The two-state solution and the Jewish Tanach

Progressives everywhere want to see a two-state solution for the Arab-Israel conflict. The way they see it, both Israel and an Arab ‘Palestine’ will benefit from “two states living side-by-side in peace and security”. For them, the only road to peace is to create two states for two peoples on land currently held by Israel.

We’ve heard about this idea of “side-by-side in peace and security” from the US, the UN and the EU. We’ve heard it repeatedly. We continue to hear it. It’s Man’s mantra for peace between Muslim and Jew.

Progressives have been repeating some form of this ‘peace mantra’ for a long time—perhaps 23 years running (since the Oslo Accords), perhaps longer. Progressives have never wavered in their commitment to two states.

Progressives have been forever hopeful about peace between Israel and its Arab neighbours. But they have also been forever disappointed. Why?

Look at the progressive’s problem this way: if Man so wants peace in the Middle East, why hasn’t a ‘two-state solution’ happened? This isn’t rocket science. What’s the problem?

The simple answer is, neither party wants it. Neither Israel nor its Arab neighbours will agree to create two states.

According to conventional wisdom, Israel refuses to ‘let go’. It won’t surrender the land ‘Palestinians’ need to make their state. The ’Palestinians’, meanwhile, won’t accept anything less than ‘from the river to the sea’, a position that requires the destruction of the state of Israel before ‘Palestine’ can be born.

That’s the conventional wisdom. It’s perhaps the best explanation wise men on both sides can articulate once they put aside their usual made-for-TV propaganda declarations.

Of course, this conventional wisdom is wrong. We know it’s wrong because if it had been right, a solution to these problems would have been found long ago. After all, this isn’t rocket science.

For the Arab-Israel conflict, conventional wisdom is insufficient. Something more compelling than ‘conventional’ wisdom is needed.

Of course, the simple explanations of conventional wisdom do have some merit. They explain the intractability of the problem. But they’re not sufficient. They don’t explain the impossibility of the solution.

Beneath the simple but insufficient explanations of conventional wisdom there lies an even simpler explanation for the failure of the ‘two-state’ dream.  Israel Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon recently (unwittingly) hinted at this when he said that the Arab-Israel conflict might never be resolved (Kobi Finkler, “Ya'alon: The conflict might never be resolved”, Arutz Sheva, January 22, 2016).

There’s a very simple explanation for this failure. The problem is, no one wants to hear it.

The simplest reason the ‘two-state solution’ doesn’t work is that G-d doesn’t want it. How else can you explain why the best and brightest of Mankind fail so regularly—and so often--to bring peace to this region?

G-d isn’t new to Israel. Israel sits on a land where an intense belief in G-d has been an inescapable part of its political landscape for thousands of years. It’s a place where Man has fought over G-d almost since the beginning of recorded time.

This isn’t rocket science. It’s not difficult to understand.

Israel is G-d’s country. History confirms that. We ignore that fact at our peril.

If there’s one thing this Middle East conflict teaches, it’s that Man does not live by his self-image alone. Man does not control the world. Man does not control history. Man does not control Israel. Man is not G-d.

Progressives don’t understand that. They reject it. They think they know better than G-d.

Here’s a secret no one wants to acknowledge: G-d doesn’t want a progressive two-state solution for Israel. We know that because G-d has told us what He wants for Israel.

He tells us what He wants in the Tanach (the written Torah) and in the Talmud (the Oral Torah). It’s all there—almost every detail of His Grand Plan.

Those details start with G-d’s explicit Promises to His people for this land. Many of those Promises have already come true. Many more are on the verge of becoming true.

The truth is always simple. This Truth is simplest of all: HaShem, the G-d of Israel, follows a Blueprint He wrote down thousands of years ago--for all to see. That public Blueprint does not include any ‘two-state solution’.

That’s the simplest reason Man’s ‘two-state’ solution will never work. The Middle East isn’t about Man. It’s about G-d. It’s about G-dly Promises.

You might not want to hear this, but in the battle between Man and G-d, G-d wins. G-d is Supreme. Man is not.

Pick up your Tanach. Read it. Compare it to what you read in history. You’ll learn something about G-d in History.

Then, you’ll understand why the two state solution is doomed to fail.

The two-state solution and the Jewish Tanach

Progressives everywhere want to see a two-state solution for the Arab-Israel conflict. The way they see it, both Israel and an Arab ‘Palestine’ will benefit from “two states living side-by-side in peace and security”. For them, the only road to peace is to create two states for two peoples on land currently held by Israel.

We’ve heard about this idea of “side-by-side in peace and security” from the US, the UN and the EU. We’ve heard it repeatedly. We continue to hear it. It’s Man’s mantra for peace between Muslim and Jew.

Progressives have been repeating some form of this ‘peace mantra’ for a long time—perhaps 23 years running (since the Oslo Accords), perhaps longer. Progressives have never wavered in their commitment to two states.

Progressives have been forever hopeful about peace between Jew and Muslim. But they have also been forever disappointed. Why?

Look at the progressive’s problem this way: if Man so wants peace in the Middle East, why hasn’t a ‘two-state solution’ happened? This isn’t rocket science. What’s the problem?

The simple answer is, neither party wants it. Neither the Jews nor the Muslims will agree to create two states.

According to conventional wisdom, Israel refuses to ‘let go’. It won’t surrender the land ‘Palestinians’ need to make their state. The ’Palestinians’, meanwhile, won’t accept anything less than ‘from the river to the sea’, a position that requires the destruction of the state of Israel before ‘Palestine’ can be born.

That’s the conventional wisdom. It’s perhaps the best explanation wise men on both sides can articulate once they put aside their usual made-for-TV propaganda declarations.

Of course, this conventional wisdom is wrong. We know it’s wrong because if it had been right, a solution to these problems would have been found long ago. After all, this isn’t rocket science.

For the Arab-Israel conflict, conventional wisdom is insufficient. Something more compelling than ‘conventional’ wisdom is needed.

The simple explanations of conventional wisdom do have some merit. They explain the intractability of the problem. But they’re not sufficient. They don’t explain the impossibility of the solution.

Beneath the simple but insufficient explanations of conventional wisdom there lies an even simpler explanation for the failure of the ‘two-state’ dream.  Israel Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon recently (unwittingly) hinted at this when he said that the Arab-Israel conflict might never be resolved (Kobi Finkler, “Ya'alon: The conflict might never be resolved”, Arutz Sheva, January 22, 2016).

There’s a very simple explanation for this failure. The problem is, no one wants to hear it.

The simplest reason the ‘two-state solution’ doesn’t work is that G-d Himself doesn’t want it. How else can you explain why the best and brightest of Mankind fail so regularly—and so often--to bring peace to this region?

G-d isn’t new to Israel. Israel sits on a land where an intense belief in G-d has been an inescapable part of the political landscape for thousands of years. It’s a place where Man has fought over G-d almost since the beginning of recorded time.

This isn’t rocket science. It’s not difficult to understand.

Israel is G-d’s country. History confirms that. We ignore that fact at our peril.

If there’s one thing this Middle East conflict teaches, it’s that Man does not live by his self-image alone. Man does not control the world. Man does not control history. Man does not control Israel. Man is not G-d.

Progressives don’t understand that. They reject it. They think they know better than G-d.

Here’s a secret no one wants to acknowledge: G-d doesn’t want a progressive two-state solution for Israel. We know that because G-d has told us what He wants for Israel.

He tells us what He wants in the Tanach (the written Torah) and in the Talmud (the Oral Torah). It’s all there—almost every detail of His Grand Plan.

Those details start with G-d’s explicit Promises to His people for this land. Many of those Promises have already come true. Many more are on the verge of becoming true.

The truth is always simple. This Truth is simplest of all: HaShem, the G-d of Israel, follows a Blueprint He wrote down thousands of years ago--for all to see. That Blueprint does not include any ‘two-state solution’. 

That’s the simplest reason Man’s ‘two-state’ solution has failed. The Middle East isn’t about Man. It’s about G-d. It’s about G-dly Promises.

You might not want to hear this, but in the battle between Man and G-d, G-d wins. G-d is Supreme. Man is not.

Pick up your Tanach. Read it. Compare it to what you read in history. You’ll learn something about G-d in History.

Then, you’ll understand why the two state solution is doomed to fail.

Israel—and the descendants of Jacob and Edom

On January 7, 2016, Gregory III Laham, Patriarch of Antioch and All the East and leader of the Melkite Greek Catholic Church, gave an interview to the official Egyptian newspaper, Al-Ahram (“Melkite Patriarch Gregory III Laham: Christians Today Lack Faith That Muslims Are Willing To Cooperate With Them And Recognize The Other”, memri, Special Dispatch No 6270, January 20, 2016). In that interview, he spoke of the fate of Christian communities in the Arab world. Given the extent to which Christians have been persecuted in the Muslim world (see below), he should have had much to say about Christians in the Arab world.

But this Catholic Patriarch didn’t defend Christians. He didn’t criticize Muslims. He criticized Christians.

He declared that Christians in the Middle East have always stood up for Muslims. He said that Christians today lack faith that Muslims are willing to accept them and cooperate with them in a positive manner. He said, “These days I am in the midst of writing a letter to the presidents, kings, and emirs of the Arab and Muslim [countries] in order to say to them, in a letter from an Arab [Church] patriarch to the Muslims, that we love you” (ibid). He said, “We, the Arab Christians, always defend Islam and our Muslim brothers – no one defends Islam like the Arab Christians do.”

It’s a lovely sentiment. But it betrays Christians. For one observer, this extraordinary declaration of Christian support of Islam couldn’t have come at a better time (Robert Spencer, “Melkite Greek Catholic Patriarch: “No one defends Islam like Arab Christians”, frontpagemag, January 26, 2016). Lord knows, Spencer writes, Islam needs defending. Muslims have spent so much time killing Christians, driving them from their homes and destroying their churches, they truly need all the defenders they can find (ibid). 

For Spencer, this Christian defense of Islam is a betrayal and a travesty. It’s a betrayal because it betrays Christians into the hands of those who hate them. It's a travesty because siding with killers against their victims isn’t Christian charity (ibid). It's a moral perversion.

Israel is familiar with such Christian behavior. The Patriarch Gregory III isn’t the only Christian to embrace betrayal.

Christians and other minority groups are being murdered en masse in the Arab world (Dexter Van Zile, “Arab Christian leaders: Same old song and dance on Israel”, thecommentator, August 8, 2015). In 2013, one essay painted a picture of Christian slaughter (Dr. Guy Bechor, “Christian Cleansing from Arab Space: Please share the Hidden Truth”, facebook, December 29, 2013). The numbers were staggering: until the fall of Iraq’s Saddam Hussein, in 2003, there were 1.5 million Christians in Iraq. But ten years later, there were only 250,000 (ibid). That suggested that 1.25 million Christians had been murdered, forced to convert to Islam, or flee their homes (ibid).

In Syria, there were 1.75 million Christians in 2010. Over the next three years, 450,000 Christians fled (ibid). That adds up to more than 12,000 Christians fleeing every month. The situation for Arab Christians has become so horrific that the New York Times has asked, “Is this the end of Christianity in the Middle East?” (Eliza Griswold, July 22, 2015). Israel was not listed as the cause of this crisis. ISIS, Islam and Islamic butchery were the causes.

Nevertheless, the only time Arab Christian leaders appear to show passion is when they turn against Israel. In one instance, a conference of Christian leaders ignored the murder of Christians by Muslims (Van Zile, above). They chose instead to complain about the “continuing, expansive claims of Zionism”. They declared that the Middle East has been, “fragmented by the implant of the State of Israel into its heart” (Van Zile, ibid).

For these Arab Christian leaders, Islamic Jihad and Islamic anti-Christian hate require no attention. It’s Israel’s very existence that must be addressed (ibid).

Arab Christian leaders from across the Christian spectrum have fallen in love with those who seek to kill them. It’s shocking. The undeniable implication of Arab Christian political discourse is that the Middle East would be better off if Israel were destroyed (ibid)--when in reality Israel has become the Middle East Christians’ best friend.

   

Israel is the only place in the Middle East where Christians are safe (Dave Bender, “Arab-Israel priest to UN: Israel Only safe haven for Christians in Middle East”, algemeiner, September 23, 2014). Israel’s Christian population has more than quadrupled since its independence in 1948, from 34,000 to 158,000 in 2012 (ibid). Meanwhile, as you saw above, Christian communities in the Arab Muslim world are so harassed and persecuted their very survival is threatened.

The fact is, Christianity is dying in Syria and Iraq (Giulio Meotti, “Why all this Christian anti-Israel Hatred?”, Arutz Sheva, July 3, 2015). Christian churches are demolished, Christian crosses are burned and replaced with flags of the Islamic State (ibid). Christian houses are destroyed, entire Christian communities are displaced, Christian children are massacred, and everything is done in plain sight. Islamists proclaim on a daily basis that they will not stop until Christianity is wiped off the face of the earth (ibid).

Nevertheless, world Christian bodies refuse to denounce Islamic forces for the ethnic cleansing and genocide that Christians suffer (ibid).  Instead, Christians these days “are busy targeting the Israeli Jews” (ibid).

All of this adds up to a triple betrayal. A Catholic leader (the Patriarch, above) prefers to defend Islam, not Christians. Other Christian leaders (Van Zile, above) betray Israel, their only safe haven. Christian deliberative bodies betray both Christians and Israel (Meotti, above).

Israel will weather this betrayal. It always has. Arab Christians won’t. Islam will sweep them away.

This story is part of a Script written long ago. It’s the Script for the Final Jewish Redemption. In that Script, we see that the descendants of Jacob (Israel) will grow strong. The descendants of Edom (Christians) will suffer.

Stay tuned. 

ISIS essays just for you

Here's an essay most of you haven't seen. It's about an ISIS magazine. It's, Aaron MacLean, "I read the latest issue of the ISIS magazine so you don't have to," Washington Free Beacon, January 27, 2016. I have done light editing. Take a look:

I can’t recommend it for those who want to sleep soundly, but I spent a chunk of my snowed-in weekend [in the USA] perusing the latest issue of the Islamic State’s magazine, Dabiq. As others have aptly noted, what is most conspicuous about this release is what it doesn’t mention, considering the preoccupations of election season in America: not a single mention of Trump, nor a single mention of Guantanamo Bay. American liberals may believe these to be great boons to Jihadi recruiting, but the terrorists don’t seem to have received that memo.

As with past issues, a significant takeaway continues to be that this piece of propaganda is far from spittle-inflected or the product of obvious madmen. It has the production standard of a decent alumni magazine, prose that is disconcertingly near-literate, and analysis that is rooted in accurate readings of early Islamic sources—frequently woven together with pronouncements from figures like the late founder of ISIS, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi (killed in 2006 during a JSOC operation) which grants to the deceased murderer’s words an atmosphere of scriptural legitimacy.

Among the obsessions of this issue are the evils of the Shia, the misguided quality of other “jihad claimants” like al-Qaeda and the “nationalist Taliban,” and, of course, the success and continued expansion of ISIS around the globe, from California to “Khurasan.” As ever, the intellectual game is to fit the puzzle pieces of current events into the worldview and liturgical language of the 7th and 8th centuries A.D. (or, the 1st and 2nd centuries A.H., as Dabiq’s editors would prefer). When a contributor writes, “Just as the Roman Empire never fully fell, but merely adopted new names, the Safawiyyah [Safavids, i.e. Persians or Twelver Shia, roughly] thrive…” he is not trying to be cute, but casting contemporary players into preset roles in an world-historical battle between good and evil.

This appeal is having some success, as we see emphasized in the issue’s foreword, a paean in honor of Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik, the San Bernardino killers who appear to have pledged their allegiance to ISIS on Facebook during the attack. Noting a Quranic injunction directing husbands and wives to enjoin one another in proper religious conduct, and some sayings of Muhammad that praise husbands who wake their wives in the night to pray, and vice versa, the editors muse: “How much more deserving of Allah’s blessing are a husband and wife who march out together to fight the crusaders in defense of the Khilafah [Caliphate]!” The piece is illustrated with the revolting juxtaposition of a picture of the crib of Malik and Farook’s child (caption: “Syed and his wife did not hold back from fulfilling their obligation despite having a daughter to care for”) and a photograph of Syed lying face down in the street, hands tied behind his back, and quite dead (caption: “Syed Rizwan Farook after attaining shahadah [martyrdom]”).

And on it goes, for more than 50 sweaty, fetishistic—but nonetheless informative—pages. A detailed argument, again with extensive citation of early texts, about why clerics in service to the Saudi royal family must be murdered. A “know your enemy” historical feature on the aforementioned “Safawiyyah.” A round-up of military operations around the globe, which predictably emphasizes successes while soft-pedaling losses like Ramadi. A tribute to the departed Jihadi John, smoked late last year by a coalition drone, a death that was far better than he deserved. A women’s interest piece—often a good idea in publishing—on the finer points of proper conduct when your jihadi husband achieves martyrdom (“Ihdad [mourning] – according to the Shari’ah – is for the widow to stop adorning herself with jewelry, perfume, decorative clothing…”). An essay on the Quranic obligation to jihad. The cover story, a deep dive into the perfidious origins of Shi’ism—founded by a Jew!—the abject “perversion” of both al-Qaeda and the Taliban for failing to target Shia, and a rather involved discussion of whether Shia religionists are apostates or simply infidels from the very get-go. It’s a real think piece. Then some words from “the crusader Michael Morell,” presumably reprinted without permission. And an interview with Islamic State’s “wali,” or governor, for “Khurasan”—essentially Afghanistan and chunks of its neighbors.

It is fashionable both to declare that all of this is “un-Islamic”—as if it were for us to judge!—and that, in any event, organizations like ISIS don’t pose an “existential” threat to Americans—or to America at least, as plenty of Americans have indeed had their existences threatened or ended by adherents of some version of the preceding. But on 9/11, and many times since, we learned the hard way that a handful of properly indoctrinated terrorists on a shoestring budget can deal historic levels of death and havoc. For several years, people speculated about how much worse it could have been if the terrorists had used the resources of states—nuclear or biological or chemical weapons—instead of jetliners. This consideration was made with a view to dealing with al-Qaeda (which is still out there, by the way) an organization that was significantly less wealthy than ISIS is today.

--

My comment: ISIS is not only wealthy. It's got a leadership structure that's articulate, sophisticated and computer-savvy. 

We don't know how successful ISIS will be. We don't know how much damage they'll do. But we do know they're dangerous.

They know what their goals are. They know how to rationalize those goals. They know how to sell those goals sufficiently to attract new recruits. They know how transform their goals into action.

In other words, they are a formidable force. It would be unwise to underestimate their potential for evil.

It is inevitable that ISIS should attack America. America is the 'Big Satan'. Its 'day of evil' will come.

If you are Jewish, come home to Israel. Make aliyah. You'll be safer in Israel than America.

Here's what happens when you read about the Arab-Israel conflict

What should you expect when you sit down to read a news story about Israel and the Palestinian Authority? If you're reading something from mainstream media, shouldn't you expect a knowledgeable and truthful report?

If that's what you believe you should expect, take a look at this essay by a man--an Arab--who has been reporting on the Arab-Israel conflict for some thirty years. He tells a sad tale.

The man is Khaled Abu Toameh. The essay is, "Palestinians: Western Media's Ignorance and Bias". It's from gatestoneinstitute, dated January 21, 2016. I have edited very lightly:

--

Two Western journalists recently asked to be accompanied to the Gaza Strip to interview Jewish settlers living there.

No, this is not the opening line of a joke. These journalists were in Israel at the end of 2015, and they were deadly serious.

Imagine their embarrassment when it was pointed out to them that Israel had completely pulled out of the Gaza Strip ten years ago.

You have to have some pity for them. These foreign colleagues were rookies who aimed to make an impression by traveling to a "dangerous" place such as the Gaza Strip to report on the "settlers" living there. Their request, however, did not take anyone, even my local colleagues, by surprise.

These "parachute journalists," as they are occasionally called, are catapulted into the region without being briefed on the basic facts of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Sadly, correspondents such as these are more the rule than the exception. A particular clueless British reporter springs to mind: When Israel assassinated Hamas's founder and spiritual leader, Ahmed Yassin, in 2004, a British newspaper dispatched its crime reporter to Jerusalem to cover the event. To this reporter, the region, as well as Hamas, were virgin territory. His editors had sent him to the Middle East, he said, because no one else was willing to go.

Well, our hero reported on the assassination of Ahmed Yassin from the bar of the American Colony Hotel. His byline claimed that he was in the Gaza Strip and had interviewed relatives of the slain leader of Hamas.

Sometimes one feels as if one is some sort of a lightning rod for these tales. Another Ramallah-based colleague shared that a few years ago he received a request from a cub correspondent to help arrange an interview with Yasser Arafat. Except at that point, Arafat had been dead for several years. Fresh out of journalism school and unknowledgeable about the Middle East, the journalist was apparently considered by his editors a fine candidate for covering the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

In the three decades of covering this beat, journalists of this type have become quite familiar to me. They board a plane, read an article or two in the Times and feel ready to be experts on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Some of them have even assured me that before 1948 there was a Palestinian state here with East Jerusalem as its capital. Like the ill-informed young colleagues who wished to interview the nonexistent Jewish settlers in the Gaza Strip of 2015, they were somewhat taken aback to learn that prior to 1967, the West Bank had been under the control of Jordan, while the Gaza Strip had been ruled by Egypt.

Is there some difference between an Arab citizen of Israel and a Palestinian from the West Bank or Gaza Strip? My foreign colleagues may well not be able to say. Does the Hamas charter really state that the Islamist movement seeks to replace Israel with an Islamic empire? If so, my international co-workers may not be able to tell you.

One memorable journalist, several years ago, asked to visit the "destroyed" city of Jenin, where "thousands of Palestinians had been massacred by Israel in 2002." She was referring to the IDF operation in the Jenin refugee camp where nearly 60 Palestinians, many of them gunmen, and 23 IDF soldiers were killed in a battle.

Pity aside, this degree of incomprehension -- and professional laziness -- is difficult to imagine in the Internet age.

But when it comes to covering the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, ignorance apparently is bliss. Misconceptions about what goes on here plague the international media. The binary good guy/bad guy designation tops the list. Someone has to be the good guy (the Palestinians are assigned that job) and someone has to be the bad guy (the Israelis get that one). And everything gets refracted through that prism.

Yet the problem is deeper still. Many Western journalists covering the Middle East do not feel the need to conceal their hatred for Israel and for Jews. But when it comes to the Palestinians, these journalists see no evil. Foreign journalists based in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv have for years refused to report on the financial corruption and human rights violations that are rife under the Palestinian Authority (PA) and Hamas regimes. They possibly fear being considered "Zionist agents" or "propagandists" for Israel.

Finally, there are the local journalists hired by Western reporters and media outlets to help the cover the conflict. These journalists may refuse to cooperate on any story that is deemed "anti-Palestinian." Palestinian "suffering" and the "evil" of the Israeli "occupation" are the only admissible topics. Western journalists, for their part, are keen not to anger their Palestinian colleagues: they do not wish to be denied access to Palestinian sources.

Thus, the international media's indifference in the face of the current wave of stabbings and car-rammings against Israelis should come as no surprise. One would be hard-pressed to find a Western journalist or a media organization referring to Palestinian assailants as "terrorists." In fact, international headlines often show more sympathy toward Palestinian attackers who are killed in the line of aggression than toward the Israelis who were attacked in the first place.

Of course, the above tales hardly apply to all foreign journalists. Some correspondents from the US, Canada, Australia and Europe are both very knowledgeable and very fair. Unfortunately, however, these represent but a small group among mainstream media in the West.

Western reporters, especially those who are "parachuted" into the Middle East, would do well to remember that journalism in this region is not about being pro-Israel or pro-Palestinian. Rather, it's supposed to be about being "pro" the truth, even when the truth runs against what you believe.

--

My comment: this anti-Israel bias--and this ignorance--are well known to those of us who live here, who understand the history of Israel. We know whereof Khaled Abu Toameh speaks. 

When you read a news story about Israel, you are, unfortunately, not reading news. You are reading, for the most part, anti-Israel propaganda.

That's a shame. Journalism used to be be better than that.

Here's a piece of advice. The next time you see an anti-Israel news story, ask yourself, is this one of those stories written by a "parachute journalist"? If Toameh is correct, there's a very good chance the answer will be, "yes".

BDS vs Israel: you must choose. Choose wisely

(Last updated: January 26, 2016)

Life is made up of choices.  Our choices determine what happens to us. 

Generally, speaking, good choices lead to good results. Bad choices lead to bad results.

One choice you are being asked to make involves the BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions) movement. Will you make the right choice?

BDS wants you to fight Israel. It wants you to stop doing business with Israel. It wants you to boycott all things 'Israel'.

BDS doesn't tell you outright that it wants to destroy Israel. It knows you might not like that. Instead, it asks if you will support 'justice'. 

'Justice' is good. 'Justice' will bring peace. If you believe in 'justice', BDS will tell you, you should help it 'liberate' 'Palestine' from Israel's evil 'occupation'. You believe in 'justice', don't you? 

If you do a little research, you'll discover what BDS means by 'justice'. Its not the same justice your parents taught you. 

For BDS, 'justice' means destroying the Jewish state. It means driving out all of Israel's Jews. It means replacing Israel with an Arab-only 'Palestine'.

For BDS, 'justice' means killing Jews. It means ethnic cleansing.

Killing Jews is genocide. Ethnic cleansing is a war crime. For BDS, 'justice' means committing genocide and war crimes.

BDS does not want peace. It wants to destroy the world's only Jewish state. It wants you to help do that because it wants you to help create the world's 58th Islamic state.

That's not 'justice'. Justice is protecting the minority, not killing it off in order to expand a majority.

The three short videos below tell you just a little about the Israel BDS wants to destroy. Watch the videos. Then, when you're asked to join the BDS war against Israel, think about these videos.


This first video  is 5:11 minutes.  It was completed in 2010. It's called 'Israel water technologies'. 

This second video, while a little 'salesy', captures the energy and vitality of Israel's innovation culture. It's only 2:11 minutes.

The third and final video is 4:48 minutes. It's about West Virginia.

In January, 2016, Israel was ranked as one of the 'best countries' in the world according to a new survey by US News and World Reports ("Israel ranked as world's 8th most powerful country”, Arutz Sheva, January 24, 2016). The survey questioned more than 16,000 people world-wide to compile its results (ibid). Israel ranked 25th best country in the world, partly because of what you have just seen in these three videos.

The 'Best Countries' list contains 60 country names. No other Middle East country appears in the top 25 ("US News unveils 2016 Best Countries Rankings", 'Overall best countries ranking', usnews.com, January 20, 2016). 

The Palestinian Authority is not a country. It's not a sound governing entity. It's not a 'best country' candidate. It faces financial collapse (Michael Jansen, "Palestinian Authority facing financial collapse", Irishtimes, February 23, 2015).  

As the second video above suggests, Israel helps to save lives. As the first video suggests, Israel's water technologies help to save lives. The third video suggests that Israel helps to save communities, too.

The Palestinian Authority doesn't offer such life-saving assistance. Neither does BDS. In fact, BDS doesn't want to save anything. It wants to destroy. It lives to destroy Israel.

BDS wants you to help replace the Jewish Israel with an Arab-only 'Palestine'. In contrast to the Israel you have just seen, the current Palestinian leadership is undemocratic, unfree and incapable of managing an economically-independent state.  The Palestinian Authority contributes nothing to your health, safety or well-being.  

'Palestinians' do not call America to offer aid and assistance during a time of emergency. They doesn't send disaster aid teams to Haiti, Greece, Nigeria, Japan or the Philippines ("Israel on the frontline of international aid", Israel's humanitarian aid efforts, Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Foreign policy, worldwide aid, no date).'Palestinians' have nothing to offer.

The Palestinian Authority has very limited interests. It appears to have only one interest: it lusts for the Jewish Israel. As the website Palestinian Media Watch demonstrates, the PA lusts to spill Jewish blood.

If you help destroy Israel,you help to replace it with an enterprise dedicated to Islamic supremacy. That supremacy will bring oppression, brutality, genocide and ethnic cleansing to the world. 

It will bring no new water technologies. It will bring no new medical advances. It will bring no new productivity ideas.

The choice is yours. 

Once again, Europe chooses the wrong future

(Last updated: January 26, 2016)

For the first time in decades, Europe makes a choice about its future. That choice is between freedom and oppression. It makes the wrong choice.

In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, France, Italy and others made such a choice. Mostly, they chose freedom.

In the twentieth century, Germany, Austria and others made a similar choice. They chose oppression.

Now, in the twenty-first century, Europe chooses again between freedom and oppression. But this time, there’s a difference. This choice is complicated by religion.

Europe’s choice today is between Jew and Muslim. For freedom or oppression, it must choose either Israel or Islam. It makes the wrong choice.

For Europe, anti-Zionism grows as Europe’s Muslim population surges. Anti-Israel protests have become so violent that, for example, at least one entire university campus has been evacuated because of the violence brought to it by an anti-Israel ‘peace’ protest (“Violent protests at British university as former Israeli security chief addresses meeting”, eurojewcong, January 21, 2016). Across Europe, anti-Semitic attacks against Jews have reached record levels.

European ‘peace activists’ embrace violence against Jews. European leaders embrace Muslim migrants. They welcome Muslims. They protect Muslims. They do not protect Jews.

Europe says it believes in multiculturalism. That belief posits that all can live together in harmony without needing to integrate into the larger society (“Multiculturalism: What does it mean?”, bbcmagazine, February 11, 2011). For many, multiculturalism suggests a fundamental belief that all are equal (ibid).

In Europe, that cultural equality includes Muslims. It excludes Jews.

Germany leads the way. It has accepted more than 70 percent of the app 1.5 million Muslim refugees who rushed into Europe during calendar 2015. Most other EU nations have welcomed far fewer migrants.

By opening its doors to Muslim migrants, Germany has reactivated an old problem. This modern, humanitarian Germany, which had such a gigantic anti-Semitism problem in the 20^th century, now works in the 21^st century to import more than a million people from countries which today have that same gigantic anti-Semitism problem (Douglas Murray, “Germany just can’t get it right”, gatestoneinstitute, January 11, 2016).

For all its humanitarianism, Germany imports Islamic extremism (ibid). It imports Arab anti-Semitism (ibid).

Today, Jew-hate spreads across parts of Europe like an out-of-control wildfire. Like it or not, deliberately or not, Europe has become the industrial world's major platform for anti-Zionism, anti-Semitism and raw Jew-hate.  

Europe makes a choice. It chooses Islam over Israel.

Israel is an OECD country. OECD is the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. It’s really the top 34 countries in the world—the freest, wealthiest and most modern countries on the planet. It’s the elite of the world. It’s where national leaders interested in the 21^st century want to be.

Israel is part of this elite club. It’s a world leader in water technology. It’s a world leader in high-tech advancements. It’s a world leader in medical sciences. It adheres to Western ideals. It’s a democracy.

Islamic Mid-East countries are none of these things. Their scientists and physicians contribute little towards the world’s welfare. Mostly, these countries oppress.  They prefer religious conquest over scientific research. They reject democracy.

Europe chooses. It chooses Islam over Israel.

Europe makes the wrong choice. It chooses oppression and poverty. It rejects freedom and wealth. It chooses Islam over Israel.

Where do you think that will lead?

If you want to experience something special, come to Israel

Israel is special. If you come here, you won't be disappointed.

Here's a short video--less than 2 minutes. It shows you the tip of the Israel-is-special iceberg. The video comes from israelvideonetwork:

Israel is HaShem's Home. It's his Home-on-earth. 

Everything in Israel is special. Everything--even the birds.

Come home. Discover the true Jewish experience!

Human Rights, ‘evil righteousness’ and the Jewish State

In this world, there is both evil and righteousness. Evil embraces what is bad. Righteousness embraces what is good. They are polar opposites.

Evil brings destruction. Righteousness brings life. You can’t get farther apart than that.

Evil and righteousness are moral terms. But they derive from religious ethics. They belong to religion. 

Modern Man rejects religion. He rejects religious ethics. He embraces only what he calls ‘Morality’.

The Human Rights movement is Modern Man’s moral replacement for religion. It’s Modern Man’s version of a redemptive salvation: Mankind will not be saved by G-d. Mankind will be saved through Universal Human Rights.

Human Rights has a Gospel. That Gospel is the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). That Declaration suggests the redemptive nature of ‘Human Rights’. Through Universal Human Rights, war will end. Peace will reign. Mankind will be safe.

That was the goal in 1948. Today, 2016, Human Rights are no longer redemptive. They’re no longer moral.

The first ten days of 2016 have revealed that the Human Rights movement is not righteous. Instead, it uses a false righteousness to hide evil intent.

Two news stories reveal this truth. The first ‘story’ was an investigative TV news segment about a ‘mole’ who had infiltrated into one of Israel’s premier Human Rights NGOs (“Israeli Leftist Extremists Collaborate with Palestinian Authority to Torture and Kill Arabs”, truthrevolt, January 9, 2016). In that TV report, two Leftists bragged on video that they participated in a scheme to assist the Palestinian Authority (PA) to torture and execute Arabs (ibid).

In the PA, selling land to Jews is a crime. It carries the death penalty (ibid). The scheme of these two Leftists was to find Arabs trying to sell land to Jews—and then hand them over to the PA. One of the Leftists was captured on tape saying, “The Palestinian Authority catches them and kills them. But before it kills them, they get beat up a lot” (ibid).

The two men bragging about this atrocity were not untutored Rights workers. They weren’t newly hired. They weren’t low-level. They were Israeli Leftist superstars (Caroline Glick, “Column one: The Obama administration’s most covert war”, Jerusalem Post, January 14, 2016). They knew exactly what they were doing.

Under the guise of their secular moral righteousness (working to protect 'innocent' Arabs against 'evil' Jews), they used torture and murder because they don't want Jews to buy land from Arabs. Under the guise of Man’s universal morality, they committed unspeakable evil—killing people who trusted them.

The second news story that interests us was the public response of one of the Human Rights NGO’s involved in this scheme. That organization was B’tselem, a major anti-Israel NGO.

When the investigative news story named B’tselem as the employer of one of the braggarts, B’tselem did not declare that it never endorsed or supported such activity. It did not call for an investigation to establish what was true in the report and what was false.

Instead, it acknowledged that such a scheme had been used—and endorsed it (Matt Wanderman, “B'Tselem defends executing Palestinians who sell land to Jews”, Arutz Sheva, January 8, 2016). It announced that handing over an Arab for death was a Palestinian’s “only channel” when one Arab doesn’t want another Arab to sell land to a Jew (ibid).

B’tselem also suggested that this scheme wasn’t part of its Human Rights agenda, but was instead part of a private family dispute involving one of the braggarts (ibid). But the video report didn’t show that braggart referring to a family land dispute. That individual clearly boasted about ‘them’; that is, Arabs he had ensnared in a sting operation to catch Arabs attempting to sell land to Jews. The two men video-taped never suggested they were talking about a private family matter.

Members of B’tselem’s ‘public council’ responded favourably to the revealed scheme (Gil Ronen, “Famed leftist writers unruffled by B'tselem exposé”, Arutz Sheva, January 10, 2016). No B’tselem council member contacted for comment condemned the scheme (ibid).

There is something seriously wrong when a superstar Human Rights Activist for a superstar Human Rights NGO turns against the Arabs he promises to help, and hands them over to other Arabs to be tortured and murdered. That’s not morality. That’s not righteousness. That’s evil in the guise of moral righteousness.

This is how Man has replaced religion.

While writing about this week’s Torah Portion (B’shalach, Sh’mot 13:17-17:16), Rav Joseph B. Soloveitchik states that, at the famous splitting-of-the-Sea episode in the Exodus story, HaShem demonstrated that not only does He punish undisguised evil; He also punishes evil that’s clothed beneath a false righteousness (Chumash Mesoras Harav, Sefer Shemos, ed. Dr Arnold Lustiger, OU Press, 2014, p. 113 on Sh’mot 14:4). Rav Soloveitchik then reports that the punishment for hiding evil beneath a false righteousness is greater than the punishment for undisguised evil (ibid).

The Modern Human Rights movement doesn’t work to save Israel. It isn’t redemptive. It’s evil. It seeks to destroy Israel.

‘Human Rights’ workers claim to be righteous. But beneath their ‘righteousness’, they hide an evil called, Jew-hate.

HaShem, the G-d of Israel, has a Story for you. It’s the Story of the Final Jewish Redemption. In this Final Story, you will see what happens to such evil.

Israel to Zuckerberg: stop killing Jews

Here's an essay worth your time: Karen McQuillan, "Israel to Zuckerberg: stop killing Jews" Americanthinker, January 20, 2016. I've done light editing: 

It takes a global village to kill Israelis.  The recipe is well known. 

 Begin with the lie that Islam is the religion of peace. 

- Take U.N. (that is, U.S.)  money and hire jihadis to teach small children Jews should all be killed.  (This was first taught to the Moslem Brotherhood by Eichmann himself, sent by Hitler to launch the modern jihadi movement).  

-Take Saudi money and staff every mosque with Wahhabi imams.  

-Use oil wealth to brainwash vulnerable teenagers with Islamic supremacist idealism and promise endless sex in heaven if they kill a Jew.  

-Flood the P.A. territories with billions of dollars in international aid, turning the entire place into one giant welfare state of entitlement and rage.

-Then give the jihadis Facebook, to spread the message: go out and kill a Jew today.  With detailed instructions on how to do it. 

The wave of stabbings in Israel are a Facebook-fueled intifada.  And once it is tested in Israel, it will be coming to an American street near you.

Israelis are fed up. They can’t stop the U.N. from supporting jihad.  They can’t stop the Saudis.  They can’t stop Europe and America from sucking up to the Arab world by throwing money at the Palestinians with no strings attached (like: drop the anti-Semitic BS or no cash).

Zuckerberg is the step too far.  The story broke in the Jewish press Sunday, and is beginning to be reported more widely.

The crowd funding project explains:

What's the most effective way to murder Jews? The answer to this shocking question can be found on many Arabic Facebook pages: “spray the knife with anti-insect poison before stabbing” and other anatomic directions for more effective stabbings are being posted daily.  On countless other pages it is also very easy to find incitement to murder of Israelis and praises for Jew killers that become cultural heroes.

Tens of thousands have written to Facebook asking, demanding, begging Zuckerberg to stop supporting jihadi murder.  He refuses.  The Facebook reply?

"Thank you for taking the time to report something that you feel may violate our Community standards…we reviewed the page you reported for containing a credible threat of violence and found it doesn’t violate our Community standards."

So Israelis are fighting back with a class-action lawsuit filed against Facebook on behalf of some 20,000 Israeli signatories.

The Complaint alleges that Facebook is much more than neutral internet platform or a mere “publisher” of speech because its algorithms connect the terrorists to the inciters. Facebook actively assists the inciters to find people who are interested in acting on their hateful messages by offering friend, group and event suggestions and targeting advertising based on people’s online “likes” and internet browsing history. Additionally, Facebook often refuses to take down the inciting pages, claiming that they do not violate its “community standards.” Calling on people to commit crimes is not constitutionally protected speech and endangers the lives of Jews and Israelis. Shurat HaDin will pursue the claims against Facebook on behalf of its 20,0000 clients until Facebook makes it will not allow itself to serve as a tool for terrorists to transmit their rabble rousing messages to their followers and that incitement to anti-Semitic violence will not be tolerated on its website.

For once, Israelis have also decided to fight back in the court of public opinion. 

The anti-terror group Shurat HaDin has launched a campaign called Zuckerberg Don’t Kill Us. They are trying to raise $30,000 for good old fashioned billboards to go up around Palo Alto, where Zuckerberg lives, to shed light on what he is doing. (So far they have raised a measly $21,000 – far fewer dollars than the people reading this column). 

What is going on with Facebook?  The answer can be found in the Zuckerberg response to San Bernardino.  His statement:

I want to add my voice in support of Muslims in our community and around the world.
After the Paris attacks and hate this week, I can only imagine the fear Muslims feel that they will be persecuted for the actions of others.
If you're a Muslim in this community, as the leader of Facebook I want you to know that you are always welcome here and that we will fight to protect your rights and create a peaceful and safe environment for you….

Notice Zuckerberg does not mention San Bernardino other than “hate this week.”  He does not condemn Islamic extremism.  And most significantly, he does not say that Facebook will do everything possible to stop jihadis from using Facebook to incite and organize murder.  Instead, he assures Muslims he will fight to protect their rights and welcome them on Facebook. (hat tip Mike Gwiliam)

Zuckerberg does not have a leg to stand on.  The Israelis are correct; Facebook is quite willing to remove postings they consider hateful.  Their rules state “You will not post content that: is hate speech, threatening, or pornographic; incites violence; or contains nudity or graphic or gratuitous violence.”

Facebook software tracks private postings that use keywords used by sex offenders, in order to prevent crimes before they happen.  They could do this with jihadis inciting and boasting of murder, but they won’t.

The contrast with Facebook taking down pages that offend liberal causes is there for all to see.

In a remarkable display of the speed at which social media activism can work, online feminist organizers managed, after only a week's worth of work, to get Facebook to promise to revise its approach toward misogynist hate speech. The efforts started on May 21, when Soraya Chemaly, Jaclyn Friedman, and Laura Bates wrote an open letter on Huffington Post to Facebook demanding that the company take anti-woman hate speech on its site as seriously as it does racist hate speech and images deemed too sexual, which are routinely banned (including breastfeeding pictures). After a week of an email and Twitter campaign, Facebook responded late yesterday with an openly apologetic letter and a promise to do better.

An example of what Zuckerberg does censor from Facebook:

Just yesterday the social media platform removed an image posted to the Facebook fan page for A Voice for Men. It was an infographic that addressed the notion of “rape culture” and the “1 in 4” rape statistic, in part by citing the actual number of reported rapes at three major United States universities.

In the lead-up to the last election, after complaints from the Obama campaign Facebook removed this posting about Benghazi from a Navy SEAL’s Facebook page (hat tip Eric Wemple):  “Obama called the SEALS and THEY got bin Laden.  When the SEALs called Obama, THEY GOT DENIED.”  It was removed three times before Facebook admitted they had no right to remove political speech.

Mark Zuckerberg doesn’t just have the blood of Israelis on his hands.  He is knowingly and purposefully supporting Muslim murders of enough people for Zuckerberg to bathe in their blood from head to foot.  He has the nerve to tell us he is fighting Islamophobia and brazenly assures Muslims they are welcome on Facebook. 

The Israelis are not the only ones who want this to stop.  Enough.  Enough to have vicious enemies from seventh century nightmares reborn in the Facebook Age.  We must stop empowering them with high tech propaganda tools.  We must stop this liberal collusion with murder.  Facebook is a line in the sand.  Zuckerberg must not be allowed to get away with this.