Regime Reactions to Israel’s “Apartheid” and “Genocide”

Summary: The new leaderships at the UN and US have joined to take a forceful approach to anti-Israel rhetoric, in a sharp break from the prior regimes. Alas, the New York Times still does little to report on it and educate its remaining readership.

“Apartheid”

On March 14, 2017, a United Nations commission issued a report that called Israel’s treatment of Palestinian Arabs equivalent to “apartheid.” It’s findings came as a result of a study

“whether Israel has established an apartheid regime that oppresses and dominates the Palestinian people as a whole.”

The new Trump administration’s ambassador to the UN, Nikki Haley, pounced on the report and pressured the new UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres to have it withdrawn. Not only did he have the report removed from the UN website, one of the authors of the report resigned.

US Ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki Haley

This is in sharp contrast to the reactions of the prior regimes of US President Barack Obama and UNSG Ban Ki Moon who applied no such pressure to even worse false accusations.

“Genocide”

One of the authors of the March 2017 UN report, Richard Falk, is a notorious anti-Semite. In December 2013, he said that Israel’s “criminal intention [toward Palestinians] is genocidal.” Canada quickly called on the UN to fire Falk. The US and UN distanced themselves from Falk’s comments but would take no aggressive action for his removal.

The tolerance for anti-Semitism from the Obama and Ban regimes was neither new nor surprising. It was pervasive.

Obama was reluctant to use US pressure on the world body. He believed that everybody was entitled to a point of view and that he would rather sit at a table and listen to the anti-Semitism than take aggressive action to stop it.

Consequently, people like Mahmoud Abbas felt no compunction in taking the podium at the UN General Assembly to make absurd comments that Israel was carrying out a “genocide.

Under-Reporting Anti-Semitism

The New York Times wrote about the latest brouhaha at the UN in an article “Tempest at U.N. Over Report Saying Israel Practices Apartheid.” In a story without any depth, the article noted that one of the authors of the UN report had been accused of being anti-Israel.

“One of the authors of the report was Richard Falk, an American law professor and former United Nations human rights investigator whom critics regard as an anti-Israel extremist. He has been refused entry to Israel for what Israeli leaders have described as his hostile point of view.”

This was the first mention of Falk in the NYT for almost a decade. As detailed in FirstOneThrough’s article “The New York Times and Richard Falk,” the paper never discussed this “human rights investigator” who touted conspiracy theories about the attacks on 9/11, and that the US deserved the Boston Marathon bombing because of its foreign policy. It also never mentioned Falk’s outrageous claim that Israel carries out a genocide against Arabs.

Further, the paper has never opted to give a basic education to its readers:

The paper’s choice of giving color and context to certain items is conspicuously selective. It would rather constantly pepper its articles that “most of the world considers the West Bank to be occupied territory,” but will never add the clause “most Palestinian Arabs harbor anti-Semitic attitudes,” when it writes about the absurd accusations of “genocide” and “apartheid” coming from Palestinian Arabs.


In 1991, New York City Mayor David Dinkins let anti-Semitic riots run rampant in the Crown Heights section of Brooklyn. His successor, Rudy Giuliani, opted to take a tough stand on crime and was able to transform New York City into the safe city that people recognize today.

The civilized world can only hope to see a similar outcome in the transition from Obama/Power to Trump/Haley and from Ban to Guterres: that the mayhem and hatred that has been tolerated for way too long will be aggressively combatted.


Related First.One.Through articles:

Nikki Haley Will Not Equivocate on the Ecosystem of Violence

The UN is Watering the Seeds of Anti-Jewish Hate Speech for Future Massacres

Arabs in Jerusalem

Palestinian Jews and a Judenrein Palestine

What do you Recognize in the Palestinians?

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through  Israel Analysis

The UN Wants “Real Stories on REAL Refugees”

On January 26, 2017, the United Nations Alliance of Civilizations (UNAOC) co-sponsored an event with the EU on the impact of the media in telling the stories of refugees. The High Representative of UNAOC Nassir Abdulaziz Al-Nasser noted that while there was “solidarity towards refugees, we also witnessed a surge of xenophobic hate speech.” The symposium sought ways to change the negative perception that many people have about immigrants to combat growing xenophobia and distrust of “the other.”

01-26-2017abdulaziz

High Representative of UNAOC Nassir Abdulaziz Al-Nasser

Al Nasser said:

“Social media provides a wide and open platform for hate speech, facilitating the rapid spread of negative narratives and ideas online.

“But we will do our utmost to tell the real stories of refugees, in order to protect communities’ interests and safeguard the rights of each individual. I think a balance must be found that protects the freedom of expression as well as the rights of migrants as human beings with human rights,”

What an interesting turn of events for the United Nations. The UN wanted to combat hate speech on social media from the people that did not want refugees, by sharing real stories of the refugees, in the hope that the humanity of the people and situation would cause the populace to not fear the stranger and incorporate them into society.

This is the exact OPPOSITE of what the United Nations has done for decades regarding Palestinian Arabs.

  1. The count of millions of Palestinian “refugees” that the UN touts is fiction. There are only about 30,000 Palestinian Arab refugees alive from the 1948 war. The millions of descendants from the 700,000 Palestinians that left Israel are not real refugees at all. Refugee status cannot be handed down like inheritance. The UN has perpetuated this myth just for Palestinian Arabs as if they were doing them a favor.
  2. Many of these fake UN refugees are taken care of by a dedicated UN agency called UNRWA. UNRWA does not try to settle people into their surroundings as the UN does with refugees everywhere else. Instead, it tells the fake refugees that -with UNRWA’s help – they will leave their current location and move into Israel.
  3.  UNRWA doesn’t try to calm the situation by telling “real stories.” It allows negative propaganda about Israel and Jews to permeate UNRWA classrooms and textbooks that deny Israel’s existence and legitimacy.
  4. Beyond the UNRWA textbooks, many UNRWA staffers called out on social media to “stab Zionist dogs.” Social media hate speech by the UN itself.
  5. Just to clarify that last point again, the UN staffers called Jews “dogs” that should be killed. Quite a far cry from the current UNAOC plan to treat “human beings with human rights.”

The United Nations AOC is moving in a positive direction in calling for peace and co-existence. The action further highlights the illegitimacy of the stale evil farse that is UNRWA that spreads “negative narratives” about Israel.

UN: Don’t just tell real stories about refugees. Tell stories about “REAL refugees.”


Related First.One.Through articles:

Help Refugees: Shut the UNRWA, Fund the UNHCR

UNRWA’s Ongoing War against Israel and Jews

UN Summit for Refugees and Migrants September 2016

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

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through  Israel Analysis

Rep. Keith Ellison Refuses to Condemn UN Resolution Aganist Israel

The Obama Administration let a United Nations Security Council resolution condemning Israel (Res 2334) pass in December 2016 to the anger of many Americans.  The US Congress took it upon itself on January 5, 2017, to condemn the UN action as a bipartisan effort, voting to condemn it by a margin of 342 to 80 (with 4 people voting Present and 7 abstentions). A total of 233 Republicans and 109 Democrats stood by the US’s ally in a bill entitled “Objecting to United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334 as an obstacle to Israeli-Palestinian peace, and for other purposes.” Of the 80 people voting against the measure, 76 were Democrats to only 4 Republicans.

Before the vote, two leading Republicans, House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (CA-23) and House Foreign Affairs Chairman Ed Royce (CA-39) released the following statement:

“This Administration has lost all credibility when it comes to Israel. The Administration’s stunt at the UN hurt our ally Israel and made peace in the region even more difficult to achieve. This Thursday, the House will not abstain from its responsibility and will vote on a bipartisan resolution reaffirming our longstanding policy in the region and support of Israel.

While Republicans voted to condemn the UN vote by a margin of 233-to-4, the Democrats barely achieved a majority of consensus, voting 109-to-76, with 8 others not voting at all.

Rep. Keith Ellison, who is running to be the new chair of the Democratic National Committee (with the support of Sen. Bernie Sanders) was one of those Democrats that decided to vote against the effort to condemn the UN censure of Israel.

keith-ellison-end-the-occupation-podium

Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN)

Ellison’s action was not a surprise to many.

Ellison was one of the 50 House Democrats to boycott Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech to Congress in 2015. A big Democratic supporter, Haim Saban said recently that Ellison “is clearly an anti-Semite and anti-Israel individual.” But leading Jewish Democrats in the Senate like Charles Schumer and Bernie Sanders have still rallied to Ellison’s defense and continue to support his candidacy.

If this is how Ellison votes when Americans are focused on him and his bona fides, how will he treat Israel in the future? Will he continue to turn Democrats against Israel? Will he support more actions at the United Nations to condemn the leading democracy of the entire Middle East?

If Ellison becomes the new chair of the DNC, it will be the final straw for this lifelong Democrat.


Related First.One.Through articles:

International-Domestic Abuse: Obama and Netanyahu

The Invisible Anti-Semitism in Obama’s 2016 State of the Union

Bernie Sanders is the Worst U.S. Presidential Candidate for Israel Ever

Sanders Accuses Israel of Deliberately Killing Palestinians

Missing Netanyahu’s Speech: Those not Listening and Those Not Speaking

The Democrats’ Slide on Israel

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through  Israel Analysis

Samantha Power Breakthrough: Violence Erodes the Prospects for Peace

“1. Reaffirms that the establishment by Israel of settlements in the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, has no legal validity and constitutes a flagrant violation under international law and a major obstacle to the achievement of the two-State solution and a just, lasting and comprehensive peace;”

US Security Council Resolution 2334

On December 23, 2016, the United States opted to abstain from a UN Security Council resolution that allowed the body to condemn all Israeli “settlements” living east of the 1949 Armistice Lines/ the Green Line as illegal.  Samantha Power, the US Ambassador to the United Nations addressed the council after the vote to explain her reasons.

power-vote-un
U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power
December 23, 2016

Ms. Power began her speech by underscoring “the United States’ deep and long-standing commitment to achieving a comprehensive and lasting peace between the Israelis and Palestinians.”  But her rationale really took aim with the goal of two states, not a comprehensive peace.

The Israeli Actions

She claimed that the “United States’ long-standing position that Israeli settlement activity in territories occupied in 1967:

  • undermines Israel’s security,
  • harms the viability of a negotiated two-state outcome, and
  • erodes prospects for peace and stability in the region.”

Each point is deeply flawed.

Israel is the tiniest and most isolated country in the Middle East and much of the world. It is only 15km across (without the West Bank) around its most densely populated areas.  The capital sits on the border of the West Bank, a situation that is impossible from a security perspective, especially considering the country has been in a state of war with its neighbors for virtually the entirety of its existence. To state that enlarging its narrow borders undermines its security is obviously false.

The second comment that the settlements harm the viability of a Palestinian State is ridiculous. Annexing portions of Area C of the West Bank such as E1 and Maale Adumim would make a Palestinian State in the West Bank 15km across at a single narrow place- not for many kilometers as is the case for Israel. The argument that a Palestinian state cannot be viable if it is 15km narrow at a single point underscores that Israel should annex the entire middle of the land.

Ms. Power reserved her comment about peace – theoretically what most concerned her – for the very end.  Because the connection to settlements it is nonsensical.  How can Jews in a new Palestinian State undermine peace? Doesn’t peace mean getting along?

Not for the Obama administration.

Power clarified that: “One cannot simultaneously champion expanding Israeli settlements and champion a viable two-state solution that would end the conflict. One has to make a choice between settlements and separation.

If that is indeed the US position that peace can only be achieved by completely separating the parties, ensuring that no Jews be allowed to live east of the Green Line, then it would stand to reason that the US must be promoting the notion that all Arabs be expelled from Israel. How can Israel incorporate over 1 million Arabs if separation is the key to peace?

The essence of Power’s comments is that Israel thinks about peace the wrong way. It isn’t about coexistence, trade and commerce. It’s about distinct existences. Israel is looking for normalization while the Arabs are in divorce proceedings.

Palestinian Actions

The Obama administration pulled their world-view together when Power addressed the problems stemming from the actions of Palestinian Arabs:

“For Palestinian leaders, that means recognizing the obvious: that in addition to taking innocent lives – the incitement to violence, the glorification of terrorists, and the growth of violent extremism erodes prospects for peace, as this resolution makes crystal clear.

The comment that violent extremism and the murder of innocents “erodes the prospects for peace,” is not stating the obvious; it NEGATES the obvious by destroying its very definition. Killing someone doesn’t undermine the prospects for living, it ENDS living.

  • When acting-President of the Palestinian Authority names schools, squares and soccer tournaments after terrorists who killed civilians, it CONTRADICTS peace.
  • When Abbas takes to the loudspeakers asking for martyrs to converge on Jerusalem, he NEGATES peace.
  • When Palestinian Arabs vote the terrorist group Hamas – which has the most anti-Semitic charter in the world which calls for the complete destruction of Israel and murder of Jews – to a whopping 58% of the parliament, they DESTROY peace.
  • When 93% of Palestinian Arabs are anti-Semites, they NULLIFY peace.
  • When the UN Secretary General says that he supports the integration of Hamas into a Palestinian unity government, the global body UNDERMINES peace.

Power conflated the “prospects for peace” and a new Palestinian state.  She essentially argued that Palestinian Arabs are only killing now to get a new state, and will stop when they get independence.  Such approach willfully ignored the inconvenient fact that Hamas launched three wars from Gaza since Israel withdrew from the region.

Power recognized the threat of violence; she just felt that enough military hardware would make the inconvenient violence manageable:

“Israelis are rightfully concerned about making sure there is not a new terrorist haven next door. President Obama and this administration have shown an unprecedented commitment to Israel’s security because that is what we believe in.”

While Power argued that the United States would supply enough military equipment to ensure a viable and secure Israel, even in narrow borders, she stated the armament was intended to combat “a new terrorist haven.”  She seemed to have missed the point that the terrorists are not new. They are part of the established elected Palestinian government itself, and supported by the world body that just condemned Israel.

lose-hope


When Power opened her remarks at the UNSC discussing a “comprehensive and lasting peace,” she was only addressing the Israelis.  Only the Israelis are seeking peace; the Palestinian Arabs are seeking a state.

The notion that Palestinian Arab violence undermines the “prospects for peace” is wishful thinking that the violence will stop once a Palestinian State is created. The violence that is incited and celebrated by Palestinian leadership is pure evil, and undermines the rationale of allowing such a state to come into being at all. While all people deserve freedom and self-determination, should the United Nations actively endorse the creation of a violent and anti-Semitic regime as a pathway towards peace and stability?


Related First.One.Through articles:

Stopping the Purveyors of Hateful Propaganda

An Inconvenient Truth: Palestinian Polls

Stabbing the Palestinian “Right of Return”

“Peace” According to Palestinian “Moderates”

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through  Israel Analysis

 

How the US and UN can Restart Relations with Israel

On December 23, 2016, the United Nations Security Council passed a resolution condemning Israeli settlements east of the Green Line as “illegal” and called for the removal of all of them, including those in Jerusalem.  It passed because the US decided to abstain, rather than veto such resolutions as it typically does.

There is a pathway to right this wrong, as a new US administration and head of the United Nations will soon take over.

On December 12, 2016, former Prime Minister of Portugal Antonio Guterres was sworn in as the new United Nations Secretary General, and on December 19, Republican Donald Trump secured the electoral college to become the next president of the United States. Both men can restart positive relations with the State of Israel. The recommendations listed below are just a few positive actions that can promote peace in the Middle East.

Positive Actions for the United States

President Barack Obama had a very rocky relationship with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. It was not simply a matter of personal chemistry; Obama took various steps to create significant “daylight” between the US and Israel. Trump can fix those Obama missteps.

1. Recommit to the 2004 Bush Letter.

On April 14, 2004, US President George W Bush wrote a letter to Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, giving Israel assurances of US support in conjunction with Sharon’s planned withdrawal of Israeli presence from Gaza. The language in the letter had bipartisan support, and the 2008 Democratic Platform used key clauses from the letter as its official policy regarding Israel.

However, Obama opted to ignore the letter and all of the US commitments. He gutted key components of US assurances, and had the 2012 Democratic platform remove all of the Israeli-oriented positions completely.

Those commitments from President Bush included:

  • United States will do its utmost to prevent any attempt by anyone to impose any other plan.”
  • “Palestinians must undertake an immediate cessation of armed activity and all acts of violence against Israelis anywhere, and all official Palestinian institutions must end incitement against Israel. The Palestinian leadership must act decisively against terror, including sustained, targeted, and effective operations to stop terrorism and dismantle terrorist capabilities and infrastructure.”
  • “Palestinians must undertake a comprehensive and fundamental political reform that includes a strong parliamentary democracy and an empowered prime minister.”
  • “The United States reiterates its steadfast commitment to Israel’s security, including secure, defensible borders, and to preserve and strengthen Israel’s capability to deter and defend itself, by itself, against any threat or possible combination of threats.”
  • “Israel will retain its right to defend itself against terrorism, including to take actions against terrorist organizations.”
  • “The United States will lead efforts, working together with Jordan, Egypt, and others in the international community, to build the capacity and will of Palestinian institutions to fight terrorism, dismantle terrorist organizations, and prevent the areas from which Israel has withdrawn from posing a threat that would have to be addressed by any other means.”
  • “It seems clear that an agreed, just, fair, and realistic framework for a solution to the Palestinian refugee issue as part of any final status agreement will need to be found through the establishment of a Palestinian state, and the settling of Palestinian refugees there, rather than in Israel.”
  • “In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli populations centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949, and all previous efforts to negotiate a two-state solution have reached the same conclusion.”
  • “the barrier being erected by Israel should be a security rather than political barrier, should be temporary rather than permanent, and therefore not prejudice any final status issues including final borders”
  • “the United States supports the establishment of a Palestinian state that is viable, contiguous, sovereign, and independent”
  • “the United States believes that all states in the region have special responsibilities: to support the building of the institutions of a Palestinian state; to fight terrorism, and cut off all forms of assistance to individuals and groups engaged in terrorism; and to begin now to move toward more normal relations with the State of Israel.”

The Trump administration should recommit to these principles that were abandoned under Obama.

2. Clearly Define that the Obstacle to Peace is anti-normalization, not settlements.

The goal of two-states living in peace starts with the desire to live in peace, not the desire for two states. A Palestinian Authority leadership that incites violence cannot be rewarded with a state. Parties that engage in BDS (boycott, divestment and sanctions) of Israel or Israeli territories are anti-Semitic and work against a two state solution.

Obama inverted this formulation, and pushed for two states before pushing for peace.  He fought Israeli settlements, including asking Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to freeze settlements in 2009, shortly after assuming office. No movement was made by the Palestinian Authority to advance peace. No matter, Obama took a parting shot at Israel by allowing the UN Security Council resolution labeling the settlements as illegal, as if that would advance peace.

Trump should focus on stopping the Arab incitement to violence and glorification of murderers. Penalties should be assessed including withholding US financial assistance and meeting with American leaders should the Palestinian Authority not reform.

3. Terror must be stopped and fought completely.

As the world has started to confront terror in recent years, much the way Israel has since being reestablished, it has fought the terrorism with absolute clarity and global support. Not so for Israel.

Obama asked Israel to confront terrorism with “reasonableness and restraint,” something that the US hasn’t done in its ongoing war against terrorism since September 11, 2001.

Donald Trump should give Israel the same complete support in combatting evil, as every other country in the world is offered when it confronts terrorism.

4. Recognize Anti-Semitism

For a reason only known to him, President Obama was loathe to call out anti-Semitism.

When Islamic terrorists killed people in Paris, France, including in a kosher supermarket, Obama called that attack “random,” and his administration twisted itself to refrain from stating the obvious – that the killers went to kill Jews.

When Obama gave his final State of the Union address, he once again decided to call out “Islamophobia” in the United States, as he did often in his presidency. He did this even though an average Jew is two times more likely to be targeted by hate crimes than an average Muslim. But there was no mention of anti-Semitism.

The Jewish State is not oblivious to the treatment of Jews in America and France, home to the largest concentration of Jews outside of Israel. By recognizing anti-Semitism with a fraction of the concern that Obama showed for Islamophobia, would be a very positive step for US-Israel relations.

IMG_3655
Donald Trump addressing the Republican Jewish Coalition, December 2015
(photo: FirstOneThrough)

5. Clarity: Settlements are not illegal; no Hamas in a Palestinian Unity Government

In taking the four actions noted above, the United States government will once again underscore its long-held bipartisan approaches to Israel. Repeating the assurance that Israel must have “defensible borders” that will not “return to the Armistice lines of 1949,” recognizes that many Israeli settlements over the Green Line will be incorporated into Israel. This is a sharp reversal from the anti-Semitic comments of the Obama administration that felt that any Jew living over the Green Line – even in existing apartments in Jerusalem – are anti-peace, and now, with a wink to the UNSC resolution, illegal.

Further, understanding that Israel must “take actions against terrorist organizations” like Hamas, offers more support to banning the organization from any Palestinian unity government.

The Trump administration should underscore these two points clearly, as it can have a positive impact in how other allies and the United Nations treat Israel.

 

Positive Actions for the United Nations

The United Nations is a cesspool of autocrats and dictators.

The UN is the poster child of a “bucket of deplorables” of homophobes, anti-Semites, misogynists, xenophobes and racists. As such, the UN Secretary General is often viewed as the deplorable mascot.

It is difficult – ney, impossible – to get many of these countries to be civil, and the UNSG cannot enforce peaceful interactions in the world. However, he can make changes to how the institution itself runs, and his own comments as they relate to Israel.

1. Fold UNRWA into the UNHCR

The United Nations created an organization for Palestinian Arab refugees on December 8, 1949. The United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) was created as a temporary agency to help Arabs that lost their homes after five neighboring Arab countries invaded Israel after it declared statehood in May 1948. Today, UNRWA has morphed into something unrecognizable, giving “refugee” status to millions of descendants of refugees and perpetuating a conflict.

As the incoming UNSG knows, having served as the High Commissioner of Refugees from 2005 to 2015, there is another UN refugee agency, the UNHCR, which works with ACTUAL refugees that are fleeing war zones. It provides real relief for families in transition. It works with millions of refugees from around the world with a fraction of the budget of UNRWA.

More significantly, the UNHCR focuses on providing services for civilians without taking sides in a conflict. Not so UNRWA, which consistently attacks Israel and tells grandchildren of refugees that – with UNRWA’s help – they will return to homes and villages that no longer exist in Israel.

UNRWA perpetuates the suffering of the stateless Arabs from Palestine, and the ongoing conflict with Israel. Over the course of five years, UNRWA should be closed and services should be transitioned to the same relief agency that the rest of the world uses, UNHCR.  The descendants of refugees from the 1948-9 Israeli-Arab war should have their ability to obtain services gradually withdrawn.

2. Isolate Iran

Any United Nations member state that threatens to destroy another member state should be completely isolated. Such a state should no longer be allowed to chair any committee. It should no longer be allowed to vote on any resolution. Its flag should be removed from the hall and from the exterior of the all United Nations buildings.

The inspections of the nuclear facilities should not just be rigorous in ensuring that Iran is in compliance. It should be reinforced without any rights or approvals by Iran.

Such treatment should remain in place until such state clearly rescinds such threats.

3. Remove the Standing Measure Against Israel

The UN Human Rights Council has a standing agenda item to criticize only one country in the world – Israel. It must stop the practice immediately.

4. Clean House in the UN Media Centre

The UN has a press group that summarizes the many sessions that happen at the sprawling UN and its many agencies. It selects what items to cover, which people to highlight and the quotes to cover in the stories.

In an organization which is littered with Israel-bashers, the UN Media Centre takes the hate to yet another level. It edits quotes from people that appear sympathetic to Israel and magnifies injuries by Palestinian Arabs. That is not a recipe for fairness or to advance peace. It is a form of incitement itself.

5. Clarity: No Hamas in the Palestinian Government; Stand with Israel

In addition to fixing the anti-Israel bias that is structurally part of the UN, Antonio Guterres should make his own opinions about the Israeli-Arab relationship known.

Outgoing UNSG Ban Ki Moon often stated that he stood with Gaza, and encouraged Hamas to become part of a Palestinian Authority unity government. It was disgusting and disgraceful to every Israeli and civilized person to watch the head of the UN promote a vile anti-Semitic terrorist group that openly calls for killing Jews and destroying Israel. The sentiment was aggravated by Ban Ki Moon’s never stating that he stood with Israel in its fight against terrorism.

Mr. Guterres should be clear that he supports Israel and every country’s fight against terror. He must be clear that there is no room for Hamas in any conversation whatsoever, until it replaces its charter and states that it seeks peace with Israel.

 

The United States had historically been the best and biggest ally of Israel, while the United Nations abused the Jewish State as if the organization was the reincarnation of the Spanish Inquisition. Obama left his legacy as a horrific foreign policy president, as he threw his lot in with the real bucket of deplorables.

With the five steps outlined above for both the US and UN, the relationship with Israel can be reset, and the cause of peace in the region advanced.


Related First.One.Through articles:

The Legal Israeli Settlements

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton’s Foreign Policy on Israel is like the United Nations

The Israeli Peace Process versus the Palestinian Divorce Proceedings

The Cancer in the Arab-Israeli Conflict

The Only Precondition for MidEast Peace Talks

J Street: Going Bigger and Bolder than BDS

Failures of the Obama Doctrine and the Obama Rationale

My Terrorism

The United Nations Audit of Israel

The United Nations “Provocation”

Obama’s “Palestinian Land”

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through  Israel Analysis

Ban Ki Moon Understands Why People Kill Israelis

On December 19, 2016, a Turkish policeman assassinated the Russian Ambassador to Turkey. The killer loudly proclaimed in front of rolling cameras that he did so because of the killings happening in Syria in the civil war that has claimed 500,000 lives. He called out the city of Aleppo, which was under siege by the Syrian Assad regime with the assistance of Russia.

russian-ambassador-killed

The murder of Russian diplomat Andrey Karlov in Ankara.
(Photo: REUTERS)

The United Nations outgoing Secretary General Ban Ki Moon condemned the assassination.  His comment implied that there was no basis for the attack.

“The Secretary-General is appalled by this senseless act of terror and emphasizes that there can be no justification for the targeting of diplomatic personnel and civilians.”

Did Ban Ki Moon not watch the video or read the transcript of why the murderer committed the act? Did he not appreciate Russia’s role in the massacre in Aleppo? Or did he feel that the murder of a Russian diplomat had nothing to do with alleviating the suffering of the Syrian people?

By way of comparison, consider how Ban Ki Moon discussed the Palestinian Arab terrorism against Israelis in 2014.  He said:

“We must address these underlying issues – including mutual recognition, occupation, despair and the denial of dignity — so people do not feel they have to resort to violence as a means of expressing their grievances.”

When it came to the murder of Israeli civilians, the UNSG seemed to sympathize with the Palestinian Arab murderers. He did not speak of “senseless acts of terror,” but of the “underlying issues” behind the attacks.  He did not say that there was “no justification” for the murder of innocents, but that the killings were a natural means of “expressing their grievances.”

As discussed in “The United Nations’ Adoption of Palestinians, Enables It to Only Find Fault With Israel,” the United Nations was established as a forum for countries to engage with each other. However, the UN actively advocates for the Palestinian Arabs, as it considers that the UN itself as the guardians of these stateless wards. As such, it views all attacks against Israeli civilians – including children – through a unique lens of empathy and support for the Palestinian Arab narrative.

While more Syrians have been killed in the year 2016 than the combined total of all Palestinian Arabs, Egyptians, Jordanians, Lebanese and Syrians in every war with Israel since 1948, the UN cannot comprehend the grievances of Syrians or why they might “resort to violence.”

While at the same time, no murder of Israelis can ever be “senseless” for the United Nations.


Related First.One.Through articles:

The Palestinians aren’t “Resorting to Violence”; They are Murdering and Waging War

Ban Ki Moon Has No Solidarity with Israel

Ban Ki Moon Stands with Gaza

The United Nation’s Ban Ki Moon is Unqualified to Discuss the Question of Palestine

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through  Israel Analysis

Ban Ki Moon Defecates on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

One of the basic laws established on December 10, 1948 in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was the ability to change one’s religion. Yet apostasy – converting from Islam – remains a capital offense in various countries including: Afghanistan; Brunei; Mauritania; Qatar; Saudi Arabia; Sudan; United Arab Emirates; and Yemen.

So how did the outgoing Secretary General of the United Nations choose to recognize the basic rights of people? He rewarded one of those countries with a “humanitarian” post.

On December 8, 2016 – two days before the anniversary of the UDHR – Ban Ki Moon announced that Ahmed Al Meraikhi of Qatar would be his Humanitarian Envoy.  The press release included the role of that position:

“The Humanitarian Envoy will ensure stronger linkages between the United Nations and decision makers in Qatar and the broader region.  His overall objective will focus on supporting multilateral humanitarian response efforts by raising the profile of humanitarian crises with Governments and non-governmental organizations and increasing their engagement with the international humanitarian community.”

Imagine that a country that flagrantly defies the basic premise of human rights is awarded with a position by the same United Nations.

It underscores the current farce of the United Nations and its embarrassment to humanity.

ban-ki-moon-9-16
UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon


Related First.One.Through articles:

An Easy Boycott: Al Jazeera (Qatar)

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

The Holocaust and the Nakba

Goodbye Moon

The Termination Shock of Survivors

Elie Wiesel on Words

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