The Arab Spring is not about peace

If you read Hamas and Palestinian Authority (PA) news sites, you’ll get a snapshot of what the Arab Spring looks like. That picture is not pretty. It’s ugly.

There is no talk of peace on these Arab sites. There can’t be. The horror of daily life is too overwhelming.

With news stories such as you’re about to review, how can Arabs even think of peace? They can’t. They don’t.

The Arab Spring is not about peace. Look at Syria. The fighting in Syria is a front-page story for both Hamas and Fatah (PA). Palestinians suffer in Syrian Palestinian refugee camps. These ‘refugees’ originally came to these camps from the 1948 War in Israel. Some came to the camps as a direct result of fighting—fleeing gunfire. Some came because Jewish soldiers pushed them out of their homes during fighting. Some came because Arab leaders told them to flee—so Arab fighters wouldn’t harm them during fighting. Some, not refugees, became 'refugees' because the UN was distributing food.

Today, most of the original refugees have died. Now, millions of their descendants live like animals in camps managed by the United Nations as, essentially, Apartheid concentration camps in Arab countries for the benefit of the Arab war against Israel. Today, in Syria, they suffer horrifically—and Hamas and Fatah ignore their horror. Saudi Arabia and Qatar also ignore them.

The suffering ‘Palestinians’ in Syria are Muslim. But few Muslims care about them. These refugees are pawns in the war to destroy Israel (if you don’t understand how, you’ve got a lot of reading to do. You can start with From Time Immemorial, by Joan Peters; make sure you read the footnotes. They may be more important that the text).

In the Syrian Palestinian refugee camp called Yarmouk, Arabs starve to death. Dozens die each week. In one Fatah news story, only 18,000 refugees now remain in Yarmouk. Of that remaining 18,000, some 20,000 (according to the story) are now expected to starve to death (apparently, Arab editors aren’t big on arithmetic).

Many eat stray animals to stay alive. One survivor reports that he saw a man kill a stray dog to eat. But the dog had no meat on its bones. The dog was inedible.

Even the dogs starve.

Women resort to prostitution. It’s the only way they can raise money to buy food.

Reports appear on Hamas and PA sites that residents of Yarmouk are being starved by Assad forces for a reason. Assad wants the refugees to turn against the rebels.

Is that truth or propaganda? No one knows. No one cares.

The refugees don’t matter. They are only pawns.

There are more than a billion Muslims in the world. There are more than 330 million Muslims in the Middle East. Few help these Muslim refugees.

Fatah and Hamas leaders rule their followers with a totalitarian hand. Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar and Kuwait rule the same way. None of them offers more than a token of help—if that.

Arab leaders rule with an iron fist. They can do anything they want. But it appears that the one thing they do not want is to help starving Arab Muslim refugees.

This dictatorial neglect is part of the Arab reality. It’s part of the Arab Spring. It suggests that the Arab Spring is a lie. There can never be an Arab Spring because there is no life to revive. There is only brutality, arrogance, subjugation—and dictatorial neglect.

Perhaps that’s what the Arab Spring is all about—killing each other to see who gets to be (or remain) dictator. Certainly, that’s the Arab Spring in Syria.

In Ramallah, the ‘capitol’ of the PA, we see another aspect of Arab life, one that is also linked to the ‘camps’: rioting. As reported in PA news this week, clashes between PA Police and ‘youth’ broke out at an Arab ‘refugee’ camp. During a funeral, an Arab restaurant owner refused to shut his doors. Arab youth threatened to burn him down. Police moved in. Clashes spread.

There is no ‘peace’ in Hamas and Fatah news. There is too much death, starvation, rioting and brutality. There’s no room for ‘peace’.

The US says these Arabs are Israel’s peace partners. Don’t believe it.

Instead of peace, these Arabs write about the law of Stone Age survival: rule with brutality or be brutally ruled.

Syria proves that. So does Fatah. So does Hamas.

There is no room for peace in the Arab Spring. There is no peace. Too often, there are only starving dogs and women forced into prostitution.  

The EU and the US must have a good reason for ignoring these horrific realities. I wonder what that reason is.

Signs the Redemption is near?

It’s the end of the month again. That means it’s time to take another look at Redemption.



For years, the American magazine, Sports Illustrated, has run a weekly mini-report entitled, “Signs of the Apocalypse” (or something like that). It contains a one-or-two sentence announcement that features some weekly occurrence in the Sports world. Typically, it focuses on someone doing something really stupid. It highlights how incredibly awful highly-paid sports figures can be. Such behaviour by those we honour, the piece suggests, is surely a sign that our world must soon end.



Mostly, these incidents entertain.



That magazine comes from America. We live in Israel, which follows a different religious and spiritual orientation. So if someone in America thinks about Christian-inspired world Destruction, perhaps we can think about something different--a Jewish-inspired New-world Redemption.

Consider now some recent examples from the news that, in some way—humorous and not so humorous—suggest that the world might be preparing for something New. If you don’t see how these headlines might pre-sage a Jewish Redemption, that’s okay. That just means that your ‘Redemption training’ isn’t up-to-date.

 

For January 2014:



- TV ratings: NBC leads State of the Union night with 'Biggest Loser' (Los Angeles Times)

- College athletes take step toward forming union (Dayton Daily News)

- How to talk 'Noo Yawk' in 13 easy steps (New York Daily News)

- Joe Biden: ‘In my heart’ I could be president (New York Post)

- Man uses first-class plane ticket to eat free for a year(New York Post)

- John McDonogh High School official explains $1 million audit discrepancy (New Orleans Times-Picayune)

-Is the Pacific Ocean radioactive? You can help find out (Los Angeles Times) ------

January, 2014 has turned out to be a bonus month for Redemption-followers. Here, the Truth has prevailed. In New Orleans, for example, someone accused local school officials of fiscal mismanagement—or worse. Seems that an audit revealed a million–dollar discrepancy between audit results and a recent budget filed by a local school. Accusations found their way into the media. It got messy, as school politics often get when they hit the papers. Then it was discovered that that discrepancy wasn’t fraudulent. The news story above (“John McDonogh High School official explains $1 million audit discrepancy”) wasn’t clear, but it seems that the million-dollar problem came from how the school had handled one budget item in their budget. It was an accounting issue, not a fraud issue. As one school official said, " any imputation of mismanagement was unsubstantiated and, frankly, untrue." Wow. If truth can be so easily revealed, perhaps the Redemption has indeed begun—or is nearer than we think. Is that possible? In another story, we got a look at how Redemption might look at US President Barack Obama. Many feel that today’s US President is anti-Jewish. Some non-Jews feel he is anti-truth. Which is it? Anti-Israel, anti-Truth, both—or neither? Now, The Los Angeles Times tells us how a majority of 330+ million Americans feel about their leader (“TV ratings: NBC leads State of the Union night with 'Biggest Loser'”). Well, okay, so the Biggest Loser isn’t the US President. It’s a TV show. But it sure looked that way for a second. For some, that’s a disappointment. Does their disappointment mean that Redemption isn’t coming as fast as we thought? Maybe not. College athletes have been trying for decades (not years) to protect whatever collective rights they have. People have whispered that college athletes are foolish to fight for something so impossible; they’ll have to wait for Redemption before they’ll get any rights. Now we learn they’re actually taking steps to form a union. (“College athletes take step toward forming union”). Does this mean Redemption has come? Maybe not. US Vice President Joe Biden thinks in his heart he can be President (“Joe Biden: In my heart I could be president”). That’s another conflicting signal. For some, Biden as US President is surely a sign that a New World Order has come. For others, it’s a certain sign that Hell has frozen over. Score so far: Redemption--2, Hell—2.

Look around. Our future beckons. The world reveals hints. It’s up to us to understand what we see.

For example, there is a reference in Jewish Heritage that, when the Redemption draws near, a man will have trouble finding a fish to eat. Well, if the Pacific goes radioactive, you gonna eat fish (“Is the Pacific Ocean radioactive?”)?

Don’t think so.

Then, there’s the belief that, when Redemption comes, we will all have enough to eat. That means you won’t have to worry you don’t have enough money for food.

Today, we discover that a man has used a single airline ticket to eat free for a whole year (“Man uses first-class plane ticket to eat free for a year”). That may not sound like Redemption is here, but before you draw that conclusion maybe you should telephone the guy and ask him how it’s been to eat free for a whole year!

Naturally, it’s possible that all these headlines are meaningless. The prospect of radioactive fish may be nothing more than a boon for the egg industry. These news stories may have nothing to do with the Jewish Redemption. Perhaps they simply prove that nothing changes—except our perception of Redemption.

But then we see odd headlines. For example, we read about Noo Yawk—and how to tawk like a Noo Yawker (“How to talk 'Noo Yawk' in 13 easy steps”).

You tink dat’s meaningless? Fuhgeddaboudit!

Yes, a world of foolishness envelopes us. January ends just as it began—with enough news to give us all a headache.

But then, there’s tomorrow: does February’s rebirth mean that something New is before us?

Until the end of February, here’s some wise advice from a Noo Yawka: our new [City] traffic lanes are designed so that if you get out of a car on the left, you’ll get run down by a bike, and if get out on the right you’ll get run down by a car. Take the damned subway, OK?

From Noo Yawk, that’s the Truth!

John Kerry and Moshiach? Closer than you think

Two weeks ago, Israel Defense Minister Moshe Yaalon set off a twenty-four hour fire-storm with a single remark. He called  US Secretary of State John Kerry ‘obsessive’--and ‘messianic’ (“Yaalon criticized for reportedly calling Kerry ‘obsessive, messianic’”, Jerusalem Post, January 14, 2014).

The remark was supposedly a reference to how Kerry has managed current Arab-Israel peace negotiations. The remark was part of a private conversation. It was not meant for publication. It was certainly far less offensive than the ‘Netanyahu’s a liar’ comment from another private conversation, this one between the then-President of France Nicolas Sarkozy and US President Barack Obama, in November, 2011.

Do you remember that incident?

That 2011 conversation between two heads-of-state was not reported by an overly-aggressive newspaper or by someone who violated an understanding of what was ‘private’ (as might have been the case with the Yaalon comment). That 2011 comment became public because a microphone between the two men (or close to them) had not been turned off. Sarkozy told Obama, "I cannot bear Netanyahu. He's a liar”.

Obama didn’t just listen. He joined the insult. Not realizing that the microphone was still ‘live’, he responded to Sarkozy, “You're fed up with him. But I have to deal with him even more often than you" (“Sarkozy tells Obama Netanyahu is a "liar", Reuters News Service, November 8, 2011).

The White House refused even to discuss the matter. Obama did later acknowledge the incident. But he refused to comment on the disparaging remarks he and Sarkozy had exchanged (“Obama acknowledges gaffe over Netanyahu insult but refuses to elaborate”, Haaretz, November 14, 2011).

Israeli officials did not express ‘outrage’. They did not condemn the remarks.

Israel did not demand an apology. Obama did not volunteer to apologize. 

When American officials reacted to Yaalon’s remark, they clearly did not remember that whispered insult—or Obama’s refusal to apologize to the Israeli head-of-state. Perhaps they did remember—but didn’t care.

Instead, American officials expressed anger at Yaalon’s comment. They were shocked. They were outraged. They condemned it as ‘offensive’. They demanded an apology.

Next day, Yaalon apologized.  

How curious. The US President participates in an insult to the Israel Prime Minister and then does not apologize; but when an Israeli Defense Minister (not the head-of-state) describes the US Secretary of State (not the head-of-state) in a private remark, he so offends the Americans that an apology is necessary. Why?

Why do American officials condemn ‘messianic’? What part of ‘messianic’ don’t they like? More important, why should an Israeli official’s truly private remark stir such anger when the US President’s own insult is to be ignored?

Is this how a double standard works? The Jewish Tanach teaches that double standards are immoral (the same justice must be applied to all, evenly). Do the Americans act immorally by demanding an apology for an offense they refuse to apologize for?

The American response seemed unnaturally aggressive. Do Americans know something about the Jewish Redemption story they prefer to ignore? Why do they object with such passion when Jews use a word associated with, ‘Messiah’? Indeed, why does ‘messianic’ provoke the Americans to perform what might be an immoral act?

How curious.

Do you know the Jewish Redemption story? It’s a story of powerful nations counselling together to attack Jerusalem. It’s a story of the powerful seeking to strip Judaism’s Holy City from the Jews. It’s a story of Jew-haters conspiring to destroy what is Jewish.

It’s a story we hear today. It’s a story of an immoral—perhaps anti-moral—world attacking Israel. It’s the story of an Arab-Israel conflict managed by the EU and the US for the Arab’s benefit.

The Jewish Redemption story is today’s modern history. It’s the history of Arabs demanding Jerusalem—and the EU and the US assisting them. The ancient Jewish Redemption story is the tale of powerful enemies joining together to divide Jerusalem (at the very least) and to carve up the Holy Land for others.

The Jewish Redemption story is an ancient prediction of the machinations of Edom (the US and the EU, according to many) and Yishmael (the Arab) causing trouble for Israel. To see these machinations, read Zohar Va'era 32a, as quoted by breslev.co.il, March 4, 2013.

US Secretary of State John Kerry might not be ‘messianic’. He might not even be Jewish (he isn’t). But he might well be one of the major players on the international stage who helps to ‘throw the switch’ that starts the final act of the Jewish  Redemption.

In his own way, Kerry might be a lot closer to the Jewish Moshiach than we think. Yaalon’s comment might be prescient. It might suggest why the Americans (descendants of immoral Edom) reacted as they did. It might even suggest what the Arab-Israel conflict is all about.

Catherine Ashton cleanses Jews from Holocaust?

Catherine Ashton is considered by many to be one of the most important players on today’s world stage. She is Minister of Foreign Affairs for the European Union (EU). She is not the President of the EU. But she stands nonetheless in the main spotlight—at center-stage.

The EU does not have the power or the military capability of Obama’s America or Putin’s Russia. The EU is big—on paper.  Catherine Ashton is bigger than that paper. On some says, she seems bigger than the EU.

Around the world, she has name recognition. Many outside Europe consider her to be a major voice in Arab-Israel ‘peace’ efforts. People know who she is.

By contrast, how many outside Europe know the name of the President of the European Council? The President of the European Council is often referred to as the ‘President of the EU’. Do you know his name?

You may never have heard of Herman Van Rompuy. He will be President of the European Council until November 30, 2014.

Van Rompuy’s name may draw a blank. But people recognize Ashton’s name. They have seen her picture often enough to recognize her face. That recognition gives her visibility. That visibility gives her power.

She uses that power to support the Palestinian demand for a new state. She uses her power to accuse Israel of refusing to ‘talk peace’ with those who want to destroy Israel. She uses that power to declare with her silence that she doesn’t care if Palestinian leadership demands that a war crime (ethnic cleansing) be committed in order to create their new state. She uses her power of silence to declare that she doesn’t care if Palestinian leadership threatens Israel.

Why should she care if Palestinian leadership threatens Israel? She threatens Israel herself.

She wants the Palestinians to get what they want. She threatens Israel to make sure they get it.

The Palestinians want a Jew-free state. Put another way, they want a racist, Apartheid state.

Ashton openly supports that goal. She is aggressive about her support. She has declared that if current Arab-Israel peace talks fail, she will be angry—at Israel.  If those talks fail, the EU will boycott Israel.

Ashton does not discuss what ‘punishment’ the Palestinian Authority (PA) will receive for failure. She indemnifies the PA against criticism.  

Now she reveals something new. She supports a form of Holocaust denial.  

According to a news report (“Ashton Omits Mention of Jews During Holocaust Day Speech,” January 28, 2014, Arutz Sheva), Ashton did not refer to Jews in a speech commemorating International Holocaust Remembrance Day. Instead of referring to Jewish victims (at this Jewish event), she referred to ‘victims of the Holocaust’.

 She deleted the Jews from the Holocaust. By that deletion, she denies the essence of the Holocaust, its Jew-hate.

Her statement said, ’we honour all those brutally killed during this darkest period of European history. We also especially would like to honour those acted with courage and self-sacrifice to protect their fellow citizens from persecution.’

These words may sound nice. But the truth is, this Jewish event is not about Europe. It’s not about ‘fellow citizens’.  Holocaust Remembrance is about Jews. It’s about Jew-hate. It’s about what happens when the early stages of official Jew-hate (such as we see in Palestinian leadership) is ignored. It’s about remembering how many Jews were murdered by pure hate—and thinking if only for a moment about making sure that such hate never again gains such power.

Ashton cleansed such thoughts from her speech. But to delete ‘Jews’ from a Holocaust Memorial speech is like deleting milk from a milkshake or the chicken from your chicken salad. It removes the meaning from the content. It denies the reality of the Holocaust. It denies the reality that ‘Holocaust’ got its name because of the horror done to Jews, not ‘fellow citizens.’  

Her omission cleanses the Holocaust of its Jews.

The Palestinians want to cleanse Jews, too. Does her omission tell us she is the Palestinian’s European kindred spirit?

Ashton’s omission suggests that she cannot bring herself to say the word, ‘Jew’ even in front of Jews. It suggests that her imbalanced support for the PA is more than an oversight. It suggests that her threat to punish only Jews if peace talks fail is no accident.

Her omission suggests she is an anti-Semite. Her refusal to use the word, ‘Jews’, for this occasion reminds one that, if something looks like a duck, walks like a duck and sounds like a duck, it’s a duck.

What are you , Catherine Ashton?

The EU boycott threat: it’s baseless fear-mongering

Israel has been threatened. Israel’s Left is terrified. Should we follow their lead?

The European Union (EU) has told Israel that if current peace talks fail, Israel will be blamed. The EU will implement a boycott against Israel. Israel’s Left is terrified that this boycott will motivate others to gather against Israel.

Therefore, the Left argues, we must make ‘peace’ immediately. Otherwise, boycotts will destroy us.

Israel’s Left believes three things about this threat. First, it is real. The EU has been threatening Israel for some time. The boycott has teeth. If talks fail, the boycott begins.  

The second thing Israel’s Left believes about this threat is that Israel cannot survive it. Israel’s economy depends on the EU. The EU does so much business with Israel (more than 29 billion dollars annually) that a boycott will destroy Israel’s economy.

The third thing Israel’s Left believes about this boycott is that the only way Israel can avoid it is to surrender to Abbas. Give Abbas what he wants, it says, and Israel will survive; otherwise, we’re doomed.

For these reasons, Israel’s Left demands peace. It is terrified by the boycott threat. Citing a Times of Israel article, William Jacobson has written how desperately Tzipi Livni fears this threat (legalinsurrectionblog, “Tzipi Livni’s Boycott panic is a dead-end because it presumes the alternative is peace”, January 26, 2014). Like all who are controlled by their fears, Livni sees one frightening thing and imagines a million more: Jacobson (above) quotes Livni as saying that peace is the only wall that separates Israel from a wave of International boycotts.

But Livni’s fear—and the hysteria of her Leftist peers—is baseless. It’s baseless for three reasons.

First, the threat is not as real as it seems. While many at EU headquarters may want a boycott, their boycott is no boycott (“The E.U.’s New Guidelines on Israel Are Not a Boycott”, The New York Times, July 19, 2014). It does not affect trade. It applies only to official EU-sanctioned activities. It does not apply to the 28 member-states of the EU—or to corporations within those states.

According to the New York Times (above), this boycott will have only minor impact on Israel-EU trade. Some projects and contracts will be cancelled. But the boycott is more symbolic than real.

The wave of boycotts that the Left fears is not a guaranteed event. But even if it happens, it will not be a tsunami.

In Europe, many companies do business with Israel knowing full well the political pressures Israel faces on the international stage.  Many do not entirely accept the ‘Palestinian’ narrative of victimhood (see, “The EU's "covert" boycott of Israel starts to kick in”, the Commentator, 11 January, 2014). They do business with Israel because of technology and quality-of-product. Many will not alter those values.

European countries maintain science and technology ties with Israel. They have a desire to continue those ties. There is too much competition in the world to do otherwise. Israel is too important a source for world-class science and technology for European countries to boycott.

That so-called terrifying wave of international boycotts will come mainly from non-European countries, some of whom do little or no trade with Israel. The impact on Israel could be unimpressive.

Meanwhile, China has expressed no interest in a boycott (see the Commentator, above). China—along with India and Russia--could be delighted to buy the goods and technologies others boycott.

The boycott threat is more symbol than real. The Left, so terrified because a boycott means rejection, can’t see this distinction because its nightmare of rejection transforms every threat into disaster.

 If the feared wave of boycotts is modelled after the EU approach, the boycotts would be ‘boycott’ in name only. Livni’s fears will have been baseless.

Third, surrender to Abbas is not the only way to survive. Because PA officials promote their hate so aggressively, Prime Minister Netanyahu can make a strong case that peace talks fail because of that hate.

For example, just this morning (January 27, 2014), PA Chief negotiator Saeb Erekat reiterated that there will be no Jews in the new ‘Palestine’ (“Erekat: There Will be No 'Settlers' in 'Palestine', Arutz Sheva, January 27, 2014).Netanyahu’s reaction was immediate—and suggestive: he called the PA’s ‘Juden-rein’ proposition, ethnic cleansing (“Israeli Official: Palestine Should Allow Settlers”, The New York Times, January 26, 2014).

Netanyahu must be aggressive: the PA case for statehood demands that the UN sanctions a war crime called, ethnic cleansing.

Netanyahu must also argue that ethnic cleansing is racist because ‘Jew-free’ makes a racist state. Racist states are Apartheid.  The PA demands a racist, Apartheid State.

That ‘wave’ of international boycotts is not inevitable. Boycotts with teeth are not inevitable.

Israel’s Left is wrong. They base their case on fear, not peace.  

Never follow those who are terrified.

 

 

 

Peace: if America and Europe loved Israel

You can tell that American and European officials are Christian. They love to talk about peace. They love to talk about love. They love to talk about loving peace.

It must be a Christian thing.

You can tell something else about American and European officials who love talking about peace. They don’t love Israel. The so-called ‘peace’ they now seek for Israel is not peace. It’s just another tactic in the Muslim war against Israel.

We know that the current peace effort is just another part of that war because Abbas has never announced that statehood is the next step in his fight for peace. But he has announced that it is his next step in his war against Israel.

Hamas officials—the silent partners in these talks—echo Abbas. Hamas doesn’t want peace with Israel. It wants war against Israel.

It’s a Muslim thing. Muslims aren’t interested in love. They don’t talk about peace. Instead, they talk about destroying Israel.

If American and European officials loved Israel, they’d ask Muslims why they call for Jihad in Jerusalem (“PA Minister: Jihad Should be Directed at Jerusalem, Not Syria” Arutz Sheva, January 22, 2014). They’d tell the Muslim, if you want to kill Jews, why should we help you? They’d say, if you try to kill Jews, we will treat you as a war criminal, not a peace partner.

If American and European officials loved Israel, they’d ask Mahmoud Abbas why does your Fatah Party Logo show your new ‘Palestine’ replacing Israel on the map? They’d tell Abbas, we do not help people who seek to erase from the world an existing sovereign nation. They’d say, we do not support war mongers.

If American and European loved Israel, they’d tell Abbas that he has not yet met one of the most important criteria for statehood: a monopoly on the use of force. As others have already pointed out, a monopoly on the use of force is a hallmark of sovereignty—and Abbas has not yet fully disarmed Hamas, nor has he succeeded in nationalizing the militias of the myriad other Palestinian groups that have sworn themselves to Israel’s destruction (see “Why Israel Should Support Palestinian Statehood: a Reply to Mahmoud Abbas,” Conflict and Collaboration, Miriam F Elman, May 23, 2011). They’d tell Abbas, we won’t support you until you can fully control Hamas and your anti-Israel militias.

If American and European officials loved Israel, they’d ask Hamas and Fatah, where on your news sites are there stories promoting peace with Israel? They’d ask, why aren’t you talking to your people about peace?  They’d tell Muslims, if we don’t see you building  a mandate for peace, we will not help you.

If American and European officials loved Israel, they’d ask Muslims, when will you accept Israel as the Jewish State? They’d say, you want Israel to recognize you. Why, then, won’t you recognize Israel?

If American and European officials loved Israel, they’d ask Muslims, where is peace?  They’d say, your officials act and talk as if peace is dead. We don’t talk to people who treat peace that way.

Perhaps American and European behaviour is a Christian thing. Perhaps these Christian officials understand too well how a religion could turn against Israel and scheme to replace Israel. Perhaps these Christian officials are sympathetic to the Muslim ‘replacement theology’ Muslims so aggressively aim at Israel.

Perhaps American and European officials don’t love peace with Israel as much as they say they do. Perhaps their actions don’t support their words. Perhaps ‘peace’ isn’t on their agenda, after all.

Shimon Peres is President of the Jewish State

This week’s news from Israel revealed that Israel President Shimon Peres has been arguing in private against Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Now, Peres’ private comments have found their way into the public domain: his conflict with Netanyahu is now public.

First, a news report claimed that Peres believes Israel doesn’t have to be ‘Jewish’ to sign a peace deal with the Palestinian Authority (PA) (“Peres: PA Recognition of Jewish State 'Unnecessary'”, Arutz Sheva, January 22, 2014). He is reported to have felt this way for some time.  

Then a follow-up report appeared to intensify Peres’ criticism of Netanyahu. It re-formulated Peres’ comments as saying that “Netanyahu was ‘stubbornly’ making ‘unnecessary’ demands that were impeding the peace process” (“Likud Ministers: Peres 'Shooting His Mouth Off Again'”, Arutz Sheva, January 23, 2014).

Mr Netanyahu, meanwhile, has said that he will sign no peace deal unless the PA accepts Israel as a ‘Jewish’ state. As if to explain Netanyahu’s position, Minister of Strategic Affairs Yuval Steinitz (Likud) has said that “all negotiations for peace begin with mutual recognition (ibid)”.  

Steinitz makes an interesting point: the PA demands emphatically that Israel recognize the PA as an independent Arab state; Israel cannot therefore demand to be recognized as a. Jewish state?

The PA rejects this recognition. Yes, it demands recognition for itself. But it refuses Israel its recognition.

This is not the behaviour of a ‘peace partner’. It is the behaviour of an unrepentant enemy.

Peres is wrong to suggest that demanding recognition for a ‘Jewish’ Israel is bad for peace. In fact, such recognition is crucial if Israel is to survive as the world’s home for Jews.

Look at recent Arab announcements and declarations. As you’ll see in a moment, if Israel does not demand a ‘Jewish’ recognition, then all that Jews cherish in Israel will disappear.  That’s not peace. It’s surrender. Actually, it’s defeat.

We learn all of this from a single headline, one that reveals the Arab aim for our Israel. This headline appeared the day before Peres was quoted as saying Israel’s being Jewish was unnecessary. The headline read, “Islamic Waqf Revises History: 'Temple Mount, Kotel are Muslim'”, Arutz Sheva, January 21, 2014). The story behind the headline told us exactly how the Waqf—the Muslim administrator of the Temple Mount—sees Israel, Jews and Judaism. It also explained why ‘Jewish’ is necessary for Israel to survive. 

As you may know, the Temple Mount is Judaism’s holiest site. The Jordanians (who officially control the Waqf) have signed a Peace Treaty (1993) with Israel to guarantee access and freedom of worship to all holy sites in Israel, to all religions. The Waqf rejects this commitment. The Waqf works actively to undermine all Jewish connection to the Temple Mount—and to other Jewish religious sites in Israel.

The Arutz Sheva article above reported that the Waqf has been distributing a pamphlet to visitors on the Temple Mount. The pamphlet denies that the Jewish King Solomon built a Jewish Temple on the Mount. Instead, the pamphlet calls Solomon, ‘another prophet of Islam’—even though the Jewish Solomon lived more than 1,600 years before Islam began.

The claim that Solomon was Muslim is repeated in the pamphlet.

The Palestinian Authority (PA) has stated repeatedly that the Kotel (the Western Wall) is not Jewish and has never been Jewish (see “Palestinian Authority Denies Jewish Right to Western Wall, Arutz Sheva, August, 8, 2013). Jordan and the Waqf, meanwhile, have repeatedly sought to deny Jews access to the Temple Mount (see “Report: Jordan vetoes Israeli request to allow Jewish prayer on Temple Mount”, Jerusalem Post, November 12, 2013; “Islamic Movement Leader: Temple Mount for Muslims Only”, Arutz Sheva, December 8, 2013).

Muslims have also worked aggressively to deny Jerusalem is Jewish (see “Mufti: Jerusalem is 'Islamic”, Arutz Sheva, November 12, 2013).

In addition, the Waqf has been caught repeatedly trying to destroy Jewish archaeological sites on the Mount (a crime in Israel). The Waqf has been also been caught doing illegal construction on the Mount (changing a Holy site without specific, written permission is illegal in Israel—see, for example, “Exposed: Waqf Illegally Drilling on Temple Mount”, Arutz Sheva, January 8, 2014).

The Arab war against Jerusalem and Israel’s Holy sites is aggressive and on-going. Peres ignores these efforts to erase all that is Jewish in Israel. His suggestion gives the Arab the opening he needs to deny all that is Jewish. His suggestion has nothing to do with peace—but everything to do with destroying Jewish Israel.

The Arab waits for us to put aside our identity as a Jewish State.  So far as the Arab is concerned, the moment we agree that Israel does not have to be recognized as ‘Jewish’ is the moment that the Islamicization of Israel begins. Why in the world would we want to facilitate that?

Peres may not feel very Jewish himself. He is entitled to feel that way. But he is still the President of the Jewish State. He should put aside his personal feelings. His should put aside his personal agenda.   

Mr Peres, you represent the State of Israel.  When your sworn enemy tries to erase all that is Jewish from your nation, you shouldn’t go around saying that ‘Jewish’ isn’t necessary.

Mr Peres, you are President of our Jewish State. If you do not stand up to fight for Israel to be Jewish, the Arab will make sure we become Muslim.

Mr Peres, if your conscience tells you that you cannot stand up to fight for the Jewish State to be Jewish, then you are obviously no longer qualified to be President of the Jewish State. You should resign.

 

 

Yitzchak Herzog’s peace: guts, Netanyahu--and pigs

Israel’s opposition leader and Labour Party head Yitzchak Herzog continues his battle to get Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu  to sign a peace  deal with the Palestinian Authority (PA) (“Labor chief doubts Netanyahu’s ‘guts’ in peace talks”, 01/21/14, Times of Israel). Apparently, Herzog has given up arguing a rational case. For this Times of Israel article, Herzog adopts a new approach: he gets personal. He wonders aloud if Netanyahu ‘has the guts’ to make peace with the ‘Palestinians.’

Herzog is wrong. He doesn’t understand courage.

It does not take ‘guts’ to cave in to pressure from an 800-pound gorilla (the US). It does not take ‘guts’ to yield before threats of a massive boycott (from the European Union). ‘Courage’ is not what motivates you when you want ‘peace’ because you fear you will be ‘isolated on steroids’ (at the United Nations). In fact, caving into pressure and yielding to threats have never been called, ‘having guts’.

Such behaviours have another name: cowardice.

Why does Herzog twist the definition of cowardice into ‘guts’?

Put another way, why is Herzog trying to put lipstick (guts) onto a pig (cowardice)?

You can call caving in and yielding to threats ‘guts’ all day long. But most of us learned long ago that when you put lipstick on a pig, you still end up with a pig.

As every Jew knows, pigs aren’t kosher. What’s Herzog doing?

Herzog’s using a personal attack (to question Netanyahu’s ‘guts’) is interesting. The use of an ad hominum argument (dropping the subject of discussion to begin a personal attack on your opponent) often suggests failure—of the attacker.  In formal debate, the goal is to present the best factual case—to make the most compelling argument. The personal-attack tactic often comes into play when a debater knows he is losing. A personal attack is designed to panic an opponent into forgetting the debate topic in order to defend himself. 

A skilled debater can start a personal attack, then revert to the subject. He will score points for returning to topic. But if his attack is successful, his opponent, now flustered, will lose points because he cannot remain focused.

It’s a ‘dirty trick.’ But it’s legal (I think). If you want a crude example of how this tactic works, try an experiment the next time you’re arguing with someone over politics, sports or religion: in the most heated moment, shout, ‘you’re an idiot!’

Watch how your ‘opponent’ reacts. He will probably not stay on topic.

(Be careful how you use this tactic. You don’t want to lose a friend).

When you read the article above, you notice that Herzog doesn’t argue that peace will be good for Israel. He doesn’t support his case for peace with examples of positive peace dividends (a non-boycott is not a positive peace dividend; it’s a sword held to your neck to sign-or-else which will remain nearby after you sign). Instead, Herzog gets personal: he questions Netanyahu’s ‘guts’.

Calling cowardice ‘guts’ is not a rational proposition. It makes no sense. Does becoming non-sensicle suggest that Herzog’s entire ‘peace’ argument is nonsense?

You tell me.

There is a second concern with this interview. This Times of Israel article is not the result of a Herzog speech. It is not the result of an interview with Israeli journalists. It was the result of a Herzog interview with foreign journalists.

In addition, this article was not written by a staff member of the Times of Israel. It is a story from the Associated Press (AP) that happens to have been printed by the Times of Israel for its audience; news vendors often do this to show what others say about topics of interest.

It’s a fair and accepted practice, especially, we note, when the Times of Israel clearly identified the story as coming from the AP.

The concern is, the world press does not typically support Israel. The AP does not typically print stories that present Israel in a positive light. Many in the world already see Israel as a brutal occupier—illegal, inhumane, criminal. Now, the AP gets to showcase to its world clients (the outlets to which it sells its stories) the voice of a prominent Israeli politician suggesting that this brutal, inhumane nation may indeed be led by someone who doesn’t have the guts to sign for peace.

Herzog’s words hurt Israel. Worse, his words help Israel’s enemies. Through this interview, Herzog gives Israel-haters a new word to use in their attacks: coward.  

That’s not working for ‘peace’. That’s empowering Israel’s enemies.

Whose side is Herzog on?

 

Canada’s Prime Minister teaches Israel: defend yourself!

On Monday, January 20, 2014, Canada’s Prime Minister Stephen Harper spoke to Israel’s Knesset. We can see from the speech that, clearly, he supports Israel. He believes in Israel. He is not afraid to defend Israel.

He is not ashamed to praise Israel.

Except for two Arab MK’s who hate Israel—and who stomped out in protest during Harper’s pro-Israel speech--the Knesset responded warmly--perhaps even enthusiastically-- to Harper’s words. His support was a welcome change from the scolding Israel has become accustomed to receiving from foreign leaders.

Harper challenges us. His spirited support reminds us that we should defend ourselves. We shouldn’t have to rely on others.

If we do not defend ourselves vigorously, who will? Our so-called ‘peace partners’ won’t. They attack us without mercy.

If we do not defend ourselves today, how many Harpers will Israel need tomorrow? If we do not defend ourselves now, how long with Canada’s Prime Minister be willing to stick out his neck for us?

The more silent we are in the face of Arab attacks, the more aggressive the Arab will become; and the more aggressive the Arab, the stronger will be the support he gets from those who ennoble him. The more ennobled the Arab becomes, the more wicked and guilty we become.

That’s how life works for Jews: when our enemy ascends, we decline. When our enemy grows strong, we grow weak.

We stop the enemy’s ascent by defending ourselves. We become strong by fighting back.

Everybody loves the ‘comeback kid.’ Nobody loves a coward.

We control our Destiny. When we speak out, we influence our friends.  A vigorous defense will strengthen our friends’ resolve. Silence will weaken that resolve.   

If we remain silent we will become isolated, sanctioned and demonized.  We will be isolated because our silence will fuel our enemy’s aggression. We will be sanctioned because our silence will confirm our guilt. We will be demonized because our silence will validate the accusations that we are demonic.

Silence will kill us. Prime Minister Harper’s vocal defense  pushes us to confront who we are. Are we Jews who belong on this land or are we guilty as charged?

Many say, we are guilty. They say we don’t belong in the Middle East. They say we are European—and have only come here because we could. They say it is time for us to leave—and any defense we give for our presence here is offensive and vulgar, even illegal.

We should ignore those voices. Those who argue this way have no knowledge of history. They have no idea what Zion is and what it means to Judaism.

The future of Israel does not lie with these voices. They are the voices of the anti-Israel. They promote the un-Israel. They seek the non-Israel.

Others say they believe in Israel. But they dare not speak out lest we offend the powerful. We should ignore these voices, too. They are the voices of cowardice—or worse.

Anyone in Israel who believes that attacks against Israel are so scurrilous they don’t deserve a response, is wrong. The entire world watches us. They listen to the Arab verbal assault—and wait for us to defend ourselves. They are hungry for truth.

But if we remain silent, our silence condemns us. Everyone knows that the wicked are silent in the face of Truth. If we answer every lie with silence, then the lie become the truth.

Our silence marks us as wicked. It tells the world that we are indeed as evil as the Arab says we are.

Look! The Arab calls us, ‘Apartheid’. What do we say to that? Nothing.

Look! The Arab calls us ‘occupier’. What do we say to that? Nothing.

Our silence is a confession: we appear guilty as charged.

Our Prime Minister’s Office should form a team similar to the cyberwar team that defends Israel against cyberwar attack. This new team should identify every anti-Israel attack from Europe, America, Abbas, Erekat and all other Fatah and Hamas officials.

After every attack, the team should pound out a vigorous response. Then, using the influence and attention-gathering power of the Prime Minister’s Office, the team should produce headline stories to attack the attackers.

For example, the next time Abbas says, ‘no Jews in Palestine’, the team should publish, ‘Abbas promises war crimes!’, ‘Abbas violates humanitarian law,’ ‘Abbas violates international law’ and ‘No state for war criminals.’

The world needs to see these defences. The world needs to see who is the liar, who promotes murder, who builds a case for statehood upon lies, misrepresentation and war crimes.

If we do not defend ourselves, who will?

 

 

Apartheid, hypocrisy and the Canadian Prime Minister

Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper is in Israel for an official state visit. Yesterday, he spoke to Israel's parliament—the Knesset. There, he declared that “any comparison between the Jewish state and apartheid South Africa was sickening".

It was not a passing reference. “Think about the twisted logic and outright malice,” he said. “It is nothing short of sickening…this is the face of the new anti-Semitism."

He spoke strongly in favour of Israel. But when he slammed those who called Israel, ‘Apartheid’, two Arab MKs heckled him, then walked out of the Knesset Chamber (“Harper: Support for Israel is morally and strategically right” Times of Israel, January 20, 2014). Reuters news service reported they had ‘stormed out’ (“Canadian PM draws applause and anger at Israeli parliament”, Reuters, January 20, 2014).

The message of these Arab MKs was clear: Israel is an Apartheid state. No self-respecting human would remain in the same room with any head-of-state who said otherwise.

It’s a harsh message. Apartheid is evil. Anyone who practices it should be denounced.

But these two elected Arab Members of the Israeli Knesset create a problem for anyone who calls Israel the ‘Apartheid State’. You see, if Israel is Apartheid, why are these two Arabs serving as elected Members of Knesset—the national parliament?

In an Apartheid state, disenfranchisement is the keystone that supports the entire structure.  Apartheid is racial segregation legislated into law. Law creates the Apartheid reality.  Disenfranchisement then protects that law because its victims can’t vote to change the law.

Therefore, the disenfranchised victims of Apartheid cannot vote. They cannot serve in a Parliament or Congress or Knesset. They have no voice. They have no power. They have no elected representation.

So if Israel is Apartheid, how can Arabs get elected to the Knesset? Ever think of that?

In Israel, Arabs who have become Israeli citizens have the right to vote. They have a voice. They have representation. They have the right to elect their own, Arab, Members of Knesset.

For that reason alone, Israel is not Apartheid.

It is pure hate that drives Arabs to call Israel, ‘Apartheid’.  Indeed, in the Middle East, Israel is the only State that does not practice Apartheid.

Apartheid is the rule in the Arab Middle East, not the exception. Jews know this because they are the main—but not the only—victim of Apartheid policies.

In the Arab Middle East, you will find one or more—or all—of the following Apartheid policies:  Jews cannot own land. Jews cannot vote. Jews cannot run for national office. Jews cannot serve in national parliament. Jews cannot be High Court Justices. Jews cannot get graduate degrees in local Universities. Jews cannot become Medical professionals.

In Israel, Israeli Arabs can do all of these things—all of them.

For these reasons, Israel is not Apartheid.

Every Arab in Israel who has travelled to an Arab country knows this. This is why, in poll after poll, Israeli Arabs indicate they prefer to stay in Israel over moving to an Arab country.

Writing for Stonegate Institute, Ramzi Abu Hadid ( “Apartheid State”, March 1, 2012) puts this preference a different way. He states that Arabs from Gaza and Bethlehem “have moved to live in Israel because they feel safer in the ‘Apartheid State’ than they do among their Muslim ‘brothers’”.

Israeli Arabs are not stupid. They know what real Apartheid looks like. They see it in every Arab regime they travel to. They understand that if they want to avoid that Apartheid, they should stay in Israel: they have more rights, freedom and safety in Israel-- and they know it.

Apartheid means not only the use of law to deny rights to a homogeneous group, it means also institutionalized denial and dehumanization of that group. Look at how South African laws isolated and denied blacks and black rights. Look at how South African media dehumanized blacks. Look at how important churches in South Africa demonized blacks.

Compare Arab institutionalized Jew-hate with an almost complete absence of dehumanization (of the Arab) in Israeli media and synagogue. The official Arab position in virtually every Arab regime is to incite against Jews and to dehumanize and demonize both Jews and Israel.

Israel has no such institutionalized Apartheid policy.

Every Western nation has the ability to google-search how Apartheid worked in South Africa—and to compare that with official Arab Jew-hate. Every nation has the ability to study how the regimes of Israel’s so-called ‘peace partners’, Hamas and Fatah, promote Apartheid policies towards both Jews and Arabs.

It is pure hypocrisy for nations to speak out against Apartheid—and then ignore Apartheid Arab policies. It is pure hypocrisy for nations to dismiss real, truly vicious Arab Apartheid policies in order to support ‘Apartheid’ accusations against Israel.  

Canada’s Prime Minister Harper is correct: such behaviour is not only sickening. It’s the new anti-Semitism.

What must the G-d of Israel think of those who enable and ennoble Apartheid Arab regimes?

Jerusalem, the Temple Mount, Muslims--and Benjamin Netanyahu

Jerusalem belongs to the Jewish people. It has been the Jewish national centrepiece for more than 3,000 years.

Almost 1,900 years ago, Jews were exiled from Israel, their national homeland. The flower of their nationhood—the Temple and the Temple Mount—lay in smouldering ruin. Jerusalem was levelled.

The Romans raped Israel. They ploughed under the Temple Mount.

By the year 135, the Roman conquest was complete. The Holy Temple disappeared.  Rome had wiped Israel off the map. They renamed Israel, ‘Palestina.’

The land was laid barren. Judaism was devastated. 

 For almost 1,900 years, Jews wandered. They were hunted. They were persecuted. They were driven away.

Always, someone had reason to kill Jews. Always, Jews died because they were Jews.

But if the Jewish homeland was destroyed, Jewish hearts were not. In each of those almost 1,900 years of exile, Jews prayed to return to their homeland.

Even Jews who were allowed to remain behind in Israel prayed. Every Jew prayed. They would not forget the flower of their life: Jerusalem, the home of the Temple Mount-- and the Holy Temple.

Jews everywhere prayed to return. They prayed more than three times a day—every day. They never stopped praying for their Holy city, their Zion—their Jerusalem. Millions of Jews individually prayed specifically for Jerusalem more than a thousand times a year. For 1,900 years, millions of Jews prayed millions of times for just one thing--Jerusalem.

The Jewish people prayed a million million times: in Heaven, the din must have been ear-splitting: Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Jerusalem. There was never relief from it. It never stopped. Because of time-zone differences, Jews prayed literally every hour of every day. Heaven got little rest.

It was always the same for the Heavenly Hosts. Jews in the lower world never gave up. It was always Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Jerusalem.

No one in history has prayed for a city the way Jews have prayed for their Holy Jerusalem. Today, Muslims tell the world that Jews must be forbidden to ascend to the Temple Mount. Muslims say the Temple Mount is holy to Muslims. Jews, they say, defile it.

Muslims say Jerusalem cannot be ‘judaicized’.

But Muslims don’t face Jerusalem to pray. They don’t face the Temple Mount the way Jews do. Muslims pray with their behinds facing Jerusalem. They turn their backs to the Temple Mount.

They say the Temple Mount is too holy for Jews to step upon. Then they send their children there to play soccer.

That’s what the Muslim thinks of the Temple Mount.

Yesterday, January 19, 2014, a Jewish woman in Jerusalem decided she wanted to ascend to the Temple Mount. In Israel, she is entitled to do that. But she couldn’t do it. She was refused entrance by Muslims officials. They told her that her dress did not meet Muslim standards.

As reported on Arutz Sheva (“Temple Mount: Jewish Woman Barred Over 'Muslim' Dress Code”, January 19, 2014), an Israeli police officer at the site explained to the woman that while her clothing was sufficiently modest under Jewish law (halacha), and while the Israel Police saw no problem with her attire, the authority to enforce dress codes belonged to the Islamic Waqf –not to Jews.

It had been an official representing the Muslim Waqf who had decided that the woman’s dress was not acceptable.  The Israeli police enforced his decision.

The Waqf (Muslim authority) wages war against Jews on the Temple Mount. It works to deny Jewish history on the Mount—and to deny Jews entry there.

But in 1993, Jordan and Israel signed a Treaty. In that Treaty both Jordan (which manages the Waqf) and Israel committed to provide freedom of access to all holy sites in Israel—and freedom of worship to all religions at those sites.

The Waqf violates that Treaty. Why does Israel tolerate that violation?

Here’s a suggestion: Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu should tell US Secretary of State John Kerry that if Jordan does not enforce its own Treaty with Israel, then Israel cannot even begin to consider a Treaty with Abbas, whose rhetoric and behaviour have always been far more hostile than Jordan’s.

If the less aggressive Jordan won’t abide by a Treaty with Israel, why should anyone believe that the far more hostile Abbas would?

It is disrespectful for the Waqf to stop Jews from visiting Judaism’s Holiest site. But it is absolutely unconscionable for the government of Israel to allow such blatant violation of a standing Treaty.

Mr Netanyahu, if you don’t show any respect for what is yours, no one else will. If you don’t defend what you have a right to defend, no one else will.

If you do not stand up for yourself, you will be isolated and delegitimized.

Mr Netanyahu, it’s time you stood up for Israel.