, how would this erode the authority of the Arab entity? If not, how would Israel contain the consequences of such incitement?

 

These questions are thrown into even sharper relief when it comes to matters of law and order and security. If, for example, Jordan were given authority to run civilian affairs in Arab populated areas, what would happen in case of insurrection and Israel were compelled to use force to quell the violence? Could Jordan accept the use of force against those in its charge? How would it justify inaction to the rest of Arab world?

 

Worse, what if an assumedly amicable regime were given administrative status west of the Jordan River and, for reasons beyond Israel’s control, it was replaced by a far less amicable one? Would Israel continue to grant powers of governance to an inimical entity?

 

These are merely a sampling of the myriad of unavoidable and intractable questions with which the architects of the “ultimate deal” will have to contend—and whose significance and severity the Israeli leadership will have to convey to its American counterparts—lest ill-considered and irreversible decisions are made.

 

In the final analysis

 

In the final analysis, there is only one “ultimate deal” that can ensure Israel’s long-term survival as the nation-state of the Jewish people. This requires Israel extending its sovereignty over the entire territory—from the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan River.

 

The only way Israel can do this, without being compelled to rule over a recalcitrant non-Jewish population, which rejects the legitimacy of its sovereignty, is to remove that population from the territory over which it must exert sovereign rule.

 

The only way it can do this without engaging in forced expulsion, is by material inducements?—?a.k.a. incentivized emigration.

 

So simple. So logical. So incontrovertible!  The real conundrum is why others don’t embrace it as the “ultimate deal”.

 

Martin Sherman is the founder & executive director of the Israel Institute for Strategic Studies

__________________________

Israel is Jewish, That’s My Ultimate Deal

John R. Houk

© September 23, 2018

______________________

INTO THE FRAY The rumored “ultimate deal”: Potential payoffs and possible pitfalls.

 

Copyright © 2017- Israpundit – All Rights Reserved

 

Palestinian State Means Israel’s Destruction


John R. Houk

© May 23, 2017

 

About a month ago I found an interesting PragerU video at the G+ Community Islam contribution to America about Israel’s constant offers to give up land for an Arab state to be called Palestine and the Palestinian terrorists constant rejection of the Israeli offers. The owner of the community Roland Oliva posted the video on 4/27/17.

 

The enumeration of the Arabs that call themselves Palestinians constant rejection is well presented on the video. David Brog is the video speaker. His conclusion for Israeli/Arab peace is to accept the existence of the Jewish State of Israel in a Two-State Solution format.

I know it is a bit extreme and politically incorrect, but I have no doubt that a Two-State Solution is workable path. Why? The Multiculturalist believing world will continue to expect Israel to supply the infrastructure operations (electricity, water, etc.) while the fake Palestinian people will continue to find ways to destroy Israel. Hamas controlled Gaza (aka Hamastan) is enough evidence of the parameters of a Two-State Solution.

Rather the defensible survival of the Jewish nation is a One-State Solution with Israel annexing most of Judea and Samaria (known as the West Bank to Multiculturalists and Jew-hating Arabs) and Gaza. Push the Jew-hating Arabs out of the annexed areas. Offer Jordan a small portion of Judea and Samaria next to the Jordanian border. Let Jordan deal with the volatile Arabs that call themselves Palestinians in any way the best suits the maintenance of their government. Then let the chips fall where they may.

 

As a side note, the Hashemite Monarchy of Jordan had to expel Arabs that call themselves Palestinians because old Yasser Arafat tried to dethrone the Monarchy and claim Jordan for himself to launch future attacks against Israel. The Jordanians won that civil war and expelled Arafat and his military cadres. Arabs that consider themselves Palestinians still make up a large chunk of the Jordanian population. These pseudo-Palestinians do not have full citizenship benefits in Jordan undoubtedly due to Arafat’s attempt to root out the Hashemite Monarchy.

 

Here’s the PragerU video but there is more to peace than for Arabs to recognize the existence of a Jewish State.

 

VIDEO: Why Isn’t There a Palestinian State?

 

Posted by  PragerU

Published on Mar 27, 2017

 

Why don’t the Palestinians have their own country? Is it the fault of Israel? Of the Palestinians? Of both parties? David Brog, Executive Director of the Maccabee Task Force, shares the surprising answers.
Donate today to PragerU: http://l.prageru.com/2eB2p0h

Read David Brog’s book, “Reclaiming Israel’s History”. http://l.prageru.com/2nmj8ez

Get PragerU bonus content for free! https://www.prageru.com/bonus-content

Have you taken the pledge for school choice? Click here! http://www.schoolchoicenow.com

Download Pragerpedia on your iPhone or Android! Thousands of sources and facts at your fingertips.

iPhone: http://l.prageru.com/2dlsnbG

Android: http://l.prageru.com/2dlsS5e

Join Prager United to get new swag every quarter, exclusive early access to our videos, and an annual TownHall phone call with Dennis Prager! http://l.prageru.com/2c9n6ys

Join PragerU’s text list to have these videos, free merchandise giveaways and breaking announcements sent directly to your phone! https://optin.mobiniti.com/prageru

Do you shop on Amazon? Click https://smile.amazon.com and a percentage of every Amazon purchase will be donated to PragerU. Same great products. Same low price. Shopping made meaningful.

VISIT PragerU! https://www.prageru.com

FOLLOW us!
PragerU is on Snapchat!
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/prageru
Twitter: https://twitter.com/prageru
Instagram: https://instagram.com/prageru/

JOIN PragerFORCE!
For Students: http://l.prageru.com/2aozfkP
Sponsor a Student: http://l.prageru.com/2aoz2ht

JOIN our Educators Network! http://l.prageru.com/2aoz2y9

Script:

If Israel just allowed the Palestinians to have a state of their own, there would be peace in the Middle East, right? That’s what you hear from UN ambassadors, European diplomats and most college professors.

But what if I told you that Israel has already offered the Palestinians a state of their own – and not just once, but on five separate occasions?

Don’t believe me?

Let’s review the record.

After the breakup of the Ottoman Empire following World War I, Britain took control of most of the Middle East, including the area that constitutes modern Israel.

Seventeen years later, in 1936, the Arabs rebelled against the British, and against their Jewish neighbors.

The British formed a task force – the Peel Commission – to study the cause of the rebellion. The commission concluded that the reason for the violence was that two peoples – Jews and Arabs – wanted to govern the same land.

The answer, the Peel Commission concluded, would be to create two independent states – one for the Jews, and one for the Arabs. A two-state solution. The suggested split was heavily in favor of the Arabs. The British offered them 80 percent of the disputed territory; the Jews, the remaining 20 percent. Yet, despite the tiny size of their proposed state, the Jews voted to accept this offer. But the Arabs rejected it and resumed their violent rebellion. Rejection number one.

Ten years later, in 1947, the British asked the United Nations to find a new solution to the continuing tensions. Like the Peel Commission, the UN decided that the best way to resolve the conflict was to divide the land.

On November 7, 1947, the UN voted to create two states. Again, the Jews accepted the offer. And again, the Arabs rejected it, only this time, they did so by launching an all-out war. Rejection number two.

Jordan, Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon and Syria joined the conflict. But they failed. Israel won the war, and got on with the business of building a new nation. Most of the land set aside by the UN for an Arab state – the West Bank and east Jerusalem – became occupied territory; occupied not by Israel, but by Jordan.

Twenty years later, in 1967, the Arabs, led this time by Egypt and joined by Syria and Jordan, once again sought to destroy the Jewish State.

The 1967 conflict, known as the Six Day War, ended in a stunning victory for Israel. Jerusalem and the West Bank, as well as the area known as the Gaza Strip, fell into Israel’s hands. The government split over what to do with this new territory. Half wanted to return the West Bank to Jordan and Gaza to Egypt in exchange for peace. The other half wanted to give it to the region’s Arabs, who had begun referring to themselves as the Palestinians, in the hope that they would ultimately build their own state there.

Neither initiative got very far. A few months later, the Arab League met in Sudan and issued its infamous “Three No’s:” No peace with Israel. No recognition of Israel. No negotiations with Israel. Again, a two-state solution was dismissed by the Arabs, making this rejection number three.

 

For the complete script, visit https://www.prageru.com/courses/foreign-affairs/why-isnt-there-palestinian-state

 

JRH 5/23/17

Please Support NCCR