The Presidential Candidates on Islamic Terrorism: The Bumblebee, the Crocodile and the Pitbull

The race for the president of the United States in 2016 has regrettably not been about issues, but character. Both Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton and the Republican candidate Donald Trump have been tarred-and-feathered by their opponents mostly because of actions or statements that they have made, rather than on positions and policies they plan to introduce should they be elected.

Still, in the statements that the individuals have made, there is a sense of how each views the world around them, and in particular, the attitudes towards radical Islamic terror.

Consider these analogies:

The Bumblebee

At first glance, bumblebees look scary. A person seeing the bee’s colors or hearing the buzz of its wings, may either look to run or to kill the insects. However, many knowledgeable people will tell you that the bumblebees will not bother you if you leave them alone.

That attitude is found in the radical left, like Jill Stein of the Green Party, and to some extent, Gary Johnson of the Libertarian Party. Stein believes that all people are inherently good, so people will only attack if provoked. Johnson is less of a purest on intent, but more of an isolationist, so wants America to retrench from around the world to just focus on home. According to these candidates, radical Islamic terrorism will spare America, if America does not act aggressively in the Middle East.

The Crocodile

A crocodile is often described as the meanest creature on the planet. At the very moment a crocodile is hatched, it will bite the first thing that it sees.

Trump believes that Islam has potentially very dangerous ideas that are incompatible with democracy and American values. As such, he has stated that he would curtail immigration from all Islamic countries that are engaged in wars or spawn terrorism. Trump believes that the jump from moderate Islam to radical Islam is too small and difficult to track, and since radical Islam is a real and persistent threat, draconian actions are required to protect American interests.

The Pitbull

Pitbulls have a mixed reputation. Many dog owners see the dogs as beautiful, elegant and strong. Others see the breed as a menace that can turn quickly and kill or maim people.

Clinton views Muslims in a similar light. She believes that Islam is not inherently bad or inclined towards violence. However, she does not deny that a strain of radical Islam is present in the world and killing men, women and children. As such, her views suggest a combination of empowering the American Muslim community and monitoring their activities.

beecrocpitbull

The radical left argues that the world is full of bees. These dreamers believe that foreigners who look threatening really aren’t, they’re simply misunderstood. Some of these liberals have gone into the hives in an effort to befriend these misunderstood communities, sometimes as volunteers to rally for the “peaceful” cause. Some were killed – like Vittori Arrigoni – while they basked in their naivete.

For their part, the radical right will have you believe that entire classes of people are inherently evil. Such “devils” would ideally be avoided, but should they pose a threat to America or its allies, the right would advocate for the evil to be exterminated. Should those suspicious people seek entry into the United States, the right-wing would argue for “extreme vetting” before permitting their immigration.

Those in the middle think in a more nuanced fashion. They understand that there are good and bad people everywhere. The center argues that there is no reason to curtail immigration for Muslims, any more than placing a nationwide ban on pitbulls.

The reality is that the various approaches are right and wrong, depending on the issues.  The world has bumblebees AND crocodiles AND pitbulls. There is no single approach to dealing with a large, complicated world.

The left’s desire to say that all people are alright and that everyone is created equal fails to see the world for what it really is. The right’s desire to see piranhas and crocodiles in every body of water will foster fear and force unnecessary retrenching of resources. And the people who embrace caution but equivocate, are only balancing the extremes.

Today, America lacks honest and clear leadership, that is both kind and courteous, while also being politically incorrect, as appropriate.

Society would be better served in not seeing everything as black-or-white, but not being deceived that everything is grey. As important, our leaders should have clarity of what is white, grey and black.  How can people trust leaders to develop solutions, when those leaders are blind to reality?

For example, the radical left-wing of Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren have more contempt for bankers than they have for ISIS. Hard-working honest bankers are labeled crocodiles, while ISIS is labeled a pitbull. Such politicians cannot be trusted to lead.

The radical right-wing looks at immigrants from Latin America seeking economic opportunity in the USA, the same way that it looks at people returning from fighting for ISIS. What is the basis for lumping these people together?

Today, America’s leaders have fed their constituents fat lies.  The left-wing dreamers would prefer to takedown capitalism over terrorism.  The right-wing would take out all Muslims rather than just the extremists. If politicians cannot properly identify our obvious enemies, how can we elect them as leaders?


Related First.One.Through articles:

Republican Scrutiny and Democratic Empowerment of Muslims in Minnesota

Crises at the Borders

Political Pinatas: Populist Greed Meets Populist Anger

Absolute and Relative Ideological Terrorism in the United States

“Jews as a Class”

A Logical Approach to Immigration from Personal History

The Dangerous Red Herring Linking Poverty and Terrorism

Magnifying the Margins, and the Rise of the Independents

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through  Israel Analysis

The New York Times Thinks that the Jews from Arab Countries Simply “Immigrated”

On October 20, 2016, the New York Times profiled a rising Israeli member of Knesset, Miri Regev.  The article, “Miri Regev’s Culture War,” highlighted her background in Israel’s “periphery,” as part of the Mizrachi or “Eastern” communities.

The Times stated that “Mizrachi” is “a catchall term that includes Jewish communities from Muslim countries in the Middle East and North Africa, as well as the Sephardic Jews, whose origins can be traced to Spain and Portugal, who settled there. These communities immigrated to Israel in mass waves after its founding in 1948 and into the early 1950s, upending its demographic makeup. The Jewish population, almost exclusively Ashkenazi, became more than 40 percent Mizrahi. But it wasn’t just the country’s ethnic composition that changed. The Jewish population that predated the founding of the state was primarily young, secular and idealistic; it was also heavily male. By contrast, the new Mizrahi arrivals tended to be large families from traditional societies. In their ethnic garb, often with no knowledge of Hebrew, they struck the native-born Israeli sabras and the European Ashkenazim as provincial and uneducated.”

Read the passage again.  It sounds like these Jews simply left the MENA region because they wanted to go to the newly reestablished Jewish State after Israel was founded in 1948.  Nowhere in the article is there any sense that these Mizrachi Jews suffered any persecution by the Muslim nations. Such poor treatment was only under the elitist Ashkenazi Jews from Israel.

This was a continued insult and mischaracterization of history by the media of the over 850,000 Jews that were forcibly expelled or fled for their lives from communities that they had lived in for centuries, due to Muslims anger over the founding of the Jewish State in a place that they deemed “Arab land.

nyt-jews-in-arab-lands
New York Times announcing the danger to Jews in Moslem countries, 1956

The Muslim Expulsion of the Jews

Roughly two-thirds of the Jewish refugees from the MENA region (Middle East and North Africa) went to Israel, while one-third fled to France.  France was a natural place for Jews to flee French-speaking Arab countries such as Algeria, Morocco and Tunisia.

Algeria. Pogroms in Algeria began shortly after the Palestine Mandate to reestablish a Jewish homeland took effect, killing dozens in the 1920s and 1930s. During World War II, Jews were stripped of their citizenship when Nazis took over France, As Algeria was technically part of France. The French Vichy regime was particularly harsh to Jews, stripping them of most rights and ability to work.

Even as the war ended, Muslims put in place their own anti-Jewish laws. In 1962, when Algeria declared independence from France, virtually the entire Jewish community fled, seeing the Nuremberg-type laws in Muslim countries, and the fate of Jews in the rest of the MENA region. The majority of Jews went to France, while many moved to Israel.

Egypt. Nationality Laws in 1927 and 1929 gave preference to Egyptians who were Arab-Muslim. The laws made it difficult for Jews to gain citizenship, and in 1947, it is estimated that only 10,000 of the 75,000 Jews in Egypt had citizenship, while the rest were either stateless or were foreign nationals.

Jews came under direct attack at the founding of Israel, including bombings of Jewish neighborhoods in 1948 which killed 70, and a bombing in the Cairo Jewish Quarter in 1949 that killed 34.

When the Suez War with Israel broke out in 1956, there was no more room for Jews.  On November 23, 1956, the Egyptian Minister for Religious Affairs declared that “all Jews and Zionists are enemies of the state,” as Egypt moved to expel the Jews and confiscate their property.

Iraq. In the 1920s, Jews were prohibited from teaching Hebrew or Jewish history. In July 1948, Iraq made Zionism a crime, punishable with up to seven years in jail. In October 1948, all Jews who held positions in government were fired. In May 1950, Jews in Iraq were stripped of their citizenship and the government began to seize all Jewish property.

In response to the edicts, in 1951 and 1952, Israel launched Operation Ezra and Nechemia to airlift the Jews out of the country to safety. The Jewish community in Iraq that had stood had close to 130,000 people was quickly down to a mere 3000.

After the Arab armies were defeated in another war in 1967, the remnant of Jews in Iraq would find the situation unbearable. On January 27, 1969, the government hanged nine Jews in the public square to the cheers of Iraqis. The Jewish community in Iraq was soon no more.

Libya.  Jews were attacked by Libyans in the immediate aftermath of World War II, with 140 murdered in a pogrom. The Libyan government’s Nationality Law of 1951 prohibited Jews from having Libyan passports, and Jews were no longer allowed to vote or hold public office. By 1953, Jews in the country were subject to broad economic boycotts. The community of roughly 40,000 Jews dwindled to just 6 people.

Morocco. The Jewish community in Morocco was one of the largest in the MENA region, estimated at over 250,000 people.

After Israel’s declaration of independence in May 1948, two pogroms broke out in Morocco, in the towns of Oujda and Djerrada. The attacks killed 47 people, wounded hundreds and lefts hundreds homeless. Not surprisingly, 10% of the country’s Jews quickly fled the country.

After Morocco declared independence in 1956, an Arabization of the country commenced, cutting Jews off from parts of society. At the same time, the government prohibited emigration to Israel, which lasted until 1963. In 1961, roughly 90,000 Moroccan Jews had to be ransomed in Operation Yakhnin, bringing Jews to Israel. In the aftermath of the 1967 Six Day War, another 40,000 Jews fled to Israel.

Syria. In 1947, the sale of any real estate to Jews was prohibited, Jews were discharged from public office, and in 1949, the governments seized Jews’ financial assets.  In 1950, Jews were forced to leave the farming industry.  Syrians took the message, an initiated pogroms from November 1947 through August 1949, killing many as they looted Jewish homes and stores.

As Jews fled, the country had their assets seized by the state.

More edicts would follow for the Jews that remained.  In 1967, Muslims were placed as principals of all Jewish schools. In 1973, with the onset of the Yom Kippur War, new edicts were enforced that Jews could no longer communicate with anyone outside of Syria.

Tunisia. Tunisia’s independence in 1956 led to an Islamification of society and placed Jews in a secondary dhimmi status. From that point on, all Jewish businesses were forced to take on a Muslim partner.

The old Tunis Jewish cemetery was expropriated in 1957, and the great Tunis synagogue was destroyed in 1960. As Jews began to flee the country in 1961 as they had in the rest of the MENA region, Tunisia only allowed Jews to take one dinar with them, as the country confiscated the rest of their possessions.

Yemen. Sharia law was instituted in 1913, and all Jewish orphans were forcibly converted to Islam. In the 1920s, Jews became excluded from the army and public service.

In 1947, riots in Aden killed 82 Jews, and in 1948, Yemeni Jews began to lose control of their possessions, with laws forcing Jews to transfer all crafts to Arabs before leaving the country.

As a result of the crisis, Operation Magic Carpet airlifted 49,000 Jews out of the country between June 1949 and September 1950.

TOTALS. The number of Jews that fled persecution from homes they lived in for centuries was between 850,000 and 1 million people.

  • Algeria 140,000
  • Egypt 75,000
  • Iraq 135,000
  • Lebanon 5,000
  • Libya 38,000
  • Morocco 265,000
  • Syria 30,000
  • Tunisia 105,000
  • Yemen 55,000

This total of 850,000 Jews does not include the Jews who fled Iran and Afghanistan.


Yet the New York Times chose to write that Jews “immigrated” to Israel, implying no malice on the part of Arabs, nor fear in the hearts of Jews.  The paper implies that the Mizrachi Jews sought to take advantage of the new Jewish State. Maybe for economic opportunities.

This characterization comes from the same media source that makes every effort to describe Palestinian Arabs as “refugees,” and despondent, even when they are living just a few miles from the homes where their grandparents sought to destroy the nascent Jewish state.

The New York Times has a long history of only parroting the Palestinian Arab narrative in their collective fight against Israel. It has now further chosen to whitewash the crimes of the entire Muslim Arab world that forcibly rid their nations of Jews as they robbed them of their dignity, lives and property.


Related First.One.Through articles:

The Long History of Dictating Where Jews Can Live Continues

UN Summit for Refugees and Migrants September 2016

Help Refugees: Shut the UNRWA, Fund the UNHCR

Palestinian “Refugees” or “SAPs”?

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through  Israel Analysis

Liberal Hypocrisy on Foreign Government Intervention

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton accused Russia of trying to influence the US election by leaking thousands of Democratic National Committee emails to embarrass the Democrats.  The emails showed how the DNC sought to discredit Senator Bernie Sanders in an effort to promote Clinton, and to disrupt Trump rallies, among other things.

The veracity of the emails were not questioned by Clinton or fellow Democrats.

Clinton claimed that the Russians leaked such emails to help elect Donald Trump, and she made a point of connecting Trump and Russian leader Vladimir Putin in her third debate with Trump.  Interestingly, some of the leaked emails connected Clinton herself with Putin.

In another twist of hypocrisy, just a few months earlier, various left-wing groups decried Israel’s new NGO law which required Non-Governmental Organizations that lobby the Israeli parliament and run various agencies within Israel and its territories, to disclose if they receive more than half of their funding from foreign governments.  The left-wing groups even got the United Nations to chime in that such identification transparency law was anti-democratic, even though the NGOs would still able to continue to lobby and function.

It is a remarkable bit of hypocrisy for liberal groups to try to stop a foreign government from simply publicizing emails that Democrats actually wrote, while supporting various foreign governments efforts to ACTIVELY lobby and operate inside Israel anonymously.

nif
New Israel Fund CEO Daniel Sokatch

The New Israel Fund (NIF) is an organization that helps create such NGOs that receive foreign funding, loudly voiced its opposition to the Israeli Transparency Law. The NIF CEO is also on the Advisory Board of J Street and the Founding Executive Director of the Progressive Jewish Alliance, which ultimately became Bend the Arc, a Jewish PAC which endorsed Clinton for President.

It would appear that liberals are transparently hypocritical.


Related First.One.Through articles:

Hillary’s Transparency

J Street’s Select Appreciation of Transparency

Adalah, Dismantling Zionism

Liberals’ Biggest Enemies of 2015

George Soros’ Left Wing Lobbying Dwarfs Goldman Sachs and the NRA

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through  Israel Analysis

The United Nations Once Again “Encourages” Hamas

“I stand with the people in Gaza who have suffered through conflicts, closures and continue to face unimaginable suffering….

I encourage Hamas to pursue reconciliation with Fatah in line with the PLO principles and to consider redefining its political stance.”

Nickolay Mladenov, Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process
19 October 2016

699773middleeast
Nickolay Mladenov addressing the UN via satellite

Nickolay Mladenov is one of the more balanced people working at the United Nations commenting about Israel. The Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process typically goes through the efforts of pointing out the good and bad of both Israelis and Palestinian Arabs as he tries to advance Middle East Peace, an atypical practice among UN personnel.

Consider his remarkable statement on October 19, 2016 of the plain fact that “Fueling Israeli fears [of Palestinian Arab terrorism] is that Gaza is controlled by a de facto authority whose overtly anti- Semitic Charter equates resistance with violence, rejects peaceful solutions and aspires to the obliteration of Israel.” No one at the United Nations ever bothers to discuss the Hamas Charter which lays out it’s thoughts about Jews around the world in language seemingly lifted from Nazi propaganda.

Unfortunately, Mladenov’s understanding of the genocidal aspirations of Hamas only took his thought process so far.

Mladenov spoke of “Hamas’ takeover of Gaza in 2007,” but failed to note that Palestinian Arabs VOTED Hamas to 58% of the Parliament the year before, in 2006. In doing so, Mladenov made Hamas appear as simply a military force with de facto control of Hamas, rather than a political party with tremendous support of the Palestinian Arabs who endorsed the terrorist group’s anti-Semitic charter.

Failing to point out the Palestinian Arabs’s deep hatred of Jews (93% were found to be antisemiitc by an ADL poll), made it comfortable for Mladenov to repeat UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon’s call of “stand[ing] with the people in Gaza.” Would the UN proclaim that it stands with the people of Nazi Germany during World War II?

Further, how could Mladenov – knowing that Hamas seeks the complete destruction of Israel, is opposed to any peace process, and is virulently anti-Semitic – then go on to “encourage Hamas to pursue reconciliation with Fatah in line with the PLO principles and to consider redefining its political stance.”  This is a group that should be banned completely, and not invited into any government.

Historically, the United Nations chose to ignore uncomfortable facts like the deeply anti-Semitic and nihilistic views of Hamas, as the UN promoted Palestinian Arab interests.  So while at first it seemed encouraging that the Mladenov acknowledged those facts, it is arguably more depressing that the UN would nevertheless still use words of encouragement for such entity.

Mladenov may state that “if Palestinians genuinely hope to reach the long-overdue goal of statehood and an end to the occupation, this will not be achieved through violence, but must be reached through negotiations,” but his efforts at promoting Hamas fly in the face of such efforts.


Related First.One.Through articles:

UN Breakthrough? “Hamas continues to directly threaten the security of Israel”

The UN Fails on its Own Measures to address the Conditions Conducive to the Spread of Terrorism

Goodbye Moon

The Cancer in the Arab-Israeli Conflict

Ban Ki Moon Has No Solidarity with Israel

An Inconvenient Truth: Palestinian Polls

Stopping the Purveyors of Hateful Propaganda

Extreme and Mainstream. Germany 1933; West Bank & Gaza Today

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through  Israel Analysis

It’s the Temple Mount, Not the Western Wall

An October 2016 vote by UNESCO condemned Israeli activities around the Jewish Temple Mount in the Old City of Jerusalem. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu noted the farce of the resolution that distanced the Temple Mount from Judaism.  The UNESCO resolution even prompted the spokesperson for the UN Secretary General to read a prepared statement on two occasions, on October 14 and again on October 18:

“… the Secretary‑General reaffirms the importance of the Old City of Jerusalem and its Walls for the three monotheistic religions and stresses the importance of the religious and historical link of the Jewish, Muslim and Christian peoples to the holy site.  The Al Aqsa Mosque/Al‑Haram al‑Sharif, the sacred shrine of Muslims, is also the Har HaBayit — or Temple Mount — whose Western Wall is the holiest place in Judaism, a few steps away from the Saint Sepulchre church and the Mount of Olives, which is revered by Christians.  The Secretary‑General reiterates that any perceived undertaking to repudiate the undeniable common reverence for these sites does not serve the interests of peace and will only feed violence and radicalism.  He also calls on all sides to uphold the status quo in relation to the holy sites in the Old City of Jerusalem.”

The statements made many pro-Israel people happy, as it was a marked improvement from the UNESCO resolution.

However, the statement continued two terrible falsehoods.

First, the Temple Mount itself – and where the Dome of the Rock currently sits – is the holiest place in Judaism, not the Western Wall.  The Western Wall is simply the place where Suleiman I relegated Jews to pray after he kicked them off of the Temple Mount while he “improved” Jerusalem around the 1560s.  Before the edict, Jews had prayed on the Temple Mount for centuries.

Over the last 500-or-so years, Jews have come to venerate the Western Wall as holy, even though it has no more inherent holiness than the southern or eastern retaining walls of the mount.  For example, rabbis do not recommend a person visit a mikvah, a ritual bath, before visiting the Western Wall, as they insist for Jewish visitors to the Temple Mount.

Second, the status of the Jewish Temple Mount in Jerusalem is akin to the Kaaba Stone in Mecca, Saudi Arabia for Muslims. It does not even have an equal in Christianity. Neither Islam nor Christianity have any sites in Jerusalem that are as holy to their religions, as the Jewish Temple Mount is to Judaism.

While it was appreciated that the spokesperson for the UNSG chose to politely distance himself from the horrible UNESCO resolution, it would have been far better to:

  • clearly condemn the UNESCO resolution
  • state that it is the Temple Mount, not the Western Wall that is the holiest spot for Jews
  • not try to equate the holiness and significance of the Temple Mount for Jews, with the other monotheistic religions’ holy places in Jerusalem

It is worthwhile to educate Jews about these basic facts as well.

10857261_10153336968548706_7334281522188334026_o
The Temple Mount in Jerusalem


Related First.One.Through articles:

It is Time to Insert “Jewish” into the Names of the Holy Sites

Visitor Rights on the Temple Mount

The Waqf and the Temple Mount

Tolerance at the Temple Mount

Losing the Temples, Knowledge and Caring

The Cancer in the Arab-Israeli Conflict

The Arguments over Jerusalem

The United Nations and Holy Sites in the Holy Land

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through  Israel Analysis

UNESCO Votes after only Hearing the Opposition

Imagine a legal system where the plaintiff is also the prosecutor.

Imagine a legal system which passes judgment, after only listening to the arguments of the prosecution.

Imagine a legal system, where the judges are all family members of the prosecuting team.

That is the farce of the United Nations.

UNESCO Vote on the Temple Mount

Consider the October 2016 UNESCO vote condemning Israeli policies at the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. The resolution was completely one-sided and did not seek any balance, such as:

  • mentioning that the site is called the Jewish Temple Mount, the holiest spot in the world for Jews;
  • mentioning the Muslim harassment of Jews who came to visit the site during normal visiting hours;
  • mentioning that Israel has security control of the compound, as agreed in the Oslo II Accords signed between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, and the 1994 Peace Agreement signed between Israel and Jordan

kotel-4The Western Wall, the western retaining wall of the Jewish Temple Mount,
site of Jewish prayers since Jews were evicted from the Temple Mount by Suleiman 450 years ago. Dome of the Rock at top, sits on location of the Jewish temples.
(photo: First.One.Through)

The UNESCO resolution was advanced by the Palestinian Authority and submitted by fellow Islamic Arab countries, Algeria; Egypt; Lebanon; Morocco; Oman; Qatar; and Sudan. They sought to alter history and reality, by declaring that only Muslims had rights to an Islamic site.

The countries that voted in favor of the resolution were predominantly Muslim-majority countries, including: Algeria (99% Muslim); Bangladesh (86%); Chad (58%); Egypt (90%); Iran (100%); Lebanon (60%); Malaysia (61%); Morocco (91%); Oman (88%); Pakistan (96%); Qatar (78%); Senegal (96%); and Sudan (97%).

The only Muslim-majority country that did not vote in favor of the resolution was Albania (59%), which abstained.

The Organization of Islamic Cooperation hailed the vote that was submitted and approved by Muslim countries:

The General Secretariat of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation welcomed the adoption by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) of a resolution that acknowledges Al-Aqsa Mosque/Al-Haram Al Sharif to be an exclusively Islamic holy site. The General Secretariat stressed that this resolution was an expression of the condemnation and rejection by the international community ofall Israeli occupation policies and actions, designed to cover up historical facts and deny the inalienable political, cultural and religious rights of the Palestinian people in Jerusalem, the capital of the State of Palestine.

The Secretary General, Iyad Amin Madani, commended the OIC group’s efforts and the positions of friendly countries that backed the resolution, which would entrench and preserve the Arabo-Islamic identity of Al-Aqsa Mosque.

Iyad Madani stressed the importance of enforcement of these historic and important resolutions, and called, at the same time,on UNESCO to shoulder its responsibilities and take the necessary measures to put an end to the serious Israeli violations against the Arabo-Islamic heritage in Palestine, especially in the cities of Jerusalem and Al-Khalil, which run counter to the principles of international law and relevant UN resolutions.”

Irina Bokova, the Director General of UNESCO understood the absurdity and bias of the UNESCO vote and offered her opinions on the matter:

“Jerusalem is the sacred city of the three monotheistic religions – Judaism, Christianity and Islam. It is in recognition of this exceptional diversity, and this cultural and religious coexistence, that it was inscribed on the UNESCO World Heritage list. 

The heritage of Jerusalem is indivisible, and each of its communities has a right to the explicit recognition of their history and relationship with the city. To deny, conceal or erase any of the Jewish, Christian or Muslim traditions undermines the integrity of the site, and runs counter to the reasons that justified its inscription on the UNESCO World Heritage list.

“Nowhere more than in Jerusalem do Jewish, Christian and Muslim heritage and traditions share space and interweave to the point that they support each other. These cultural and spiritual traditions build on texts and references, known by all, that are an intrinsic part of the identities and history of peoples. In the Torah, Jerusalem is the capital of King David, where Solomon built the Temple and placed the Ark of the Covenant. In the Bible, Jerusalem is the city of the passion and resurrection of Jesus Christ. In the Quran, Jerusalem is the third holiest site in Islam, where Muhammad arrived after his night journey from Al Haram Mosq (Mecca) to Al Aqsa”

It was an appropriate comment and gesture, but underscored the absurdity of the organization she heads.

The United Nations is a kangaroo court that passes one-sided resolutions that denies protections to minorities. Today, it exists as a forum of hate under an umbrella of respectability.


Related First.One.Through articles:

The Waqf and the Temple Mount

Tolerance at the Temple Mount

The Countries that Acknowledge the Jewish Temple May Surprise You

Visitor Rights on the Temple Mount

The United Nations and Holy Sites in the Holy Land

The UN’s Disinterest in Jewish Rights at Jewish Holy Places

Al Jazeera (Qatar) Evicts Jews and Judaism from Jerusalem. Time to Return the Favor

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through  Israel Analysis

 

Al Jazeera (Qatar) Evicts Jews and Judaism from Jerusalem. Time to Return the Favor

In October 2016, UNESCO condemned Israel regarding its activities on the Jewish Temple Mount in Jerusalem and excluded all references to Judaism’s ties to the site.  The resolution was put forward by a number of Muslim states, including: Algeria; Egypt; Lebanon; Morocco; Oman; Qatar; and Sudan.

The Qatari-run news outlet, Al Jazeera, continued to proudly distort history in its coverage of the story. Consider its following statements:

“Al-Aqsa Mosque compound is the third-holiest site in Islam. It is located in East Jerusalem, which Israel annexed following its invasion in 1967 – in a move never recognised by the international community – as part of its subsequent military occupation of the West Bank.

Jewish settlers and Zionist organisations have called for complete Jewish control over the mosque compound.

Jewish groups refer to the site as the “Temple Mount” and their increased incursions into the mosque compound have continuously led to Palestinian protests across the occupied West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip.

The Israeli military and armed settler incursions have resulted in Palestinian deaths and injuries in recent years in particular. Muslim access to the religious site has also been tremendously limited by the army.”

The AJ media outlet published this on its own. It was not quoting Hamas (which the Qatari government supports).  For a sense of reality, here is a sample redlined report from a balanced perspective:

“Al-Aqsa Mosque sits on the Temple Mount, which was built by the Jewish King Herod 2,000 years ago. The mosquecompound is the third-holiest site in Islam and the Temple Mount is the holiest place in Judaism. It is located in the eastern half ofEast Jerusalem, which Israel annexed following its defensive war against an attack initiated by Jordaninvasion in 1967 – neither Jordan’s annexation of Jerusalem, nor Israel’s subsequent annexation were in a move never recognised by the international community – as part of Israel’sits subsequent administrative control military occupation of the West Bank. According to the Oslo II accords signed between Israel and the Palestinian Authority in 1995, and the Peace Agreement between Israel and Jordan signed in 1994, Israel handles all security matters on the Temple Mount/ A-Aqsa compound.

Non-Muslims have regular visiting hours on the Temple Mount, and some Jewish settlers and Zionist organisations have called for non-Jews to be able to pray at the site as they had done before Suleiman banned the practice roughly 500 years agocomplete Jewish control over the mosque compound.Those calls resulted in Palestinians organizing themselves against Jewish visitors.

In September 2015, Israel banned the “Mourabitoun,” the group of Muslim civilian guards who were regularly harassing Jewish visitors to the holy site.  That action further excited Muslims who feared that Israel sought to change the status quo, and sparked numerous Jewish groups refer to the site as the “Temple Mount” and their increased incursions into the mosque compound have continuously led to Palestinian protests across the occupied West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip.

The fighting between the Israeli military and Palestinian Arabs armed settler incursions have resulted in hundreds ofPalestinian deaths and injuries in recent years in particular. Due to the increased fighting and tensions, both Jewish and Muslim access to the religious site has also become morebeen tremendously limited, including an Israeli ban of all members of the Knesset by the army.”

As seen above, Al Jazeera is part-and-parcel of the problem of incitement in the conflict. Qatar continues to be an active supporter of violence in the region.

It is well past time to boycott Al Jazeera and its social media site AJ+.  Further, Americans should demand that the United States remove its central military command in the Middle East out of Qatar (perhaps it can help stabilize Iraq by relocating it there).

Distorting history is just part of the problem.  Incitement must have consequences.

Qatari Emir Sheikh Hamad Bin Khalifa Al-Thani (C) Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas (L) and Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal attend a ceremony in Doha, on February 6, 2012. Abbas will head an interim national consensus government under a deal signed in Qatar between Abbas and Meshaal , ending a long-running disagreement that had stalled Palestinian reconciliation. AFP PHOTO/STR (Photo credit should read -/AFP/Getty Images)

Qatari Emir Sheikh Hamad Bin Khalifa Al-Thani (C) Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas (L) and Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal attend a ceremony in Doha, on February 6, 2012. 
AFP PHOTO/STR (Photo credit should read -/AFP/Getty Images)


Related First.One.Through articles:

Stopping the Purveyors of Hateful Propaganda

The Parameters of Palestinian Dignity

Visitor Rights on the Temple Mount

Palestinians agree that Israel rules all of Jerusalem, but the World Treats the City as Divided

The Cancer in the Arab-Israeli Conflict

The Arguments over Jerusalem

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through  Israel Analysis

 

It is Time to Insert “Jewish” into the Names of the Holy Sites

Every religion knows its holy sites.  And the world typically appreciates those facts as well.

Muslims do not call mosques “Islamic Mosques” because to do so would be redundant.  The Vatican does not refer to the “Catholic” St. Peter’s Basilica, because everyone knows that it is a Catholic holy site.

Not only would clearly identifying the sites be redundant, it would be superfluous since those religions have complete control over the sites. No other religion is marching on Mecca to claim the Kaaba Stone, or the Vatican to claim a cross.

But Jews in Israel do not have such luxuries.

The Jewish Temple Mount

The United Nations has a long and inglorious history of trashing Israel.  It has not simply rebuked the country for military matters, but for religious ones as well.  As detailed in “The United Nations and Holy Sites in the Holy Land,” for years the UN has undermined various Jewish holy sites, including: the Temple Mount; Tomb of the Patriarchs; Tomb of Rachel; Joseph’s Tomb; and even the Hurva Synagogue.

In September 2015, the UN Security Council advanced an effort to completely distance Judaism from its holiest spot: The Temple Mount.  As described in “The UN’s Disinterest in Jewish Rights at Jewish Holy Places,” the UNSC followed the recommendation of acting-President of the Palestinian Authority Mahmoud Abbas in several respects: solely using the Islamic name for the Temple Mount; only voicing concern for Muslim worshippers, not Jewish ones; mentioning the special role of Jordan at the site, but not Israel; and ignoring the calls of incitement to terrorism by Abbas.

A year later, UNESCO followed the lead.

On October 13, 2016, UNESCO approved a draft resolution which removed any mention of the Jewish names for its holiest site. Throughout the resolution, the UN only used Islamic names for the site, and ignored all of the points mentioned above.

This resolution was put forth to undermine Judaism’s ties to the Temple Mount, and Israel’s sovereignty over Jerusalem.  The move by UNESCO was an effort to give the Jordanian Waqf full control of the Jewish Temple Mount, and to ultimately hand the Old City of Jerusalem to become a capital of a future state of Palestine.

10383720_10153336970463706_7100356438545362102_o
The Temple Mount, with thousands of Jews in front of the Western Wall

The Cave of the Jewish Patriarchs

The Cave of the Patriarchs in Hebron is the burial site of almost all of the founding fathers and mothers of Judaism, including: Abraham; Isaac; Jacob; Sarah; Rebecca; and Leah.  Abraham was also the father of Ishmael, whose descendants are Arabs (most of whom are Muslims), so the site is revered by Arabs as well.

But the tomb is clearly the location of the JEWISH Patriarchs and Matriarchs.

For centuries the Ottoman Muslims forbade Jews from entering the Jewish holy site, and it was only after Israel took control of the city in 1967, did Jews again pray at their holy site.  Israel also permitted Muslims to continue to pray there, just as it did at the Temple Mount in Jerusalem.

Abbas has voiced his displeasure with the Jews in Hebron and wants them all expelled.


As the world seeks to expel Jews from their holy land and now seeks to deny the basic history of Jews at their holiest sites, it is time for Israel to clearly label the fabric that is Judaism.  All maps, all signs, all press releases, and every piece of material regarding the holy sites should henceforth always include “Jewish” in the names.

Regrettably, Jews do not have the luxury of not being redundant and superfluous.


Related First.One.Through articles:

The Countries that Acknowledge the Jewish Temple May Surprise You

Squeezing Zionism

Visitor Rights on the Temple Mount

The Waqf and the Temple Mount

Joint Prayer: The Cave of the Patriarchs and the Temple Mount

Tolerance at the Temple Mount

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through  Israel Analysis

A Deplorable Definition

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton described millions of Trump supporters as being a bunch of racists in a campaign fund-raiser in September 2016.

You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic — you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up. He has given voice to their websites that used to only have 11,000 people, now have 11 million. He tweets and retweets offensive, hateful, mean-spirited rhetoric. Now some of those folks, they are irredeemable, but thankfully they are not America.”

It was quite a charge to label millions of people – all Trump supporters – as racists. Does she really think that none of her supporters are racists also?

clinton-deplorables
Hillary Clinton addressing liberals at a campaign fund raiser
September 9, 2016

There are indeed a good number of racists in the country, belonging to both political parties. But to say that there are millions of them is likely a gross over-statement, unless one uses the new “progressive” approach to labeling someone a “deplorable.”

Extending the Definition of “Racists, sexists, homophobes,
xenophobes, Islamophobes – you name it”

The last several years in American history have witnessed an amazing expansion of name-calling by the radical left, as they have sought to extend the broad parameters of inclusiveness. In particular, the “progressives” have championed two general civic courses for society to learn: self-identity and celebrating diversity.

Self-Identity

In the new “progressive” social dictionary, a person’s self-identity trumps any physical reality. Specifically, self-identity is not simply a matter of the personal definition of self, but the imposition of that position onto society, which must accept and adapt to that person’s preference.

Consider the case of Rachel Dolezal in June 2015, a white woman who headed the Spokane, WA chapter of the NAACP. She argued that she “identified as black,” and rose to become head of a local minority organization. Some progressives were happy to welcome her to the cause of black-empowerment, while others were not willing to grant her a new self-defined racial make-up, as doing so would undermine the fight against the “structures of white empowerment.” This was actually a matter of serious debate and discussion.

The case of transgender people impacted Americans on a broader scale than a local Washington group. In May 2016, the Obama administration passed a law that public schools must allow students to use restrooms of their “gender identity.” This ruling impacted millions of children in school. Young girls would now be in a position of changing in a locker room with a person who identified as a woman, even though he had XY chromosomes and male genitalia.

This was too much for wide swaths of America.

When Gov. Pat McCory of North Carolina fought to block the transgender ruling, the progressive community went on a rant that he was a homophobe and against the LGBT community. Various artists and organizations began to boycott the state in solidarity with the progressive ruling.

These days, progressives quickly label people who choose not to recognize self-identity over biology, as racists and homophobes.  Add more people to the “basket of deplorables.”

Missing the Celebration

Another way that Hillary Clinton may have been able to reach her millions of people in her “basket of deplorables” was by including people who do not “celebrate diversity” the way that she envisions.

In Clinton’s opening remarks during her second debate with Trump in October 2016 she used that phrase twice:

  • We are going to be looking for ways to celebrate our diversity
  • “we will respect one another and we will work with one another and we will celebrate our diversity

What could Clinton have had in mind?

In August 2015, a court in Colorado ruled against a bakery that would not bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple. The bakery owner claimed that while he would sell anything to a gay couple, making a specific “gay” wedding cake went against his Christian values. However, it seemed that the baker’s opinion went against the Colorado Civil Rights Commission’s 2014 ruling that dictated that he must create cakes for gay couples.

The ruling put conservatives in a rage.

Questions arose whether the bakery must also create cakes in the shape of a swastika if so ordered by a patron. Would a vegetarian store have to serve meat? A kosher store be forced to open on Saturday? A tattoo artist inscribe something they considered personally offensive?

Conservatives wanted to understand whether the line defining discrimination had moved.

If a store owner was willing to sell anything in the store to anyone who sought to purchase it regardless of race, religion, sexual preference or anything else, how can there be discrimination? To force a company or store owner to create something that is against their beliefs is a completely different hurdle.

The progressives were nonplussed. Of course the store owner should celebrate the gay wedding. To do otherwise would be homophobic.

If that case seemed too narrow and unusual, consider the case of Hobby Lobby that went to the Supreme Court in 2014. Hobby Lobby had fought for the right to not fund contraceptives in the company’s employee health coverage plans, as it offended their Christian beliefs. The court narrowly ruled in the company’s favor.

Millions of people either applauded or cursed the ruling.

Before you could blink, the progressives had minted millions of new “homophobes” and “racists” that disagreed with how to celebrate diversity.


Diversity is part of what makes America great, similar to free speech. We are a better country for having a rich tapestry of people with different backgrounds, races, religions and colors, the same way the country benefits from people having different opinions and approaches to life.

However, the same way we vigorously defend the right of free speech, we are free to disagree and ignore the views completely. As a friend of Voltaire once said: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

That should be the logical approach to “celebrating diversity” as well. Every person has the liberty to do what they want with their own bodies and lives, but not to force people to endorse or promote those personal decisions.

That does not seem to be the stance of progressives regarding diversity today. They do not just simply seek a world without discrimination, they want an America that endorses and celebrates their progressive stances. Woe unto the person who didn’t cheer Caitlyn Jenner (fka Bruce) winning the Arthur Ashe Courage award.

There are only two choices in a “progressive” society: accept, adapt and celebrate the new progressive agenda OR be labeled a “deplorable.”

And in the likely President Clinton future, either be fired, boycotted or hauled to jail. She made clear that you are not part of her “America.”


Related First.One.Through articles:

Leading Gay Activists Hate Religious Children

Pride. Jewish and Gay

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through  Israel Analysis

The Cancer in the Arab-Israeli Conflict

Chemotherapy is a terrible thing at first glance.

The treatments make the patient feel terrible and make them look even worse. After repeated treatments, the person becomes a shell of their former selves, losing hair, weight and energy.  They often appear as living dead.

Amazingly, people suffering from cancer before commencing chemotherapy often do not look ill to the outside world.  While the disease may be destroying the individual internally, the cure looks to be the actual instrument of death.

But appearances can be deceiving.  The chemotherapy gives hope to an otherwise terminal situation.

The Confusion between Cancer and Chemotherapy
in the Middle East

Israel’s military administration east of the Green Line (EGL)/ the West Bank is neither pleasant for Israelis or Palestinian Arabs. The patrols, checkpoints, security barriers, raids and arrests make the region appear as a battleground rather than a holy land.

But for those that look past the skirmishes and understand the nature of the protagonists in the land, the Israeli military is not the sickness, but forces that may enable peace in the region.

The Israeli Perspective

For Israelis, the cancer in the region is the adamant refusal of Palestinian Arabs to accept the rights of Jews to live in the region and to be self-governing.

The Arabs’ violent opposition started in the 1920s with several riots and pogroms against Jews throughout Palestine, and became multi-year riots in the 1930s when the Arabs convinced the British administrators to limit admission of Jews to the region on the eve of the Holocaust. The opposition grew into all out wars, from Israel’s founding in 1948, successive wars in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s, to other violent intifadas and wars from the 1980s until today.

The refusal to accept the Jewish state was made clear by the terrorist Palestinian party Hamas, which seeks the complete destruction of Israel as declared in its charter and by its current leadership.  The refusal is seen in the “relatively moderate” Fatah party which controls the West Bank, which seeks to “eradicate the Zionist entity.”

The acting-President of the Palestinian Authority Mahmoud Abbas reiterates these positions continuously, including a refusal to accept the basic history and religious rights of Jews in Israel:

  • In July 2016, Palestinian Arabs pushed UNESCO to sever any Jewish connection with the Western Wall in Jerusalem.
  • In March 2016, Abbas accused Israel of “Judaizing” the Temple Mount, as if there weren’t two Jewish Temples that stood on the platform for hundreds of years.
  • In October 2015, Abbas addressed the UN Human Rights Council where he referred to Israel as a “colonial” power, as if Jews had not lived in the land for thousands of years.
  • In September 2015, Abbas called on Arabs to martyr themselves for Jerusalem.
  • In 2014, Abbas stated that he will never recognize the Jewishness of the State of Israel.
  • In 2013, Abbas said that he does not want a single Jew – soldier or civilian – living in Palestine.

The “moderate” leader of the Palestinian Arabs praised people who killed Israeli civilians and named schools after the terrorists. His government has a Palestinian law that considers it a capital offense to sell land to Jews, and Palestinian universities do not allow Jews to step foot onto the campuses.

For Israelis, the cancer in the region is the Arab and Muslim hatred for any Jews living in the holy land and a desire to expel them. The Iranian leader summed up the feelings of many Muslims in the region in 2012 when he said that Israel was a “cancerous tumor that should be cut and will be cut.

rabbi-in-blood
Rabbis killed by Palestinian terrorist while they prayed in synagogue
November 2014

Whether the Arabs use lethal force, threats of boycotts, or UN resolutions, the tactics are just components of a war against the very presence of Jews and the existence of the Jewish State. The Palestinian hatred was highlighted in an ADL poll which showed almost every Palestinian Arab as being an anti-Semite.

The Palestinian Arab Perspective

The Palestinian Arabs do not see their hatred for Jews as the core problem. The Arab argument is that the Jews have no right to be on their land and to create a state for themselves.

Simply put, if the Jews would not be living in their land, the Arabs would not hate them.  If the Jews lived in another part of the world the Palestinian Arab anti-Semitism may resemble the hatred of Jews found in other parts of the world, not more nor less.

For the Palestinians, the “cancer” is the Jewish theft of their land, whether in the West Bank or Israel proper.  That is why in September 2016, Abbas asked Great Britain to apologize for the 1917 Balfour Declaration, which served as a starting point to reestablish the Jewish homeland in Palestine as then laid out in international law in the 1920 San Remo Agreement and the 1922 Mandate of Palestine. The Arabs feel that the imperialist world powers had no right to dictate what should happen in the Arab lands.

The United Nations Perspective

The United Nations sees the core of the conflict as stemming from the Palestinian Arabs not having full independence and autonomy.  The UN sought an independent Arab state alongside a Jewish state when it put forward the 1947 Partition Plan.  While the Jews accepted the plan, the Arabs rejected it, and since 1948, the Jews have had autonomy in their own state while the local Palestinian Arabs have not.

In 1977, the UN used the 30th anniversary of the 1947 Partition Plan, to establish an annual International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People. The UN has continued to advance a two-state solution, albeit only since 1993, with some Arab support.

Overall, the UN believes that it is the “frustration” of the Palestinians that makes them “desperate” and “resort” to violence against the Jews.

 

Three different opinions as to the core of the Arab-Israeli conflict:

  1. For Israel, it is the perceived Arab hatred and their refusal to accept Jews in the land
  2. For Arabs, it is the perceived Jewish theft of Arab land
  3. For the United Nations, it is the perceived frustrations of Arabs not having a state

Each view of the conflict has its own path towards resolving it.


Long Term Treatment

The United Nations Perspective

From the UN’s perspective, the solution seems pretty straight-forward: if the core of the conflict is the lack of a Palestinian State, then create a Palestinian State.

The issue is that the 1947 Partition Plan is no longer viable.

After five Arab armies invaded Israel in 1948, the Israelis pushed the line of their territory further, to the 1949 Armistice Lines.  While the warring parties all agreed that those lines were NOT to be viewed as permanent borders, the international community recognized those lines as being the limits of Israeli law, and do so to this day.

When Israel conquered more lands in another defensive war in 1967, and then annexed the eastern part of Jerusalem, the issue started to become even more complicated. While Israel offered to return land immediately for peace after the war, the Arabs refused to engage.  It would take another 21 years, until the 1988 Madrid Conference, for the Israelis and some Palestinian Arabs to begin to formulate a plan for co-existence.

Land for Peace: As the Israelis and Egyptians were able to successfully forge a peace agreement based on returning the Sinai Peninsula to Egypt, the UN pushed more aggressively for the Israelis to hand land – specifically Gaza and the West Bank – to Palestinian Arabs for a new state. For the UN, land = statehood = peace, and the end of the conflict.

However, in 2005, after the Israelis left Gaza unilaterally, the area was taken over by the elected terrorist group Hamas which subsequently fought wars against Israel in 2008, 2012 and 2014. Land for Palestinian Arabs did not equal peace for Israel.

Still, the UN believes that land-for-peace and the creation of a Palestinian State will ultimately stop the fighting.  As such, the UN views Israel’s presence (civilian settlements) and administration (military control) of the West Bank as key parts of the problem. Therefore, as part of getting to peace, the UN is pushing for all Israelis to abandon the West Bank to create a “viable” Palestinian State.

The Palestinian Arab Perspective

Many Palestinians – including Hamas and its supporters – feel that the only way to solve the problem of land theft is to return the land to its rightful owners – the Arabs. To meet that end, they seek the full destruction of the Jewish State.

The more moderate Palestinian Arabs do not seek to destroy Israel; they just want to return to homes and villages that existed 70 years ago, even if they no longer exist. They want to live in a state that has no Jewish preferences, and resembles the Arab and Muslim countries in the region.

The more pragmatic Palestinian Arabs are willing to follow the recommendation of the United Nations: a new State of Palestine without Jews in the West Bank and Gaza, and many Arabs (fewer than the millions they desire) sent to Israel to reclaim their land.

The Israeli Perspective

For Israelis, the cancer of violent hatred and a refusal to accept a Jewish presence and a Jewish State is not easy to cure. The hatred is systemic on many levels in the Arab culture, particularly among Palestinian Arabs today.

Israelis employ a number of approaches:

  • Champion Arabs in Israel. Israelis point out the liberal nature of the country and the integration of Arabs throughout Israel.
  • Respect for Holy Sites. Even after taking over the Old City of Jerusalem and the Cave of the Patriarchs in Hebron in 1967, Israel gave full rights to Muslim worshippers, even though the Jordanians forbade any Jewish access to their holy sites when they ruled the sites.
  • Protection.  The Palestinian Arabs have killed thousands of Israeli civilians over the decades, whether they were children in school, mothers in pizza stores, or families in their beds.  Israel actively seeks to protect all Israelis from violence, wherever they live. While not addressing the hatred, it addresses the murders.

A possible long-term solution that incorporates the three parties’ perspectives could be achieved through a negotiated process between the Israel and the Palestinian Authority that would include:

  • Payment to descendants of refugees for homes lost 70 years ago, and invitations to actual Palestinian Arab refugees to return into Israel (address perceived “theft”)
  • Removal of any “settlement” built on privately-owned land (address theft)
  • Ban Hamas from being part of any Palestinian government (address Arab hatred)
  • Recognize Israel as a Jewish State and permit Jews to live in a Palestinian state(address perception that Arabs reject Jewish rights to live in the land)
  • Demilitarized Palestinian State and annexation of key blocs of Area C into Israel (address security)
  • Mutual and mirrored control of holy sites, such that Israel has special authority over the Cave of the Patriarchs in Palestinian Hebron, and Arabs have special authority of the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, Israel (address rights and access to holy sites)

In all likelihood, should the parties ever get to a two-state solution, it will likely look something like the bullet points above.

But how can the parties get to a new starting point to advance peace?


Current Treatment

For the Palestinians and United Nations, the Israeli military control in the West Bank and the blockade of Gaza are part-and-parcel of their perception that the root cause of the conflict is Israeli presence in Arab lands.  But for the Israelis, the military presence is a basic security requirement to defend themselves.

How does one undo the Catch-22 of the situation to resolve the conflict?

  • If the Israeli presence was removed from the West Bank, would the Arabs recognize the rights of Jews in the region? Not based on the history of three wars from Gaza; or according to Abbas who will never recognize Israel as a Jewish State; let alone the basic suggestions of removing every Jew means that there is no recognition of Jewish rights. FAIL.
  • If the UN tries to dictate a two-state solution without the parties involvement, then each party will fight the implementation as they have no ownership for the compromises required to make peace happen. FAIL.
  • If the Palestinians stop incitement, beginning with banning Hamas and all terrorist groups from the government, Israel could – and should – begin to soften the Gaza blockade and other security restrictions. The process begins. SUCCESS.

According to the Oslo II Accords, the last agreement signed between the Israelis and Palestinian Authority, Israel is in complete control of Area C in the West Bank, where all of the Jewish towns exist. In Area B, the Israelis and PA security teams coordinate security together.  It is a matter of modern record that the current Israeli military presence in the West Bank has been approved by the Palestinians themselves.

In general, it has worked.

  • Israel’s security measures have kept the Syrian civil war and ISIS from overwhelming the country. Millions of Syrian refugees currently reside in Jordan, a short swim from Israel and the West Bank.
  • Israel’s security measures have minimized the flow of heavy weaponry into Gaza and the country’s Iron Dome blocked many missiles emanating from Gaza. These efforts reduced the counter-measures and duration of the wars with Gaza, saving many lives.
  • Israel’s security measures in the West Bank, including the security barrier, reduced the number of attacks and deaths from Palestinian terrorists during the Second Intifada. Patrols prevent potential attacks from happening. Consider that during the three wars from Gaza, there was little violence in the West Bank.

dsc_0036
Sticker in Jerusalem
(photo: FirstOneThrough)

Israel’s “military occupation” of the West Bank may appear ugly, but it has saved both Israeli and Palestinian Arab lives.

Ultimately, no hatred and killings, no military response.

If there’s no cancer, there’s no chemotherapy.


Related First.One.Through articles:

The Israeli Peace Process versus the Palestinian Divorce Proceedings

Stabbing the Palestinian “Right of Return”

Abbas Knows Racism

Nicholas Kristof’s “Arab Land”

Obama’s “Palestinian Land”

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through  Israel Analysis