How Obama's Refugee Policies Undermine National Security - Michael Cutler

by Michael Cutler

The administration orders “shields down” in the wake of a succession of deadly terror attacks.

The issue of the admission of Syrian refugees into the United States has understandably ignited a firestorm of protest by Americans concerned about their safety and the safety of their families. These Americans are not exhibiting "xenophobia," the usual claim made by the open borders immigration anarchists. They have simply been paying attention to what James Comey, the Director of the FBI, and Michael Steinbach, the FBI's Assistant Director of the Counterterrorism Division, have stated when they testified before congressional hearings about the Syrian refugee crisis. They made it clear that these refugees cannot be vetted. There are no reliable databases to check and no capacity to conduct field investigations inside Syria to verify the backgrounds of these aliens.

I focused on these issues in my October 7, 2015 article for FrontPage Magazine, “Syrian 'Refugees' and Immigration Roulette: How the government is recklessly playing with American lives.”

Further reports have provided disturbing information that ISIS operatives have seized blank Syrian passports and other identity documents, along with the printing devices used to prepare passports and other ID, and have sold these documents to reporters in false names. These identity documents are indistinguishable from bona fide documents because they are bona fide documents -- except that the photos and biometrics do not relate to the original person but create credible false aliases for anyone willing to pay for them.

The challenges our officials face in attempting to vet refugees and others was the focus of my September 15, 2015 article for FrontPage Magazine, “The Refugee Crisis Must Not Undermine U.S. National Security: America's enemies cannot be permitted to turn our compassion into a weapon against us.”

These multiple challenges, where failures may well cost American lives and undermine national security, are well known to the administration, yet the administration defiantly continues to press for the admission of thousands of Syrian refugees. Meanwhile, the administration ignores a commonsense solution to the refugee crisis that would be far more cost effective and not undermine U.S. national security or pose a threat to public safety: The simple establishment of safe zones in the Middle East for these refugees. This is a proposal made by a number of our true leaders, including Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama.

In an unsuccessful attempt to assuage the fears of Americans about the vetting process, the administration claimed that the screening process was thorough, noting that the vetting process for Syrian refugees was a lengthy process that took from 18 months to two years. (Of course without reliable databases or the ability to conduct field investigations in Syria, no length of time would be adequate.)

The situation in Syria and the growing threats posed by ISIS was the subject of an April 12, 2016 hearing conducted by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on the topic, “The Spread of ISIS and Transnational Terrorism.” While it should be obvious, I want you to bear in mind the term “Transnational Terrorism.” This refers to terrorists traveling across international borders to prepare for terror attacks. The movement of people across international borders is the domain of our immigration system, which has arguably become one of the most dysfunctional of all of our government's systems.

The multitude of failures of the immigration system can be traced to the failures of a succession of administrations from both political parties going back decades -- but no administration has done more to hobble efforts to secure our borders and enforce our immigration laws than the current administration. Yet Hilary Clinton and Bernie Sanders and other politicians refuse to accept the fundamental fact that our nation's borders, including our 328 ports of entry, provide far too easy access to transnational criminals and terrorists who either enter without inspection or manage to enter via the inspections process and disappear into the “woodwork.”

Legalizing illegal aliens whose identities cannot be verified is no less dangerous than providing refugee status to refugees who cannot be vetted.

That was the point to my self-explanatory November 24, 2016 FrontPage Magazine article, “Entry Without Inspection = Entry Without Vetting: The dire threat to our national security and public safety.”

Now the administration, with the support of many politicians (mostly Democrats), is doing the unthinkable: running the already fatally flawed vetting process at warp speed. This is unconscionable and beyond any rational justification.

The administration has made this outrageous decision despite the fact that there is no reliable way to vet these refugees and even in the wake of the recent deadly attacks in San Bernardino, California, France and Belgium. These attacks have justifiably added to the concerns of all Americans about the threats posed to our nation by ISIS, al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations.

While we have been told that the vetting of travelers at airports would likely take longer so that the TSA can more carefully screen passengers following of the terror attack in Belgium, the administration simultaneously announced that not only would the plans to admit Syrian refugees proceed, but that because of the “surge” of those refugees, the screening process will be slashed from two years to just three months.

On April 6, 2016 NBC News reported, “First Syrian Family in 'Surge' Resettlement Program Departs for Kansas City.”

Here is an excerpt from the NBC News report:

A resettlement surge center opened in Amman in February to meet President Barack Obama's target of resettling 10,000 Syrians to the United States by Sep. 30. Every day, the center interviews some 600 Syrian refugees.
The temporary processing center for the surge operation will run until April 28, U.S. Ambassador to Jordan Alice Wells said. She traveled to the airport to greet the al-Abbouds before their departure.
The regional refugee coordinator at the U.S. embassy in Amman, Gina Kassem, said that while the 10,000 target applies to Syrian refugees living around the world, the majority will be resettled from Jordan.
"The 10,000 is a floor and not a ceiling, and it is possible to increase the number," she told reporters, according to the AP.
While the resettlement process usually takes 18 to 24 months, under the surge operation this will be reduced to three months, Kassem said.

It is worth noting that once again the term of choice by the administration is “surge.” We have witnessed “surges” of what were described as unaccompanied minors along the U.S./Mexican border that overwhelmed the Border Patrol and caused the understaffed immigration courts to overflow with the human tsunami of that surge.

As a consequence, the immigration courts were compelled to put hearings on hold for aliens facing deportation (removal) from the United States. Often these aliens had been convicted of committing serious crimes that predicated that decision to seek their removal from the United States. Because of a lack of detention space and other such factors, most of these aliens were simply released back into the communities where they committed still more crimes -- usually, ironically, victimizing members of the various ethnic immigrant communities around the United States.

Now we have a “refugee surge” that the administration is eagerly exploiting, claiming that the only way to deal with overwhelming numbers of such refugees is to take the two-year process and slice it down to just 90 days. Furthermore, the report noted that the 10,000 refugees heading to the United States is the smallest number of refugees that we can anticipate will be admitted into the United States, while apparently there is no limit as to what the ultimate number of refugees could be. As noted above, Ms. Kassem, the regional refugee coordinator at the U.S. Embassy at Amman Jordan, was quoted as having said, "The 10,000 is a floor and not a ceiling, and it is possible to increase the number."

Perhaps Ms. Kassem should issue another statement: “Damn the terrorists -- full speed ahead!”

As insane and reprehensible as this is on the federal level, we must also consider the issue of “sanctuary cities,” which involves local government. These municipalities provide shielding to aliens who have trespassed on our nation or otherwise violated the immigration laws that were enacted to achieve the fundamental and entirely reasonable goals of protecting national security, the lives of innocent people and the jobs of American workers -- and in a particularly perilous era.

I have written about this madness and also testified before congressional hearings about the lunacy of sanctuary cities. In point of fact, on February 27, 2003 I testified before the House Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Claims on the topic, “New York City's 'Sanctuary Policy' and the Effect of Such Policies on Public Safety, Law Enforcement, and Immigration.”

For those politicians who cannot understand the anger of the citizenry of the United States, they would do well to look in the mirror to see who our adversaries are.

It is time for these politicians to get the memo: you are either with us or you are against us.

Michael Cutler is a retired Senior Special Agent of the former INS (Immigration and Naturalization Service) whose career spanned some 30 years. He served as an Immigration Inspector, Immigration Adjudications Officer and spent 26 years as an agent who rotated through all of the squads within the Investigations Branch. For half of his career he was assigned to the Drug Task Force. He has testified before well over a dozen congressional hearings, provided testimony to the 9/11 Commission as well as state legislative hearings around the United States and at trials where immigration is at issue. He hosts his radio show, “The Michael Cutler Hour,” on Friday evenings on BlogTalk Radio. His personal website is http://michaelcutler.net/.

Source: http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/262512/how-obamas-refugee-policies-undermine-national-michael-cutler

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

The Unserious West and the Serious Jihadists - Bruce Thornton

by Bruce Thornton

The Obama administration and the "nuisance of terrorism."

 

In Terry Gilliam’s dystopian film-classic Brazil, London is under assault from a 13-year-long terrorist campaign that Londoners won’t stop and so just live with. A bomb goes off in a restaurant, and the waiters scurry to screen off the mangled and dying so survivors can continue eating. When reminded by a journalist that “The bombing campaign is now in it 13th year,” the Deputy Minister laughs, “Beginner’s luck!” The West today is rapidly approaching the surreal insouciance of Gilliam’s fantasy.

Think about Obama, hanging out with head of terror-state Raul Castro at a baseball game during the Brussels attacks that killed 34, including four Americans. Obama told Chris Wallace that the terrorists “win” if we don’t go about our daily business, like the diners in Brazil ordering dessert among the screams and moans of the dying and wounded. After all, ISIS is not an “existential threat,” as the president keeps saying, and more of us die in bathtub falls than are killed by terrorists. Obama apparently thinks he has achieved John Kerry’s goal during the 2004 presidential campaign to reduce terrorism to a “nuisance” like prostitution.

I suppose the absurd security measures we endure every time we board a plane is the sort of “nuisance” Kerry and Obama are talking about. I guess we “win” when we dutifully take off our shoes and coats, put our computers and three ounces of liquids in a tray, and submit to aggressive wanding by surly TSA functionaries. Are such silly measures now part of the daily life we should just get on with? Of course Obama’s attitude is preposterous, and he should know that it is the terrorists who “win” every time an 80-year-old has to endure being felt up by a federal worker. Meanwhile, in breach tests of TSA inspectors in 2015, 95% of fake explosives and contraband sailed through the screening process.

These inefficient and intrusive procedures have been put in place mainly to avoid stigmatizing Muslims. Such obeisance to politically correct proscriptions against “profiling” is just one of the myriad ways in which we tell the jihadist enemy we really aren’t serious about the latest battle in the 14-century-long war of Islam against the infidel West. 

Take Obama’s Executive Order 1341, which banned waterboarding and other “enhanced interrogation techniques” of captured jihadists. Now only those practices in the Army Field Manual can be used to question detainees, despite the fact that the document is public and so jihadists can use it to train terrorists how to resist. Forget that one technique, waterboarding, is legal under U.S. law, and generated actionable intelligence––according to former CIA chief George Tenet, waterboarding a few high-value suspects helped foil over 20 al Qaida plots against the U.S. Those facts cannot outweigh Obama’s need to preen morally and gratify international anti-Americanism. 

More recently, his notoriously political CIA director John Brennan displayed once again this administration’s lack of seriousness about the war against Islamic jihad. In 2009 Brennan “corrected” 14 centuries of Islamic scripture, practice, and law by calling jihad a way “to purify oneself or to wage a holy struggle for a moral good.” Obviously, the most revered Shi’a Islamic theologian, the Ayatollah Khomeini, was wrong when he said, “Islam says: Kill all the unbelievers,” or “Those who study jihad will understand why Islam wants to conquer the whole world.” That’s also the “moral good” for which ISIS wages jihad.

Brennan apparently learned nothing since 2009 about the nature of this war. Responding last week to Donald Trump’s promise to bring back waterboarding of detainees, Brennan huffed that should any president revoke Obama’s executive order and allow waterboarding and other EIT’s, “I will not agree to carry out some of these tactics and techniques I’ve heard bandied about, because this institution needs to endure.” Only someone profoundly unserious about his duty to protect the lives and safety of his fellow citizens would promise to disobey the Commander-in-Chief just so the bureaucracy he oversees can “endure,” whatever that means. The CIA has one job, protecting America’s security and interests, and it will “endure” only by successfully doing so, not by moral exhibitionism.

This lack of seriousness is endemic in this administration. Refusing to call ISIS “Islamic,” even going so far as to censor comments by French president François Hollande that used the word, bespeaks a dangerous frivolity. So too do symbolic tactics like droning an endless parade of ISIS “number twos” instead of committing enough forces and dropping enough bombs to make a strategic difference in the region. Instead, the American-led bombing campaign has averaged a mere seven strikes a day, with 75% of the planes returning with their bombs. Meanwhile Russia was averaging 60 strikes a day, freed from the squeamish rules of engagement that inhibit our forces from taking out an oil truck because it would kill the driver. Obama’s war against ISIS is a symbolic one typical of unserious politicians.

Our problem, however, goes beyond the politicians. Too many of us have failed to understand that this war did not begin on 9/11. It did not begin when al Qaeda declared war on us in the 90s and attacked our embassies and naval vessels. It did not begin in 1979, when our alleged neo-colonialist depredations supposedly sparked the Iranian revolution and created today’s Islamic (N.B., Mr. President) Republic of Iran, the world’s premier state sponsor of terrorism. It did not begin in 1948, when five Arab nations, all but one members of the U.N., violated Resolution 191 and attacked Israel. It did not begin when after World War I the victorious Entente powers exercised mandatory powers, granted by the League of Nations and codified in international treaties, over the territory of the Ottoman Empire that had sided with the Central Powers.

All these acts of aggression were merely the latest in a war begun in the 7th century when Islam attacked the eastern Roman Empire and began its serial dismemberment of the heart of Christendom, the old word for the West. For a thousand years the armies of Allah successfully invaded, conquered, occupied, enslaved, and raided the West, in accordance with its doctrine of jihad in the service of Muslim domination, and in homage to Mohammed’s injunction, “I was told to fight all men until they say there is no god but Allah.” This record of success began to end in the 17th century with the rise of the modern West and its technological, economic, and political advantages. 

But the war didn’t end with that Muslim retreat, even after what bin Laden called the “catastrophe” –– the demise of the Ottoman Caliphate, and the division of its territory into Western-style nation-states. The West won that battle, but it did not win the war. One reason is the Muslim nations of the Middle East never suffered the wages of their aggression. They sided with the Central Powers in World War I. They sat out World War II––apart from the many thousands who fought on the side of the Nazis––and received fugitive Nazis as guests after the war. Their serial aggression and terror against Israel has never been repaid with bombed-out capitals or punitive postwar reprisals. Their governments have never been punished for funding and proliferating mosques and madrassas teaching hatred of the infidel and terrorist violence in the service of jihad.

Instead of paying the price of aggression, partly because of the Cold War, more recently because of Western failure of nerve and civilizational exhaustion, Muslims have been the beneficiaries of billions in Western aid, Western arms, Western defense against enemies, Western lax immigration policies, Western appeasement, and Western suicidal ideas like cultural and moral relativism. In short, Muslims have never accepted their defeats, and have never experienced the humiliating cost of their aggression, because the modern West has never forced them to pay for it. 

Thus they look at our unserious, godless culture of consumption and frivolity, of self-loathing and guilt, and these serious believers are confident that 350 years of defeat in battle have not led to defeat in the long war. And so the war goes on. The frivolous Western dogs bark, but Allah’s caravan moves on.

Bruce Thornton is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, a Research Fellow at Stanford's Hoover Institution, and a Professor of Classics and Humanities at the California State University. He is the author of nine books and numerous essays on classical culture and its influence on Western Civilization. His most recent book, Democracy's Dangers and Discontents (Hoover Institution Press), is now available for purchase.

Source: http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/262483/unserious-west-and-serious-jihadists-bruce-thornton

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

When You’ve Lost Your Leverage (Saudis On The Ropes) - Clarice Feldman

by Clarice Feldman

Why these 28 pages were classified in the first place is subject to debate

My online friend Lisa Schiffrin notes that “As we know from personal relationships, the less you care about your relationship with someone, the more leverage you have.” That’s the lesson, it seems, the Saudis are about to learn.
It’s hardly been a secret to those who paid attention that some Saudis, including some highly placed ones, have funded and fanned the flames of Wahhabism, the ultra-conservative form of Islam throughout the world. Perhaps it was out of religious belief, but just as likely it was to keep the ruling families in power and the extremists from attacking them. If so, it may now prove to have been an unwise strategy.

The role of Saudis in the 9/11 attack on the U.S. has hardly been completely hidden: 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudis, trained in Wahhabi schools. More than that, there is evidence that Saudi officials in the U.S. aided and abetted them once they were here -- people like Omar al-Bayoumi, who met with some of the hijackers on the very same day he met with someone (as yet not publicly identified) in the Saudi consulate in Los Angeles.

Families of those murdered on 9/11 have been trying to get redress through litigation from the Saudi royal family, Saudi banks, and Saudi charities, but have been stymied in part because of 1976 law that grants immunity to foreign nations in U.S. courts. There’s an effort in Congress to change that, to deny such immunity to nations that have been culpable for terrorist attacks, which kill Americans on American soil. It is probably no coincidence that as this legislation is being considered, CBS’ "60 Minutes" aired a feature on the efforts to declassify the 28 redacted pages of an investigative Congressional report written in 2003 that documents the Saudi support for the 9/11 hijackers. 

While these damning 28 pages were redacted, they are accessible to Congress members, and persons who have served on the committee itself have revealed in general terms their content. Senator Bob Graham, who co-chaired the Committee, indicates the report, “outlines a network of people that supported the hijackers while they were on the West Coast and helped them to enroll in flight school.”

Questioned on whether that network included the government, rich people,and charities, the senator replied: “All of the above”.

These questions have begun to dog Barack Obama:

But as Obama heads to Saudi Arabia next week for a visit that will include a meeting with King Salman, the outgoing US president is facing increasing pressure to declassify those pages.
The pressure comes amid rising tensions in US-Saudi relations, with the Sunni Wahhabi kingdom – under an increasingly bellicose Salman – opposed to Washington’s overtures to its arch rival, Iran, which culminated in a nuclear deal last year. A decreasing US reliance on Saudi oil has further strained a bilateral relationship once considered too important to fray. Suddenly, realpolitik imperatives are not sufficient to silence the howls for accountability from the families of the 9/11 victims and the US public at large.
[snip]
60 Minutes… detailed the level of frustration among senior US officials who have been pushing for a declassification over the past 13 years.
These senior former and current officials include Florida Senator Bob Graham, chairman of the Senate Select Committee and co-chairman of the inquiry, and former CIA director Porter Goss, who was also a co-chairman of the inquiry.
Two days after the 60 Minutes broadcast, Sen. Graham told Fox News that the White House had informed him that a decision on whether to declassify the documents would be made in one to two months.
Graham provided no details on why it would take a month or two, although White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest told reporters on Tuesday that the 28 papers were the subject of an intelligence community “classification review.” 

Why these 28 pages were classified in the first place is subject to debate -- was it to hide sloppy investigative efforts, as former Democratic congressman Tim Roemer has suggested? Was it to avoid straining relations with an unreliable but still necessary government ally whose oil exports were essential to other of our allies? Or was it done simply to avoid embarrassment to then President G.W. Bush who along with his family had close ties to the Saudi rulers? In any event, there’s good reason to believe these 28 pages were not classified to protect our state secrets.

John Lehman, secretary of the Navy in the Reagan administration and another member of the 9/11 Commission, told 60 Minutes: “We’re not a bunch of rubes that rode into Washington for this commission… We’ve seen fire and we’ve seen rain and the politics of national security. We all have dealt for our careers in highly classified and compartmentalized in every aspect of security. We know when something shouldn’t be declassified. And this, those 28 pages in no way fall into that category.”
[snip]
Lehman told 60 Minutes that he has no doubt some high Saudi officials knew assistance was being provided to al Qaeda, but he doesn’t think it was ever official policy. He also doesn’t think it absolves the Saudis of responsibility, Kroft said in his commentary.

The Joint Inquiry in 2002 headed by Goss and Graham preceded the 9/11 Commission, which released its own report in 2004. Persons connected with that 2004 report have offered differing views of the significance of the 28 pages in the earlier Congressional report:

Democratic California Rep. Adam Schiff said this year that “the issues raised in those pages were investigated by the 9/11 Commission and found to be unsubstantiated” and says he would like to see them released to defuse the controversy surrounding their existence. The 9/11 Commission’s director, Philip Zelikow, doesn’t appear to have taken a public stance on the pages’ release, but he told Lawrence Wright that they amount to “an agglomeration of preliminary, unvetted reports.” The 9/11 Commission’s official report says it ultimately “found no evidence that the Saudi government as an institution or senior Saudi officials individually funded [al-Qaida].”
On the other hand, more than one member of the 9/11 Commission -- including former Democratic Sen. Bob Kerrey, who spoke to 60 Minutes -- has said that the “found no evidence” sentence should not be considered an exoneration of the Saudis. 

The dispute comes at a particularly difficult time for the Saudi government. It faces substantial revenue cut as the price of oil keeps dropping and seems unlikely to be able to persuade other petrostates to freeze oil production to raise prices.

The petrostates assembling in Doha to discuss a potential output freeze two days from now aren’t coming together in a show of solidarity or out of some sense of duty towards one another, but rather as an act of desperation. Bloomberg ran the numbers, and found that the oil price collapse has collectively cost the 18 countries involved in this meeting nearly one third of a trillion dollars.
[snip]
‘Saudi Arabia accounts for nearly half of the decline in foreign-exchange reserves among oil producers, with $138 billion -- or 23 percent of its total -- followed by Russia, Algeria, Libya and Nigeria. In the final three months of last year, Saudi Arabia burned through $38.1 billion, the biggest quarterly reduction in data going back to 1962. […]’
Now, though, the Saudis are finally looking to coordinate production with other petrostates, spurred on by the speed at which their rainy day fund is being depleted.
And with Riyadh ready to play ball, there’s not much more in the way of a deal to limit output… except for Tehran, which is looking to boost its own production to the levels it was posting before Western sanctions were enacted. Iran is one of many reasons why this Doha meeting looks unlikely to produce the sort of price rebound those 18 assembled nations really want….

In terms of national defense, Saudi Arabia’s situation is also difficult. The administration has obviously tilted toward Iran; Iranian-Saudi relations are at a new low, with a heated proxy war going on in Syria. The Saudis have reached out to both Egypt and Israel, granting billions in aid to Al-Sissi who, in return, has ceded islands in the straits of Tiran to Saudi Arabia, islands Egypt was given by Israel. The Saudis in compliance with the Egypt-Israeli treaty gave public written assurance to the Israelis promising them free passage for Israeli shipping through the straits. 

Beset by an enormous loss of revenue and existential danger, the release of these 28 pages now is certainly not something that would be welcomed by the Saudis.

True, in 2003 then-Saudi Ambassador Prince Bandar bin Sultan proclaimed that his country had “nothing to hide”. 

Present threats by the Saudis suggest they, indeed, do fear disclosure:

Saudi Arabia has told the Obama administration and members of Congress that it will sell off hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of American assets held by the kingdom if Congress passes a bill that would allow the Saudi government to be held responsible in American courts for any role in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
[snip]
Adel al-Jubeir, the Saudi foreign minister, delivered the kingdom’s message personally last month during a trip to Washington, telling lawmakers that Saudi Arabia would be forced to sell up to $750 billion in treasury securities and other assets in the United States before they could be in danger of being frozen by American courts.
Several outside economists are skeptical that the Saudis will follow through, saying that such a sell-off would be difficult to execute and would end up crippling the kingdom’s economy. But the threat is another sign of the escalating tensions between Saudi Arabia and the United States.

From my armchair perspective I don’t see that the Saudis have much leverage to make good on their threats. I don’t think they can any longer protect those members of the royal family or officials or banks or charities if, as claimed, these played a role in 9/11. At best, the Saudis can hope the record does not implicate their nation as a whole, and they ought to cooperate by waiving immunity from this suit, either by promising to make available for civil trial any of their people or institutions involved, or by negotiating on their behalf of all the defendants a settlement of the claims of the victims of the 9/11 attacks.

In any event, it looks like the game may well be up.

Clarice Feldman

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/04/when_youve_lost_your_leverage_saudis_on_the_ropes.html

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

BDS gets hundreds of thousands of dollars from Rockefeller fund - Yair Altman and Israel Hayom Staff

by Yair Altman and Israel Hayom Staff

In scathing letter, Israeli legal watchdog Shurat Hadin warns Rockefeller Brothers Fund that its support of groups that advocate boycotting Israel could cause the fund to be "considered complicit and as a participant in these groups' illegal activities."

Attorney and Shurat Hadin Director Nitsana Darshan-Leitner | Photo credit: Yossi Zeliger

The Rockefeller Brothers Fund has given anti-Israel BDS organizations hundreds of thousands of dollars, according to the Shurat Hadin Israel Law Center. 

In a scathing letter to the RBF earlier this month, the Israeli legal watchdog group warned the RBF that its support of groups that advocate boycotting Israel could cause the fund to be "considered complicit and as a participant in these groups' illegal activities."

The fund, which belongs to the Rockefeller family, donates especially large sums of money to various institutions in Israel and abroad, which according to the allegations include Israeli and Palestinian human rights groups that publicly support the BDS movement.

Shurat Hadin claimed that in 2015 the RBF granted $140,000 to Jewish Voice for Peace; $20,000 to Zochrot; $50,000 to the American Friends Service Committee's Israel program; and $100,000 to the Al-Shabaka organization.

In its letter to the RBF, Shurat Hadin wrote: "The BDS movement's efforts constitute unlawful discrimination on the basis of national origin, race, and religion under the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination ('Anti-Racism Convention') and numerous U.S. federal and state statutes, including New York law. Funding organizations that promote BDS raises serious legal issues for RBF. Accordingly, we strongly advise you to consider whether RBF should continue to provide financial backing to these hate groups who promote BDS against Israel and Israeli companies, individuals, and products."

Shurat Hadin Director Nitsana Darshan-Leitner said: "It is even more difficult for me to understand how the children of such an esteemed father can allow the fund honoring their father's legacy to be involved in racist and discriminatory activity. ... Shurat Hadin will not hesitate to take legal steps against these organizations and those who fund them if they try to or perpetrate any boycott of Israel."

The Rockefeller Brothers Fund said in response: "While the foundation does not support the call for BDS, we stand behind all the organizations supported by the fund and which work for a just and peaceful future for Israelis and Palestinians."

Yair Altman and Israel Hayom Staff

Source: http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_article.php?id=33135&hp=1

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Sailing through the Straits: The Meaning for Israel of Restored Saudi Sovereignty over Tiran and Sanafir Islands - Col. (res.) Dr. Eran Lerman and Prof. Joshua Teitelbaum

by Col. (res.) Dr. Eran Lerman and Prof. Joshua Teitelbaum

The fact that Saudi Arabia has now undertaken to uphold in practice the obligations assumed by Egypt under its peace treaty with Israel, means that Israel's place in the region is no longer perceived by Arab leader Saudi Arabia as an anomaly to be corrected.

 

BESA Center Perspectives Paper No. 340, April 17, 2016
The fact that Saudi Arabia has now undertaken to uphold in practice the obligations assumed by Egypt under its peace treaty with Israel, means that Israel's place in the region is no longer perceived by Arab leader Saudi Arabia as an anomaly to be corrected. This is a far cry from normalization of Saudi relations with Israel, but it is nevertheless a welcome ray of light, demonstrating the benefits of cooperation and coordination in a region beset by violence.

For Israelis above a certain age, mentioning the name of Tiran and Sanafir islands is enough to send a thrill – or a chill – down their spines, bringing to mind the proud refrain of a popular song, written in the tense days just before the Six Day War: “We shall make our way/ at nighttime or day/ with our flag, blue and white/ through the Tiran Straits.”

Indeed, the Straits were the casus belli back in 1967, when Gamal Abd al-Nasser cast all caution (and international norms) to the wind and closed them to Israeli shipping. Eilat is a strategic asset and the terminus of Israel's trade with much of Asia and Africa. Even the secretive Protocol of Sèvres signed by Britain, France and Israel in October 1956 had included an explicit reference to Israel's needs concerning the two islands.

Israel captured the islands in the Six Day War, but the 1979 Peace Treaty between Israel and Egypt enshrined Egypt’s commitment to international norms regarding the freedom of navigation and the islands were returned. One of the region’s neuralgic points was thus removed for many years from the headlines and from the field of conflict.

Will it now re-emerge again as a source of tension? The answer, at least for the foreseeable future, can be deduced from the circumstances of the dramatic announcement this week. It came as the culminating achievement of Saudi King Salman’s historic visit to Cairo, which cemented the vital relationship between these two pillars of regional stability and saw the promulgation of a long list of bilateral agreements on economic and strategic cooperation.

Having played a major role in sustaining the present Egyptian regime against political and economic challenges, the Saudis were now in a position to finalize the restoration of their sovereignty over the islands, control of which they have ceded to Egypt back in 1949 in the context of the latter’s better ability to utilize them in the struggle with Israel – which has by now become irrelevant. Their legal case was apparently unassailable, and it was thus more a matter of when rather than whether they will actually assert their claim.

This came as no surprise to Israel. Back in July 2015, the “Cairo Declaration” issued during the visit of Salman’s activist son, Muhammad – serving as Saudi Arabia's Defense Minister – included an explicit reference to the need to settle certain questions of maritime demarcation between the two countries – which could only mean the two islands. Egypt took care to explain its decision to Israel and to allay any fears that this may have any effect on the freedom of navigation. The Saudis did so as well, according to Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon, albeit in their own way, while asserting that no direct coordination with Israel can be expected (nor is it necessary).

Israel’s freedom of navigation in the Straits was guaranteed in the deal, said Ayalon. And indeed, the restoration of sovereignty serves to bolster the Saudi commitment to Egyptian stability – which goes a long way towards explaining the rage expressed by the Muslim Brotherhood at this breach of Egypt's “national rights.” With the need to confront Iran high above all other considerations in the Saudi and Egyptian national security playbook – and in Israel’s – any major step that helps bring together the “camp of stability” in the region under joint Egyptian-Saudi leadership will also serve Israel’s interests.

Moreover, despite the disavowal of any direct contacts over this issue – and other important issues – over the years, the very fact that Saudi Arabia now undertakes to uphold in practice the obligations assumed by Egypt under the peace treaty means that Israel's place in the region is no longer perceived by Arab leader Saudi Arabia as an anomaly to be corrected. This is a far cry from “normalization” (tatbi`) – which remains a dirty word in the Arab dictionary. But it is nevertheless a welcome ray of light, demonstrating the benefits of cooperation and coordination in a region beset by so much violence.
PDF


Col. (res.) Dr. Eran Lerman is former deputy for foreign policy and international affairs at the Israel National Security Council. He served for two decades in Israeli military intelligence. Prof. Joshua Teitelbaum, an expert on the Gulf states, Saudi Arabia, and pan-Arab issues, teaches in the department of Middle East studies at Bar-Ilan University. Both are senior research associates at the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies.

Source: http://besacenter.org/perspectives-papers/meaning-israel-restored-saudi-sovereignty-tiran-sanafir-islands/

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Israel, Turkey, Russia and Egypt - Shoshana Bryen

by Shoshana Bryen

In 2011, the UN Palmer Commission Report found the blockade of Gaza -- jointly administered with Egypt -- to be legal, and said Israel owed Turkey neither an apology nor compensation.

• Lifting the Israel/Egypt embargo on Gaza would empower Hamas, and thereby the Muslim Brotherhood, Iran and ISIS -- which would seem an enormous risk for no gain.

Turkish sources assert that Turkish-Israeli governmental relations are about to come out of the deep freeze. But this is a reflection of Turkey's regional unpopularity and glides over Turkish demands for Israel to end the blockade of Gaza. To meet Turkey's condition, Israel would have to abandon the security arrangement it shares with Egypt -- which has increased Israel's security and has begun to pay regional dividends. To restore full relations between Israel and Turkey would irritate Russia, with which Israel has good trade and political relations, and a respectful series of understandings regarding Syria. Israel's relations with the Kurds are also at issue here.

After the 2010 Mavi Marmara flotilla -- in which Turkey supported the Hamas-related Turkish organization, the IHH, in its effort to break the blockade of Gaza -- Turkey made three demands of Israel: an Israeli apology for the deaths of Turkish activists; a financial settlement; and lifting the Gaza blockade, which Turkey claimed was illegal. The last would provide IHH with the victory it was unable to achieve with the flotilla.

The Turkish-owned ship Mavi Marmara took part in a 2010 "Gaza flotilla" attempting to break Israel's naval blockade of Gaza, which is in place to prevent the terrorist group Hamas from bringing arms into Gaza. (Image source: "Free Gaza movement"/Flickr)

In 2011, however, the UN Palmer Commission Report found the blockade of Gaza -- jointly administered with Egypt -- to be legal, and said Israel owed Turkey neither an apology nor compensation. In 2013, at the urging of President Obama and to move the conversation off the impasse, Prime Minister Netanyahu did apologize for the loss of life and agree to discuss compensation. While President Obama was pleased, Prime Minister Erdogan repaid the gesture by denigrating Israel on Turkish television and announcing he would force the end of the blockade. Israel's condition -- that the office of Hamas in Ankara be closed -- was ignored.

Nevertheless, in February 2014, Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu told Turkish television that Israel and Turkey were "closer than ever" to normalizing relations." In December 2015, it was more of the same. And in February 2016, there was yet another announcement of imminent restoration of government-to-government ties. In March, Kurdish sources said Turkey was demanding weapons from Israel, but that Israel wanted to ensure that Turkey would not use them against Kurdish forces.

Israel finds itself in an odd position -- choosing among those who want its cooperation.

Israel and Egypt have come to a deep understanding of the sources of instability and insecurity in Sinai, and the relationship between Hamas in Gaza and its primary sponsor, Iran, as well as ISIS. Former IDF Chief of Staff Benny Gantz told inFOCUS magazine recently:

Coordination between us is very high and very important because we have identical interests. Period. The way to achieve them might look different, but Egypt is a very important country. It is crucial to the world to ensure its stability - progress in the fight against ISIS that is present in Sinai, and protecting the Suez Canal, and other things... They are all good reasons for Egypt to take these responsibilities seriously and do something about the threats. I'm very happy to see what they're doing. It is a good track.

This month, Egypt and Saudi Arabia upgraded relations with Egypt, ceding back to the Saudis two islands that Saudi Arabia had given Egypt in 1950 to help Egypt fight Israel in the Red Sea. According to a report in the Egyptian daily al-Ahram, as reported by the Jerusalem Post, the Egyptian government informed Israel of the parameters of the deal, noting that Riyadh would be obligated to honor all of Egypt's commitments in the peace treaty with Israel, including the presence of international peacekeepers on the islands and freedom of maritime movement in the Gulf of Aqaba. Israel approved the deal "on condition that the Saudis fill in the Egyptians' shoes in the military appendix of the peace agreement," according to Defense Minister Moshe Yaalon.

This makes Saudi Arabia an active partner in the Camp David Accords. And it follows on the heels of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) labeling Hezbollah "a terror organization" without the weasel words the Europeans used to condemn only the "military wing" of the organization.

In the face of these developments, it is hard to imagine a benefit that would accrue to Israel by negating the Israel-Egypt blockade of Gaza on behalf of Turkey.

Russia presents a similar series of circumstances. Relations between Russia and Turkey have taken a nosedive over the Syrian civil war, particularly after Turkey shot down a Russian plane. But even before that, Turkey's support of Sunni jihadist organizations was a thorn in the side of Russia, which still fears Sunni jihad inside southern Russia.

Russia has goals in Syria and Israel also has requirements. In his inFOCUS interview, former Chief of Staff Gantz noted:

The [Israeli] Prime Minister and Chief of Staff [Gantz's successor] flew to Russia and had some important of discussions of intentions, deconfliction, and we expressed our interests... stability, preventing terrorist activity... preventing armament that will go from Iran through Syria to Hezbollah, or from Russia to Syria and then to Hezbollah.... People can see what it is that Israel does once in a while when it has to protect itself.

Add to this Israel's generally good economic and political relations with Russia and, again, it is hard to see the benefit that would accrue to Israel by forging closer relations with Turkey while Russia and Turkey are doing a slow burn.

Turkey is doing a faster burn on the Kurds. Having waged a fierce war against Kurdish separatists in southern Turkey, the Turkish government has taken military action against the Kurds of Iraq and Syria to prevent Kurdish forces from connecting two enclaves -- one in Iraq and one in Syria -- that could form the geographic beginning of an independent Kurdistan.

Even at the peak of Israeli-Turkish relations, Israel's support of the Kurds has been a relatively open political secret. Although the Israeli government consistently denies providing weapons, reputable sources suggest, at a minimum, training for Kurdish forces. Most recently, Israel acknowledged buying oil from Kurdish sources in Northern Iraq, and IsraAid, an Israeli humanitarian organization, provided assistance to Kurdish refugees fleeing ISIS. Prime Minister Netanyahu has publicly supported the establishment of a Kurdish state.

For Israel to trade its increasingly important relations with Russia, with Egypt -- and thereby with Saudi Arabia -- and with the Kurds for Turkish political approval and a promise to buy Israeli natural gas would seem to be a bad deal. For Israel to accompany that with the lifting of the Israel/Egypt embargo on Gaza that would empower Hamas -- and thereby the Muslim Brotherhood, Iran and ISIS -- would seem an enormous risk for no gain.
 

 

Shoshana Bryen is Senior Director of the Jewish Policy Center.

Source: http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/7857/israel-turkey-russia-egypt

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Passover and the Palestinians - Steve Apfel

by Steve Apfel

Other claimants for independence (the Kurds for one example) must drool when they look upon the lucky Palestinians.

A people liberated from slavery. No wonder Passover is a time when advocates for a State of Palestine feel drawn to play a modern day Moses. Let the people go!

Passover, many think, comes around for a melodramatic appeal to the conscience of Israel. Have pity. Remember that your people were enslaved in Egypt and so howled in torment that it galvanized the Almighty into action. Hear oh Israel the cry of people in bondage under you. Let the Palestinians go. Let them make unto themselves a nation.

Thus entreats a devotee of human rights, one of a great multitude that makes a good living from his devotion. Listen carefully to him. In what he says and in what he believes lie the fatal flaws of the type: the modern day Moses. Uri Zaki, one-time the US Director of an Israeli human rights outfit named B’Tselem (in the image of), thought he’d stir up American Jews with an impassioned Passover appeal. Let the Palestinians go free. What Zaki actually said was:

“Israeli settlements in the West Bank make it practically impossible for the Palestinians to realize their right to self-determination in an independent and viable state of their own.” (Times of Israel, April 16, 2011)

The fatal flaw in Zaki’s browned-off appeal lies where? Look for the duty of one party to give and the right of the other party to receive. Defrocked, this is human rights or, for do-gooders of the Jewish faith, tikkun olam – mending the world. It all boils down to the right of Palestinians to want things and the duty of Israel to proffer them. One is owed, the other owes.

A handful of billionaire thieves (Mahmoud Abbas at the head) have only to table demands and sit back while leaders of capricious conscience extort Israel to meet them more than half way. They’re a people absolved from adult behavior.

It seems to be the tale of a perennial spoilt kid, and it brings to mind a brilliant quip made by the famous Israeli ambassador, Abba Eban. “I think it would be the first war in history that on the morrow the victors sued for peace and the vanquished called for unconditional surrender.”

It was a bittersweet joke. The Six-Day war had ended in a stunning victory for Israel and world leaders lined up to force bitter medicine down the victor’s throat: the remedy of land for peace. Today five decades later the remedy keeps Israel trying to keep Washington and Brussels keep boycotts at bay. One thing has changed: the stakes are higher. Today world leaders demand that Israel gives not land for peace but land for another failed Sharia state – unless Israel wants Washington and Brussels to stop trying to keep boycotts at bay. Blackmail, if you like.

Give the Palestinians what they want, for heaven sake. Never mind they lost wars they, or bigger brothers, started. Palestinians want everything, and they want it on their own terms, unconditionally. Possession may be 9/10th of the law, and Israel may have that possession, but who holds the Palestinians to law? They’re defined by rights. Other claimants for independence (the Kurds for one example) must drool when they look upon the lucky Palestinians.

And whose rights have to make room for these Chosen People? Who else’s but the Un-Chosen people making do with an already too-small slip of hostile homeland. But who cares about the Jews? When it comes to human rights the Palestinians in bondage garner all the care.

That was fatal floor [sic] one. Another fatal flaw in the modern day Moses is forgetting that a right to self-determination involves another and equal right: ownership. By all means let people make unto themselves a nation, but where shall they do that? On what land? On whose land? Other than the Kingdom of Jordan, no land west of the Jordan River ever belonged to a Palestinian people. Israel took the land in the Six-Day War when the Palestinian people as a collective were not yet born. Could Jordan ask for the West Bank back? No it couldn’t because it was never Jordan’s to have. At the time Israel snapped up the territory Jordan had no right to be there. Not even the Arab league has tried to make a case for the West Bank to go back to Jordan.

So the modern day Moses looks to Israel. At Passover time thoughts on bondage and liberation run riot. “We must allow Palestinians to enjoy the same basic rights to self-government and independence that we, the Jewish State, have been privileged to enjoy since 1948.” (Jerusalem Post, April 14, 2014)

David Newman, a professor at Ben Gurion University, goes on to write of “fundamental Jewish religious values” as recounted at Passover. It is incumbent upon the Jews of today, Newman says, to ensure that other peoples are not oppressed, even more when they are under “our own control and for whose wellbeing we have direct responsibility.” (Jerusalem Post, April 14, 2014)

After he weds rights to responsibilities, Newman pulls them asunder. Israel gets the responsibility and Palestinians get the rights. No modern day Moses recognizes reciprocity. The Jews are expected to part with more of their promised land, leaving enemies at liberty to rain down rockets on Israel’s metropolitan hub. Newman’s ‘fundamental Jewish values’ come with that sting in the tail.

Diplomacy, having no truck with biblical appeals, comes with the sting on its own. Looking back on American brokered peace talks, it’s easy to forget who the rightful landowner is and who the supplicant is. American Secretary of State John Kerry hammered the Israeli side for not dangling carrots that Palestinian leaders found juicy enough. Not even the Israeli side stops to recall natural law: an owner of property needs do nothing until a person with an eye on it brings an offer. Should that person be unwilling to meet the owner’s terms, the owner may carry on with his life.

Cornered, Zaki the Priest and Newman the Dean would have to admit that no law, or treaty, gives Palestinians a right to “self-determination in a viable state of their own.” There are only the Oslo Accords, trashed many times over. But even when the accords were in mint condition they conferred no rights to self-determination. The modern day Moses ignores principles of law while he scatters rights and responsibilities like confetti. Odder still, he’s often the first to insist that Israel abides by international law. 

Unpacking the biblical thunder in ‘Let Palestinian go free’ one discovers how fake it is. Responsibility comes without rights and rights without responsibility. The demand of the modern day Moses amounts to, ‘Give Palestinians what they want, for heaven sake.’

Well – why not, if only to satisfy some quirky view of fair play. The Jews got their state, why deprive the neighbors? It might even help Israel’s own security. So say do-gooders toying with real baddies. But look at the way they put their case. Palestinians have no responsibility to accept a Jewish state, a right firmly written into law. Again John Kerry, only thinking of Israel of course, scolds it for putting the spoilt kid out of temper by insisting it recognize the Jewish character of Israel. Other leaders throw up their hands with Kerry. Give the kid what it wants, for heaven sake.

Problem is, no one can fathom what it wants. And that’s another fatal flaw. Three times Israel offered what world leaders thought the Palestinians wanted. They were invited to establish a home that Palestinians could call their own. They were offered land to do it on. Yet they not just tore up three invitations but, launching Intifadas, threw the bits into Israel’s face.  

What of Gaza where Palestinians were in bondage before Gaza was given over, lock stock and barrel. All Palestinians had to do in Gaza was make unto themselves a nation. You’d think the modern day Moses would be happy. Think again.  “In 2005 Israel withdrew its forces from the Gaza Strip, which increased Palestinians' control over their lives…However, Israel continues to hold decisive control over major aspects of people's lives.” (Times of Israel, April 16, 2011)

Here was Zaki the Priest prodding Pharaoh to let the people go, after Pharaoh already had.  Everyone knows what they did with their freedom. But then, it is not for Gaza’s elect to uplift the lives of their people, or to build a nation. It is for Israel to do that for them.

Zaki the Priest and Newman the Dean fall in behind other Moses figures, all wearing blinkers. None see the bottom line from giving land away. Let the Palestinians have the Temple Mount, half of Jerusalem and Judea-Samaria – all parts in dispute – and Jews will start looking the part of colonial intruders. After all, what historical connections do they have to Tel Aviv?

‘Let the people go’ is all well and good. But at Passover time Jews ought to have their own freedom in mind. If they have to treat enemies with a strong hand and an outstretched arm so be it. Never again must the Jews be a footloose and powerless people begging other nations to let them in.

Steve Apfel

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/04/passover_and_the_palestinians.html

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Netanyahu: Israel will never leave the Golan Heights - Shlomo Cesana and Israel Hayom Staff

by Shlomo Cesana and Israel Hayom Staff

At first ever cabinet meeting held on Golan Heights, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says the strategic plateau has been a place of "peace and prosperity" during 49 years of Israeli rule • "Israel today is the solution, not the problem," Netanyahu says.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu during a tour of the Golan Heights last week | Photo credit: Kobi Gideon / GPO

"Israel will never come down from the Golan Heights," Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Sunday at the start of a weekly cabinet meeting, which was being held for the first time ever on the Golan -- the strategic plateau Israel took control of from Syria in the 1967 Six-Day War and later annexed in 1981 in a move that was not recognized internationally. 

"In the 49 years Israel has controlled the Golan, it has been a place of peace and prosperity," Netanyahu said. "Israel today is the solution, not the problem."

The prime minister went on to say, "The border line is not going to change, regardless of what there is on the Syrian side.

"The time has come for the international community to finally recognize that the Golan will remain under Israeli sovereignty permanently."
Netanyahu's statements came amidst the backdrop of reports that, as international diplomatic efforts to achieve a diplomatic resolution to the Syrian civil war continue, Syrian dictator Bashar Assad, who currently controls only around one-fifth of his country, is demanding territorial concessions from Israel in the Golan. Reports say that a negotiated settlement in Syria could designate the entire Golan (the Israeli Golan consists of the western two-thirds of the plateau) as Syrian territory.

Upon hearing of these reports, Netanyahu reacted harshly, saying in closed-door conversations that Syria could "forget about" getting the Golan back.

Netanyahu recently spoke by telephone with U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry about the matter, telling Kerry, "This won't happen." He also informed Kerry, "Israel will not hand over the Golan Heights to anyone." The prime minister said Assad's demand was ridiculous and surprising given the fact that Israel has been able to maintain quiet on the Golan in recent years.

Netanyahu plans to express similar sentiments when he meets with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow on Thursday.

During his meeting with U.S. President Barack Obama at the White House last November, Netanyahu reportedly suggested that U.S. recognition of Israeli sovereignty on the Golan Heights would send a message of deterrence to Iran. The prime minister was quoted as saying that the disintegration of Syria "allows for different thinking" on the future status of the Golan. Obama reportedly did not respond to Netanyahu on the matter. 

Netanyahu said at the time that, now more than ever, territory has meaning in the Middle East, and whenever Israel withdraws from territory, terrorists groups take over there, such as what took place in the wake of the 2005 disengagement from the Gaza Strip.

Shlomo Cesana and Israel Hayom Staff

Source: http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_article.php?id=33145

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Palestinians: We Will Not Accept a Jewish Israel - Khaled Abu Toameh

by Khaled Abu Toameh

The obsession with settlements is certain to divert attention from core issues, such as Palestinian recognition of a Jewish Israel. Many Palestinians continue to regard Israel as one big settlement that needs to be removed from the Middle East.

• Even those who say they have accepted the two-state solution are not prepared to recognize any Jewish link to or history in the land.
• In the view of Al-Husseini, Palestinians refuse to acknowledge a Jewish state because they believe this would grant legitimacy to "Jews' rights to the land of Palestine" and undermine the Palestinian demand for the "right of return" for millions of refugees into Israel.
• Israeli Arab leaders are betraying their constituencies by privileging the perceived interests of Palestinian Arabs, while Palestinian Arab leaders are betraying their constituencies by denying any link between Jews and the land. This stance makes peace a non-starter.

Israel as a Jewish state remains anathema to the Palestinian community. This is a top-down attitude, communicated on a constant basis by Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas.

The Palestinian refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish state is based on the argument that such a move would mean giving up the "right of return" for millions of "refugees" into Israel. This refusal is also based on the continued denial of any historic Jewish connection to the land.

In recent weeks, the PA president has once again reiterated his strong opposition to recognizing Israel as a Jewish state.

The Palestinian refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish state is one of the main obstacles to peace between Israel and the Palestinians.

Settlement construction complaints are nothing more than a Palestinian Authority smokescreen.

There is much talk these days about the Palestinian Authority's intention to ask the United Nations Security Council to issue a resolution condemning Israel for construction in the settlements. It is not yet clear whether the PA will carry out its threat. What is clear, however, is that this obsession with the settlements is certain to divert attention from core issues, such as Palestinian recognition of a Jewish Israel. Many Palestinians continue to regard Israel as one big settlement that needs to be removed from the Middle East.

Why, in fact, do the Palestinians refuse to accept Israel as a Jewish state?

Abbas has consistently failed to state his reasons for his total rejection of Israel as a Jewish state. In January 2014, the PA president declared:

"The Palestinians won't recognize the Jewishness of the State of Israel and won't accept it. The Israelis say that if we don't recognize the Jewishness of Israel there would be no solution. And we say that we won't recognize or accept the Jewishness of Israel and we have many reasons for this rejection."

On another occasion that same year, Abbas stated: "No one can force us to recognize Israel as Jewish state. If they [Israel] want, they can go to the UN and ask to change their name to whatever they want -- even if they want to be called The Jewish Zionist State." Again, Abbas failed to explain the vehement Palestinian opposition to this demand.

(Image source: Palestinian Media Watch)

The Palestinian Authority's chief negotiator, Saeb Erekat, has shed some light on the matter. "We have already recognized Israel's existence on the 1948 borders of Occupied Palestine," Erekat explained. He added that he made it clear to former Israeli Foreign Minister Tipi Livni during a meeting in Munich that the Palestinians "won't change their history and religion and culture by recognizing Israel as a Jewish state."

While Palestinian leaders have been rather reluctant to elaborate on the reasons behind their rejectionism, other Palestinians have been more generous about the issue.

One of these is Palestinian political scientist Dr. Saniyeh Al-Husseini, who recently published an article titled, "Why Palestinians Refuse to Accept the Jewishness of the State of Israel." The article was reprinted by the Palestinian Authority's official news agency, WAFA -- a definite sign that the Palestinian leadership endorses her views.

In her article, Al-Husseini points out that the U.S. supports the Israeli condition, which she described as a "crippling demand."

The article warns that "accepting the Jewishness of Israel means relinquishing all the Palestinian rights to the Palestinian lands, including the lands that were occupied in 1967." According to Al-Husseini, there are two main reasons that Palestinians are opposed to this demand. The first has to do with the "right of return" for Palestinian refugees to their former villages and homes inside Israel; the second is related to the status of Israel's Arab citizens.

Referring to the first of these, Al-Husseini writes:

"Palestinian acceptance of the Israeli narrative would deny any Palestinian right on the land of Palestine and give justification to Israel's wars against the Palestinians. Palestinian recognition of the Jewishness of Israel means accepting the Israeli narrative regarding the Jews' right to the land of Palestine and exempts Israel from bearing responsibility for the moral and legal consequences of all its crimes against the Palestinians."

In the view of Al-Husseini, then, Palestinians refuse to acknowledge a Jewish state because they believe that this would grant legitimacy to "Jews' rights to the land of Palestine" and undermine the Palestinian demand for the "right of return" for millions of refugees into Israel.

Let us take a moment to clarify this: the Palestinian Authority wants a Palestinian state next to Israel while at the same time flooding Israel with millions of refugees. That, of course, is something to which no Israeli government could ever agree. Even more crucial is the Palestinian refusal to recognize a Jewish right to the land. Such denial is a longstanding pillar of the official Palestinian narrative. Even those who say they have accepted the two-state solution are not prepared to recognize any Jewish link to or history in the land.

The second reason, that which concerns the Arab citizens of Israel, is similarly telling. According to Al-Husseini, Israel's ultimate goal, as "betrayed" by this demand, is to rid itself of its Arab citizens.

There is indeed a betrayal going on, but it is not being perpetrated by Israel. First, by reprinting Al-Husseini's article, the PA has "betrayed" the fact that it has appointed itself custodian of the Arab citizens of Israel.

As Israel is a democracy -- unlike the dictatorial Palestinian regimes -- Israel's Arab citizens have their own leaders and representatives in Israel's Knesset. The last thing they need is for the Palestinian Authority or Hamas or any other Palestinian faction to meddle in their internal affairs.

But the betrayal continues. The Arab citizens of Israel are represented by leaders, including some Knesset members, who are so preoccupied with the Palestinians living in the West Bank and Gaza Strip that they have forgotten who their real constituents are.

Just consider MK Zouheir Bahloul, who spends valuable time re-defining the word "terrorist." Bahloul, a member of the Labor Party, seems to be enjoying the public outcry he created recently when he declared that a Palestinian who tried to stab IDF soldiers in Hebron last month is not a terrorist.

It is as if Bahloul and the other Arab Knesset members have solved all the problems of the Arab community inside Israel and all that is left is to make sure that no one calls a Palestinian stabber a terrorist. Needless to say, this issue does not top the agenda of the Arab citizens of Israel.

The betrayal thus runs wide and deep. Israeli Arab leaders are betraying their constituencies by privileging the perceived interests of Palestinian Arabs, while Palestinian Arab leaders are betraying their constituencies by continuing to deny any link between Jews and the land. This is a stance that makes peace a non-starter in the Middle East. When the international community is presented with settlement complaints and the like, it might wish to ponder these small but critical points.

• Follow Khaled Abu Toameh on Twitter

Khaled Abu Toameh, an award-winning journalist, is based in Jerusalem.

Source: http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/7849/palestinians-accept-jewish-israel

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.