Support the Land of Promise for Jews Through Israel


John R. Houk

© September 7, 2019

I am a HUGE supporter of Israel. I am not Jewish but I am a Christian Zionist. WHY? Because of God Almighty’s Promise to Abraham which proceeds through the lineage of Isaac rather than Ishmael or any other sons of Abraham. Here are some lengthy Old Testament excerpts solidifying God’s Promise to Abraham (Genesis 15: 2-5, 13-14, 16, 18-21; 17: 1-8, 15-19, 21; 21: 1-3, 9-10, 12; 22: 15-18 NKJV):

 

Genesis 15:2-5

 

But Abram said, “Lord God, what will You give me, seeing I [a]go childless, and the heir of my house is Eliezer of Damascus?” Then Abram said, “Look, You have given me no offspring; indeed one[b] born in my house is my heir!”

 

And behold, the word of the Lord came to him, saying, “This one shall not be your heir, but one who will come from your own body shall be your heir.” Then He brought him outside and said, “Look now toward heaven, and count the stars if you are able to number them.” And He said to him, “So shall your descendants be.”

 

Genesis 15:13-14

 

13 Then He said to Abram: “Know certainly that your descendants will be strangers in a land that is not theirs, and will serve them, and they will afflict them four hundred years. 14 And also the nation whom they serve I will judge; afterward they shall come out with great possessions.

 

Genesis 15:16

 

16 But in the fourth generation they shall return here, for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet complete.”

 

Genesis 15:18-21

 

18 On the same day the Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying:

“To your descendants I have given this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the River Euphrates— 19 the Kenites, the Kenezzites, the Kadmonites, 20 the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Rephaim, 21 the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Girgashites, and the Jebusites.”

 

Genesis 17:1-8

 

17 When Abram was ninety-nine years old, the Lord appeared to Abram and said to him, “I am [a]Almighty God; walk before Me and be blameless. And I will make My covenant between Me and you, and will multiply you exceedingly.” Then Abram fell on his face, and God talked with him, saying: “As for Me, behold, My covenant is with you, and you shall be a father of [b]many nations. No longer shall your name be called [c]Abram, but your name shall be [d]Abraham; for I have made you a father of [e]many nations. I will make you exceedingly fruitful; and I will make nations of you, and kings shall come from you. And I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your descendants after you in their generations, for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and your descendants after you. Also I give to you and your descendants after you the land in[f] which you are a stranger, all the land of Canaan, as an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.”

 

Genesis 17:15-19

 

15 Then God said to Abraham, “As for Sarai your wife, you shall not call her name Sarai, but [a]Sarah shall be her name. 16 And I will bless her and also give you a son by her; then I will bless her, and she shall be a mother of nations; kings of peoples shall be from her.”

 

17 Then Abraham fell on his face and laughed, and said in his heart, “Shall a child be born to a man who is one hundred years old? And shall Sarah, who is ninety years old, bear a child?18 And Abraham said to God, “Oh, that Ishmael might live before You!”

 

19 Then God said: “No, Sarah your wife shall bear you a son, and you shall call his name Isaac; I will establish My covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his descendants after him.

 

Genesis 17:21

 

21 But My covenant I will establish with Isaac, whom Sarah shall bear to you at this set time next year.”

 

Genesis 21:1-3

 

21 And the Lord visited Sarah as He had said, and the Lord did for Sarah as He had spoken. For Sarah conceived and bore Abraham a son in his old age, at the set time of which God had spoken to him. And Abraham called the name of his son who was born to him—whom Sarah bore to him—Isaac.[a]

 

Genesis 21:9-10

 

And Sarah saw the son of Hagar the Egyptian, whom she had borne to Abraham, scoffing.[a] 10 Therefore she said to Abraham, “Cast out this bondwoman and her son; for the son of this bondwoman shall not be heir with my son, namely with Isaac.”

 

Genesis 21:12

 

12 But God said to Abraham, “Do not let it be displeasing in your sight because of the lad or because of your bondwoman. Whatever Sarah has said to you, listen to her voice; for in Isaac your seed shall be called.

 

Genesis 22:15-18

 

15 Then the Angel of the Lord called to Abraham a second time out of heaven, 16 and said: “By Myself I have sworn, says the Lord, because you have done this thing, and have not withheld your son, your only son17 blessing I will bless you, and multiplying I will multiply your descendants as the stars of the heaven and as the sand which is on the seashore; and your descendants shall possess the gate of their enemies. 18 In your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed, because you have obeyed My voice.”

 

AND THAT JUST TO ABRAHAM! God Almighty continued the Promise of Land and blessings before possession through Abraham’s son Isaac and grandson Jacob (renamed Israel) – Genesis 26:3-5; 27:26-29; 28:13-14; 35:11-12 NKJV.

 

There are more Scriptures related to the Land of Promise via Abraham, Isaac and Jacob to their descendants which are the Jews. Frankly do not look at the lying devilish book known as the Quran – IT IS A COUNTERFEIT manifested to do the design Satan hoped for in the Garden deception of Adam and Eve which messed up all humanity until the RETURN of Jesus the Christ/Messiah to restore all things to God Almighty’s design for His Creation.

 

AND SO, this is the lead up to an email I received from Christians in Defense of Israel. The email’s focus is garner support for Israel to declare sovereignty over Judea and Samaria (the land the rest of the world has been brainwashed to call the West Bank) AND plea for President Trump to recognize such sovereignty. Christians in Defense of Israel  lobbying President Trump with a petition linked in the email. I SIGNED IT!

 

In full disclosure, the petition appears to have the second purpose as a fund raiser for Christians in Defense of Israel. It is a worthy organization to support, but I personally am not in a financial position to donate thus I just signed the petition and moved on. HOWEVER, if you are in a financial position to give I urge you to do so.

 

I am cross posting the email and the wording of the petition, but you will have to actually click the petition link to sign and/or donate.

 

JRH 9/7/19

Your generosity is always appreciated: 

Please Support NCCR

Support this Blog HERE. Or support by getting in 

the Coffee from home business – OR just buy some healthy coffee.

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

God promised Abraham the “West Bank”?

 

Sent by Mat Staver, Chairman

Sent 9/7/19 11:55 AM

Sent via Christians in Defense of Israel

 

This will surprise you. It startled me when I first learned it. And it bears directly on prospects for peace in the Middle East. It’s why I’m urging good friends of Israel like you, John, to join me in sending a historic petition to President Trump. Join me in calling on him to recognize “Israeli Sovereignty in Judea and Samaria!”

YES TO ISRAELI SOVEREIGNTY NOW!

 

And please stand with CIDI now. Help us fight for Israel with your special gift today. Thank you! –Mat

 

John,

You and I both know that the so-called “West Bank”—better known as Judea and Samaria—is the disputed territory which Palestinians fiercely claim for their “state of Palestine.”

But it’s also land—as I explain below—which God specifically promised to Abraham and his descendants some 4,000 years ago.

And that promise is still in force.

Which is why I’m asking you—as a good friend of Israel and CIDI—to stand with me in urging President Trump to do what, just a decade ago, would have been unthinkable.

The president has already recognized Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. He recognized Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights. Now it’s time to take the next step.

 

Will you please join me in calling on President Trump to recognize Israeli sovereignty over the West Bank—Judea and Samaria, the Jewish people’s biblical heartland?

With the White House peace place set for release after Israel votes September 17, now is the time to urge President Trump to take this historic step.

Join me today in issuing this historic call by signing our critical, time-sensitive “Israeli Sovereignty in Judea and Samaria!” petition to the President.

YES TO ISRAELI SOVEREIGNTY NOW!

 

+ + Abraham was in the “West Bank” when God promised him the land!

It’s well known that God promised “all the land of Canaan” to Abraham and his descendants. But what’s not widely known is where Abraham was when God made that promise.

The surprising fact is that Abraham was living in the so-called West Bank when God twice promised him and his descendants the land of Israel!

On one occasion, Abraham was in ancient Shechem, now known as Nablus—a Palestinian city in the northern West Bank—when God appeared to him and said, “To your offspring I will give this land” (Genesis 12:7).

Later, when Abraham settled at Hebron, an ancient city in the southern West Bank, God gave Abraham another land promise: “I will give to you and to your offspring after you . . . all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession” (Genesis 17:8).

And yet the world denounces Israel for “occupying” the West Bank—better known as Judea and Samaria!

 

  • Israel-hating congresswoman Ilhan Omar attacks Israel for the “cruel reality of the occupation.” She bashes the Jewish state for its “brutal occupation.”
  • UN Security Council resolution 2334—President Obama’s parting shot at Israel—labels Jewish neighborhoods in Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) “a flagrant violation under international law and a major obstacle” to peace.

 

But how can you “occupy” what is, in fact, yours?

+ + Truth is the one foundation for true peace

The truth is that this land—the West Bank—belongs to Israel as a matter of history, international law and most importantly, divine promise. And truth is the one foundation on which to build lasting peace in the Middle East.

That’s why I’m asking you to join me in calling on President Trump to recognize Israeli sovereignty over the West Bank.

 

Making that recognition would be a huge and historic step. But the president needs to hear from you and me right away because the White House peace plan is coming out soon—possibly in October once Israeli elections are over and a new government is formed.

Please sign the Israeli Sovereignty in Judea and Samaria! petition now!

 

+ + Two special “Thank You” gifts you’ll love

And once you’ve signed the petition, I’d love to send two special gifts in thanks for your support: my small book, Why the Two-State Solution Won’t Work . . . But What Could, and an attractive “Stand with Israel” sticker for your home or car. Both, together, are my “Thank You” when you send a gift of $25 or more today.

Your much-needed gift will make a real difference.

When you give, you help us fight for Israel on Capitol Hill, across America, and in the Holy Land. Because of friends like you, CIDI works every day to bless and defend Israel. But without your help, that just won’t happen.

Please let me hear from you right away!

Together for Israel,

 

Mat Staver
Chairman

+++++++++++++++++++

Tell President Trump to Recognize Israel’s God-Given, Legal Right to Its Land [PETITION]

 

In just weeks—possibly October—President Donald Trump will release his long-awaited peace plan. And there’s one element absolutely crucial to its success: a recognition of Israel’s historic, lawful and legitimate claim to its biblical heartland, Judea and Samaria—a.k.a. the West Bank.

 

That’s why we’re calling on friends of Israel like you to sign the Israeli Sovereignty in Judea and Samaria! petition now.

 

But time is short. The peace plan will come out soon and we must rush these petitions to the White House right away! Act now by signing the petition below. And thank you in advance for your generous gift. Your partnership is appreciated!

 

Stand with Israel and sign the Israeli Sovereignty in Judea and Samaria! petition right away!

 

Israeli Sovereignty in Judea and Samaria!

A Petition to President Donald Trump

 

Dear President Trump,

 

Thank you for your strong pro-Israel leadership. Your recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and your bold decision to recognize Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights are historic achievements that corrected long-standing mistakes by past administrations. But now it’s time to take the next step.

 

The misnamed “West Bank” is, in fact, historic Judea and Samaria—Israel’s biblical heartland. This is land God promised to the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. It is territory to which the Jewish people have a legitimate, lawful and sovereign claim under the agreement reached by the Great Powers after World War I. That’s why it’s now time to recognize the Jewish state’s sovereign right over Judea and Samaria—a.k.a. the West Bank.

 

Because truth is the only foundation for peace, your declaration acknowledging Israeli sovereignty over the West Bank must be part of your forthcoming Israeli/Palestinian Peace Plan. As a friend of Israel and an American citizen, I strongly urge you to, once more, lead with boldness and recognize Jewish sovereignty on Jewish land—the territory of Judea and Samaria.

 

Will you sign?

______________________

Support the Land of Promise for Jews Through Israel

John R. Houk

© September 7, 2019

____________________

God promised Abraham the “West Bank”?

 

AND

 

Tell President Trump to Recognize Israel’s God-Given, Legal Right to Its Land [PETITION]

 

For more information call: (407) 875-1948

israel@CIDIsrael.org   •   PO BOX 540209 Orlando, FL 32854-0209

 

©2014-present Christians in Defense of Israel. All Rights Reserved.

 

A Mockery of Peace


Obama's Idiotic Perception Israel-Palestinian peace toon

According to Abed Rabbo [secretary of the PLO Executive Committee], the US Secretary of State’s proposal includes Palestinian recognition of Israel as a Jewish state; establishing part of East Jerusalem as the capital of Palestine; resolving the refugee problem in accordance with the vision of former US President Bill Clinton; maintaining Israeli control of major settlement blocs and leasing the others back to Israel; Israel’s control over border crossings and air space; and the presence of US-Israel-Jordan-Palestinian security forces on the border. “The Israelis would also have the right of ‘hot pursuit’ of fugitives or suspected criminals in the Palestinian state,” he revealed. “Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu rejected these ideas because he wants to carve out the land he wants and refuses to discuss the Jerusalem issue. He also refuses the intervention of any other party in security matters, even America.” (PLO official reveals full details of Kerry’s plan; From Middle East Monitor, Translated from Safa; 1/26/14 13:42)

 

The Middle East Monitor writes through the filter of being Pro-Palestinian. You will notice the Pro-Palestinian bent if you happen to read the entire news report on Abed Rabbo’s disclosure. Typically the Palestinians intend to reject Kerry’s Plan because of minor details of having to recognize Israel as a Jewish State. AND that works for me because there is NO WAY Israel should give up its heritage of the entire city of Jerusalem especially the eastern half in which the Temple Mount is located. If the Palestinians shockingly gave up their nitpicking and accept the Kerry Plan for a Two-State Solution then Israel’s concurrence would not only mean treason to Jew heritage but also set the framework for the Jewish State’s demise through indefensible borders.

 

Justin O. Smith lays out the Antisemitism involved in shoving the Kerry Plan down the throat of the Jewish State of Israel.

 

JRH 2/10/14

Please Support NCCR

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

A Mockery of Peace

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent: 2/9/2014 1:11 PM

 

Israel gives the world no peace, it bars slumber, it teaches the world to be discontented and restless as long as the world has not God. -Jacques Maritain

The modern racism, which yearned to eliminate Jews from society as a gardener would root out weeds, the sort of racism that allowed pogroms to flourish across Russia and Europe in the 1890s and culminated in the death camps of the 1940s in Nazi Germany, is on the rise once more in Europe and America, with U.S. president Barack Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry leading the way. In an overt act of anti-Semitism, Kerry recently remarked in the affirmative and in agreement with several European leaders that boycotts and sanctions against Israel may be needed to force Israel to accept the Kerry Plan for “peace” and a two state solution, as if Israel does not want peace and the Palestinians’ claims in the area are not specious and false.

While the Kerry Plan does call for the Palestinians to recognize the right of Israel to exist as the state of the Jewish people, two of its main points certainly must be non-starters for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu: Israel is to withdraw from the West Bank to the 1967 borders, and East Jerusalem will become the Palestinian capital.

Since the land of Israel in 1948 accounted for less than a fourth of the land originally designated “Palestine,” and Jordan, an Islamic/Palestinian state that forbids Jews settlement rights by law, was carved out of the Palestinian “Jewish National Home,” how can the Arabs be said to have been excluded from a “Palestinian homeland”?

Just how much land will Israel have to relinquish in order to achieve real peace? All of it according to Yasir Arafat, former head of the Palestinian Liberation Organization, when he spoke with world renown journalist Oriana Fallaci in Amman, Jordan in March 1972.

President Mahmoud Abbas of the Palestinian Authority and head of the Fatah Party recently proposed an old NATO security proposal for the area that was favored by former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and former U.S. President George W. Bush. Abbas will accept a U.S. led NATO and Jordanian force into the Palestinian state indefinitely to prevent the sort of terrorism that occurred after Israel disengaged from Gaza in 2004. Abbas also allows that a “third party” can stay in the newly demilitarized West Bank “for a long time…to reassure the Israelis and to protect us” (the Palestinians).

No, this plan should not offer Israel any comfort. Abbas and the Palestinians will be the only winners, gaining their new state. Israel’s national security will be compromised, as they attempt to defend a barely defensible position from behind the 1967 borders. This places Israel at a severe disadvantage from the start, should any new conflict arise. With NATO’s ability to ensure any real security suspect at best, for Israel, it is like starting a chess game without one’s queen.

Many so-called experts are discussing this framework agreement, as though it is a morally superior endeavor to all previous peace talks. However, whether we speak of the 1915 Sykes-Picot Agreement, the 1917 Balfour Treaty, the 1922 British Mandate and through each successive agreement to the Kerry Plan, most of the world has sought to undermine the State of Israel, while proclaiming otherwise. And now, the U.S. government too is undermining Israel, America’s long-time ally.

Netanyahu does not trust the Palestinians to negotiate honestly, as he stated recently: “I do not want a binational state. But we also don’t want another state that will start attacking us.” And, intuitively, Netanyahu rightly does not trust Obama and Kerry, as was evident three weeks ago when he said, “Israel does not have to agree with everything America presents.”

The peace talks, scheduled to end April 29, nearly ended prematurely, when the Israelis announced on January 10, 2014 that they intended to build 1400 housing units in east Jerusalem and the West Bank. Saeb Erekat, Palestinian chief negotiator, was highly upset, but Erekat and all involved in this framework agreement process understood that settlement construction would continue full force during negotiations.

Although Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s political base opposes the Kerry Plan, Netanyahu sees a two state solution of some sort, as necessary for Israel’s integrity as a Jewish democratic state, with healthy ties to Europe and the West for the sake of Israel’s economy. In this light, John Kerry’s coercion and economic blackmail are especially egregious, despicable and unnecessary; Kerry has damaged any future peace process, harmed Israel and damaged U.S.-Israeli diplomatic relations, but many Americans did not expect anything less from a man of such low character.

Once one reviews the historical record and understands that the British gave away Jewish land to the landless Arab/Muslims who were displaced by Islamic feudal practices and extortionate taxation, not by the Jews, and, in conjunction one reads various quotes from decades past, one realizes anti-Semitism never goes away; it just becomes more glib: “The greatest contemporary hero (in the Muslim world) is Hitler.” – John Gunther, ‘Inside Asia’, 1939; in 1974, Syrian PLO leader, Zuheir Muhsein explained, “Our purpose…it (a Palestinian state) will be a point of departure…This State will be the backbone of our struggle against Israel.” This mindset prevails today across the Middle East.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stands against diplomatic storms that threaten to annihilate Israel eventually – God forbid – and liberal Jews in Israel’s Labor Party and in America who are advocating the Kerry Plan are making Israel’s situation tragic and unbearable. Bibi Netanyahu must reject outright this plan and Kerry and Obama, with all their bias towards the Palestinians, as Israel seeks new allies and economic partners; Bibi must reject Oslo and all previous accords. He must find the political will and support to annex Gaza and the West Bank, as he proceeds with a forced removal/repatriation of the Palestinians to Jordan or the rest of the Arab world. The world uttered not a peep when this was done to 2 million Russians, against their will, under the Marshall Plan after WWII, but listen to the outcry when this proves necessary for Israel. And, if the tragedy of Bethlehem under Palestinian control is any indication of things to come, at the very least, Jerusalem must always stay united and complete as the proper capital of Israel. All of this is preferable to a sham “peace” agreement that only serves Israel’s enemies.

Genesis 12:2 – I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great.

 

By Justin O. Smith

________________________

Edited by John R. Houk

© Justin O. Smith

An Intro to ‘Oy,’ Israel, USA and Palestinians


Obama ... Oy Vey

John R. Houk

© January 10, 2014

 

President Obama’s Administration via the State Department mouthpiece of Secretary John Kerry (the duo makes me thing of the Antichrist and False Prophet of Apocalypse of John) has taken a tact to impose the Obama government will on Israel by issuing a Framework forcing Israel and the Palestinian Authority to create the circumstances for a Palestinian State. At this point it is being called a Framework. Apparently the selling point of this Framework is it moves Palestinian Statehood forward but with impositions that make both Israelis and Palestinians unhappy. For Israel the framework would impose the 1967 borders of the second to last war of Arabs attempting to destroy Israel. Just as it sounds the 1967 border would mean giving up the Eastern half of Jerusalem where the Temple Mount is located. The Framework’s major imposition on the Palestinians it to accept Israel as a Jewish State. Son of gun! I don’t see any real benefit for Israel’s existence while it gives a Palestinian State the toe-hold to continue terrorism or war against Israel’s existence including the re-desecration of reestablished Jewish artifacts refurbished after Israel retook part of their ancestral home in 1967. The portion incidentally that the British aided Jordan’s (then Transjordan) Arab Legion to usurp from the nascent Israel State in the 1948 war of Independence.

 

The text of the framework has not yet been released, and Kerry has worked to keep details of all negotiations confidential. But numerous reports indicate Kerry is leaning toward Israel’s positions on at least two areas of controversy: allowing Israel to maintain some kind of military presence in the Jordan Valley of the West Bank, even in a sovereign Palestinian state. There are also indications the framework would endorse Netanyahu’s insistence that the Palestinian Liberation Organization, which in 1988 recognized Israel as a state, add recognition of it as a Jewish state — an acknowledgement Israelis say they would understand as a genuine end to the conflict over the biblical land both Jews and Palestinians claim as a homeland.

 

In return, Netanyahu reportedly would accept a statement in the framework that any final agreement would be based on the borders of 1967, the year Israeli forces captured and occupied the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

 

Accepting the 1967 lines — with exchanges of land to allow Israel to keep its largest housing settlements — might push at least one party out of the governing coalition. Trade Minister Naftali Bennett, leader of the settler Jewish Home party that favors annexing the West Bank, on Monday vowed to leave the government. “No more word games: the 1967 lines mean dividing Jerusalem and giving up the Western Wall, the Temple Mount and the Old City,” Bennett said. “In what way will our history remember a leader that gives up Jerusalem? We won’t sit in such a government.” (U.S. Proposal Boosts Momentum for Israeli-Palestinian Peace Talks; By Karl Vick; Time; 1/9/14)

 

In essence this is my introduction to a Norma Zager essay that quite wittily explains the angst behind the Jewish expression “Oy”. “Oy,” Zager explains, is the conditioned response a thousand years of historical Antisemitism and how that frustration is continuing with Prime Minister apparent willingness to get on board with this Framework.

 

JRH 1/10/14

Please Support NCCR

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

Bibi and the Oy Response

(This is the Reality of Life Right Now)

 

By Norma Zager

1/8/2014 11:53 PM

 

There is a reason the Jewish word Oy has no English translation.

 

Okay, sure, some would offer such phrases as Oh My God, too bad, who needs this, too much, etc. etc. To these interpreters I say, are you kidding me?

 

No English phrase could ever compare to the angst inherent in these two tiny letters.

 

I stand by my position and ask that Netanyahu remember why this word was invented and its true meaning to Jewish people.

 

May I continue? Too bad, I will.

 

The true meaning of the word oy to a Jew has no meaning.

 

Confusing, of course but aren’t all Jewish phrases?  Come on. The Jewish curse, “You should grow like an onion with your head upside down,” and others in that vein, shows no rationale or reason.

 

Jewish people don’t have to be reasonable. We’ve earned the right to be muddled in thought and speech.  After all, we have countless Nobel prizes in science, medicine and technology to prove we can think clearly when necessary.  An oy moment is not one of those.

 

The reason the Jews have earned the right to use the word is that they among all others are the singularly most masochistic people on this planet.

 

Only those who have mastered the art of self-deprecation can understand why Oy is a necessity.

 

Jewish people leave themselves open for ridicule, pain and untold suffering. It would be bad enough if it was only for them, but they have opened the door for innocent Jewish children to suffer. They react to insults by insulting their own, a weird dynamic to be sure and a uniquely Jewish one.

 

When Kerry and the Obama administration sold out Israel to Iran, the world scratched their heads.

 

Jews just said Oy.

 

When the Palestinians and Iran yell “Kill the Jews” and demand Israel be wiped off the face of the earth, the Jews mutter a big Oy.

 

When Israeli soldiers are murdered and kidnapped, there is a collective Oy.

 

So is this the answer to the Jewish penchant for suffering?

 

Perhaps we should all rethink our methods.

 

Now Bibi is sitting down with Kerry to resolve the so-called “Palestinian Problem.” Forgive my narcissism, but I prefer the phrase Jewish Problem.

 

It’s Israel’s land that the world is so anxious to give up to people who would like to kill them.

 

Hmmm. It makes as much sense to me as the British giving Scotland to the Nazis as a good will gesture.

 

Granted some Brits would have done so on Chamberlain’s advice, but in hindsight it would have been a bad idea.

 

Israel has given up land for peace for the last forever years.  How’s that working for us?  Not so good actually.

 

The U.S. once a great supporter of the Jewish State has now thrown it squarely under the bus and lined up Iran’s tires to ensure Israel is completely run over and left for dead.

 

Now Bibi is meeting with the very man driving the bus.

 

What will Bibi give up this time, Jerusalem and the last remnants of national security?

 

Whatever he offers up, it will never be enough. Until the Jewish people are gone from the Middle East, they will stand in the way of the ethnic cleansing now underway.

 

Odd that we have lived to see the Saudis among Israel’s only friends left in the world.  Proof of the old saw, “My enemy’s enemy is my friend.”

 

Jewish people never learn. They make themselves victims over and over to those who seek to destroy them.

 

The new challenges facing Israel and the Jewish people are grounded in a history of giving in to our enemies. Of playing possum instead of standing up and ferociously attacking those who wish to do us harm.

 

We are the bitten not the biter.

 

That is why at the end of the day, Jewish people must only content themselves to shake their heads and mutter an Oy in an attempt to allay the damage recently heaped upon them by their leaders and themselves.

 

However sadly, we have now reached the point in our history when a simple Oy will not fix the problem.

 

Not even a truckload of Oys will solve Israel’s plight when forced into a position of certain destruction by their greatest enemy since Hitler, and the greatest appeaser since Chamberlain.

 

So what’s a Jew to do?

 

I suppose the only hope is to invent a new word or phrase to replace our old stand by.  Although I can’t imagine it will do any good.

 

For when Israel capitulates to the world’s insistence that they give away their country, live with the threat of annihilation from their enemies and tolerate the constant criticism and economic blackmail from those who would see them destroyed, one can only put their hand to their forehead, breathe deeply and let go with a giant Oy.

 

And to this pitiful response to the problems we now face, I say, “Oy, and can I get a big Vey with that?”

_________________________________

An Intro to ‘Oy,’ Israel, USA and Palestinians

John R. Houk

© January 10, 2014

_________________________________

Bibi and the Oy Response

 

Norma Zager is an award-winning investigative journalist and author.  Her passion for Israel has driven her to dedicate the past decade writing and having a radio show about Israel.

 

This is the latest in the series “Postcards from America – Postcards from Israel,” a collaboration between Zager and Bussel, a foreign correspondent reporting from Israel.

 

Ari Bussel and Norma Zager collaborate both in writing and on the air in a point-counter-point discussion of all things Israel-related.  Together, they have dedicated the past decade to promoting Israel.

 

 

© Israel Monitor, January 2014

 

First Published January 7, 2014

WHAT OCCUPATION?


Eretz Israel map 2

Intro to ‘What Occupation?’

John R. Houk

© February 8, 2013

 

Westerners are beginning a resurgence of Jew-hatred which is being expressed today in the support of Islamic nations because most of the oil producing nations of the world is Muslim. The narrative of Muslim dominated nations is that Israel existence came to be at the expense of Muslim Arabs that lived there before European Jews began to immigrate back to the Land of their God-given heritage.

 

Thus Westerners – especially Europeans – are believing the lie that all economic woe is due to Muslim Jew-hatred thus the petroleum economy is a dagger to oil-blood that ultimately fuels the global economy. Muslims have been winning the propaganda war making the nation Israel – you have to use a magnifying glass to view Israel on a global map – the villain of all that ails the world. The most common lie today is that the Israeli government is on par with Hitler’s Nazi Germany. Hitler successfully murdered twelve million people in a racist attempt to cleanse German dominated area of the gene pool that pollutes the so-called Aryan race of Germans. Nearly SIX MILLION of those ethnically cleansed people were European Jews. The propaganda is this miniscule Israel does not have the right to exist coupled with the bad logic that the Land Israel won back in 1967 is occupied land with those Muslims being treated like Hitler’s Jews.

 

The propaganda is a load pig oil and Efraim Karsh writing for Think-Israel has the factual statistics to prove it.

 

JRH 2/8/13

Please Support NCCR

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

WHAT OCCUPATION?

 

By Efraim Karsh

November/December 2012

Alert sent: Feb 4, 2013 at 4:58 PM

Think-Israel

 

Few subjects have been falsified so thoroughly as the recent history of the West Bank and Gaza.

 

No term has dominated the discourse of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict more than “occupation.” For decades now, hardly a day has passed without some mention in the international media of Israel’s supposedly illegitimate presence on Palestinian lands. This presence is invoked to explain the origins and persistence of the conflict between the parties, to show Israel’s allegedly brutal and repressive nature, and to justify the worst anti-Israel terrorist atrocities. The occupation, in short, has become a catchphrase, and like many catchphrases it means different things to different people.

 

For most Western observers, the term “occupation” describes Israel’s control of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, areas that it conquered during the Six-Day war of June 1967. But for many Palestinians and Arabs, the Israeli presence in these territories represents only the latest chapter in an uninterrupted story of “occupations” dating back to the very creation of Israel on “stolen” land. If you go looking for a book about Israel in the foremost Arab bookstore on London’s Charing Cross Road, you will find it in the section labeled “Occupied Palestine.” That this is the prevailing view not only among Arab residents of the West Bank and Gaza but among Palestinians living within Israel itself as well as elsewhere around the world is shown by the routine insistence on a Palestinian “right of return” that is meant to reverse the effects of the “1948 occupation” — i.e., the establishment of the state of Israel itself.

 

Palestinian intellectuals routinely blur any distinction between Israel’s actions before and after 1967. Writing recently in the Israeli daily Ha’aretz, the prominent Palestinian cultural figure Jacques Persiqian told his Jewish readers that today’s terrorist attacks were “what you have brought upon yourselves after 54 years of systematic oppression of another people” — a historical accounting that, going back to 1948, calls into question not Israel’s presence in the West Bank and Gaza but its very legitimacy as a state.

 

Hanan Ashrawi, the most articulate exponent of the Palestinian cause, has been even more forthright in erasing the line between post-1967 and pre-1967 “occupations.” “I come to you today with a heavy heart,” she told the now-infamous World Conference Against Racism in Durban last summer, “leaving behind a nation in captivity held hostage to an ongoing naqba [catastrophe].”

 

“In 1948, we became subject to a grave historical injustice manifested in a dual victimization: on the one hand, the injustice of dispossession, dispersion, and exile forcibly enacted on the population … On the other hand, those who remained were subjected to the systematic oppression and brutality of an inhuman occupation that robbed them of all their rights and liberties.”

 

This original “occupation” — that is, again, the creation and existence of the state of Israel — was later extended, in Ashrawi’s narrative, as a result of the Six-Day war:

 

“Those of us who came under Israeli occupation in 1967 have languished in the West Bank, Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip under a unique combination of military occupation, settler colonization, and systematic oppression. Rarely has the human mind devised such varied, diverse, and comprehensive means of wholesale brutalization and persecution.”

 

Taken together, the charges against Israel’s various “occupations” represent — and are plainly intended to be — a damning indictment of the entire Zionist enterprise. In almost every particular, they are also grossly false.

 

In 1948, no Palestinian state was invaded or destroyed to make way for the establishment of Israel. From biblical times, when this territory was the state of the Jews, to its occupation by the British army at the end of World War I, Palestine had never existed as a distinct political entity but was rather part of one empire after another, from the Romans, to the Arabs, to the Ottomans. When the British arrived in 1917, the immediate loyalties of the area’s inhabitants were parochial-to clan, tribe, village, town, or religious sect-and coexisted with their fealty to the Ottoman sultan-caliph as the religious and temporal head of the world Muslim community.

 

Under a League of Nations mandate explicitly meant to pave the way for the creation of a Jewish national home, the British established the notion of an independent Palestine for the first time and delineated its boundaries. In 1947, confronted with a determined Jewish struggle for independence, Britain returned the mandate to the League’s successor, the United Nations, which in turn decided on November 29, 1947, to partition mandatory Palestine into two states: one Jewish, the other Arab.

 

The state of Israel was thus created by an internationally recognized act of national self-determination — an act, moreover, undertaken by an ancient people in its own homeland. In accordance with common democratic practice, the Arab population in the new state’s midst was immediately recognized as a legitimate ethnic and religious minority. As for the prospective Arab state, its designated territory was slated to include, among other areas, the two regions under contest today — namely, Gaza and the West Bank (with the exception of Jerusalem, which was to be placed under international control).

 

As is well known, the implementation of the UN’s partition plan was aborted by the effort of the Palestinians and of the surrounding Arab states to destroy the Jewish state at birth. What is less well known is that even if the Jews had lost the war, their territory would not have been handed over to the Palestinians. Rather, it would have been divided among the invading Arab forces, for the simple reason that none of the region’s Arab regimes viewed the Palestinians as a distinct nation. As the eminent Arab-American historian Philip Hitti described the common Arab view to an Anglo-American commission of inquiry in 1946, “There is no such thing as Palestine in history, absolutely not.”

 

This fact was keenly recognized by the British authorities on the eve of their departure. As one official observed in mid-December 1947, “it does not appear that Arab Palestine will be an entity, but rather that the Arab countries will each claim a portion in return for their assistance [in the war against Israel], unless [Transjordan’s] King Abdallah takes rapid and firm action as soon as the British withdrawal is completed.” A couple of months later, the British high commissioner for Palestine, General Sir Alan Cunningham, informed the colonial secretary, Arthur Creech Jones, that “the most likely arrangement seems to be Eastern Galilee to Syria, Samaria and Hebron to Abdallah, and the south to Egypt.”

 

The British proved to be prescient. Neither Egypt nor Jordan ever allowed Palestinian self-determination in Gaza and the West Bank — which were, respectively, the parts of Palestine conquered by them during the 1948-49 war. Indeed, even UN Security Council Resolution 242, which after the Six-Day war of 1967 established the principle of “land for peace” as the cornerstone of future Arab-Israeli peace negotiations, did not envisage the creation of a Palestinian state. To the contrary: since the Palestinians were still not viewed as a distinct nation, it was assumed that any territories evacuated by Israel, would be returned to their pre-1967 Arab occupiers — Gaza to Egypt, and the West Bank to Jordan. The resolution did not even mention the Palestinians by name, affirming instead the necessity “for achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem” — a clause that applied not just to the Palestinians but to the hundreds of thousands of Jews expelled from the Arab states following the 1948 war.

 

At this time — we are speaking of the late 1960’s — Palestinian nationhood was rejected by the entire international community, including the Western democracies, the Soviet Union (the foremost supporter of radical Arabism), and the Arab world itself. “Moderate” Arab rulers like the Hashemites in Jordan viewed an independent Palestinian state as a mortal threat to their own kingdom, while the Saudis saw it as a potential source of extremism and instability. Pan-Arab nationalists were no less adamantly opposed, having their own purposes in mind for the region. As late as 1974, Syrian President Hafez al Assad openly referred to Palestine as “not only a part of the Arab homeland but a basic part of southern Syria”; there is no reason to think he had changed his mind by the time of his death in 2000.

 

Nor, for that matter, did the populace of the West Bank and Gaza regard itself as a distinct nation. The collapse and dispersion of Palestinian society following the 1948 defeat had shattered an always fragile communal fabric, and the subsequent physical separation of the various parts of the Palestinian diaspora prevented the crystallization of a national identity. Host Arab regimes actively colluded in discouraging any such sense from arising. Upon occupying the West Bank during the 1948 war, King Abdallah had moved quickly to erase all traces of corporate Palestinian identity. On April 4, 1950, the territory was formally annexed to Jordan, its residents became Jordanian citizens, and they were increasingly integrated into the kingdom’s economic, political, and social structures.

 

For its part, the Egyptian government showed no desire to annex the Gaza Strip but had instead ruled the newly acquired area as an occupied military zone. This did not imply support of Palestinian nationalism, however, or of any sort of collective political awareness among the Palestinians. The local population was kept under tight control, was denied Egyptian citizenship, and was subjected to severe restrictions on travel.

 

What, then, of the period after 1967, when these territories passed into the hands of Israel? Is it the case that Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza have been the victims of the most “varied, diverse, and comprehensive means of wholesale brutalization and persecution” ever devised by the human mind?

 

At the very least, such a characterization would require a rather drastic downgrading of certain other well-documented 20th-century phenomena, from the slaughter of Armenians during World War I and onward through a grisly chronicle of tens upon tens of millions murdered, driven out, crushed under the heels of despots. By stark contrast, during the three decades of Israel’s control, far fewer Palestinians were killed at Jewish hands than by King Hussein of Jordan in the single month of September 1970 when, fighting off an attempt by Yasir Arafat’s PLO to destroy his monarchy, he dispatched (according to the Palestinian scholar Yezid Sayigh) between 3,000 and 5,000 Palestinians, among them anywhere from 1,500 to 3,500 civilians. Similarly, the number of innocent Palestinians killed by their Kuwaiti hosts in the winter of 1991, in revenge for the PLO’s support for Saddam Hussein’s brutal occupation of Kuwait, far exceeds the number of Palestinian rioters and terrorists who lost their lives in the first intifada against Israel during the late 1980’s.

 

Such crude comparisons aside, to present the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza as “systematic oppression” is itself the inverse of the truth. It should be recalled, first of all, that this “occupation” did not come about as a consequence of some grand expansionist design, but rather was incidental to Israel’s success against a pan-Arab attempt to destroy it. Upon the outbreak of Israeli-Egyptian hostilities on June 5, 1967, the Israeli government secretly pleaded with King Hussein of Jordan, the de-facto ruler of the West Bank, to forgo any military action; the plea was rebuffed by the Jordanian monarch, who was loathe to lose the anticipated spoils of what was to be the Arabs’ “final round” with Israel.

 

Thus it happened that, at the end of the conflict, Israel unexpectedly found itself in control of some one million Palestinians, with no definite idea about their future status and lacking any concrete policy for their administration. In the wake of the war, the only objective adopted by then-Minister of Defense Moshe Dayan was to preserve normalcy in the territories through a mixture of economic inducements and a minimum of Israeli intervention. The idea was that the local populace would be given the freedom to administer itself as it wished, and would be able to maintain regular contact with the Arab world via the Jordan River bridges. In sharp contrast with, for example, the U.S. occupation of postwar Japan, which saw a general censorship of all Japanese media and a comprehensive revision of school curricula, Israel made no attempt to reshape Palestinian culture. It limited its oversight of the Arabic press in the territories to military and security matters, and allowed the continued use in local schools of Jordanian textbooks filled with vile anti-Semitic and anti-Israel propaganda.

 

Israel’s restraint in this sphere — which turned out to be desperately misguided — is only part of the story. The larger part, still untold in all its detail, is of the astounding social and economic progress made by the Palestinian Arabs under Israeli “oppression.” At the inception of the occupation, conditions in the territories were quite dire. Life expectancy was low; malnutrition, infectious diseases, and child mortality were rife; and the level of education was very poor. Prior to the 1967 war, fewer than 60 percent of all male adults had been employed, with unemployment among refugees running as high as 83 percent. Within a brief period after the war, Israeli occupation had led to dramatic improvements in general well-being, placing the population of the territories ahead of most of their Arab neighbors.

 

In the economic sphere, most of this progress was the result of access to the far larger and more advanced Israeli economy: the number of Palestinians working in Israel rose from zero in 1967 to 66,000 in 1975 and 109,000 by 1986, accounting for 35 percent of the employed population of the West Bank and 45 percent in Gaza. Close to 2,000 industrial plants, employing almost half of the work force, were established in the territories under Israeli rule.

 

During the 1970’s, the West Bank and Gaza constituted the fourth fastest-growing economy in the world — ahead of such “wonders” as Singapore, Hong Kong, and Korea, and substantially ahead of Israel itself. Although GNP per capita grew somewhat more slowly, the rate was still high by international standards, with per-capita GNP expanding tenfold between 1968 and 1991 from $165 to $1,715 (compared with Jordan’s $1,050, Egypt’s $600, Turkey’s $1,630, and Tunisia’s $1,440). By 1999, Palestinian per-capita income was nearly double Syria’s, more than four times Yemen’s, and 10 percent higher than Jordan’s (one of the better off Arab states). Only the oil-rich Gulf states and Lebanon were more affluent.

 

Under Israeli rule, the Palestinians also made vast progress in social welfare. Perhaps most significantly, mortality rates in the West Bank and Gaza fell by more than two-thirds between 1970 and 1990, while life expectancy rose from 48 years in 1967 to 72 in 2000 (compared with an average of 68 years for all the countries of the Middle East and North Africa). Israeli medical programs reduced the infant-mortality rate of 60 per 1,000 live births in 1968 to 15 per 1,000 in 2000 (in Iraq the rate is 64, in Egypt 40, in Jordan 23, in Syria 22). And under a systematic program of inoculation, childhood diseases like polio, whooping cough, tetanus, and measles were eradicated.

 

No less remarkable were advances in the Palestinians’ standard of living. By 1986, 92.8 percent of the population in the West Bank and Gaza had electricity around the clock, as compared to 20.5 percent in 1967; 85 percent had running water in dwellings, as compared to 16 percent in 1967; 83.5 percent had electric or gas ranges for cooking, as compared to 4 percent in 1967; and so on for refrigerators, televisions, and cars.

 

Finally, and perhaps most strikingly, during the two decades preceding the intifada of the late 1980’s, the number of schoolchildren in the territories grew by 102 percent, and the number of classes by 99 percent, though the population itself had grown by only 28 percent. Even more dramatic was the progress in higher education. At the time of the Israeli occupation of Gaza and the West Bank, not a single university existed in these territories. By the early 1990’s, there were seven such institutions, boasting some 16,500 students. Illiteracy rates dropped to 14 percent of adults over age 15, compared with 69 percent in Morocco, 61 percent in Egypt, 45 percent in Tunisia, and 44 percent in Syria.

 

All this, as I have noted, took place against the backdrop of Israel’s hands-off policy in the political and administrative spheres. Indeed, even as the PLO (until 1982 headquartered in Lebanon and thereafter in Tunisia) proclaimed its ongoing commitment to the destruction of the Jewish state, the Israelis did surprisingly little to limit its political influence in the territories. The publication of pro-PLO editorials was permitted in the local press, and anti-Israel activities by PLO supporters were tolerated so long as they did not involve overt incitements to violence. Israel also allowed the free flow of PLO-controlled funds, a policy justified by Minister of Defense Ezer Weizmann in 1978 in these (deluded) words: “It does not matter that they get money from the PLO, as long as they don’t build arms factories with it.” Nor, with very few exceptions, did Israel encourage the formation of Palestinian political institutions that might serve as a counterweight to the PLO. As a result, the PLO gradually established itself as the predominant force in the territories, relegating the pragmatic traditional leadership to the fringes of the political system.

 

Given the extreme and even self-destructive leniency of Israel’s administrative policies, what seems remarkable is that it took as long as it did for the PLO to entice the residents of the West Bank and Gaza into a popular struggle against the Jewish state. Here Israel’s counterinsurgency measures must be given their due, as well as the low level of national consciousness among the Palestinians and the sheer rapidity and scope of the improvements in their standard of living. The fact remains, however, that during the two-and-a-half decades from the occupation of the territories to the onset of the Oslo peace process in 1993, there was very little “armed resistance,” and most terrorist attacks emanated from outside-from Jordan in the late 1960’s, then from Lebanon.

 

In an effort to cover up this embarrassing circumstance, Fatah, the PLO’s largest constituent organization, adopted the slogan that “there is no difference between inside and outside.” But there was a difference, and a rather fundamental one. By and large, the residents of the territories wished to get on with their lives and take advantage of the opportunities afforded by Israeli rule. Had the West Bank eventually been returned to Jordan, its residents, all of whom had been Jordanian citizens before 1967, might well have reverted to that status. Alternatively, had Israel prevented the spread of the PLO’s influence in the territories, a local leadership, better attuned to the real interests and desires of the people and more amenable to peaceful coexistence with Israel, might have emerged.

 

But these things were not to be. By the mid1970’s, the PLO had made itself into the “sole representative of the Palestinian people,” and in short order Jordan and Egypt washed their hands of the West Bank and Gaza. Whatever the desires of the people living in the territories, the PLO had vowed from the moment of its founding in the mid1960’s — well before the Six-Day war — to pursue its “revolution until victory,” that is, until the destruction of the Jewish state. Once its position was secure, it proceeded to do precisely that.

 

By the mid-1990’s, thanks to Oslo, the PLO had achieved a firm foothold in the West Bank and Gaza. Its announced purpose was to lay the groundwork for Palestinian statehood but its real purpose was to do what it knew best-namely, create an extensive terrorist infrastructure and use it against its Israeli “peace partner.” At first it did this tacitly, giving a green light to other terrorist organizations like Hamas and Islamic Jihad; then it operated openly and directly.

 

But what did all this have to do with Israel’s “occupation”? The declaration signed on the White House lawn in 1993 by the PLO and the Israeli government provided for Palestinian self-rule in the entire West Bank and the Gaza Strip for a transitional period not to exceed five years, during which Israel and the Palestinians would negotiate a permanent peace settlement. During this interim period the territories would be administered by a Palestinian Council, to be freely and democratically elected after the withdrawal of Israeli military forces both from the Gaza Strip and from the populated areas of the West Bank.

 

By May 1994, Israel had completed its withdrawal from the Gaza Strip (apart from a small stretch of territory containing Israeli settlements) and the Jericho area of the West Bank. On July 1, Yasir Arafat made his triumphant entry into Gaza. On September 28, 1995, despite Arafat’s abysmal failure to clamp down on terrorist activities in the territories now under his control, the two parties signed an interim agreement, and by the end of the year Israeli forces had been withdrawn from the West Bank’s populated areas with the exception of Hebron (where redeployment was completed in early 1997). On January 20, 1996, elections to the Palestinian Council were held, and shortly afterward both the Israeli civil administration and military government were dissolved.

 

The geographical scope of these Israeli withdrawals was relatively limited; the surrendered land amounted to some 30 percent of the West Bank’s overall territory. But its impact on the Palestinian population was nothing short of revolutionary. At one fell swoop, Israel relinquished control over virtually all of the West Bank’s 1.4 million residents. Since that time, nearly 60 percent of them-in the Jericho area and in the seven main cities of Jenin, Nablus, Tulkarm, Qalqilya, Ramallah, Bethlehem, and Hebron-have lived entirely under Palestinian jurisdiction. Another 40 percent live in towns, villages, refugee camps, and hamlets where the Palestinian Authority exercises civil authority but, in line with the Oslo accords, Israel has maintained “overriding responsibility for security.” Some two percent of the West Bank’s population-tens of thousands of Palestinians-continue to live in areas where Israel has complete control, but even there the Palestinian Authority maintains “functional jurisdiction.”

 

In short, since the beginning of 1996, and certainly following the completion of the redeployment from Hebron in January 1997, 99 percent of the Palestinian population of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip have not lived under Israeli occupation. By no conceivable stretching of words can the anti-Israel violence emanating from the territories during these years be made to qualify as resistance to foreign occupation. In these years there has been no such occupation.

 

If the stubborn persistence of Palestinian terrorism is not attributable to the continuing occupation, many of the worst outrages against Israeli civilians likewise occurred-contrary to the mantra of Palestinian spokesmen and their apologists-not at moments of breakdown in the Oslo “peace process” but at its high points, when the prospect of Israeli withdrawal appeared brightest and most imminent.

 

Suicide bombings, for example, were introduced in the atmosphere of euphoria only a few months after the historic Rabin-Arafat handshake on the White House lawn: eight people were murdered in April 1994 while riding a bus in the town of Afula. Six months later, 21 Israelis were murdered on a bus in Tel Aviv. In the following year, five bombings took the lives of a further 38 Israelis. During the short-lived government of the dovish Shimon Peres (November 1995-May 1996), after the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin, 58 Israelis were murdered within the span of one week in three suicide bombings in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv.

 

Further disproving the standard view is the fact that terrorism was largely curtailed following Benjamin Netanyahu’s election in May 1996 and the consequent slowdown in the Oslo process. During Netanyahu’s three years in power, some 50 Israelis were murdered in terrorist attacks-a third of the casualty rate during the Rabin government and a sixth of the casualty rate during Peres’s term.

 

There was a material side to this downturn in terrorism as well. Between 1994 and 1996, the Rabin and Peres governments had imposed repeated closures on the territories in order to stem the tidal wave of terrorism in the wake of the Oslo accords. This had led to a steep drop in the Palestinian economy. With workers unable to get into Israel, unemployment rose sharply, reaching as high as 50 percent in Gaza. The movement of goods between Israel and the territories, as well as between the West Bank and Gaza, was seriously disrupted, slowing exports and discouraging potential private investment.

 

The economic situation in the territories began to improve during the term of the Netanyahu government, as the steep fall in terrorist attacks led to a corresponding decrease in closures. Real GNP per capita grew by 3.5 percent in 1997, 7.7 percent in 1998, and 3.5 percent in 1999, while unemployment was more than halved. By the beginning of 1999, according to the World Bank, the West Bank and Gaza had fully recovered from the economic decline of the previous years.

 

Then, in still another turnabout, came Ehud Barak, who in the course of a dizzying six months in late 2000 and early 2001 offered Yasir Arafat a complete end to the Israeli presence, ceding virtually the entire West Bank and the Gaza Strip to the nascent Palestinian state together with some Israeli territory, and making breathtaking concessions over Israel’s capital city of Jerusalem. To this, however, Arafat’s response was war. Since its launch, the Palestinian campaign has inflicted thousands of brutal attacks on Israeli civilians-suicide bombings, drive-by shootings, stabbings, lynching, stonings — murdering more than 500 and wounding some 4,000.

 

In the entire two decades of Israeli occupation preceding the Oslo accords, some 400 Israelis were murdered; since the conclusion of that “peace” agreement, twice as many have lost their lives in terrorist attacks. If the occupation was the cause of terrorism, why was terrorism sparse during the years of actual occupation, why did it increase dramatically with the prospect of the end of the occupation, and why did it escalate into open war upon Israel’s most far-reaching concessions ever? To the contrary, one might argue with far greater plausibility that the absence of occupation-that is, the withdrawal of close Israeli surveillance-is precisely what facilitated the launching of the terrorist war in the first place.

 

There are limits to Israel’s ability to transform a virulent enemy into a peace partner, and those limits have long since been reached. To borrow from Baruch Spinoza, peace is not the absence of war but rather a state of mind: a disposition to benevolence, confidence, and justice. From the birth of the Zionist movement until today, that disposition has remained conspicuously absent from the mind of the Palestinian leadership.

 

It is not the 1967 occupation 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 (sic) Arab view that the creation of the Jewish state was itself an original act of “inhuman occupation” with which compromise of any final kind is beyond the realm of the possible. Until that disposition changes, which is to say until a different leadership arises, the idea of peace in the context of the Arab Middle East will continue to mean little more than the continuation of war by other means.

______________________

Efraim Karsh is a professor of Middle East and Mediterranean Studies at King’s College London, and editor of the Middle East Quarterly published by the Middle East Forum. This article was published in the 114 No. 1 July-August 2002 issue of Commentary Magazine (www.commentary.com). The present reprint is taken from the Aish.com reprinting of August 2002, which is archived at http://www.aish.com/jw/me/48898917.html

_____________________

SlantRight Editor: Here are some excerpts from the Think-Israel homepage. I am not sure how often Think-Israel updates its homepage so I am posting some of the info here for posterity.

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

We are told that there is a difference between extremist Islam and peaceloving normal Islam.
  

Judging by their behavior, Muslims are anti-West, anti-Democracy, anti-Christian, anti-Jewish, anti-Buddhist, and anti-Hindu. Muslims are involved in 25 of some 30 conflicts going on in the world: in Afghanistan, Algeria, Bangladesh, Bosnia, Congo, Cote d’Ivoire, Cyprus, East Timor, India, Indonesia (2 provinces), Kashmir, Kazakastan, Kosovo, Kurdistan, Macedonia, the Middle East, Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines, Somalia, Sudan, Russia-Chechnya, Tajikistan, Thailand, Uganda and Uzbekistan.
  

Doesn’t this mean that extremist Islam is the norm and normal Islam is extremely rare?

##########

“The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct ‘Palestinian people’ to oppose Zionism.

“For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa. While as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan.”   (PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein, March 31, 1977, interview with the Dutch newspaper Trouw.) The Palestinian leadership, including Ahmed Shukar and Yasir Arafat, has openly admitted Palestinian “peoplehood” is a fraud; Read This  (PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein, March 31, 1977, interview with the Dutch newspaper Trouw).

###########

“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.htmldehai.org/archives/ dehai_news_archive/apr04/0223.html [SlantRight Editor: I could not find a combination in which this link works. If you wish to play with it perhaps you can start HERE]

#############

“… during the late 1940s, more than 40 million refuges around the world were resettled, except for one people. They [Palestinian arabs] remain defined as refugees, wallowing 60 years later in 59 UNRWA refugee camps, financed by $400 million contributed annually by nations of the world to nurture the promise of the “right of return” to Arab neighborhoods and Arab villages from 1948 that no longer exist.”  (Noam Bedein, Jerusalem Post, January 6, 2009.)

###############

Some 900,000 Jews left behind $300 billion in assets when they were forced to flee for their lives from the Arab countries in the 1940s. They hold deeds for five times Israel’s size.  (Independent Media Centre, Winnipeg)

##############

Re Israel’s irrevocable ownership of Israel, Golan, Samaria, Judea 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)

 

Read More Quotes Here

 

###################

STEPS TO CARRY OUT THE MANDATE FOR PALESTINE

 

Allowing the Arabs and their European friends to set the agenda, Israel has pursued a useless peace policy, bending over backwards to persuade the Arabs to become genuine peace partners. It has brought them nothing but grief, ever more dead Israelis and more acts of terror against more of their citizens. The world hasn’t appreciated that Israel has jeopardized the safety of its own citizens to reduce harm to the Arabs. Instead, the world demands Israel do more “for peace” while asking nothing of the Arabs. How does Israel get back on the right track of making the safety of its own citizens its priority?

 

§  The first step is to understand that ALL of Mandated Palestine belongs to Israel and was authorized by the same international authority that gave the other 99.99% of the Middle East to the Arabs.

 

§  The second step is to recognize that the peace process is a scam to deprive Israel of its land. As Efraim Karsh points out, “Few subjects have been falsified so thoroughly as the recent history of the West Bank and Gaza.”

 

§  The third is to stop going down the wrong road and, as Caroline Glick recommends, change current Israeli policy. Israel needs to stop being an enabler that gives the Arabs immunity while they work to destroy Israel.

 

§  More and more Israelis are considering annexing Samaria and Judea officially and putting all of the Territories under Israeli law. See “On Reclaiming Jewish Land” here, including Hausman’s article, “Reclaim Jewish Land; Reject The Two-State Solution” here.

 

§  Others, Think-Israel included, believe annexation is insufficient. Israel will sooner or later be confronted by a choice that can be simply stated this way: Keep The Land And Expel The Arabs — OR — Keep The Arabs And Lose The Land. Phrased thus, the solution becomes obvious. Just as the Jews were forced from the Arab countries, it is time for the second phase of this population exchange, moving the local Arabs to some part of the vast land area controlled by the Arabs. This would be an upgrade. They would have more space while living in the same environment, life style and culture they are accustomed to having. It would allow them — and this includes all the Arab refugees now scattered in the different Arab countries — the ability to govern themselves. Or carry on their way of death, but only against each other. Their choice.

 

This set of papers lay out the first steps of a policy based on reality. At the very least, it protects the character of the Jewish state.

#################

This is Additional Material on San Remo and Israel’s ownership of Mandated Palestine:

 

“The San Remo Mandate” here.

 

Interview with Howard Grief in Norway March 21, 2011 on “The Legal Foundation and Borders of Israel under international Law.”

 
Part 1 is at
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4zkjC7tNOrI

Part 2 is at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZF4_hM8kbfc

Another set of videos interviewing Howard Grief are at:

 
1. watch?v=ROumSVr7MFc&list=PLE3AB68BC6C75748F&index=2

2. watch?v=ROumSVr7MFc&list=PLE3AB68BC6C75748F&index=3

3. watch?v=ROumSVr7MFc&list=PLE3AB68BC6C75748F&index=4

 

Yoram Shifftan has written a series of articles on Israel’s ownership of Mandated Palestine by an irrevocable trust to the Jewish people. See e.g., here, here, and here. See also inter alia: Wallace Edward Brand, “Israeli Sovereignty over Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria,” here; “A Landmark Work” by William Mehlman here; Michael C. Duke, “Jerusalem: Our Redeemable Right” here; Ted Belman, “Summary Of Israel’s Legal Rights To Judea And Samaria,” here.

 

In the box above, google san remo, league of nations, irrevocable trust, mandated palestine, Israel’s legal right for a more complete selection of relevant articles on Think-Israel.

 

 

 

 

Judea-Samaria: Disputed or Occupied?


Judea-Samaria Map

 

John R Houk

© July 20, 2011

 

Israel’s Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs Danny Ayalon explains the reality of the non-existence of an Arab nation known a Palestine. The area called the West Bank by geopoliticians did not exist prior to 1967. The area was part of the British Mandate for Palestine which originally included present day Israel, Jordan, Gaza and the Golan Heights in 1917. The reason for the existence of the British Mandate for Palestine was to provide the return of Jews to their homeland according to the Balfour Declaration and the now defunct League of Nations.

 

Between 1917 and 1948 Jews came back to the land they were ejected from their home by the Romans. Arabs originally could care less about returning Jews until the influence of the Grand Mufti Amin el-Husseini infected the area with a combination of Arab Nationalism, Hitler’s Nazi principles toward Jews and a bit of the return to purist Islam of the Muslim Brotherhood. By 1939 el-Husseini Muslim Arabs were stirred into becoming hostile toward the Jews returning to their homeland.

 

The year 1939 was the beginning of WWII for the British. Rioting between Jews and Arabs was not a pleasant thought to judge by the British. The British were counting on the Arab allies that had been made during and after WWI to keep Nazi Germany from acquiring the then increasingly important oil that was just beginning to flow toward the West. The Brits would have completely sided with the Arabs of the Mandate for Palestine had not el-Husseini became the voice of Nazi Germany to the Arab World during WWII as well as organizing European Muslims of the Balkan area to fight for Germany and kill Jews.

 

Great Britain’s (United Kingdom) National Interests became more important than the promises made to Jews. The math was simple: There were more Muslim-Arabs in strategic areas necessary for Great Britain and the Allied Nations to have resources to defeat Hitler’s Germany as well as to prevent the Nazis from using those same strategic areas. The 2000 years of guilt for Western oppression of Jews was overcome by the necessity of keeping evil from ruling a large chunk of the world.

 

Then facts began to arise that were too great for the Allied victors of WWII to keep from their citizens. Jews were exterminated to the tune of nearly SIX MILLION by Hitler’s Final Solution. After WWII tons of Jews wanted to move back to their homeland. The British continued with the halt of Jewish Aliyah (moving back to the Land of the Jews) that began just after 1929 to appease Muslims now in full swing toward Jew-hatred. When it became apparent that the British would now not support a Jewish State, Jewish militancy went on the rise to meet Muslim terrorism with Jewish terrorism. The Brits became fed up with the scenario and left their Mandate for Palestine arbitrarily in the same year that Jewish leaders managed to unite the various Jewish militants together and unilaterally declare Israel as a sovereign nation in 1948. The same year Muslim Arab nations in the British orbit of influence invaded the new nation of Israel with the intention of killing all the Jews and splitting the rest of the British Mandate of Palestine between each invading nation.

 

It didn’t work out that way though. The undermanned and under gunned Israel Defense Forces (IDF) managed a defeat all of the invaders except Transjordan (now Jordan). Transjordan’s army was called the Arab Legion and was British trained and British led. That means a British general led the Arab Legion to the gates of Jerusalem’s Old City in which laid the then immense Jewish Quarter. I am not clear if the IDF stalled the Arab Legion advance or if the British Officers chose not to proceed further because of the losses of the other Arab invading armies. In either case Transjordan was in possession of part of the British Mandate of Palestine. Soon after an Israeli-Transjordanian armistice Transjordan formally annexed the area they captured and renamed their nation Jordan. The reasoning being Jordan was in possession of both sides of the Jordan River with old Transjordan being on the East Bank and newly conquered areas of the old British Mandate on the West Bank. Hence there is the name West Bank.

   

There were several wars between Muslim nations and Israel all to exterminate the Jewish State. In 1967 the Muslim Arab nations were again massing their forces in an attempt to drive Jews into the sea. The 1967 war is called the Six-Day War. Egypt began a blockade of Israel’s Red Sea port as well as massing of troops along the Israel border. Syria also began to mass forces but added shelling toward the Israeli side of its border. Jordan was reluctant to be a part of the hostility against Israel but felt they had to engage against Israel as a show of Arab-Muslim unity against Israel.

 

The sliver of a nation known as Israel was watching as its enemies were about to begin an invasion by Egypt and Syria that was meant to be a genocidal war against Jews. Should Israel play the waiting game of defense in which the odds were heavy that Israel would cease to exist? NO!

 

Israel attacked Egypt and Syria preemptively laying waste to their air forces. Egypt called for Jordan to start a front with the lie that the Egyptian army had successfully began their invasion and Syria was to follow suit. Against Jordan’s better judgment coupled with some bad Intel Jordan began their invasion. Israel spanked Jordan’s army forcing a retreat across the Jordan River acquiring back the Old City of Jerusalem (aka East Jerusalem) and the area Jordan termed as the West Bank.

 

So one has to ask: How can the area renamed as the West Bank by Jordan become called an occupied area when that part of the Mandate of Palestine was itself occupied by Jordan’s British led army?

 

Most Israeli citizens call the area Judea and Samaria as relative to Biblical Scriptures. Deputy Defense Minister Danny Ayalon claims at worst the area should not be designated as occupied but rather as disputed territory.

 

JRH 7/20/11 (Hat Tip: Milonga De Una Mora Judia)

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

Opportunity Missed, Opportunity Made


Mahmoud Abbas & Ismail Haniyeh

 

The Leslie J. Sacks organization sent an article by Mark Y. Rosenberg that is critical of the Palestinian Authority and Hamas hook-up because Hamas is overtly for the destruction of Israel and the murder of Jews.

 

Where I disagree with Rosenberg is his assertion that Israel should abandon the “West Bank” to allow a Palestinian State to come into existence because that is the only way for peace between Israel and the Arab world. Also Rosenberg believes that Israeli control of “occupied” West Bank is not a sustainable situation for Israel. Rosenberg does not enter the debate of borders such as Israel drawing to 1967 borders including the eastern half of Jerusalem. I would have been interested on his take on the borders and if the Jewish heritage of Jerusalem should be turned over to Jew-hating Muslims.

 

Finally noticed I placed quotes over “West Bank” and “occupied”. The reason for this is that I am a Christian Zionist. The so-called West Bank is part of the Land of Israel known as Judea and Samaria. Israel did not occupy it their land, they retrieved from Jordanian occupation. Since Israel retook Judea and Samaria they did not occupy it, rather Israel liberated from hostile Muslims that defaced and committed acts of sacrilege against Jewish holy places, relics and ancient possessions such as Synagogues and cemeteries.

 

Other than that Rosenberg’s article is good.

 

JRH 6/4/11