Tuesday, October 23, 2018

Palestinians 'Peoplehood' Based on a Big Lie - Eli E. Hertz


by Eli E. Hertz

There is no age-old Palestinian people. Most so-called Palestinians are relative newcomers to the Land of Israel.

Palestine is 'not a state'
White House National Security Advisor John Bolton
October 3, 2018


The Palestinians claim that they are an ancient and indigenous people fails to stand up to historic scrutiny. Most Palestinian Arabs were newcomers to British Mandate Palestine. Until the 1967 Six-Day War made it expedient for Arabs to create a Palestinian peoplehood, local Arabs simply considered themselves part of the 'great Arab nation' or 'southern Syrians.'
Palestinian Arabs cast themselves as a native people in "Palestine" - like the Aborigines in Australia or Native Americans in America. They portray the Jews as European imperialists and colonizers. This is simply untrue. Until the Jews began returning to the Land of Israel in increasing numbers from the late 19th century to the turn of the 20th, the area called Palestine was a God-forsaken backwash that belonged to the Ottoman Empire, based in Turkey.
What caused the collapse of Palestinian society? In addition to serious cleavages dating to Ottoman times that existed in local Arab society, it was the absence of an alternative Arab infrastructure after the British pulled out of Mandate Palestine. Because Palestinian Arab society had been so dependent on British civil administration and social services, Britain's departure left Arab civil servants jobless. As a result, most social services and civil administration ceased to function in the Arab sector, disrupting the flow of essential commodities such as food and fuel, which added to their hardships and uncertainties.
The collapse of the agricultural system with the influx of nomadic tribes after the Arab conquest that created malarial swamps and denuded the ancient terrace system eroding the soil, was coupled by a tyrannous regime, a crippling tax system and absentee landowners that further decimated the population. Much of the indigenous population had long since migrated or disappeared. Very few Jews or Arabs lived in the region before the arrival of the first Zionists in the 1880s and most of those that did lived in abject poverty.
Most Arabs living west of the Jordan River in Israel, the West Bank (Judea and Samaria) and Gaza are newcomers who came from surrounding Arab lands after the turn of the 20th century because they were attracted to the relative economic prosperity brought about by the Zionist Movement and the British in the 1920s and 1930s.
Family names of many Palestinians attest to their non-Palestinian origins. Just as Jews bear names like Berliner, Warsaw and Toledano, modern phone books in the Territories are filled with families named Elmisri (Egyptian), Chalabi (Syrian), Mugrabi (North Africa). Even George Habash - the arch-terrorist and head of Black September - bears a name with origins in Abyssinia or Ethiopia, Habash in both Arabic and Hebrew.
Palestinian nationality is an entity defined by its opposition to Zionism, and not its national aspirations.
What unites Palestinians has been their opposition to Jewish nationalism and the desire to stamp it out, not aspirations for their own state. Local patriotic feelings are generated only when a non-Islamic entity takes charge - such as Israel did after the 1967 Six-Day War. It dissipates under Arab rule, no matter how distant or despotic.
A Palestinian identity did not exist until an opposing force created it - primarily anti-Zionism. Opposition to a non-Muslim nationalism on what local Arabs, and the entire Arab world, view as their own turf, was the only expression of 'Palestinian peoplehood.'
The Grand Mufti Hajj Amin al-Husseini, a charismatic religious leader and radical anti-Zionist was the moving force behind opposition to Jewish immigration in the 1920s and 1930s. The two-pronged approach of the "Diplomacy of Rejection" (of Zionism) and the violence the Mufti incited occurred at the same time Lebanon, Syria, Transjordan and Iraq became countries in the post-Ottoman reshuffling of territories established by the British and the French under the League of Nation's mandate system.
The tiny educated class among the Arabs of Palestine was more politically aware than the rest of Arab society, with the inklings of a separate national identity. However, for decades, the primary frame of reference for most local Arabs was the clan or tribe, religion and sect, and village of origin. If Arabs in Palestine defined themselves politically, it was as "southern Syrians." Under Ottoman rule, Syria referred to a region much larger than the Syrian Arab Republic of today, with borders established by France and England in 1920.
The Grand Mufti Al-Husseini's aspirations slowly shifted from pan-Arabism - the dream of uniting all Arabs into one polity, whereby Arabs in Palestine would unite with their brethren in Syria - to winning a separate Palestinian entity, with himself at the helm. Al-Husseini was the moving force behind the 1929 riots against the Jews and the 1936-1939 Arab Revolt against two non-Muslim entities in Palestine - the British and the Jews. He gathered a large following by playing on fears that the Jews had come to dispossess, or at least dominate the Arabs.  
Much like Yasser Arafat, the Grand Mufti's ingrained all-or-nothing extremism, fanaticism and even an inability to cooperate with his own compatriots made him totally ineffective. He led the Palestinian Arabs nowhere.
The countries the British and French created in 1918-1922 were based largely on meridians on the map, as is evident in the borders that delineate the Arab states today. Because these states lack ethnic logic or a sense of community, their opposition to the national aspirations of the Jews has come to fuel that fires Arab nationalism as the 'glue' of national identity.
From the 1920s, rejection of Jewish nationalism, attempts to prevent the establishment of a Jewish homeland by violence, and rejection of any form of Jewish political power, including any plans to share stewardship with Arabs, crystallized into the expression of Palestinianism. No other positive definition of an Arab-Palestinian people has surfaced. This point is admirably illustrated in the following historic incident:
Why hasn't Arab representative government ever been established in Palestine, either in 1948 or during the next 19 years of Arab rule? Because other Arabs co-opted the Palestinian cause as a rallying point that would advance the concept that the territory was up for grabs. Adherents to a separate Palestinian identity were a mute minority on the West Bank and Gaza during the 19 years of Jordanian and Egyptian rule - until Israel took control from the Jordanians and the Egyptians in 1967. Suddenly a separate Palestinian peoplehood appeared and claimed it deserved nationhood - and 21 other Arab states went along with it.
To read this article online, Click Here.


Eli E. Hertz

Source: http://www.mythsandfacts.org/article_view.asp?articleID=348

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter



PM's capitulation undermines sovereignty ‎- Mati Tuchfeld


by Mati Tuchfeld

Wary of the public's wrath, King Abdullah of Jordan is working against his country's interests. Still, his decision should not affect the strategic cooperation that Amman and Jerusalem so highly value. 

There are plenty of reasons that can explain Prime ‎Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's decision to postpone the ‎controversial eviction and demolition of the Bedouin ‎village of Khan al-Ahmar, east of Jerusalem.‎

After all, the international pressure was ‎unbearable, the European Union was furious, the ‎United Nations was outraged and Israeli Arabs, ‎already on edge over the nation-state law, were ‎livid. ‎

Israeli opposition leaders claimed from day one that ‎the damage this move would cause to Israel far ‎outweighs any benefits, and rushed to congratulate ‎Netanyahu on his surprising decision to suspend the ‎demolition. ‎

The fact that the international and diplomatic ‎arenas dictate internal Israeli moves – some harder ‎to explain than others – is something we have gotten ‎used to. EU and global interests rarely coincide ‎with Israel's interest and in most cases, they are ‎the polar opposite. We have also grown used to the ‎fact that the Israeli Left adopts international ‎dictates and presents them as Israeli interests. ‎

The only thing that took us by surprise was ‎Netanyahu's decision to opt for a policy of ‎incompetence. Because the simple truth is that the ‎decision to let Khan al-Ahmar stand is the one doing the ‎real damage to Israel's international image – not ‎the other way around. ‎

This has made it clear to the world that the Israeli ‎government's decisions are flimsy and fickle, even ‎when it comes to the purely internal matter of ‎enforcing a High Court of Justice ruling. No, even ‎with the High Court's backing, the government cowers ‎before a handful of and foreign leaders simply ‎because they crinkled their noses at us.‎

But this goes beyond inflicting damage to Israel's ‎international image. This simply defies common ‎sense.‎

There is no real explanation for the question of why ‎a state cannot easily rebuff those who demand it ‎refrain from enforcing the law within its own ‎territory, and Netanyahu's capitulation in this case has undermined ‎Israel's sovereignty.

It is too early to assess the ‎damage, but it is likely to prove hard to deal with. ‎Essentially, Netanyahu showed the world that his word is ‎meaningless and that it is more than possible to ‎chip away at his façade of strength and ‎determination – and quite easily so.‎

It is no secret that Israel is facing tremendous ‎security challenges at this time. Netanyahu himself ‎reminds us of that in almost every speech. That is ‎why standing firm, especially at this time, is ‎nothing short of an existential asset. If it turns ‎out that this is only a disguise, it would be akin ‎to sacrificing a strategic asset on the altar of ‎diplomatic and political distortions.‎

Netanyahu knows this, which is why he called a ‎cabinet meeting before announcing his decision – he ‎needed a buffer from the criticism he knew would ‎follow. But the question about this incompetent ‎policy remains. ‎

Why is a leader who stood firm vis-à-vis the ‎European Union and the Obama administration on the ‎Iranian issue, locked horns with Russian President ‎Vladimir Putin on Syria and refused to relent to ‎international pressure on so many other issues, now ‎standing so weak and subdued?‎

The opposition's hypocrisy also cries out to the ‎heavens. So many poignant words have been spoken in ‎the past year about the need to preserve and enforce ‎the rule of law. Those who hailed the rule of law ‎championed the cause of the High Court of Justice ‎are now welcoming – praising even – a blatant ‎violation of the law and the trampling of the ‎judiciary.‎

As it turns out, law and order, too, are just a ‎matter of politics. After all, none of the critics ‎have ever sought to reach a compromise with the ‎residents of Judea and Samaria when their homes are ‎slated for razing on the court's orders. Everyone ‎would be wise to remember that the next time they ‎complain that the government is infringing on ‎democracy.‎


Mati Tuchfeld

Source: http://www.israelhayom.com/opinions/pms-capitulation-undermines-sovereignty-%e2%80%8e/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter



The Migrant Caravan Invasion - Joseph Klein


by Joseph Klein

What our president must do to seal the border.




A migrant caravan from Central America is currently heading en masse to the United States. Its members, several thousand strong, are intent on pouring into the U.S. in what amounts to an invasion force. President Trump has correctly branded the caravan an "onslaught" and an "assault on our country." The president has promised to use military troops if necessary to close the southern border with Mexico. He also threatened to cut off all foreign aid to those Central American countries that are not doing enough to stop the migration caravan in its tracks.

Members of the caravan have already demonstrated their violent streak during an early stage of their trek, as they approached Mexico. They “forced their way through Guatemala's northwestern border and flooded onto a bridge leading to Mexico,” AFP reported. These migrants, mainly from Honduras, engaged in violent clashes with Mexican riot police as they tried to surge through police lines and cross the bridge into Mexico. Four Mexican police officers were reportedly injured. "Violent entry into the country not only threatens our sovereignty, but also puts the migrants themselves at risk," Mexico’s President Pena Nieto said. "Mexico does not permit and will not permit entry into its territory in an irregular fashion, much less in a violent fashion."

Mexican government officials have said that Mexico would be willing to consider asylum requests from members of the caravan on an individual basis, with the assistance of the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner on Refugees (“UNHCR”). Mexico is proposing that UNCHR establish shelters along Mexico’s southern border with Central American countries. Individuals deemed by the UN agency to be eligible for asylum protection, presumably after performing its standard vetting, would be eligible for placement in a host country willing to accept them, which could be Mexico or the United States. Those deemed not to have a legitimate claim would be sent back to their home countries. If someone manages to slip through this system and travels through Mexico before crossing the Mexico-U.S. border into the United States, Mexico has indicated that it would be willing to accept the return of that individual if the U.S. so wishes. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said that the United States welcomed and would cooperate with Mexico’s initiative to have Central American migrants processed for possible asylum in Mexico first with UN assistance. The initiative conforms with international law on the handling of claims for refugee status and is an orderly and humane solution to the migration crisis that the caravan has precipitated.

However, the migrant invaders are impatient. “We are going to the United States,” said one of the migrants. “Nobody is going to stop us.” The Associated Press has reported that despite Mexico’s attempt to intervene, “a growing throng of Central American migrants resumed their advance toward the U.S. border early Sunday in southern Mexico.” Their numbers have reportedly grown, after migrants in the caravan decided not to submit to Mexico’s asylum process that would have enabled them to enter Mexico legally. Instead, they took the law into their own hands. Mexico now appears to have largely given up and is doing little to stop them.

The caravan migrants believe that they are entitled to simply pass through Mexico without any interference and ensconce themselves in the United States. A press release issued by the organizers of a similar migrant caravan earlier this year stated a “demand of Mexico and the United States” that “they open the borders to us because we are as much citizens as the people of the countries where we are and/or travel.” This “open borders” demand is a direct challenge to U.S. national sovereignty. Migrants are not entitled to insist upon a “right” to choose the United States as their destination country, including would-be asylum-seekers if they are offered the chance for asylum in Mexico first.

Some of the caravan migrants cry poverty and use children as shields while pleading their case. Others in the caravan have likely learned - from the migrants who preceded them and from open borders advocates encouraging their migration - the playbook of how to exploit the loophole-ridden U.S. immigration laws. They know that their sheer numbers will further overwhelm an already overstretched adjudicative process with many more amnesty claims. Once in this country, the migrants, especially those with children in tow, are likely to be released into the community-at-large, pending the outcome of their asylum hearings, which could take place years later. They may well skip their hearings altogether, as many before them have done, and remain free to live in our country at American taxpayers’ expense indefinitely. Other migrants in the caravan who manage to make it to the U.S. border will simply enter illegally at unguarded points without even the pretense of seeking asylum unless they can be stopped first. Terrorists and criminal gang members are free to take part in the caravan with little chance of detection.

President Trump has vowed to use the military to seal the southern border of the United States with Mexico, if necessary – a stretch of territory as long as 2000 miles. Aside from logistical issues, questions have been raised as to whether the president has the legal authority to take such action in enforcing U.S. immigration laws, at least with respect to utilizing active-duty members of the army, navy, air force and marines. Those who claim that the president does not have such authority cite the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, as amended from time to time, which prohibits active duty military troops from executing the country’s laws unless expressly authorized by the Constitution or an Act of Congress. This statute does not apply to the National Guard operating under state authority.

A federal court has held that the Posse Comitatus Act “makes unlawful the use of federal military troops in an active role of direct law enforcement by civil law enforcement officers,”  which includes “arrest; seizure of evidence; search of a person; search of a building; investigation of crime; interviewing witnesses; pursuit of an escaped civilian prisoner; search of an area for a suspect or other like activities.” Military personnel can do little more than maintain border fences and vehicles and perhaps also assist with surveillance, including in connection with drugs smuggling, if the Posse Comitatus Act is interpreted as restrictively as open borders proponents are likely to advocate in court.

However, repelling an organized force of unvetted migrants, who may include terrorists and foreign criminal gang members, from entering this country in the first place is not simply civil domestic law enforcement. It is a military response to a genuine threat to U.S. territorial sovereignty and national security originating from foreign territories. The military response would be directed by the president of the United States who is vested with the constitutional authority of commander in chief.  The president would be using the military to implement the constitutional mandate of Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution that the “United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion.”

Moreover, the Posse Comitatus Act was intended to protect Americans within the boundaries of the United States from military rule. Its original purpose was to put an end to the use of federal troops to police state elections in the ex-Confederate states where the civil power had been reestablished. As one federal court stated, the Posse Comitatus Act is “the type of criminal statute which is properly presumed to have no extraterritorial application in the absence of statutory language indicating a contrary intent.” There is nothing in either the legislative history or text of the Posse Comitatus Act.to indicate that its drafters intended to prohibit the president’s use of military troops to block aliens gathered together in a horde from attempting to cross into our country after having violently clashed with the police of another country en route and having willfully evaded that country's laws. Terrorists may well be concealing themselves in the migrant caravan. Hezbollah, for example, has already managed to penetrate the U.S. border with Mexico, posing a serious national security threat.

The Supreme Court recently upheld the constitutionality of President Trump’s executive order limiting the entry of aliens from certain countries on national security grounds, pending a thorough review of the vetting process. The Court relied on §1182(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which enables the President to “suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens” whenever he “finds” that their entry “would be detrimental to the interests of the United States.”

Analogously, if the president determines that it is necessary to use active members of the military to enforce federal authority in situations he deems potentially dangerous to national security, there is a statutory exception to the Posse Comitatus Act which should allow him to do just that (10 U.S.C. § 332, renumbered §252). This provision states that the president may “use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary,” to enforce “the laws of the United States” whenever he “considers that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages” make it “impracticable” to enforce such laws “by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings.” The migrant caravan aimed at entering the United States is an “assemblage” by definition. This assemblage has already acted unlawfully in violent clashes with Mexican riot police, after which some members then entered Mexico illegally despite being given the chance to submit to a legal process for asylum claims. U.S. border enforcement officials have already been overwhelmed by the number of illegal aliens and would-be asylum seekers from Central America. The current migration caravan will further burden the adjudicative system for amnesty hearings to the point of implosion.

President Trump tweeted on Sunday: “Full efforts are being made to stop the onslaught of illegal aliens from crossing our Southern Border. People have to apply for asylum in Mexico first, and if they fail to do that, the U.S. will turn them away.” If he needs the military to protect the border from the migrant caravan invasion, so be it.


Joseph Klein is a Harvard-trained lawyer and the author of Global Deception: The UN’s Stealth Assault on America’s Freedom and Lethal Engagement: Barack Hussein Obama, the United Nations & Radical Islam.

Source: https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/271700/migrant-caravan-invasion-joseph-klein

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter



Appeasement: 80 Years since the Munich Agreement - Conference Videos and Transcripts - JCPA


by JCPA

Views of various experts on the topic of appeasement

The Context of the Munich Agreement

Prof. Shlomo Avineri
In the 1930s, both France and Britain were still suffering from the traumas of World War I, when hundreds of thousands of the cream of British and French society were killed in a war which to many people at that time looked as something having to do with Serbia, not really with British or with French interests. The idea that Britain or France should not get involved in another war about some faraway countries, be it Danzig, or Sudetenland, or Czechoslovakia, was very popular in both countries.
The idea of appeasement, other than the warmongering Churchill, was very popular in the Conservative Party in Britain, the Labour Party, among church leaders, and trade unionists. France had a decline in its population. Britain had lost a generation of leaders. This trauma created the atmosphere which made it possible for Chamberlain to wave the piece of paper that Hitler had signed and get the kind of applause which he got.
Shlomo Avineri, professor emeritus of political science at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, served as director-general of Israel's Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

The Munich Agreement: Lessons for the Future

Amb. Dore Gold
The Palestinians use UNESCO to produce an entirely made-up narrative about the history of Jerusalem. They take the Temple Mount and make it an exclusively Islamic site. At a UN conference in Istanbul, I told the secretary-general of UNESCO, "I have an idea for you. The next time you hear this rubbish that there never was a Temple, why don't you invite all the ambassadors to UNESCO for a holiday in Rome?" She looks at me. Rome? She expected Jerusalem. I said, "You can go to the Arch of Titus and you can see the captured implements from the Temple itself. They didn't have Polaroid cameras then, but they did chip away on stone to show you what existed at the time, and we can stop this ridiculous argument."
Amb. Dore Gold is President of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs and former director-general of Israel's Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

Appeasement in the Middle East at Israel's Expense

Brig.-Gen. (res.) Yossi Kuperwasser
Israel's vital interest is to prevent Iran from having the capability to produce nuclear weapons. We know exactly what the Iranians want. Yet all our friends in the Western world joined hands in making an agreement that paves the road for the Iranians to have a big arsenal of nuclear weapons. We gave all kinds of advice, but most of it was ignored. This was a terrible deal, and it was basically throwing Israel under the bus. We have to keep in mind that the idea of appeasement has not passed.
We always tend to believe that if we don't go to war we can reach peace. But in many, many cases peace is not achievable. In our values, peace has a very high level. So it's very difficult for us to understand that there are ideologies in which peace is not that important. We believe that our enemies also want peace. But the fact is that for most of these people, the peace they are looking for does not include our existence. If we don't take this into account, we lose the ability to really understand what are we facing.
Brig.-Gen. (res.) Yossi Kuperwasser was formerly Director General of the Israel Ministry of Strategic Affairs and head of the Research Division of IDF Military Intelligence.

The Role of the Media in Shaping Public Opinion

Melanie Phillips
In 1933, the Daily Mail claimed that Hitler had saved Germany from "Israelites of international attachments, and that the minor misdeeds of individual Nazis will be submerged by the immense benefits that the new regime is already bestowing upon Germany." As soon as the war started, however, in 1939, the Mail turned on a dime and it reversed its position.
The entire intellectual class thinks today that war is unthinkable and senseless. Nothing can be worse than war, and so you now have conflict resolution, you sit down and negotiate. And as a result, because war is unthinkable, you find a number of groupthink ideas which take root, which are all false.
So, for example, in the United Kingdom today you will not find really any newspaper coverage of the threat from Iran. If you ask the public, are they frightened about Iran, they will say, "Yes." And what are they frightened of? They're not frightened that Iran's terrorist regime will do them harm. They're not frightened that Iran will be successful in its genocidal aims to destroy Israel. They are frightened that there will be war against Iran because then innocent people will die.
In Britain, there is virtually no coverage of the thousands of rockets coming from Gaza into the south of Israel. That is not a story. The story is only if Israel starts killing Palestinians. Why? Because the only terrible thing is war, when people die who are innocent.
Melanie Phillips is a journalist and columnist for The Times (UK) and the Jerusalem Post.

Appeasement Is Viewed by Arabs as Weakness

Col. (ret.) Dr. Jacques Neriah
When you live in a tough neighborhood, like the neighborhood we live in, appeasement is looked at by Arabs mostly as weakness. For example, when Iraq under Saddam Hussein was a powerful nation, Turkey and Iran had plans to divert the flow of the Euphrates and the Tigris Rivers into Iraq with a series of dams. Saddam Hussein told the Turks, "If you build the Ataturk Dam, I will bomb it," and the Turks stopped it. After the American invasion of Iraq in 2003, the weakness of the Iraqi government gave Turkey and Iran the opportunity to complete the dams, and today Iraq is suffering from 50% less water.
if you show weakness, you will never have peace with the Arabs. At the first occasion that they will feel that you're weak, you'll be taken over. This is why our policy has to decide on how we adapt ourselves in this tough neighborhood. Weakness - meaning appeasement - is not the formula we should accept.
Col. (ret.) Dr. Jacques Neriah, was formerly Foreign Policy Advisor to Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and Deputy Head for Assessment of Israeli Military Intelligence.

See also presentations by:

Dr. Alexander Brakel
Director, Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung Israel
Fiamma Nirenstein
Journalist Fiamma Nirenstein was a member of the Italian Parliament (2008-2013). She is a Fellow at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs.
Dr. Martin Kramer
Shalem College; Washington Institute for Near East Policy
Dr. Joel Fishman
Fellow of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs
The Munich Agreement Conference: Q&A Session

Appeasement:
80 Years since the Munich Agreement

September 5, 2018
Videos and Transcripts now available


JCPA

Source: http://jcpa.org/80-years-since-the-munich-agreement/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter



Video: Glenn Beck interviews Robert Spencer - Frontpagemag.com


by Frontpagemag.com


Exploring "The History of Jihad From Muhammad to ISIS."



Below is the video of Glenn Beck's recent interview with Robert Spencer.

Make sure to order "The History of Jihad From Muhammad to ISIS," HERE.




Frontpagemag.com

Source: https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/271702/video-glenn-beck-interviews-robert-spencer-frontpagemagcom

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter



A move that spells weakness ‎- Prof. Eyal Zisser


by Prof. Eyal Zisser

Unlike the skepticism he expressed over the ‎Oslo Accords and then-PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat's commitment to them, ‎Rabin was sure that King Hussein would live up to his ‎word. ‎

The late Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin saw the 1994 peace ‎treaty with Jordan as one of his most important ‎diplomatic achievements, if not the most important ‎one. Unlike the skepticism he expressed over the ‎Oslo Accords and then-PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat's commitment to them, ‎Rabin was sure that King Hussein would live up to his ‎word. ‎

There is something symbolic in the ‎fact that on the anniversary of Rabin's assassination according to the Hebrew calendar, King Abdullah ‎announced that he would not renew one of the annexes ‎his father signed 24 years ago, leasing agricultural ‎borderlands to Israel.‎

The Jordanian announcement is neither a big surprise ‎nor a move that has far-reaching strategic ‎significance. After all, these are Jordanian ‎lands and it stands to reason that Jordan would have ‎reimposed its sovereignty over them at some point, ‎as no country in the Middle East would ever agree to ‎relinquish territories over time. ‎

Saudi Arabia did the same with respect to Tiran ‎and Sanafir islands, which were administered by ‎Egypt for years before Riyadh reimposed its ‎sovereignty over them ‎in 2017.‎

The problem, therefore, is not in the move per se, ‎but in the manner and timing in which the Jordanians ‎chose to declare they were essentially disavowing ‎the spirit of the 1994 peace agreement and turning ‎their backs on the partnership forged between Rabin ‎and Hussein.‎

This was not a complete surprise. After all, the ‎Jordanians are very hostile toward Israel compared ‎to populations in other Arab countries ‎and regrettably, the Jordanian regime does not even ‎try to deal with this hostility. Facing a myriad of domestic ‎challenges, the regime prefers to allow public opinion to lash ‎out at Israel and hopes this will soften the ‎criticism leveled at it on other issues.‎

At the same time, no Arab country is as dependent on Israel as Jordan, certainly in ‎terms of energy and water resources and on questions ‎of national security. ‎

Moreover, no Arab state maintains such ‎tight – albeit clandestine – strategic cooperation ‎with Israel, as Jordan. Israel welcomes this ‎cooperation and its importance is immeasurably ‎greater than the acres of agricultural land over ‎which Jordan now seeks to regain control. ‎

Overall, this is not a move that truly harms ‎Israel's interest, which is why Jerusalem shows ‎patience toward the hostile winds that are blowing ‎in its direction from Jordan. ‎

Nevertheless, the Jordanian move is as much a show ‎of Abdullah's weakness as signing the peace ‎deal was a show of his father's strength. ‎Israel should maintain the same strategic ‎cooperation with Jordan as it always has, but now, ‎our eyes have been opened.


Eyal Zisser is a lecturer in the Middle East History Department at Tel Aviv University.


Prof. Eyal Zisser

Source: http://www.israelhayom.com/opinions/a-move-the-spells-weakness-%e2%80%8e/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter



Swedish Hypocrisy on Human Rights - Joseph Puder


by Joseph Puder

Turning a blind eye to the Mullahs' persecution of Kurds.




Sweden’s Foreign Minister Margot Wallstrom has been quick to blame the U.S. and Israel for alleged misdeeds toward the Palestinians.  The Turkish-based Anadolu Agency reported on May 16, 2018 that Wallstrom blamed the U.S. for encouraging the Palestinian riots in Gaza.  She is quoted as telling Swedish TT News Agency that: “The U.S. has a big responsibility in the incidents where at least 50-60 Palestinians were killed and many others injured.”  This was said in the context of the Hamas organized provocation to march thousands of Gazan across the Israeli border.  It also happened to occur during the opening of the U.S. embassy in Jerusalem, which followed the Trump administration recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.  Wallstrom did not condemn Hamas’ effort to attack Israel and Jewish civilians.

The same Swedish foreign minister, Margot Wallstrom (pictured above), eager to condemn the U.S. and Israel, has been silent about the execution of Kurdish political prisoners by the Islamic Republic of Iran. Sweden has turned a blind eye on Iran’s gross violations of human rights, and its cruel executions of women and teenagers.  The Iranian regime has executed Kurdish dissidents with impunity.  Sweden was silent about it, as were other leaders of the EU.  They were too busy appeasing the Ayatollahs in an effort to preserve the unreliable Iran nuclear deal or JCPOA (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action), and winning business contracts.

Shamm Shameyi Salih, a Kurdish Swede youngster wrote: “The Iranian regime has killed many civilians, where the majority are Kurdish children and women. Hundreds of thousands of families have seen their own children be executed, while a whole world is closing their eyes. The situation right now in the Middle East and Iran is unsustainable. It’s not okay that we, as a country, sit and watch when they are running executions of our Kurdish women and men.” He added, “The Foreign Minister Margot Wallstrom has been silent for far too long for those who are exposed to the Kurds. This is no longer acceptable. The Iranian regime must be brought to justice immediately for breaches of our human rights.”

Amnesty International, in a report titled “Iran: Human rights abuses against the Kurdish minority” concluded the following: “Kurds in Iran have long suffered deep-rooted discrimination. Their social, political and cultural rights have been repressed, as have their economic aspirations. Parents are banned from registering their babies with certain Kurdish names and religious minorities that are mainly or partially Kurdish are targeted by measures designed to stigmatize and isolate them. Discriminated against in their access to employment, adequate housing and political rights, the economic neglect of Kurdish regions has resulted in an entrenched poverty which has further marginalized Kurds.

Kurdish human rights defenders, including community activists and journalists, face arbitrary arrest, ill-treatment and prosecution when they protest against the government’s failure to observe international human rights standards. When they link their human rights work to their Kurdish identity, they risk further violations of their rights. Some, including women’s rights activists, become prisoners of conscience – people imprisoned for the peaceful expression of their conscientiously held beliefs. Others suffer torture, grossly unfair trials before Revolutionary Courts and the death penalty.  Amnesty International has previously raised many of the human rights abuses and cases in this report with the Iranian authorities, and urged them to take concrete measures to end discrimination and human rights violations against the Kurdish minority and to uphold the rights of human rights defenders.”

The above report was issued in 2008.  Since then, the situation has worsened for the Iranian Kurds.  Amnesty International reported on September 9, 2018, “Three Iranian Kurdish men, Zaniar Moradi, Loghman Moradi, and Ramin Hossein Panahi, were executed this morning in Raja’i Shahr prison, Karaj.”

Philip Luther, Amnesty International’s Research and Advocacy Director for the Middle East and North Africa, said, “We are horrified by the news that the Iranian authorities have executed these men, despite widespread condemnation of their death sentences and calls from UN human rights experts and other bodies to halt their executions.  The trials of all three men were grossly unfair. All were denied access to their lawyers and families after their arrest, and all said they were tortured into making ‘confessions.’ In sentencing them to death despite these massive failings in due process, the Iranian authorities have once again demonstrated their brazen disregard for the right to life.”

Sweden’s current administration’s hypocrisy vis-à-vis Israel is already well known.  What is equally hypocritical is Sweden’s self-proclamation of being “the first feminist government in the world,” while betraying the Iranian women who, for years, protested against the regime’s suppression of women, and who risked arrest and punishment for discarding their head scarfs and hijabs.  In February, 2017, Swedish trade minister Ann Linde and other female members of the delegation, walked before Iranian President Rouhani wearing Hijabs, Chadors, and long coats indoors, in deference to Iran’s oppressive and unjust forced Hijab law.  Masih Alinejad, the Iranian women’s rights activist, urged European female politicians to stand for their own dignity and refuse to kowtow to the compulsory Hijab while visiting Iran.

For Wallstrom, it seems, only Palestinian’s deserve support from the Swedish government and their fellow EU leaders.  In May, 2017, during Israel’s Independence Day celebrations, Sweden was the only European country to vote in favor of a UNESCO resolution, which disputed Israel’s sovereignty over Jerusalem, and harshly criticized the Jewish state for having several building projects in Jerusalem, as well as its naval blockade of Gaza.  The Swedish government ignored Palestinian terrorism, Ramallah and Gaza spreading incitement and hate, and Palestinian rejection of negotiations with Israel, let alone compromise and peace with the Jewish state.  The fact that Israel is a liberal democracy, while Iran and the Palestinian regimes are oppressive, doesn’t deter Mallstrom from her bias and double standards.

The Times of Israel reported on March 21, 2018 that Swedish Foreign Minister Margot Wallstrom “appeared to display sympathy for the Palestinian Authority’s policy of paying salaries to the families of convicted Palestinian terrorists.”  Wallstrom was interviewed by a local (Swedish) Jewish publication. 

Sweden is a major provider of aid to the Palestinians in both Hamas controlled Gaza and the Palestinian Authority (PA) in Ramallah, as well as to anti-Israel Palestinian Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO’s). Human Rights Watch (HRW) World Report 2018 states, “The PA and Hamas arrested activists who criticized their leaders, security forces, or policies, and mistreated and tortured some in their custody. The Independent Commission for Human Rights in Palestine (ICHR), a statutory commission charged with monitoring human rights compliance by the Palestinian authorities, received 205 complaints of torture and ill-treatment by PA security forces and 193 such complaints against Hamas security forces as of October 31, 2017. Hamas authorities executed six people during this same period following trials that lacked appropriate due process protections.” 

The current Swedish government, it appears, prefers to pander to non-democratic and dictatorial regimes the likes of the Islamic Republic of Iran, and the Palestinians regimes in Ramallah and Gaza.  While Stockholm has warmed up to Iran’s mullahs (and eager to trade with Tehran) and the Palestinians, it has refused to support the Syrian Kurds defending themselves from Turkey’s aggression. Sweden has, moreover, shown its hypocrisy and greed by ignoring the suffering of Iranian Kurds for the sake of contracts with one of the top human rights abusers called the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Photo by Raul Mee


Joseph Puder

Source: https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/271683/swedish-hypocrisy-human-rights-joseph-puder

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter



Jordan cancels part of peace agreement with Israel - Ariel Kahana, Daniel Siryoti, Adi Hashmonai, Ronit Zilberstein, News Agencies and Israel Hayom Staff


by Ariel Kahana, Daniel Siryoti, Adi Hashmonai, Ronit Zilberstein, News Agencies and Israel Hayom Staff 

Amid rising domestic pressure, King Abdullah says he will not renew clauses in 1994 peace deal that lease borderlands to Israel



Jordan's King Abdullah
Photo: AFP 

Jordan's King Abdullah on Sunday said he has decided ‎not to renew parts of his country's landmark 1994 peace ‎treaty with Israel.‎

The king released a statement saying that he intends ‎to pull out of clauses in the ‎agreement that allow Israel to lease two small areas comprising 1,000 acres of agricultural ‎land‎ – ‎Baqura, known as Naharayim in Hebrew, in the northern Jordan Valley, and Ghamr in ‎the south – from the Jordanians for 25 years. ‎

The leases expire next year and the deadline for ‎renewing them is Thursday.‎

In Baqura, Israeli ‎‎"rights" date back to the ‎‎1920s, when Russian ‎Jewish engineer Pinhas ‎Rutenberg obtained a ‎concession in British Mandate ‎Palestine to build a ‎power plant there.‎

Both areas became part of Jordan after the kingdom ‎‎gained independence in 1946. Israel seized control ‎of Baqura in 1950 and ‎Ghamr in the 1967 Six-Day ‎War. Jordan regained sovereignty over the areas as ‎part of the 1994 peace deal and agreed to grant ‎Israeli farmers and military officers free access to ‎both.‎

In the wake of the agreement, the power plant in ‎Naharayim ‎ was named "Isle of Peace." In 1997, it ‎became the scene of a gruesome terrorist attack, when a Jordanian soldier opened fire at a group of Israeli schoolgirls on a field trip, killing seven and injuring six others.‎
Gil Eliyahu / JINI
The Isle of Peace power plant near the Israel-Jordan border

‎‎"These are Jordanian lands and they will remain [Jordanian lands]. We ‎are practicing our full sovereignty on our ‎‎land. Our priority in an era of regional turmoil is ‎to protect our interests and do ‎‎whatever is required ‎for Jordan and the Jordanians," Abdullah said ‎in a statement Sunday. ‎

The king did not give a reason for his decision, ‎but ‎he has faced escalating domestic pressure to end ‎the ‎lease and return the territories to full ‎Jordanian ‎control. ‎

A statement by the Jordanian ‎Foreign Ministry said ‎that "under the terms of the peace treaty, the lease ‎would be ‎automatically renewed unless either of the ‎parties ‎notified the other a year before expiry that ‎it ‎wished to terminate the agreement." ‎

Jordan and Egypt are the only two Arab states to have ‎peace treaties with Israel.
Jordan and Israel have ‎a long history of close security ‎ties and have also been expanding ‎economic ties in the ‎last year, including a major ‎deal to export billions ‎of dollars of Israeli ‎natural gas to the kingdom through a ‎pipeline that ‎crosses their northern borders.‎

However, the peace treaty with Israel is unpopular and ‎‎pro-Palestinian sentiment widespread in Jordan. ‎‎Activists and politicians have been vocal against a ‎‎renewal of the lease, which they say is ‎‎"humiliating" and perpetuates "‎Israeli occupation" ‎of Jordanian territory.‎

Tensions between Israel and Jordan have mounted in ‎‎recent months over such issues as the contested ‎‎status of Jerusalem and its holy sites, the stalled ‎‎Middle East peace talks, and last year's shooting of two ‎‎Jordanian citizens by an Israeli Embassy guard in ‎‎Amman, which ignited a diplomatic crisis.‎ Relations thawed after Israel replaced its ‎‎ambassador. ‎

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu acknowledged that ‎Jordan wanted to exercise its option to end the ‎arrangement, but stressed the Israel "will enter ‎negotiations with it on the possibility of extending ‎the current arrangement."‎

Netanyahu said the "accord as a whole is an ‎important thing" and called the peace deals with ‎Jordan and Egypt "anchors of regional stability." ‎
Kobi Gideon / GPO
King Abdullah of Jordan and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Amman, last ‎summer

Former Israeli Ambassador to Jordan Oded Eran said ‎he was not surprised by Jordan's decision, and said ‎there was still time for the two countries to ‎renegotiate the agreement. ‎

He dismissed the possibility that Jordan might pull ‎out of other parts of the broader peace treaty.‎

‎"For its own interests, the continuation of the ‎adherence to the peace treaty is in Jordan's ‎interest as indeed it is in the interest of Israel," ‎Eran said.‎

Dr. Abdullah Swalha, founder and director of the ‎Center for Israel Studies in Amman, told Israel ‎Hayom that ‎"there have been calls in Jordan to ‎cancel these clauses for two years. Recently, 86 MPs ‎signed a ‎petition demanding this. There is no economic gain for ‎Jordan here, so the king did it to ‎appease public ‎opinion."‎

He said he believed a deal could be reached ‎regarding the leasing of lands in Ghamr, but stressed that ‎‎"there is no scenario where Jordan relinquishes ‎sovereignty over Baqura. Jews have some rights there ‎and monetary compensation will probably be ‎discussed, or Jordanian farmers would lease the land ‎from the Jews, but we will not give up the land."‎

A senior Jordanian official denied reports that the ‎move stemmed from Palestinian or Arab pressure. ‎

‎"These lands belong to the Kingdom of Jordan, and in ‎light of the regional reality in recent years, it is ‎not appropriate for them to be leased [to a foreign entity]," he said.‎

He said Jordan's position was not a violation ‎of the peace treaty, saying, "The king acted in ‎accordance with the terms outlined in the clauses ‎signed 24 years ago." ‎

Israeli farmers were stunned to learn of the move. ‎

‎"It's like a bomb hit us. This means that years of ‎work will go down the drain," said Dr. Eyal Blum, ‎head of the Central Arava Regional Council. ‎

‎"The agricultural lands here are very significant in ‎terms of the area's security, national security and ‎the agricultural sector in the Arava [Desert]. This means 30 ‎agricultural farms in an area covering 345 acres ‎will collapse. It is inconceivable that after all ‎these years the order will change." ‎

Erez Gibori, a farmer from Moshav Tzofar, said the ‎area's farmers "are now fighting for our lives. If ‎they close the gates to our lands, there's nothing ‎for us here. We will leave. The state cannot abandon ‎us."‎

The news "was a big ‎surprise," said Jordan Valley Regional Council head Idan Greenbaum.

"We were very disappointed and saddened to ‎learn of the king's decision. This came as a shock to us because we ‎have a very good relationship with our Jordanian ‎neighbors. ‎

‎"This isn't the end of it, though. We expect the ‎government to sit down with the Jordanians and reach ‎an agreement that will allow us to continue farming ‎these lands, as we have been doing for the past 70 ‎years," he said. ‎


Ariel Kahana, Daniel Siryoti, Adi Hashmonai, Ronit Zilberstein, News Agencies and Israel Hayom Staff

Source: http://www.israelhayom.com/2018/10/22/jordan-cancels-part-of-peace-agreement-with-israel/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter