The Whole Story

Yesterday Caroline Glick posted an article in Newsweek about the current war between Israel and the Palestinians. It’s a rather detailed article, so please follow the link above and read the entire article. I will try to summarize some of the important points.

The article reports:

There are two sources of the violence. The first is Palestinian incitement. The second is the support the Palestinians receive from the Biden administration.

Several weeks before the Muslim holy month of Ramadan began four weeks ago, the Fatah-controlled Palestinian Authority (PA) launched a campaign of incitement across its media organs.

Israel, Fatah and the PA claimed, was defiling and threatening the Al-Aqsa Mosque on Jerusalem’s Temple Mount. The Temple Mount is the site where both the Jewish Temples stood. It is the single holiest site in Judaism, and it is also the third-holiest site in Islam.

Fatah’s incitement campaign served two purposes. First, it deflected public attention away from PA President Mahmoud Abbas’s decision to cancel the recent elections for the Palestinian Legislative Council (PLC) and to the PA presidency. Abbas is now in the 16th year of his four-year term—the last PLC elections were held in January 2006. Pressured by the public, Abbas had announced that elections would finally be held beginning this month. But since all the opinion polls since 2006 have shown that Hamas will win any new PA election, Abbas set out to find a way to blame Israel for his refusal to hold elections. He insisted that Israel agree to permit Jerusalem Arabs to vote in Jerusalem itself. Israel refused, maintaining that Jerusalem Arabs could vote in either the PA-controlled areas or online. Abbas then canceled the elections and promptly blamed Israel.

The cancelled elections are actually one of the main roots of the current problem–the attacks on Israel and the Israeli response are a very effective distraction from the fact that Abbas is now in the 16th year of his four-year term.

The article also explains the issue of Sheikh Jarrah:

At the same time, Abbas began stirring up passions by disseminating lies about alleged Israeli encroachments on Al-Aqsa and inciting terrorism. By doing so, Abbas was able to ratchet up his standing with the broader Palestinian public.

Hamas, for its part, wasn’t going to abandon the incitement stage to Fatah. So it joined in the incitement about Al-Aqsa and then opened a new incitement front pertaining to a 50-year property dispute in Sheikh Jarrah, a neighborhood in northeastern Jerusalem.

In 1875, the chief rabbis of Jerusalem purchased buildings in the neighborhood and registered their purchase with the Ottoman—and later, British—authorities. In 1948, with the Jordanian conquest of the neighborhood, the buildings were listed under Jordan’s “Register of Enemy Property” and leased to local Arabs. After Israel liberated and unified Jerusalem in 1967, the Jewish landowners registered their buildings again with the Israel Land Authority and began a process that has dragged on ever since of attempting to restore sovereign control over their properties. The Arab tenants, for their part, recognized the Israeli Jewish ownership of the buildings in a 1982 lawsuit. But in the ensuing 39 years, they have appealed every court ruling requiring them to vacate the premises.

In February, the Jerusalem District Court upheld a lower court ruling that required the Arab tenants to vacate the premises and the properties to be transferred to the Jewish owners. The Arabs appealed to the Supreme Court of Israel, which was initially set to hear the appeal last week.

The article concludes:

In a stunning statement Tuesday, as Hamas rained down rockets on Israeli civilian targets and the Israeli military responded with surgical air strikes against Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad targets in Gaza, State Department Spokesman Ned Price drew a moral equivalence between Israel and the Palestinians. Price said: “Israel has the right to defend itself and respond to rocket attacks. The Palestinian people also have the right to safety and security, just as Israelis do.”

The message Price sent to Hamas, Fatah and the Israeli Arabs assaulting Israeli Jews is that the U.S. is on their side. They can attack Jews and blame Israel and the Jews for their aggression, and the Biden administration will fund them, defend them and even adopt their anti-Semitic narratives. Palestinians are now certain they will be rewarded, not punished, for their aggression.

So long as this remains the Biden administration’s position, we can expect the latest Palestinian war against Israel to continue. Indeed, so long as this remains the administration’s policy, the danger that the Palestinian war will escalate into a regional onslaught against Israel by Iran’s proxies across Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Yemen will only increase.

Unfortunately the election of Joe Biden as President did not bring us closer to peace and normalcy as some people had expected. It has brought national and international turmoil.

Heading In A Dangerous Direction

On Friday Caroline Glick posted an article at the Center for Security Policy about the cancel culture that has reared its head in America.

The article reports:

The talking heads on TV, Democrats and a smattering of anti-Trump Republicans insist that the fault for all of America’s political woes lies with former president Donald Trump and the senators and congressmen who joined him in questioning the results of the election in several swing states. For refusing to set aside evidence of widespread election fraud, they stand accused of inciting an insurrection and so endangering the foundations of American democracy. Trump was impeached for his statements at the Jan. 6 rally. And Democrat lawmakers are calling for Senators Ted Cruz and Josh Hawley to be expelled from the Senate for questioning the electoral college votes from states with widespread allegations of election fraud.

The accusers forget conveniently that Democrat leaders from Nancy Pelosi to Hillary Clinton have insisted since November 2016 that Trump’s electoral victory was “illegitimate” and the job of good Americans was to “resist” his “regime.”

They forget as well that Democrat lawmakers objected to the certification of the electoral college ballots in 2016. And when their objections failed to overturn the election results, a protest broke out in the visitors’ gallery of the Capitol. Several protesters were arrested.

No one in the media or in the coastal elite ever accused Pelosi and Clinton of inciting an insurrection even as hundreds of thousands of protesters filled the streets demanding that Trump be overthrown.

The article refers to the current cancel culture as “The Great Purge.”

The article notes:

The grave danger to American democracy emanates from the unprecedented fusion between the Democratic Party and corporate America. Political philosopher Angelo Codevilla referred to this unity of forces as a ruling “oligarchy” that is replacing the American Republic.

The emerging “oligarchy” is currently enacting something that can rightly be dubbed, “The Great Purge.”

The Great Purge, an event without precedent in American history, isn’t about one side seizing the levers of power for itself. It is about one side denying the other side the right to even vie for power.

The purpose of The Great Purge is not to replace Trump loyalists with Biden loyalists in positions of power in government. Such replacement happens as a matter of course every time a new administration comes into office. The purpose of the Great Purge is to “cancel” the Republican Party and its voters as a legitimate political force and so transform the United States into something approaching a one-party system. To achieve this goal, the Democrats in government and their partners in the corporate and big tech media are using their power to repress, silence, ruin and criminalize tens of millions of private citizens for the “crime” of supporting Trump and the Republican Party.

Please follow the link above to the article. The article includes a link to a site where the article is more fully posted. The article provides numerous examples of people who were prevented from earning a living because they were Trump supporters. This should not be acceptable in America. Remember the words of Jewish historian Edwin Black who has stated that the three steps to the concentrations camps in Germany were identify, exclude and confiscate (or deprive of a way to make a living). We are rapidly approaching the third part of that paradigm.

Some Common Sense From The State Department

Yesterday Paul Mirengoff at Power Line Blog posted an article about a recent statement of policy by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo.

The article reports:

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo declared today that the U.S. does not regard Israeli settlements on the West Bank as illegal. He thus reversed the position taken by former Secretary of State John Kerry in the dying days of the Obama administration.

Pompeo explained that, after carefully studying the issue, he concluded that President Reagan got it right when he found that the settlements are not illegal. Reagan had reversed the position taken by the Carter administration.

Prime Minister Netanyahu and Benny Gantz both support this move.

The article also notes:

Caroline Glick views Pompeo’s statement as a diplomatic turning point. She writes:

Pompeo’s statement is first and foremost an extraordinary gesture of support for Israel and the rights of the Jewish people on the part of President Donald Trump and his administration. But from a U.S. perspective, it also represents a key advance in Trump’s realist foreign policy.

Since taking office, Trump has worked consistently to align U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East and beyond to the world as it is, rather than to the world as “experts” imagine it to be. In the Middle East, this realignment of U.S. policy has provided the nations of the region – including Israel and the Palestinians – with the first chance of reaching genuine peace they have ever had.

I doubt that the Palestinians have any desire for genuine peace, and therefore doubt that Pompeo’s statement will move the parties closer to such a peace. However, I agree with Glick that Pompeo’s realism (and President Trump’s) about West Bank settlements is a prerequisite for real progress in any meaningful peace process.

Another thing that needs to be considered is that the ‘settlements’ are not really settlements–they are thriving communities that include hospitals, schools, and infrastructure. We have learned from experience that when the so-called Palestinians are given territory they do not built infrastructure–they use whatever financial aid they are given to build terrorist tunnels and buy rockets and ammunition. Until that changes, I see no point in negotiating to give any territory to them.

 

A Reality Check For Israel’s Left

On Tuesday, Caroline Glick posted an article in the Jerusalem Post about the war between Israel and Hamas. She relates the story of a phone call from President Obama to Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu on Sunday night during an Israeli security cabinet meeting.

The article reports:

But then the telephone rang. And Obama told Netanyahu that Israel must lose. He wants an unconditional “humanitarian” cease-fire that will lead to a permanent one.

And he wants it now.

And by the way, the eventual terms of that cease-fire must include opening Hamas-controlled Gaza’s borders with Egypt and Israel and ending Israel’s maritime blockade of the Gaza coast. That is, the cease-fire must allow Hamas to rebuild its arsenal of death and destruction quickly, with US political and financial support.

Until Obama made the call, there was lingering doubt among some Israelis regarding his intentions. Some thought that US Secretary of State John Kerry might have been acting of his own accord last Friday night when he tried to force Israel to accept Hamas’s cease-fire terms.

But then Obama made his phone call. And all doubts were dispelled.

The request from President Obama did not take into account what would happen if that cease-fire went into effect–Israel would again be defending itself against never ending rocket attacks on civilians and a rebuilding of tunnels that were destroyed. A cease-fire without the destruction of Hamas is an invitation to another war a few years down the road.

The article concludes:

Obama is as involved in the Middle East as all of his immediate predecessors were. He is personally leading US policy on every front. Kerry is not an independent actor.

The problem is that in every war, in every conflict and in every contest of wills that has occurred in the Middle East since Obama took office, he has sided with Iran and the Muslim Brotherhood, against America’s allies.

Under Obama, America has switched sides.

It will be amazing if we have any allies left by the end of the Obama Administration.

 

 

 

Under The Surface Of The Pope’s Visit To Israel

Caroline Glick posted an article on her website today about the recent visit to Israel by Pope Francis. There were a few incidents during the visit that simply were not friendly to the Jewish state and its heritage.

The article reports:

In one of his blander pronouncements during the papal visit, Netanyahu mentioned on Monday that Jesus spoke Hebrew. There was nothing incorrect about Netanyahu’s statement. Jesus was after all, an Israeli Jew.

 
But Francis couldn’t take the truth. So he indelicately interrupted his host, interjecting, “Aramaic.”

 
Netanyahu was probably flustered. True, at the time, educated Jews spoke and wrote in Aramaic. And Jesus was educated. But the language of the people was Hebrew. And Jesus preached to the people, in Hebrew.

 
Netanyahu responded, “He spoke Aramaic, but he knew Hebrew.”

 
Reuters’ write-up of the incident tried to explain away the pope’s rudeness and historical revisionism, asserting, “Modern-day discourse about Jesus is complicated and often political.” The report went on to delicately mention, “Palestinians sometimes describe Jesus as a Palestinian. Israelis object to that.”

 
Israelis “object to that” because it is a lie.

It seems like a minor point, but it is not. Jesus was Jewish. Period.

The article continues:

Consider first Francis’s behavior at the security barrier.

 

Reasonable people disagree about the contribution the security fence makes to the security of Israelis. But no one can reasonably doubt that it was built to protect Israelis from Palestinian terrorist murderers. And Francis ought to know this. Francis’s decision to hold a photo-op at the security barrier was an act of extreme hostility against Israel and the Jewish people.

 

As the former Cardinal of Buenos Aires, Francis may have heard of the November 2002 massacre at Kibbutz Metzer. Metzer was founded by Argentine communists in the 1950s. Metzer is located 500 meters from the 1949 armistice lines which made it an obvious beneficiary of the security fence. But true to its radical roots, in 2002 members of the kibbutz waged a public campaign against the planned route of the security fence. They feared that it would, in the words of Metzer member Danny Dovrat, “ignite hostility and create problems” with the kibbutz’s Palestinian neighbors.

 

 
Thanks to that concern, on the night of November 10, 2002, a gunman from the “moderate” US- and EU-supported Fatah terror organization faced no physical obstacle when he entered the kibbutz. Once there he killed two people on the street and then entered the home of Revital Ohayon and executed Revital and her two sons, Matan, 5, and Noam, 4 years old.

 
Fatah praised the attack on its website and pledged to conduct more assaults on “Zionist colonizers,” and promised to continue “targeting their children as well.”

The Catholic Church does not have a good record in supporting Israel or the Jewish people. Pope Francis needs to condemn the killing of innocent civilians by the Palestinians rather than support a government that has chosen to purchase arms instead of building infrastructure with the money given to it by the United Nations and other countries.

Enhanced by Zemanta

It Might Be Time To Take Another Look At This

I realize Wikipedia is not the best source on most things, but based on what I heard in an interview with Caroline Glick about her new book, “The Israeli Solution: A One-State Plan for Peace in the Middle East,” this is something Wikipedia got right.

In an interview, she casually mentioned that the United States is funding Palestinian security forces. Wikipedia confirms this.

Wikipedia states:

Since 2005 the U.S. State Department has provided direct financial and personnel assistance to Palestinian security organizations when they established the office of the United States Security Coordinator (USSC) for Israel and the Palestinian territories through their Bureau for International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs (INL). In 2007 the USSC team began training certain Palestinian Authority Security Forces (PASF) including the Palestinian National Security Forces (NSF) and the Presidential Guard with the intent to train, equip, and garrison 10 NSF battalions by the end of 2010. U.S. security assistance to the Palestinian Authority has expanded over the years and has received praise as well as criticism from American, Palestinian, and Israeli groups.

Let’s look at this for a minute. The only security need the Palestinians have is to protect themselves from Israel. The only time Israel has ever attacked the Palestinians is after major rocket attacks on Israel from the Palestinians. We are funding the purchase of rockets that are being used on Israel, a country we claim as an ally. How insane is this? It’s time to cut the spending on Palestinian security forces. That’s one budget cut I think most of us could agree on!

Enhanced by Zemanta