Category: Politics

Posted on

Mark Toner: “The most right-wing coalition…”

Lat week, the USA State Department weighed in on the shake up in Israel’s cabinet.

“We have also seen reports from Israel describing it as the most right-wing coalition in Israel’s history,” Mark Toner, a State Department spokesman, said. “This raises legitimate questions about the direction it may be headed in.”

The State Department was referring to Bibi Netanyahu’s inclusion of right wing nationalist party Israel Our Home into the government coalition.  The move saw the Prime Minister replace Moshe “Bogie” Ya’alon with Russian Firebrand Avigdor Lieberman as Defense Minister.

The real question though, is given the massive shift in the last elections to the right in Israel, the American government should take a step back before meddling in Israeli internal politics as they often do.

During the last Israeli elections the left wing saw a massive influx of cash through backdoor avenues from the State Department.  In most countries that would be a crime. As Israel and America increasingly find themselves moving farther apart, Israel has staked out new partners in the emerging economies of Asia and Africa.  With antagonism from Foggy Bottom only increasing, one should expect this trend to continue.

 

Posted on

Is the Israeli Government Empowering Islam’s Disregard for History?

“Israel is not the problem on the Temple Mount; Israel is the solution,”Bibi Netanyahu said back in October 2015. “We’re keeping the status quo, we’re the only ones who will do it, and we will continue to do this in a responsible, serious manner.”

Over six months after those tense fall and winter months, when it looked like all was about to unravel under an increasing terror wave from Palestinian radicals, the spring seemed to bring an odd calmness.  Even the Temple Mount, the supposed heart of the conflict saw a growing amount of Jews being allowed up.

To many, the Prime Minister’s approach seemed to have worked and yet we see, like always what the real reason is for the reprieve in Palestinian violence in connection to Jerusalem.

With the help of Regavim and other activists, a situation came to light concerning the Muslim Waqf’s intention to alter the status quo by harming the walls of the Temple Mount in order to facilitate increased access for Muslim worshipers in time for Ramadan in June. The site in question is on the Mount’s South side and would irrevocably damage a declared antiquities site.

regavim-banner

In March 2016 the Israel Antiquities Authority  filed a lawsuit against the Muslim Waqf in the Jerusalem Magistrate’s Court that petitioned the court  to give a permanent injunction prohibiting the continued work of the illegal site and restitution.  The injunction was in fact granted, yet one day later the Prime Minister’s office intervened and the injunction was lifted.

This is Bibi’s style.  He talks tough and behind the scenes gives the Palestinian Arabs some gifts in order to remain calm. This particular gift is set to be explosive and would be the first time since the Waqf dug up ancient artifacts on the Temple Mount that they would be allowed to completely alter the status quo.

In early May the Antiquities Authority sent a message to the court insisting the government appeared set on settling the matter through discussion with the Waqf.  In fact, the political echelon admitted that they wanted time to have a dialogue and asked for an extension that would lead until July.

“In the meantime, and during the period in which you are active on the political level and try to finish the matter through dialogue with the Waqf, the  illegal construction at the archaeological site continues, in violation of the order to stop work against them with total disregard for their obligations according to the law and instead attempt to talk with them,” lawyers for the Antiquities Authority charged in  written statement. “The construction works are expected to be completed at the archaeological site with the start of Ramadan in about two weeks. The experience of our client says that as soon as work on the toilets will begin, it will be difficult for future enforcement actions.”

This week right wing NGO Regavim issued the following the statement: “This week, we issued an urgent letter to the prime minister, the mayor of Jerusalem and Minister Regev that the (IAA) is under her wing. We are also preparing a petition on the matter to the Supreme Court. This destruction of Jewish History can not continue on the Temple Mount.”

The question of status quo is constantly pushed to frame actions by Jews on the Temple Mount as encroachment, while actions by Muslims and their supporters are merely restoring that which the Jewish presence altered.  The real question for the government is at what cost do we incur by letting the Muslim Waqf radically change our holiest site in exchange for some quiet. Giving up on the Temple Mount sets the stage for the rest of Jerusalem and so forth. The government would be wise to admit to itself and to the public that the farce of a “status quo” is just that, a lie and if the Waqf cannot uphold its part of the agreement, we no longer need to as well.

Posted on

With Civil Disobedience and Direct Action Biafra Will Be Achieved

As our readers know, the editorial staff of Israel Rising feels strongly about Biafran independence.  Besides being the moral and ethical movement to support, Biafrans are made up of Igbo, Ibibos, and other tribes most of whom clearly share Israelite descent.  Due to this fact, Israel Rising believes it is to the benefit of all of our readers to be connected to their struggle.

The Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) can categorically and experientially conclude that Biafra can be achieved by civil disobedience and direct action contrary to statements made by some saboteurs and Hausa-Fulani slaves from Igbo-speaking area of Biafraland. That Barack Obama is the president of the USA today is directly attributable to the civil disobedience of the days of Malcom-X and Martin Luther King Jr. For 27 years, the blacks in South Africa never stopped carrying out civil disobedience until Nelson Mandela was released from prison. The Arab Spring started with civil disobedience and the outcome is there for all to see. It is therefore preposterous and smirks of political illiteracy for some compromised people to make mockery of the well-organized and peaceful civil disobedience by IPOB that has the twin objectives of pressurizing government to release their illegally detained leader and for the restoration of the nation of Biafra. One of these saboteurs and political neophytes cum Hausa-Fulani slaves is a man called Chekwas Okorie.

Chekwas Okorie has now distinguished himself as the latest and greatest saboteur of the restoration of the nation of Biafra. Chekwas Okorie is from Alayi-Bende in Abia state and he is the son of Late Chief Edward Okorie (a.k.a. Okorie Emeri) who was a fine gentleman but unfortunately gave birth to one of the greatest saboteurs of our time. Retired Major General Muhammadu Buhari wanted to have a negotiation meeting with the objective of finding a way out of the impasse occasioned by widespread demonstrations by the Indigenous People of Biafra. The IPOB leader nominated Chekwas Okorie to go and meet with Buhari on the assumption that Chekwas Okorie is a man of integrity and a Biafran to the core. Chekwas Okorie met with Buhari twice but never came back to Nnamdi Kanu to debrief him. Instead, Chekwas Okorie used the opportunity of meeting Buhari to cut personal deals for himself. Chekwas Okorie should return all the money he collected from Buhari.

To cover up his track, Chekwas Okorie granted interview to Vanguard Newspaper reporter, Francis Igata, where he displayed his crass ignorance of Nigerian politics as well as mocked the victims of Buhari’s genocidal killings in Biafraland. By making mockery of those while praying inside the football field of a secondary school were gunned down by Buhari’s killer squads, Chekwas Okorie has insulted the memory of the dead Biafrans including those who died in the war of genocide of 1967—1970. By mocking the dead bodies of innocent Biafrans such as Miss Nkiruka Ikeanyionwu, Chekwas Okorie will never be forgiven by Biafrans and all lovers of freedom.

From his conducts and recent utterances, and just like his fellow sexually confused Igbo politicians who prostitute themselves to Hausa-Fulani men in return for political favors, Chekwas Okorie is a clear and present danger to the Biafra restoration process. He has now joined the hall of infamy of Biafran saboteurs along with such names as Rochas Okorocha, Sylvester Ude a.k.a. Debe Ojukwu, Dozie Ikedife, Gary Enwo-Igariwe, Monday Ubani, Joe (Judas) Igbokwe, and all members and officials of Ohanaeze Ndi-Oshi na Ndi-Ama otherwise known as Ohanaeze Ndigbo.

Even his postulated political tactics and strategy is replete with ignorance and idiocy. Perhaps, Chekwas Okorie needs to be reminded that a part of the Nigerian electoral law requires 25% votes to be captured in two-third of the 36 states and the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) for someone to be declared the winner of a presidential election. Maybe he doesn’t know that Nigeria has a winner-takes-it-all political environment and that if you don’t have the presidency, you are not going to make any impact. So how does he think that an Igbo party which covers only five states will achieve this electoral victory requirement? It was politically naïve people like Chekwas Okorie that ill-advised Dim Odimegwu Ojukwu to join Hausa-Fulani party (NPN) which led to his humiliating defeat in 1983.

From 1970 till date, Igbo politicians have consistently betrayed those from Igbo-speaking areas of Biafraland and have been in the forefront of frustrating the quest for the restoration of the nation of Biafra. Biafrans are therefore, placing Igbo politicians on notice that we will no longer tolerate the sell-out of our people on the platter of the disgusting lucre from the decrepit Nigerian politics. Enough is enough to these Igbo saboteurs who see Biafra and IPOB as a means of personal aggrandizements and cutting of deals with the Hausa-Fulani oligarchy. The monetization of Igbos in Nigerian politics must come to an end. Under the stewardship of political contractors like Chekwas Okorie, they presided over the balkanization of Igboland such that a part of Ika called Igbanke was carved into Edo state. Even Egbema land was divided into two with a part in Imo state and the other part in Rivers state fondly known as part of the unconstitutional South-South and as a result of this, the former IGP of Police Mike Okiro is today regarded as someone from South-South. These Igbo political jobbers and lameducks have not made any conscious efforts to even unite the Igbo-speaking areas of Biafraland. If not for IPOB under the leadership of Nnamdi Kanu, most Biafrans would not have known that Idoma and Igala lands are part of Biafra. Igbo politicians like Chekwas Okorie suffer from the three diseases of a typical Igbo man which are greed, envy and jealousy. Hence their envy against the leader of IPOB, Nnamdi Kanu, over his monumental and exceptional achievements and charismatic cum servant leadership qualities. For Chekwas Okorie, he has met his denouement and at the appropriate time, he shall be called to account for his mockery of the dead Biafran heroes. Chekwas Okorie has betrayed the trust and confidence reposed in him by the leader of IPOB and he will never be forgiven. Chekwas Okorie will soon find out that it does not pay to be a Biafran saboteur.

Posted on

Peace: A Deceptive, Dictatorial Word

After a long absence, “peace” is back in the headlines, due in large measure to this week’s visit to Israel by French Foreign Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault, who came to try to promote a new French initiative that somehow, by as yet unspecified means, would resuscitate the moribund “peace process.”

Perversely planned to take place without either Israel or the Palestinians, the principal protagonists, the conference has now fortuitously been delayed to accommodate the schedule of U.S. Secretary of State Kerry, who apparently had better things to do than take part in yet another doomed charade to forge “peace” in the Middle East.

However, despite its ill-conceived rationale and dauntingly dim prospects, the planned summit can and should serve one constructive purpose: to focus attention not only on what the quest for the elusive condition of “peace” really entails, but on the even more fundamental question of what is actually meant, and what can realistically be expected, when we talk of “peace” as a desired goal, particularly in the context of the Middle East and particularly from an Israeli perspective.

Indeed, the need for such clarification becomes even more vital and pressing because of recent reports of possible Egyptian involvement in attempts to initiate “peace” negotiations with Arab regimes teetering on the brink of extinction and involving a perilous Israeli withdrawal to indefensible borders. All this in exchange for grudging recognition as a non-Jewish state by a partially no longer existent, partially disintegrating, Arab world.

A dictatorial word

It takes little reflection to discover that, in fact, “peace” is a word that is both dictatorial and deceptive.

It is dictatorial because it brooks no opposition. Just as no one can openly pronounce opposition to a dictator without risking severe repercussions, so too no one can be openly branded as opposing peace without suffering grave consequences to personal and professional stature.

Life can be harsh for anyone with the temerity to challenge the tyrannical dictates of the politically correct liberal perspectives. As British columnist Melanie Phillips remarked several years ago in an interview on Israel’s Channel 1: “Believe me, it [failing to abide by political correctness] has a very chilling effect on people, because you can lose your professional livelihood, your chances of promotion, you lose your friends.”

In a surprisingly candid admission, The New York Times’ Nicholas Kristof wrote that “universities are the bedrock of progressive values, but the one kind of diversity that universities disregard is ideological. … We’re fine with people who don’t look like us, as long as they think like us.”

This peer-imposed doctrinaire uniformity has had a debilitating impact on the quality of intellectual discourse in general, and on the question of “peace” in the Middle East in particular.

A New York Times opinion piece by Arthur C. Brooks cautioned: “Excessive homogeneity can lead to stagnation and poor problem solving.” Citing studies that found a “shocking level of political groupthink in academia, he warned that “expecting trustworthy results on politically charged topics from an ideologically incestuous community [is] downright delusional.”

A deceptive word

The considerable potential for defective analysis in the intellectual discourse on such a politically charged topic as “peace” also accounts for another detrimental attribute of the word.

Not only is it rigidly dictatorial, but, perhaps even more significantly, “peace” is a grossly deceptive word. It can be, and indeed is, used to denote two disparate even antithetical political situations. On the one hand, “peace” can be used to describe a state of mutual harmony between parties, but on the other hand it can just as aptly be used to characterize an absence of violence maintained by deterrence.

In the first meaning, “peace” entails a situation in which the parties eschew violence because they share a mutual perception of a common interest in preserving a tranquil status quo. In the second meaning, “peace” entails a situation in which violence is avoided only by the threat of incurring exorbitant costs.

The significance of this goes far beyond semantics. On the contrary. If it is not clearly understood, it is likely to precipitate calamitous consequences.

The perilous pitfalls of ‘peace’

It is crucial for practical policy prescriptions not to blur the sharp substantive differences between these two political realities. Each requires different policies both to achieve and, even more importantly, to sustain them.

The misguided pursuit of one kind of peace may well render the achievement — and certainly the preservation — of the other kind of peace impossible.

Countries with the mutual harmony variety of “peace” typically have relationships characterized by openness and the free movement of people and goods across borders. As in the relationship between Canada and the U.S., there is little or no effort needed to prevent hostile actions by one state against the other. Differences that arise are not only settled without violence, but the very idea of using force against each other is virtually inconceivable.

By contrast, in the second, deterrence-based variety of peace, such as those between the U.S. and USSR during the Cold War or between Iran and Iraq up to the 1980s, the protagonists feel compelled to invest huge efforts in deterrence to maintain the absence of war.

Indeed, whenever the deterrent capacity of one state is perceived to wane, the danger of war becomes very real, as was seen in the Iraqi offensive against an apparently weakened and disorderly Iran after the 1979 Islamic Revolution.

In this type of “peace,” there is no harmonious interaction between the peoples of the states. Movements across borders are usually highly restricted and regulated, and often prohibited.

It is not surprising to find that peace of the “mutual harmony” variety prevails almost exclusively between democracies, since its characteristic openness runs counter to the nature of dictatorial regimes.

The perils of pursuing one type of peace (mutual harmony) when only the other type (deterrence) is feasible were summed up over two decades ago by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in his acclaimed book “A Place Among the Nations: Israel and the World.” In it, he calls for making a clear distinction between the “peace of democracies” and the “peace of deterrence.”

“As long as you are faced with a dictatorial adversary, you must maintain sufficient strength to deter him from going to war. By doing so, you can at least obtain the peace of deterrence. But if you let down your defenses … you invite war, not peace,” he wrote.

Much earlier, in 1936, Winston Churchill underscored the dangers: “The French Army is the strongest in Europe. But no one is afraid of France. Everyone knows that France wants to be let alone, and that with her it is only a case of self-preservation. … They are a liberal nation with free parliamentary institutions. Germany, on the other hand, under its Nazi regime … [in which] two or three men have the whole of that mighty country in their grip [and] there is no public opinion except what is manufactured by those new and terrible engines — broadcasting and a controlled press fills unmistakably that part [of] … the would-be dominator or potential aggressor.”

Compromise counterproductive

To grasp the potential for disaster when a policy designed to attain a harmonious outcome is pursued in a political context in which none is possible, it is first necessary to recognize that, in principle, there are two archetypal configurations. In one, a policy of compromise and concession may well be appropriate; in the other, such a policy will be devastatingly inappropriate.

In the first configuration, an adversary interprets concessions as conciliatory, and feels obliged to respond with a counter-concession. Thus, by a series of concessions and counter-concessions, the process converges toward some amicably harmonious resolution of conflict.

However, in the second configuration, the adversary sees any concession as a sign of vulnerability and weakness, made under duress. Accordingly, such initiatives do not elicit any reciprocal gesture, only demands for further concessions.

But further concessions still do not prompt reciprocal moves toward a peaceable resolution. This process ill necessarily culminate either in total capitulation or in large-scale violence, either because one side finally realizes that its adversary is acting in bad faith and can only be restrained by force, or because the other side realizes it has extracted all the concessions possible by non-coercive means, and will only win further gains by force.

In such a scenario, compromise is counterproductive and concessions will compound casualties.

Whetting, not satiating, Arab appetites

Of course, little effort is required to see that the conditions confronting Israel today resemble the latter situation far more than the former. No matter how many far-reaching compromises and gut-wrenching concessions Israel has made, they have never been enough to elicit any commensurate counter-concessions from the Arabs. Indeed, rather than satiate the Arab appetite, they have merely whetted it, with each Israeli gesture only leading to further demands for more “gestures.”

If in any “peace” negotiations such compromises undermine Israeli deterrence by increasing its perceived vulnerability, they will make war, not peace, more imminent.

Indeed, it was none other than Shimon Peres, in recent years one of the most avid advocates of the land-for-peace doctrine (or dogma), who, in his book “Tomorrow is Now,” warned vigorously of the perils of the policy he later embraced.

After detailing how surrendering the Sudetenland made Czechoslovakia vulnerable to attack, Peres writes of the concessions Israel is being pressured to make today to attain “peace” : “Without a border which affords security, a country is doomed to destruction in war. … It is of course doubtful whether territorial expanse can provide absolute deterrence. However, the lack of minimal territorial expanse places a country in a position of an absolute lack of deterrence. This in itself constitutes almost compulsive temptation to attack Israel from all directions.”

e also warns: “The major issue is not [attaining] an agreement, but ensuring the actual implementation of the agreement in practice. The number of agreements which the Arabs have violated is no less than number which they have kept.” Since then, of course, their record has hardly improved.

Will Netanyahu 2016 heed Netanyahu 1993?

In 1996, shortly after Netanyahu was elected prime minister for the first time, Ari Shavit of Haaretz interviewed him on positions he had articulated in “A Place Among the Nations.”Shavit: “In your book, you make a distinction between … a harmonious kind of peace that can exist only between democratic countries, and peace through deterrence, which could also be maintained in the Middle East as it currently is. Do you think we need to lower our expectations and adopt a much more modest concept of peace?”

Netanyahu: “One of our problems is that we tend to nurse unrealistic expectations. … When people detach themselves from reality, floating around in the clouds and losing contact with the ground, they will eventually crash on the rocky realities of the true Middle East.”

Let us all hope that Netanyahu of today will heed the advice of Netanyahu of then. It is the only way Israel will be able to avoid the ruinous ravages of the deceptive and dictatorial word “peace.”

(Originally published on Israel Hayom)

Posted on

Why does UNESCO Insist on Rewriting Israel’s History?

“UNESCO ignores the unique Jewish connection to the Temple Mount, the site of two temples for 1,000 years, and the place to which Jews prayed for thousands of years,” Netanyahu said in a statement last month.

No one should be surprised by UNESCO’s resolution, passed April 11th, yet politicians across the spectrum in Israel have reacted angrily towards a UN organization that has catapulted itself into the complicated political quagmire that is the Middle East.  After all, Yair Lapid expressed the outrage by explaining how the most recent decision goes against UNESCO’s charter.  

“This resolution was an utterly irresponsible intervention in one of the most complex places in the Middle East. UNESCO prides itself on promoting tolerance, interfaith and intercultural dialogue, yet it passes resolutions which erase the Jewish people from the historical narrative,” Lapid said.

The resolution in question takes Israel to task for preventing Muslim access to the Temple Mount and even the Kotel. These two sites, holy to Jews around the world are named as Muslim/Palestinian holy sites Al-Aqsa Mosque/Al-Haram Al-Sharif and Buraq Plaza.

The resolution at one point says: “Further deplores the Israeli decision to approve a plan to build a two-line cable car system in East Jerusalem and the so called ‘Liba House’ project in the Old City of Jerusalem as well as the construction of the so called ‘Kedem Center’, a visitor centre near the southern wall of the Mosque, the construction of the Strauss Building and the project of the elevator in Al Buraq Plaza ‘Western Wall Plaza’ and urges Israel, the Occupying Power, to renounce the above-mentioned projects and to stop the construction works in conformity with its obligations under the relevant UNESCO conventions, resolutions and decisions.”

Another paragraph states: “Calls on Israel, the Occupying Power, to stop violations against the Waqf properties east and south of Al-Aqsa Mosque/Al-Haram Al-Sharif, such as the recent confiscations of parts of Al Youssefeyah cemetery and Al-Sawanah area by banning Muslims from burying their dead in some spaces and by planting Jewish fake graves in other spaces of the Muslim cemeteries, in addition to the dramatic change of the status and distinctive character of the Umayyad Palaces, in particular the violation of the continued conversion of many Islamic and Byzantine remains into the so-called Jewish ritual baths or into Jewish prayer places.”

With this sort of language, the government has essentially lost control of a process that began a long time ago.  The process of international delegitimization began by an Arab world seeking the help of other UN member states, has systematically attempted to erase Jewish history in Israel for the sole purpose of rendering Israel’s existence just one long occupation based on historical fabrications.  

The question isn’t why the Arab world is engaging in such profuse insanity, but rather why is the rest of the Western world going along with it?  After all, by supporting UNESCO’s denial the Jewish connection to the Temple Mount or even most of the Land of Israel, many countries in the Christian world have in fact undermined the roots to their own history. So why the rush to support such erroneous claims by the Islamic countries pushing these sorts of resolution?

“Who controls the past controls the future; who controls the present controls the past.”

In his book 1984 George Orwell penned what has now become one of his most famous quotes: “Who controls the past controls the future; who controls the present controls the past.” The UN and its associated organizations like UNESCO understand full well that history supports Jewish claims in their entirety to all of the Land of Israel.  More than this, history shows that is was not only the Roman Empire and later the Byzantines that contributed to the injustices of the Jewish people in their historic homeland, but the Arab world by and large finished off through forced colonization whatever fledgling community of Jews remained in the Land of Israel.

Dr. Harry Mandelbaum noted the following in an article he wrote for Think Israel:

  • The historian James Parker wrote: “During the first century after the Arab conquest [670-740 CE], the caliph and governors of Syria and the Holy Land ruled entirely over Christian and Jewish subjects. Apart from the Bedouin in the earliest days, the only Arabs west of the Jordan were the garrisons.”
  • In year 985 the Arab writer Muqaddasi complained: “the mosque is empty of worshipers… The Jews constitute the majority of Jerusalem’s population” (The entire city of Jerusalem had only one mosque?).
  • In 1377, Ibn Khaldun, one of the most creditable Arab historians, wrote: “Jewish sovereignty in the Land of Israel extended over 1400 years… It was the Jews who implanted the culture and customs of the permanent settlement”

These are uncomfortable facts if you are trying to paint the opposite picture.

In order to perpetrate a future dismantling of the 3rd Jewish Commonwealth in its historic boundaries, the claims of the Jewish people must be returned to the realm of myth.  Does this in fact cut away at the roots of Christianity?  It does, but Constantine through the Council of Nicea in 325 showed that he and the Church were perfectly comfortable in doing away with Christianity’s roots by reworking history and projecting that rebuilt history back onto the past.  

UNESCO is in a sense doing what the Council of Nicea did centuries ago; attempting to permanently control the future by controlling the past.  The irony is that today’s Church has by and large made peace with the idea that the Judaism serves as their religion’s roots.  Despite this acceptance, their overtures to the Jewish people came about precisely because of the Jewish Nation’s return to its historic homeland, which destroyed one of the major tenets of early Church philosophy known as the wandering Jew.

The assumption by the Church, was the exile of the Jewish Nation came about due to a rejection of Jesus, proving covenant between the Jews and the Almighty to be null and void.  According to the Church this exile would continue forever.  Aurelius Prudentius Clemens said as far back as 400 CE: “From place to place the homeless Jew wanders in ever-shifting exile, since the time when he was torn from the abode of his fathers and has been suffering the penalty for murder, and having stained his hands with the blood of Christ whom he denied, paying the price of sin.” The Church was forced to dismantle this tenet upon the Jewish people’s return.  By reversing this sort of doctrine, the Church is essentially accepting the veracity of the Mosaic covenant.

For the world, this history, the history of the Nation of Israel and its connection to its land has become a burden.

Supporting UNESCO or at least remaining silent stems from the inherent need to deny a national connection the Holy Land for the Jewish people. For the world, this history, the history of the Nation of Israel and its connection to its land has become a burden. After all, it is far easier to deal with the Jewish burden than the Muslim one and perhaps, just perhaps that tenet of the wandering Jew, so vital to the Church and many Christian theologians, will be reinstated in a very careful way.

The nefariousness of all of this is of course obvious, but what is perhaps more telling is that the Israeli government has assumed this is just some sort of mistake or lack of knowledge. It isn’t, and the faster it understands this, the faster it can start pushing back successfully.

Posted on

Did France Get The Memo?

Imagine this news story:

“Last week, Israel convened representatives of 20 countries from across the world for an international conference to discuss what to do about the escalating security situation in France.

“‘Israel has no vested interest but is deeply convinced that if we don’t want to let the ideas of the Islamic State group prosper in this region, we must do something,’ Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said when asked why he was pushing for the conference despite France’s vehement protests. Netanyahu put special emphasis on the fact that ‘the international community feels there is an urgent need to find a solution to the spread of Islamic State in Europe, especially in France, which has the largest Jewish population on the continent.’

“‘We are not giving up, and neither are our partners,’ said the Israeli prime minister.

“Discussions at the meeting will be based on a new groundbreaking peace proposal under which France will give up large swathes of the south of France as well as the entire Ile-de-France in return for a permanent peace agreement with Islamic State in order to create ‘a just solution’ to the conflict. An Islamic State spokesman told reporters that unlike the French, they welcome the Israeli initiative.

“‘We wish Israel and its efforts success because the Israeli efforts are the only ones on the ground now, and could eventually result in giving the political process a good push forward at this stage,’ the Islamic State spokesman said.

“‘The aim of the conference is to prepare an international summit in the second half of 2016, which would include French leaders and leaders of Islamic State. The second conference would take place ‘sometime in the fall,’ said a spokesman for Netanyahu.”

Of course, the above scenario is fake. I have produced it here merely to make a point. Israel is not convening any conferences on the future of France, nor is it meddling in its affairs. There is a principle of international law called sovereignty, but in France and the rest of the European Union, that principle has been gradually usurped by a new principle, that of supra-nationalism.

Unfortunately, and despite the fact that Israel is not a member of the European Union, France and company appear to be unrelenting believers in the extension of this principle all the way across the Mediterranean to the Middle East.

What is not fake, however, is that this exact scenario is indeed taking place, but instead of Israel hosting a conference about France’s out-of-control problems with Islamist terrorism, which are indeed affecting French Jews in the most appalling ways, France is hosting a conference about the future of Israel’s territorial borders.

Thus, despite Israel’s protests, France has convened an international conference for May 30, consisting of ministers from 20 different countries who will presume to lord it over Israel’s future. Clearly, France and company did not get the memo about decolonization, or rather France and company seem just fine with exhibiting colonial behavior toward only one nation in the entire world, namely obstinate Israel, which still refuses to dance to the tune of the Europeans.

While the aim of the French initiative is to “encourage” bilateral negotiations, let no one be fooled: This is really about pushing an agenda down Israel’s throat, namely that of the 2002 Saudi peace initiative, which asks nothing less than Israel’s withdrawal to the 1949 armistice lines and a “just” solution to the refugee issue without specifying what that means.

In other words, the initiative makes very serious demands on Israel concerning its existential issues, while being extremely shady on what Israel is supposed to receive in return. Also why drag this long-dead rabbit out of the old hat now, when the Palestinians have shown no sign whatsoever of letting up in the terror war against Israeli civilians and soldiers through ramming, stabbing and shooting attacks? All this conference does is reward terrorism.

What is, of course, conspicuous, is the timing. It is scheduled at a time when Europe is coming apart at the seams with the terror threat from Islamic State and the infighting in the European Union between the European Commission and the central and Eastern European members of the EU, whom the EU’s executive branch is threatening with huge fines for each migrant that these countries refuse to receive.

One cannot help but think that Israel, once more, is proving to be a very useful diversion (and scapegoat) for all the unrelated problems of the Western world.

Posted on

Trump, Israel, and the Need to Navigate the Global Chaos

Whether one likes Donald Trump or not, everyone agrees he has forever changed the landscape of American politics. The Donald’s scorched earth policy on his adversaries has not only worked to ensure he becomes the Republican nominee, it has upended the political and donor class of the US two party system.

No amount of will or force will be enough to give Americans what they crave.  The world has changed.

Americans have more or less opted to back a candidate who “will get things done,” rather than pay homage to the constitution and the framers’ vision of an exceptional nation.  The rest of the world has for many years seen things this way, yet for the US it has clung to a notion that it was different and special.  In truth, with spiraling debt, a waning military influence, and a generation of distracted spoiled youth, America may have in fact seen its best days behind it.  Of course this is what many out there, outside the beltway and big cities fear and this is exactly the type of fear Donald Trump draws his energy from.

No amount of will or force will be enough to give Americans what they crave.  The world has changed. The emerging economies of the East and Africa, coupled with innovation engines like Israel are changing the global dynamics overnight. It’s true Americans need a President that will get things done, but the Donald’s notion that one just needs to be a good manager and force a populist agenda will increase the chaotic downward spiral that American’s feel they are in.

 

Trump Ensures that Israel will Pivot Away from America

With Obama’s flip flopping on everything to do with foreign policy, especially when it comes to the Middle East, Israel has increasingly turned elsewhere for new partnerships.  Israel has grown closer to India and China as well as the Eastern African countries like Kenya, Uganda, Ethiopia, and Rwanda. Relations are growing with a host of Eastern European countries as well as former Soviet Block nations like Kazakhstan, and Turkmenistan.

Israelis crave stability and the last few years has put a monkey wrench in their country’s desire to carve a stable environment for their economy and populace to thrive.  Obama’s weak foreign policy has thrashed old paradigms, while creating a host of new challenges.  Trump’s chaos is too much for many Israeli leaders and his ascendancy may well drive Israel further towards China and even Russia. In an environment with increased instability, the Israeli government finds itself in an unenviable position in having to decide on putting stock into an America in decline versus positioning itself as the most reliable country in the Middle East with a neutral foreign policy.

Trump’s rhetoric, although welcome by many in Israel after eight years of a post American foreign policy approach by Obama, is far too erratic and unbalanced to be trusted to force a re-calibration of America’s interests.  More likely it will help entrench those very forces Israel is now dealing with.

 

Surviving the Coming Chaos Requires a New Paradigm in Partnership Building

Whether we like it or not, the world seems bent on heading into a period of tremendous chaos and instability. Trump’s ascendancy is only part of the reason for this. Other reasons include increased technology usage in developing nations, Islamic fundamentalism, a rising East, an imminent EU collapse, as well as others.

The situation does not have to be dire. Israel needs to continue to build reliable partnerships with countries like India, China, and Kenya.

If we create a partnership between Israel’s inventive capability and China’s manufacturing capability, we will have a winning combination.

Increasing trade ties between China and Israel have now led to discussion concerning a free trade agreement. Already back in 2013 Prime Minister Netanyahu said, “Israel is not as big as China. We have eight million residents, approximately one-third the population of Shanghai. But we manufacture more intellectual property than any other country in the world in relation to its size. If we create a partnership between Israel’s inventive capability and China’s manufacturing capability, we will have a winning combination.”

Israel is seen by many in Sub Saharan Africa as a reliable military and trading partner, with budding relationships mimicking the same trajectory that occurred between Israel and India over a decade ago.

The government will have to figure out what to do about Russia.  They are not going away and Putin may be the best suited to help Israel put pressure on Hezbollah and Iran. Whether it is Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton, Israel’s traditional geopolitical and economic relationships are permanently resetting. These newer partnerships Israel has been cultivating become an important part of creating a far more stable world order.

Posted on

Foreign Aid as a Form of Neo-Colonialism: Questioning the Integrity of Our Independence on Yom Ha’atzmaut

“We, politely referred to as ‘underdeveloped’, in truth, are colonial, semi-colonial or dependent countries. We are countries whose economies have been distorted by imperialism, which has abnormally developed those branches of industry or agriculture needed to complement its complex economy.”[1] – Ché Guevara

Over 70% of American aid received by Israel must be spent in the United States.[2] US aid to Israel is essentially an American government subsidy to its own arms industry. And similar to the situation in other developing countries, the aid we receive empowers Israel’s ruling class while stagnating our economy, keeping the proletariat impoverished and forcing the country into debt.[3] Israel doesn’t gain any financial benefit from American aid.

And one thing is clear – this is not freedom. Like in much of the Middle East, Africa and Latin America, an influx of Dollars and Euros often allows for easy exploitation masked behind a humanitarian facade. Foreign aid allows western governments to impose conditions on the recipient countries in exchange for the funding, which ultimately only increases the dependency and helplessness of the recipient nation.

In Israel, American aid has allowed foreign diplomats to meddle in Israeli politics and to influence the decisions of our democratically elected leaders. Economic aid has allowed Washington to pressure Israel’s government into banning Jewish construction in the Judea and Samaria, demolishing entire communities, and forcibly expelling all Jews from the Gaza region. It allows the United States to meddle in internal Israeli affairs in ways that ultimately advance their own geo-political (and often cultural) agendas.

Acceptance of American money also creates a problem unique to Israel. While most states that receive foreign aid are usually perceived as vulnerable and dependent, the money Israel receives only seems to strengthen the anti-Semitic notion that all-powerful Jews manipulate American policies or that Israel is a colonialist American proxy in the Middle East. The truth, of course, is that Israel is suffering from the same type of exploitation other developing nations experience as a byproduct of accepting aid. And only an increased awareness among Israelis for of how this money impacts our policies, economy, culture, and society can help us to smash our false image of being some kind of outpost of western civilization in the Middle East.

But foreign aid is not only harmful to Israel’s economy, a source of diplomatic leverage against our political leaders, or fodder for anti-Israel tropes depicting Jews as foreign invaders. By continuously accepting foreign aid we have also created a mental dependency that has imprisoned the thinking of our political leaders and blocked them from remaining loyal to our people’s authentic aspirations.

Most countries first define their interests and then seek out alliances with other nations that share those interests. Israel might be the only country that first defines who it wants an alliance with and then redefines its own national interests according to the agenda of that ally. The fact that so many Israeli leaders have actually attempted to make arguments for how surrendering our most cherished ancestral lands, not only the cradle of Jewish civilization but also the mountains overlooking our densest population centers, would somehow be beneficial to the State of Israel illustrates the depths to which they’ve fallen in their psychological subordination to Uncle Sam.

One of the major objectives of the Zionist revolution, as an expression of Jewish yearnings throughout the generations, has been the restoration of full political independence in our homeland. And while our people has regained a certain degree of independence, Israel is still far from true freedom. Only by confronting the truth about the aid we receive from the United States can we smash the psychological wall between our nation and its ancient dreams, so we can break free from the chains holding our revolution back and achieve the necessary political independence to advance our story forward.

[1] “Cuba: Historical exception or vanguard in the anticolonial struggle?” speech by Che Guevara on 9 April 1961

[2] Jeremy Sharp, U.S. Foreign Aid to Israel, Congressional Research Service, Washington, D.C., March 2012, p. 7.

[3] Zev Golan, A Tour of the Israeli Economy, Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies (IASPS), Jerusalem, 1998, pp. 3-4.

Posted on

Are American Jews Being Denied US Citizenship?

 

There is a pending court case set to break open systemic anti-semitism in the Department of State.  Typical US Citizenship policy enshrined in law makes it clear that children born to two US citizens abroad automatically become citizens of the United States themselves.  Section 301 (c ) of the INA (Immigration and Nationality Act) states that a child born to at least one United States Citizen are automatically citizens no matter where they are born in the world. The only stipulation is that at least one of the parents has ever resided the United States. No specific period of time for such prior residence is required.

A US policy shift starting 2007 ignores the law and has created a nightmare for Americans living outside the USA. With 85,000 US citizens in Israel, the policy change seems almost entirely directed at them. The policy, which is in conflict with the actual law, states that at least one parent must have been a permanent resident of the USA.

In 2011 the State Department actually revoked the citizenship of two children due to this policy and has since denied many more. After an appeal, a legal adviser to the Jerusalem consulate stated that in fact the children should be eligible for citizenship. Despite this the State Department overrode his opinion.

If the precedent is not changed, an incalculable amount of American Jews will be deprived their right to Citizenship at birth.

“For almost 10 years there has been an unconstitutional policy depriving American children of their citizenship. Although the law states a child born to 2 American citizens is automatically receives Citizenship at birth, countless children are being prevented, and some have even had their Citizenship revoked, their natural born rights,” Michele Wolgel, litigator for the case said. “This unlawful deprivation is specifically impacting American Jews born and living in Israel. If the precedent is not changed, an incalculable amount of American Jews will be deprived their right to Citizenship at birth.”

Is This Policy Really Directed at American Jews Living Abroad?

Although the policy remains agnostic in tone, most consulates abroad stick to the letter of the law, which seems to indicate that a day visit to the United States is sufficient for residency.  This is backed up by procedure, enshrined in American Citizenship policy for all embassies and consulates. Section 1133.3-1 of the U.S. Foreign Affairs Manual, which specifies that “No specific period of residence is required” in such a case.

In Israel, the American Jewish expat community is growing and highly influential. They also happen to be no friend of the State Department’s policy on Israel.  It does not take much to connect the dots on using a leftover policy from the Bush Administration to force a change in the relationship between American Jews and their new residence in Israel.

Posted on

UNRWA Honors Jerusalem Bus Bomber; US & EU Pay the Bill

On April 18 Abd al-Hamid Abu Spour, a 19 year old Palestinian Arab destroyed two public transportation buses in Jerusalem. There were numerous injuries, two of which remain hospitalized, one with severe burns.  This was the first bus attack during the 7+ month long intifada being waged against Israeli’s, which has resulted in at least 34 deaths to date.

The one person killed in the attack was the perpetrator himself. All Palestinian factions welcomed the attack. In the eyes of many Muslims, dying while committing a terror attack means Abu Spour is a “shahid,” or martyr for Allah.

His family has lashed out saying he acted in “self-defense,” and “only you Israelis are guilty.” Such inflammatory rhetoric while disturbing, is not unusual from many Arab Muslims.

However, in this case reaction to the attack has gone beyond the family. It has taken on an ‘official’ flavor.

On Monday, a week after the attack, a gathering took place at the UNRWA refugee camp in Aida, near Bethlehem. The location has a huge monument of a lock and key, symbolizing the defiant goal that the Palestinian Arabs will one day root out the Jews and take over the land they believe belongs to them.

The “festivities of the martyrs” event took place under the aegis of UNRWA (United Nations Relief Works Agency).  To think the official body representing the world’s community of nations is celebrating terrorism is bad enough. However, that is not the worst of it. The number 1 financial donor to UNRWA is the US, by far. The EU and UK are #2 and #3 in financial support. Their combined total represents over 50% of UNRWA’s donor support.

Virtually no media coverage

US & UK citizens should ask themselves how they feel about having their hard-earned taxes paying for events that honor terrorists.

Aside from this there is another troubling element to the UNRWA sponsored event.

One might think a public event honoring terrorism sponsored by a branch of the United Nations would be widely covered by the media. Yet, when it comes to the Arab-Israeli conflict most of the world’s media seems to come under a spell of double-standard. The abnormal becomes normal, the unacceptable turns into acceptable, and the victim is often seen as the bully.

There was virtually no media coverage of this publicly supported terrorist honoring event. One journalist- David Bedein who runs the Jerusalem based Israel Resource News Agency did send a crew to cover it. According to Bedein, the crew didn’t just cover the event; they are interviewing the family of the terrorist. Soon they plan to release a film that will be screened at a forthcoming session of the Middle East Subcommittee of the US House Foreign Affairs Committee, when the debate on further US funds for UNRWA will be discussed.

On March 22, Bedein appeared in a closed session of that Middle East Subcommittee and suggested an UNRWA REFORM POLICY INITIATIVE formula as a new funding framework. This would make US financing for UNRWA contingent upon them taking concrete measures to assure transparency. It would also require a crackdown on UNRWA hosting terror entities in its midst, and the re-education UNRWA residents. Currently they are promised the “right of return” to villages that existed before 1948. The committee is chaired by Rep. Ilena Ros-Lehtinen (R) FL.

Senator Jim Risch (R- Idaho) chairman of the US Senate Subcommittee for the Near East, also met with Bedein in Washington. This week Senator Risch issued a statement that “we are looking to write a letter to the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to get them to update the audit of US monies that go both to UNRWA as well as funding for education related issues that the GAO had performed several years ago”.

Double-standard

Regarding media coverage, Bedein sent out a press release to over 600 journalists throughout Israel, informing them of the UNRWA event honoring the terrorist. Incredibly he received a reply from only one. This ‘yawn’ by the media is yet another disturbing reminder of the double-standard Israel receives from most of the world.

Picture this- Suppose there was an event held in the US at a public school, sponsored by the Dept. of Education (using taxpayer money) honoring the Muslim couple who murdered 14 people in San Bernardino last year? How much media coverage do you think there might be? Not only that, but those who were responsible for holding the event might be have some serious explaining to do, even in this era of political correctness.

Not so in the Arab-Israeli conflict where it appears the media seems to have largely taken up the narrative of the perpetrators of terrorism.

The US provides the Palestinian Authority over $400 million annually. Concern about the Palestinian educational system is growing in Congress.

US taxpayers have an opportunity to send a strong message opposing their tax money being used to honor terrorists who target innocent citizens of America’s strongest ally in the Middle East. They can contact the members of the Middle East Subcommittee in the House of Representatives, as well as the Near East Subcommittee in the Senate.

There is no moral equivalence between terror and justice. It’s high time the UN stop making an exception when it comes to Israel.