David Singer: UN Vote on Trump’s Jerusalem Decision Reaches New Legal Low

Here's the latest article by Sydney lawyer and international affairs analyst David Singer.

He writes:

The United Nations General Assembly resolution on 21 December 2017 asking nations not to establish diplomatic missions in Jerusalem (“Resolution”) was adopted by 128 of the 193 member States acting in breach of three specific articles in the UN Charter.

1. Article 2(7): 

“Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll.” 

President Trump’s decisions to recognise Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and move the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem were made in accordance with the Jerusalem Embassy Act passed on 24 October 1995 by the Senate 93:5 and the House 374:37.

Trump’s decisions fell squarely within the framework of America’s domestic jurisdiction.

Other countries wanting to follow America by locating their Embassies in Jerusalem are perfectly entitled to do so free of UN condemnation or interference.

2. Article 12(1): 

“While the Security Council is exercising in respect of any dispute or situation the functions assigned to it in the present Charter, the General Assembly shall not make any recommendation with regard to that dispute or situation unless the Security Council so requests.” 

The Security Council had considered the situation brought about by President Trump’s decisions three days prior to the General Assembly meeting – when a draft UN Security Council resolution rejecting US policy shift on Jerusalem was vetoed by the United States.

The General Assembly was not empowered to make any recommendations whilst the Security Council remained seized of the issue - unless the Security Council requested the General Assembly to so act – which was not the case.

The General Assembly’s Resolution was passed in breach of Article 12(1).

3. Article 80(1): 

“… nothing in this Chapter shall be construed in or of itself to alter in any manner the rights whatsoever of any states or any peoples or the terms of existing international instruments to which Members of the United Nations may respectively be parties."

This article preserves the legal right of the Jewish people to reconstitute the Jewish National Home in Jerusalem in accordance with the Mandate for Palestine – unanimously endorsed by all 51 member States of the League of Nations in 1922.

 50 of those League of Nations member States are members of the United Nations and voted on the Resolution as follows:

(i) 11 abstained:

Argentina, Australia, Canada, Colombia, Czech Republic, Haiti, Latvia, Panama, Paraguay, Poland and Romania

(ii) 1 did not vote:

El Salvador

(iii) 2 Voted against the Resolution:

Guatemala and Honduras

(iv) 36 voted for the Resolution:

Albania, Austria, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Bulgaria, Chile, China, Costa Rica, Cuba, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Greece, India, Iran, Italy, Japan, Liberia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Peru, Portugal, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, Uruguay, United Kingdom, Venezuela

The votes of these 36 States delimited the legal rights of the Jewish people that their very own respective countries had been instrumental in creating in 1922. 

The other 92 member states who voted for the Resolution also apparently had no qualms in ignoring article 80(1).

Trump was clearly not happy with the UN’s intrusion into America’s domestic affairs - immediately cutting $285 million from America’s proposed 2018 UN Budget with more financial cuts likely to occur.

UN member States reached a new legal low engaging in cavalier conduct involving flagrant breaches of the UN Charter.

The UN slide into irrelevancy continues to gather momentum.

Don't They Know It's Da'awa?

The Twelve Days of Yuletide.  And when not posting articles and videos disparaging Israel and (not in the least funny, this) showing how to tease a dozing cat by swaddling it, parcel-like, in Christmas wrapping paper (St Francis of Assisi would not be amused), our old friend the CEO of Peacemaker Mediators is joining in a spot of Chrislam good cheer.

Example below:

The initiative by the notorious East London Mosque smacks of a good old public relations opportunity for converting the infidel, if not to the one true faith then at least to the anti-Israel cause.

Never mind that over the decades Jewish volunteers have quietly joined with Christian volunteers to serve Christmas meals to the lonely and needy on  Christmas Day in many a town and city (yep, I actually saw it reported on the telly once, decades ago), it's this Muslim da'awa thing that counts.

And how the malign and the merely naive have been lapping it up.

Note, for instance, how one of Sizer's clerical faithful retells the story of the Good Samaritan to her flock.  

Note, too, how a self-styled "liberal" church in Greater London recently celebrated the birthdays of some chap it named as Jesus and one whom it resectfully labelled "the Prophet Mohammed".

To quote the influential Anglican blogger Archbishop Cranmer:

'Mawlid (or Milad) is the Islamic festival commemorating the birthday of Mohammed. The only thing it has in common with Christmas is that it isn’t actually the day the celebrated baby was born. Yet All Saints Church in Kingtson upon Thames thinks there’s an interfaith syncretised opportunity to be found in holding a joint birthday celebration for both Mohammed and Jesus – so they put the flags out for both, rejoicing in both, eulogising both, solemnising both, glorifying both, honouring both.

[N]ote how this event is “Marking the birthday of Prophet Mohammed”, but not looking forward to the birthday of the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God. Mohammed gets his prophethood, while Jesus gets neither his prophethood nor his priesthood; neither his kingship nor his messiahship. It’s the exalted Prophet Mohammed along with plain old Jesus, because to have added any of his claims to divinity would, of course, have alienated many Muslims (if they hadn’t already been alienated by the haram celebration), which wouldn’t have been very interfaith or sensitively missional, would it?

We have been here before: when Westminster Abbey hosted a service in which Mohammed was named in the succession of prophets, they effectively proclaimed to the world that Mohammed is greater than Jesus:

In Islamic theology, Mohammed was ‘The Prophet’ who came to fulfil and complete the partial revelations of all preceding prophets. Muslims believe that his coming was prophesied by Jesus: ‘But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father..‘ (Jn 15:26). The ‘Comforter’ or ‘Advocate’ (NIV) whom Christians believe to be the Holy Spirit is, for Muslims, Mohammed. So when he is declared in Westminster Abbey to be ‘The Chosen One’, it is not simply a benign multifaith expression of ecumenical respect in a commemorative service of reconciliation: it is a dogmatic affirmation of a perfected prophethood to which Jesus is subordinate, and His divinity thereby denied.

And then, of course, there was the act of divine worship  in St Mary’s Cathedral, Glasgow, in which it was declared publicly from the Qur’an that God can have no sons, and so the Gospel writers were engaged in a blasphemous deceit. Every time a church accords Mohammed the epithet ‘Prophet’, they are rejecting the crucifixion, denying the resurrection of Christ, and refuting that the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us, for Mohammed denied all of these foundational tenets of the Christian faith. The Jesus he espoused is the plain old one – no more than a prophet, and certainly an inferior one to him....'

And as the Gatestone Institute recently reminded us,

'This year's Christmas season has been marked by Islam-related controversies in nearly every European country. Most of the conflicts have been generated by Europe's multicultural political and religious elites, who are bending over backwards to secularize Christmas, ostensibly to ensure that Muslims will not be offended by the Christian festival.

Many traditional Christmas markets have been renamed — Amsterdam Winter Parade, Brussels Winter Pleasures, Kreuzberger Wintermarkt, London Winterville, Munich Winter Festival — to project a multicultural veneer of secular tolerance.

More troubling are the growing efforts to Islamize Christmas. The re-theologizing of Christmas is based on the false premise that the Jesus of the Bible is the Jesus (Isa) of the Koran. This religious fusion, sometimes referred to as "Chrislam," is gaining ground in a West that has become biblically illiterate....'

It is indeed that ignorance of the Bible on the part of European populations that has led to the  diminution in support for Israel.  As I have pointed out many times, the dilution of religious teaching in schools, the wilful ignorance of our shared Judeo-Christian cultural heritage in societies that have become "multicultural" and "secular" means that fewer people identify with the People of Israel against latter day Hamans and Pharoahs than was once thecase.   I have pointed this out to Jewish groups; for the most part I get blank looks, and shrugs.  It is as if Jews expect Christians to be hostile to them.  But as students of philosemitism are aware, this has not not been inevitably so.  

Luckily, however, despite such Christians as these, and Muslims like this one:

 There are Muslims prepared to assert the essential Jewishness of Jerusalem.

People like Professor Khaleel Mohammed, Assistant Professor at the Department of Religious Studies at San Diego State University, who is on record as saying:

'The Qur'an in Chapter 5: 20-21 states quite clearly: Moses said to his people: O my people!  Remember the bounty of  God upon you  when  He bestowed  prophets upon you , and  made  you  kings and gave you that which  had not been given to  anyone before you amongst  the nations. O my people!  Enter the Holy Land which God has written for you, and do not turn tail, otherwise you will be losers."

The  Quran goes on to say why the Israelites were not allowed to enter the land for forty years...but the thrust of my analysis is where Moses says that the Holy Land is that which God has "written" for the Israelites. In both Jewish and Islamic understandings of the term "written", there is the meaning of finality, decisiveness and immutability. And so we have the Written Torah (unchangeable) and the Oral Torah (which represents change to suit times). And in the Qur'an we have "Written upon you is the fast"--to show that this is something that is decreed, and which none can change.  So the simple fact is then, from a faith-based point of view: If God has "written" Israel for the people of Moses, who can change this?

The Qur'an refers to the exiles, but leaves it open for return...saying to the Jews that if they keep their promise to God, then God will keep the divine promise to them. WE may argue that the present state of Israel was not created in the most peaceful means, and that many were displaced--for me, this is not the issue. The issue is that when the Muslims entered that land in the seventh century, they were well aware of its rightful owners, and when they failed to act according to divine mandate (at least as perceived by followers of all Abrahamic faiths), they aided and abetted in a crime. And the present situation shows the fruits of that action--wherein innocent Palestinians and Israelis are being killed on a daily basis.

I also draw your attention to the fact that the medieval exegetes of Qur'an--without any exception known to me--recognized Israel as belonging to the Jews, their birthright given to them. Indeed, two of Islam's most famous exegetes explained "written" from Quran 5:21 thus:

Ibn Kathir (d. 774/1373) said: “That which God has written for you” i.e. That which God has promised to you by the words of your father Israel that it is the inheritance of those among you who believe” . Muhammad al-Shawkani (d. 1250/1834) interprets Kataba to mean “that which God has allotted and predestined for you in His primordial knowledge, deeming it as a place of residence for you” (1992, 2:41).

The idea that Israel does not belong to the Jews is a modern one, probably based on the Mideast rejection of European colonialism etc, but certainly not having anything to do with the Qur'an.  The unfortunate fact is that most Muslims do NOT read the Qur’an and interpret it on the basis of its own words; rather they let imams and preachers do that for them.

How did the Jews lose their right to live in the Holy Land? All reliable reports show that it was by the looting and burning that followed from 70-135 C.E.  When the  Muslims  entered  the  place in  638, liberating it from the Byzantines,  they  knew full  well to whom  it rightfully belonged.  But we find that  Muslim chroniclers state that  the Muslim  caliph  accepting  the  surrender of  the  Byzantine Christian representative, Sophronius, on certain  terms, one of them being that the Jews would not be permitted to enter the city.  I personally have a hard time accepting this story, and  aspects of  its historicity because as  modern scholarship  has shown,  Muslim reports about that time were  recorded long after the fact and  are not  as reliable as once thought.  And we know too that when the first Crusaders took possession of the place in 1096-1099, they slaughtered Jews and Muslims....

When the Muslims conquered Jerusalem, it should have been left open for the rightful owners to return. It is possible that Jewish beliefs of the time only allowed such return under a Messiah--but that should not have influenced Muslim action. And in contrast to the report of Sophronius above, there are also reports showing that Umar in fact opened the city to the Jews. If this be the case, then the later Muslim occupation and building a mosque on the site of the Temple was something that was not sanctioned by The Qur’an. How honest is contemporary Islam with this? Given the situation in the Middle East, politicking etc stands in the way of honesty....

I admit that the Qur'an has verses that are polemic, but my view is that the Qur'an in fact respects the Jews (which explains Moses being so often mentioned)...but that it is the oral traditions of Islam (the hadith) that demonizes the Jews. For many Muslims, this is a hard pill to swallow because for almost 12 centuries, they have been taught that acceptance of oral traditions are a creedal element of Islam....

What is the interpretation of the final two verses of the first chapter of the Quran?  "Guide us to the straight path--the path of those upon whom you have bestowed your bounty, not those who have incurred your wrath, nor those who are astray.

This verse has nothing about Jews or Christians...yet, almost every person learns that those who have incurred divine wrath are the Jews, and those who are astray are Christians. What is more problematic is that the average person learns this chapter and its interpretation between the ages of 5-8. And we know that things learned at this stage of life become ingrained, almost to the point of being in one's DNA, if I may put it that way....

The reformation will come from Muslims based in the West, and the voices of women will be loud and pivotal in that reformation. Let us look at some names that are as yet unknown to many, but names that have done so much for changing Islamic thought...names of people who may disagree vehemently with each other, but names of people who, for all their difference have done much to purge Islam of the male chauvinism that has afflicted it for centuries ...: Note that they are, with one exception, all now in the West, and that they have all had a western education.

....The Qur'an states at the very beginning of the second chapter "this is a book wherein there is no doubt, a guide for the God-conscious." Its contents are therefore to be seen by every Muslim as being divinely ordained, and to be followed. The verses on Israel as in 5:20-21 are not there just to be read; they are there to be followed. In Islam also, there is the elemental maxim "Calamity must be removed" (al darar yuzal). Muslms must face up to reality--in the years since Israel has been established, the focus of the region has been to seek to have it removed. And they have been unsuccessful, and there seems to be no hope for success. The pragmatic, proactive thing to do would be to come to grips with reality: Israel is there to stay, and it can exist  in a state of peaceful coexistence, or in a stage of bellicosity. The Qur'an tells Muslims that God will not change their position until they change it themselves--and this is a classic example for putting that edict into effect. Only when MUSLIMS themselves accept Israel will they be following their Qur'an. Israel will negotiate from a position of guaranteed security, and while there may be tension from time to time, at least peace will be the norm.'

See also here and here

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnZ21Udwv5A

Fare for Babes & Sucklings

In the USA this kiddies' book seems to be a popular stocking filler.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=GOolfjdEr5Y

And in France, kiddies are being told in the current edition of the monthly Youpi magazine, aimed at five-to-eight year-olds, that:

"There are 197 countries, like France, Algeria or Germany. There are a few more, but not all other countries in the world agree that they are real countries (for example the State of Israel or North Korea)."

As reported here:

'Francis Kalifat, the president-elect of the Conseil Représentatif des Institutions Juives de France (CRIF), the umbrella organization for Jewish organisations in France, condemned the magazine for questioning Israel's existence. "To say that Israel is not a 'true state' is a grave lie in the face of history ... Israel's existence is an internationally recognized truth."

"Israel has been recognized as a sovereign state since 1948 and by the United Nations since 1949," he said. In an interview with i24 News, he accused the magazine of "targeting its youngest readers" in its delegitimization of the State of Israel.

Kalifat said that he had written to publisher Bayer calling on the magazine to "produce an article in the next issue to explain what Israel is, so as to accurately inform" its young readers that Israel exists.

Serge Dehan, the president of B'nei B'rith France, also condemned the magazine for "banishing Israel from the nations" of the world. He accused the magazine of "conditioning children to hate Israel."'

Bigger kids, meanwhile, are being fed the constant fiction in which the BBC and its cohorts specialise.  Stuff like this and this.

David Singer: UN, OIC, EU and PLO invite Trump Retaliation

For this and related antisemitic cartoons click here

Here's the latest article by Sydney lawyer and international affairs analyst David Singer. 

He writes:

Humiliating President Trump by declaring his decision recognising Jerusalem as the capital of Israel as being “null and void and must be rescinded” – spells financial and political trouble for the United Nations (UN), the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), the European Union (EU) and the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO).

The timing of Trump’s decision can certainly be criticised – but questioning Trump’s sovereign right to make that decision constitutes a flagrant attempt to undermine the offices of the democratically-elected US President and Congress. Trump’s decision was made in accordance with international law and American domestic law – making a mockery of those who have claimed otherwise.

The first two casualties of this unprecedented political and legal attack on America’s governing institutions could be:

1. the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees (“UNRWA”) and 

2. the two-state solution proposed by the 1993 Oslo Accords and President Bush’s 2003 Roadmap – as endorsed by the UN, the EU and Russia (“two-state solution”)

US Ambassador to the UN – Nikki Haley – put UNWRA clearly in President Trump’s sights for retaliatory action when she declared:

“The United States has done more than any other country to assist the Palestinian people. By far. Since 1994, we have given over $5 billion to the Palestinians in bilateral economic assistance, security assistance, and humanitarian assistance.

The United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees operates schools and medical facilities throughout the region. It is funded almost entirely by voluntary contributions. Last year, the United States voluntarily funded almost 30 percent of UNRWA’s budget. That’s more than the next two largest donors combined. And it’s vastly more than some of the members of this Council that have considerable financial resources of their own.

I’ll be blunt: When the American people see a group of countries whose total contributions to the Palestinian people is less than one percent of UNRWA’s budget – when they see these countries accuse the United States of being insufficiently committed to peace – the American people lose their patience.” 

UNRWA is facing the grim prospect of having to find up to US$400 million annually from other UN member States if Trump cuts America’s current voluntary contribution to UNWRA.

President Trump has already announced America will withdraw from UNESCO in 2018 – attributed in part to “anti-Israel bias” – which will require another US$143 million – 22% of UNESCO’s annual budget – to be found from other member states.

Biting the hand that feeds you does have consequences.

The catastrophic decisions made by the UN, OIC, EU and PLO over the past two weeks following Trump’s Jerusalem Declaration could seriously impact any “ultimate deal” Trump has been putting together to end the Jewish-Arab conflict.

The two-state solution – which envisages a second (democratic) Arab state – in addition to (undemocratic) Jordan – on the land comprised in the 1922 Mandate for Palestine – remains in limbo since the suspension of negotiations between Israel and the PLO in April 2014.

Trump can now justifiably jettison the two state solution – including Abbas and the PLO – from his ultimate deal – after Abbas defiantly declared on 22 December:

"The United States has proven to be a dishonest mediator in the peace process and we will no longer accept any plan from the United States"

Abbas’s outburst has effectively consigned the two-state solution to the dustbin of history.

Abbas has once again demonstrated the unerring ability of the Palestinian Arabs to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory – as happened in 1922, 1937, 1947, between 1948 and 1967, 2000/20001 and 2008.

Trump’s ultimate deal must now be seriously struggling to see the light of day.

Talking About Jerusalem & UN Hypocrisy (videos)

Here's Daniel Pomerantz, senior editor of Honest Reporting, telling it straight (from Jerusalem):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EQaip1iyUU

And here's Nikki Haley:

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=981PGehcrjM

 

From the ABC, Australia's answer to the BBC, typical biased approval of the UN's overwhelming rejection of Trump's recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital.  (To its shame, Australia abstained,)

"Palestine is Ours Alone"

"There is Only One Solution, 
Intifada, Revolution"

"Palestine is ours alone!" 

"From the River to the Sea ..."

In New York City, an ear-splitting venom-filled rally earlier this month against Donald Trump's decision to move the US Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem:

Nearly 50 minutes of putrid hatred.

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLjUcBAleJ0

And Neturei Karta nutjobs join the Israel-haters (some evincing anti-white racism) in Washington, DC:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-N65kp8i7GU

David Singer: OIC in Legal Fantasyland over Trump, Jerusalem and Israel

Here's the latest article by Sydney lawyer and international affairs analyst David Singer.

He writes:

The 57 member States of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) are living in a legal fantasyland of their own creation where non-existent principles of international law supposedly apply.

The final communique issued by the OIC following its Extraordinary Summit held in Turkey on 13 December 2017 makes their flight into legal unreality crystal-clear:

1. OIC members pledged to take joint action on the basis of international law against the statement of President Trump recognising Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.

Yet international law unreservedly recognises the sovereign right of each State to designate its capital and the sovereign right of other States to decide whether to recognise that State and to locate their Embassies in such capital.

The Jerusalem Embassy Act 1995 passed overwhelmingly by the United States Congress recognized and affirmed these long-established legal principles:

“Each sovereign nation, under international law and custom, may designate its own capital…

… Since 1950, the city of Jerusalem has been the capital of the State of Israel.

… The United States maintains its embassy in the functioning capital of every country except in the case of our democratic friend and strategic ally, the State of Israel.”

2. The OIC condemned the illegal settlement activities by Israel in the occupied Palestinian territories.

The “occupied Palestinian territories” are in fact “disputed territories” in international law where competing Jewish and Arab claims to sovereignty remain to be resolved.

No binding legal ruling exists to substantiate the OIC’s mendacious claim.

There is however territory-specific legislation that negates this OIC claim – namely article 6 of the Mandate for Palestine and article 80 of the United Nations Charter.

3. The OIC declared President Trump’s statement to be “null and void”.

The OIC acting as judge, jury and Lord High Executioner has deigned to tell an American President he cannot act in accordance with international law.

Dismissing international law by claiming it to be “null and void” has also been adopted by the Palestine Liberation Organization - whose Charter proclaimed that two cardinal planks in international law – the Balfour Declaration and the Mandate for Palestine and all that had been based on them were:

· “considered fraud” in 1964 (article 18) and

· “deemed null and void” in 1968 (article 20) 

The fictitious “State of Palestine” is among the 22 Arab States that are OIC members.

The Jewish-Arab conflict remains unresolved because the Arabs have never accepted the binding validity in international law of the Mandate for Palestine unanimously endorsed by all 51 then-member States of the League of Nations in 1922:

Albania, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, British India, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, El Salvador, Estonia, Finland, France, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Italy, Japan, Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes, Latvia, Liberia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Persia, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Republic of China, Romania, Siam, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Union of South Africa, United Kingdom, Uruguay, and Venezuela.

Many of these countries have chosen in 2017 to disregard their own decisions in 1922 which established the framework for two States – one Jewish, one Arab – being eventually created in Palestine.

Today sovereignty in 95% of the territory comprised in the Mandate for Palestine resides in those two States – Israel (17%) and Jordan (78%).

Resolving the Jewish-Arab conflict will become realistically attainable when the OIC:

1. affirms that the Mandate for Palestine is legally binding in international law and

2. recognizes the State of Israel

Cherry-picking bits and pieces of International law or even worse – making it up and refusing to acknowledge its falsity – is a recipe for continuing chaos and disorder.

Ta-ra, Tahra?

 Just fancy that!

From the billboard of a church in Atlanta, Georgia, 2015:

A misinterpretation, apparently:

Tahra herself shows little sign of believing that Jews are members of that human family:

As reported in the Jewish Chronicle, following a story broken by The Times:

'A volunteer working with victims of the Grenfell Tower fire has said the 71 people who died in the disaster were “burnt alive in a Jewish sacrifice”.

Tahra Ahmed, a conspiracy theorist who believes the 9/11 terror attack was faked by Jews, has been running an aid network to help those affected by fire.

According to The Times, Ms Ahmed, 47, told reporters that the fire was a “holocaust”

 Ms Ahmed shared her view that Jews were responsible for the tragedy on her Facebook page.

She claimed the tower, in west London, was owned by a Jewish property developer. It is in fact owned by Kensington and Chelsea Council. 

“Hitler and the Germans were the victims of the Jewish conspiracy to destroy Germany,” she wrote.

“Watch the live footage of people trapped in the inferno with flames behind them. They were burnt alive in a Jewish sacrifice.

“Grenfell is owned by a private Jewish property developer just like the Twin Towers. I wonder how much Goldman [Goldman Sachs,] is standing to make in the world’s most expensive real estate location [Kensington].”....'

 As The Times revealed:

 '[She]was an activist at the protest about the fire and has been running a volunteer network to help those affected by the tragedy. But she is known to antisemitism watchdogs who have been alarmed by her public claims about the Nazi genocide and “Jewish power”. ...'

 These are typical of her warped mindset, and that of many of her Facebook faithful:

Yes, she's posted many hardcore antisemitic messages to Facebook, but remains unrepentant:

 
To quote from an interesting report here:

'Attending a town hall protest two days after the fire, she told reporters there that the fire was a “holocaust.” She has allegedly previously described the Holocaust as the “holohoax” and posted on Facebook: “Hitler and the Germans were the victims of the Jewish conspiracy to destroy Germany.” She is also a proponent of the antisemitic conspiracy theory that the 9/11 terror attacks were faked by Jews.

 In one Facebook comment found by Campaign Against Antisemitism after The Times published its article, she wrote:

 “All the leadership of ISIS is directly recruited by CIA and the leadership are all Arab Jews, trained by Mossad.”

Councillors in Kensington and Chelsea are reportedly so worried about unchecked volunteers’ involvement with Grenfell Tower survivors that they have written to the Secretary of State to complain.'

Campaign Against Antisemitism calls for Ms Ahmed to be immediately stood down in her role assisting volunteers. To blame the unspeakable tragedy of Grenfell on a historically persecuted people is to let down those victims she claims to represent and support and exacerbate social division in Britain.

Meanwhile, in the wake of Donald trump's recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital, an item on Facebook (unconnected to Tahra Ahmed; found by Peter Sweden, 11 December):

Chag Chanukah Sameach from ...

me to my Jewish readers

and to a different constituency altogether from the Mossad!

Jerusalem: Views from the Far North

Image credit: Reuters

What an utter disastrous mess is Sweden, whose repellent foreign minister,  Margot Wallström,  recently declared: 

“It is deeply regrettable that the United States will stop people from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen from entering the country,given the incendiary and aggressive nature of Trump’s new immigration ban,we want to ban Israelis from entering our country.

 Israel has been extremely aggressive. … They have continued with their settlement policies, they have continued demolitions, they have continued their occupation policies which entail a humiliation of Palestinians, which makes the process difficult”.

A land whose self-destructive leftism is well represented by this poster girl for the eradication of Israel, another of those whacko "feminist" socialist member of parliament who are so gladly contributing to the death-by-demography of their own national heritage and its values.

A land in which population replacers cultural enrichers are turning entire districts into no-go zones and hellholes and are endangering the safety of women and Jews.

A land which, having such a small indigenous population to begin with, may well end up as the first European Islamic republic.

Just take a look at these ferocious types in Sweden's third largest city, Malmö, on Friday demonstrating in bloodcurdling antisemitic terms their displeasure at Donald Trump's recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital. ("We've declared an intifada in Malmö .... We will shoot Jews" and so on):

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQD6GS0nqE0

The BBC and most of the mainstreammedia gave the firebombing of a synagogue in Gothenburg on Saturday little publicity, perhaps because no one was physically injured. But the incident has left scars.

To quote, inter alia, Ynetnews:

'A group of 21 people with covered faces threw Molotov cocktails Saturday at a synagogue in Gothenburg.... No one was hurt in the incident, but a small fire broke out in the synagogue's parking lot. "I saw a ball of fire," one eye witness recounted....

According to a local paper, a group of Jewish youth movement members held an activity in the synagogue's complex at the time of the attack. The mother of one of the girls participating in the activity said, "She texted me, 'Mom, I'm scared' and told me 20 men with covered faces threw burning objects at the complex."

The chairman of Gothenburg's Jewish community, who witnessed the event, recounted: "Dozens of men with masks began throwing burning objects at our courtyard."

Dvir Maoz, an emissary of the world Bnei Akiva movement to Gothenburg, said, "I popped in to say hello at a party (in the synagogue complex) and sat with one of the guards. As we were talking, I saw a ball of fire out of the corner of my eye. I jumped right into the guardroom and told him a Molotov cocktail was thrown. The children were really stressed out because it was the first time they experienced a terrorist attack so close by."

"Parents came around and took the children home. Some of them were really stressed, and one told me he felt unsafe. Another told me because he had a very recognizably Jewish name the Arabs in his school routinely swore at him, bullied him and spat on him. I still can't say we're feeling an increase in anti-Semitism in our daily lives," Maoz added....'

And to quote this young guy, a Swedish freelance journalist living in Norway:

(For 'chocked' read 'shocked'.)

And here is the heartfelt cry of a Swedish Jew:

More horror

David Singer: Media Falsely Discredit Trump as He Confronts UN on Jerusalem

Here's the latest article by Sydney lawyer and international affairs analyst David Singer. 

(At left: a participant in Sydney's so-called "Solidarity Rally with Jerusalem to say no to the United States' recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel" that took place on Saturday.  Below: a face in the crowd. Photographer: Peter Boyle for Green Left Weekly. Third image: Jews expelled from their homes in Jerusalem by Jordanian troops in 1948: Life magazine.)

Writes David Singer:

The media has discredited President Trump’s decision to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital – falsely claiming the president has reversed nearly seven decades of American foreign policy. Trump’s decision has pitted America squarely against the United Nations.

The New York Times led the pack declaring:

“President Trump on Wednesday formally recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, reversing nearly seven decades of American foreign policy …” 

Australia’s publicly-funded national broadcaster – the ABC – followed suit with this headline:

“Donald Trump recognises Jerusalem as Israel's capital, in reversal of decades of policy” 

News outlets including Reuters, Financial Times, Iraqinews, Gulfnews, and Today parroted this false claim.

America’s policy on Jerusalem is actually laid out in “The Jerusalem Embassy Act 1995 (Act)” passed by the Senate (93–5) and the House (374–37) on 24 October 1995 – specifically highlighted by Trump when announcing his decision:

“In 1995, Congress adopted the Jerusalem Embassy Act, urging the federal government to relocate the American embassy to Jerusalem and to recognize that that city -- and so importantly -- is Israel’s capital. This act passed Congress by an overwhelming bipartisan majority and was reaffirmed by a unanimous vote of the Senate only six months ago.”

The Act unequivocally states:

“SEC. 3. TIMETABLE. 

(a) Statement of the Policy of the United States.

(1) Jerusalem should remain an undivided city in which the rights of every ethnic and religious group are protected. (2) Jerusalem should be recognized as the capital of the State of Israel; and (3) the United States Embassy in Israel should be established in Jerusalem no later than May 31, 1999.”

The Act’s preamble details the following facts critical to Congress’s overwhelming vote: 

1. Each sovereign nation, under international law and custom, may designate its own capital.

 2. Since 1950, the city of Jerusalem has been the capital of the State of Israel.

 3. The city of Jerusalem is the seat of Israel´s President, Parliament, and Supreme Court, and the site of numerous government ministries and social and cultural institutions.

4. The city of Jerusalem is the spiritual center of Judaism, and is also considered a holy city by the members of other religious faiths.

5. From 1948-1967, Jerusalem was a divided city and Israeli citizens of all faiths as well as Jewish citizens of all states were denied access to holy sites in the area controlled by Jordan.

6. In 1967, the city of Jerusalem was reunited during the conflict known as the Six Day War.

7. Since 1967, Jerusalem has been a united city administered by Israel, and persons of all religious faiths have been guaranteed full access to holy sites within the city.

8. The United States maintains its embassy in the functioning capital of every country except in the case of our democratic friend and strategic ally, the State of Israel.

9. In 1996, the State of Israel will celebrate the 3,000th anniversary of the Jewish presence in Jerusalem since King David´s entry.

The morally-bankrupt United Nations has ignored these facts for the last 22 years – choosing instead to pass countless resolutions supporting spurious Arab claims to East Jerusalem that could have been satisfied at any time between 1948 and 1967 following six Arab armies illegally invading Western Palestine and ethnically cleansing East Jerusalem’s entire Jewish population, destroying synagogues and desecrating Jewish cemeteries.

United Nations member States who vote – or abstain from voting – on future resolutions supporting specious artificially-contrived Arab claims in East Jerusalem risk being collectively shamed and internationally castigated.

The media’s latest myth remains unretracted and uncorrected. Trump’s principled decision follows United States policy adopted since 1995.

God bless America.

[Updated] From UK Green Pippa, What a Lotta Rotta

Among the hysterical leftist reactions to Donald Trump's announcement that the United States' Embassy in Israel will be moving from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem are these posts, from the Israel-hater who used to head the Green Party of Wales, is still its deputy leader, and who aimed to be leader of the UK Greens.

I refer, of course, to Pippa Bartolotti, "Flytilla" alumna whose bloopers include carrying a very dodgy Syrian flag, and who's on record as declaring  in November last year that the Rothchilds [sic] won the US presidential election and who in March this year "liked" a Facebook post linking Israel to the 9/11 atrocity.

Ahead of a rally of Israel-haters in Cardiff at the weekend to protest the Trump announcement, Ms Bartolotti has pronounced on social media, to a predictably enthusiastic reception from those who wish Israel ill, or worse:

and

Of course, this reflects not only this inveterate Israel-hater's own ignorance and spleen, as well as that of many other UK lefties.  It is a damning indictment of the preoccupation with one tiny country (dat of da Joos) so many Greens have, preferring to focus on the supposed crimes of Israel in preference to virtually any other foreign issue.

Meanwhile:

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=3Pbe5H2aEY0

Update:  The JC has now reported on Ms Bartolotti's disgraceful posts, which have drawn numerous antagonistic comments from pro-Israel Facebook readers, Jewish and non-Jewish.  Ms Bartolotti is keeping a low profile, it seems, in face of the well-merited onslaught against her.

It will be instructive to see the outcome of this letter, sent to Caroline Lucas:

More Joo-baiting from this wretched ignorant woman:

Bibi: "[Israel's] Tsunami of Diplomatic, Economic, Security & Technological Ties"

First, Bibi on a historic day:

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nc1d30mCHbo

And, now, here's part of what Bibi has told the Jerusalem Post Diplomatic Conference:

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=OsJjUC0MtmA

"There is only one regime today left that openly, unequivocally, brazenly calls for Israel's destruction....

These are two important challenges that we have as we expand our network of alliances. But, its progress is undeniable, except for Iran. Iran stands out by not merely threating us; Iran is threatening the entire world. And if Iran continues unabated, they will have a nuclear arsenal of 100 bombs and more. Within a decade they'll have a capacity to enrich uranium on a vast scale and break not to one bomb but to 100 bombs. This has to be stopped. Not merely because Iran calls for the annihilation of Israel, but because Iran wants to conquer the entire Middle East and go even beyond that. It's developing ICBMs to reach any point on earth. It is an aggressive regime, it exports terrorism, it fires missiles into Saudi Arabia, it is seeking a land bridge. This is what Iran is trying to do.

Iran is trying to build an empire – Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon from Yemen to Gaza, ultimately they want to conquer the Middle East. We will not let them establish themselves in Syria. We will not do it. We say what we mean and we mean what we say and we do whatever is necessary to prevent that. But equally, I think this is not merely an Israeli interest. This is your interest.

So today I have one request for every diplomat in this conference. Immediately after my speech, please draft a cable to your country's foreign minister, my counterpart, or to the president or to the prime minister, and ask them to apply more pressure on Iran, which can be done in many ways. I think you can highlight the plights of the jailed human rights activists in Evin Prison in Iran or speak out against Iran's hanging of gay people, or advocate for the rights of Christians and Bahais who are denied any semblance of rights in Iran, or levy new sanctions in light of Iran's brazen violations of its international obligations, like their violation of the UN Security Council resolutions on missiles. Demand an end to Iran's incitement to genocide, a clear violation of the Geneva Convention. Join our American friends in creating a better nuclear deal, one that does not guarantee Iran will have enough enriched uranium to produce 100 bombs or more within a decade.

But above all, if you want to support peace and security, you want to stop this regime, above all, before anything else, do what I do, support the Iranian people. I speak to them. I sent them yesterday another video. It's passed the million mark, I think. And we get many, many responses from Iran. Above all, support those whom the Iranian regime fears most. Their own people. Help them.

Countering Iranian aggression will significantly aid the fight against Islamist terror, it will strengthen regional stability, it will keep us all safe, it will promote peace. 95 per cent of the problems in the region emanate from Iran. Hezbollah wouldn’t last a day without the scaffolding provided by Iran. Hamas is dependent on Iran. The aggression you see throughout the region from the Bab el-Mandeb Straits across the region is Iran. Do this to ensure security, do this to protect the flames of liberty and the flames of progress. Delaying these actions will be a grievous error. Terrorists who are not confronted get bolder with time. And the appetite of expansion, Iran's expansion, grows stronger with time.

A regime that openly calls for the annihilation of one democracy will not stop there. It will continue. We have to stop Iran now. I ask that you act now. If you're not on the map, call me. If you are on the map, act against Iran."

More, on that "tsunami":

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLP1I-z_9Uo

Spanners in the Works

The rather distinguished-looking gentleman pictured left is a former editor of the British Christian magazine Third Way, founded in 1977.

As his choice of neckwear suggests, he is hardly a warm admirer of Israel.

In fact,  he is a stalwart of Bath Friends of Palestine, and founder of its Facebook group.

Among the Bath Friends of Palestine's recent events was this forum:

There was also this of late:

 And among Mr Spanner's recent activities was the following:

Mr Spanner is a freelance writer and editor.

Among his most recent articles was this, for the long-established (1863) Anglican newspaper Church Times, not to be confused with the even longer established (1828) Church of England Newspaper, which I understand is the more conservative of the two :

Inter alia, the article, based on Mr Spanner's interview with the Israel-bashing blogger Mr Cohen (Micah's Paradigm Shift, Pantheos) at the Viva Palastina restaurant in north London, tells us:

'.... Although he "wanted to have a conversation with other Jews", he has found that that is easier said than done. "Those who do read me tend to be those secular, left-wing Jews who would agree with me, and perhaps like the fact that I have a slightly more Jewish spin on things than them. I don’t think I’ve made any inroads into the mainstream, though I can’t believe that I’m not on their radar. I am very much an outsider in my own community."

The unpopularity of his standpoint is exacerbated by his own biography. One pro-Israel activist who reads his posts "and then wades in" calls him a Jino: a "Jew In Name Only". Cohen says: "He tells me I don’t have the right to talk about Israel because I’ve married out, my children are Christian, and my wife is a vicar." ....'

Of course, Mr Cohen's choice of marriage partner is his own business, and it does not invalidate his status as a Jew.  Nor would he cease to be a Jew in the eyes of Halachah if he were to convert to Christianity or any other religion, which he has not.

But it does seem unconscionable when Jews who have converted to another religion, and people who, though associated in no meaningful way with Jews and Judaism (and indeed may be adherents of another faith) but happen to have a Jewish mother (the sine qua non of Jewishness as far as Halachah is concerned), or indeed happen to have any fairly recent Jewish forebear, decide to describe themselves as Jews for the sole purpose of demonising Israel.

There are, of course, a number of people like that, including high profile serial Israel-bashers.

 In one case known to me, the "Jewish" Israel-basher in question happens to have had a Jewish great-grandfather and is no closer to Jews and Judaism than he is to Burmese and Buddhism or Chinese and Confucianism.

I also know of at least three non-Jewish women who have never converted to Judaism under the auspices of any Beth Din whatsoever, Orthodox, Reform or Liberal, but who, being the wives of leftwing Jewish Israel-bashers, join their husbands in signing "As-a-Jew" denunciations of Israel.

These women are feisty independent professional women.  I can think of no other cause in which they would so readily attach themselves to their husbands' bootstraps.

So very duplicitous. So very meshugge. So very sad.

David Singer: Trump Should Adopt Bush Strategy to Encourage Israel to Negotiate

Here's the latest article by Sydney lawyer and international affairs analyst David Singer.

He writes:

President Bush’s strategy to secure Israel’s agreement to negotiate under the Bush Roadmap should be given serious consideration by President Trump as he puts together his eagerly-anticipated “ultimate deal” to end the Arab-Jewish conflict.

Bush’s strategy involved him firstly stating his “vision” before actually announcing the Bush Roadmap to turn that vision into reality.

Israel was required to make concrete territorial withdrawals from Judea and Samaria (West Bank) – possibly compromising Israel’s security in the process. Publicly confronting Israel with the Bush Roadmap first up could have seen its outright rejection by Israel before the ink was even dry.

President Reagan had succeeded in doing just that when announcing his peace plan on 1 September 1982.  Reagan’s plan was unanimously rejected out of hand by Israel’s cabinet the very next day – whilst America pleaded with Jordan to accept it over the next twelve months as a means of putting pressure on Israel to cave in and negotiate. King Hussein of Jordan did not take the bait. The Reagan plan was dead in the water.

Bush was savvy enough to not repeat Reagan’s mistake.

Bush first enunciated his “vision” in a speech on 24 June 2002:

· Two states, living side by side in peace and security.

· The Palestinian people electing new leaders, leaders not compromised by terror, building a practising democracy, based on tolerance and liberty.

A draft version of the Bush Roadmap dated 15 October 2002 was “provided” to the New York Times and published on 14 November 2002.

After talks on 31 March 2003 at the White House with President Bush, Israeli Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom announced that Israel was:

“adopting the vision of President Bush, and anything that will be a genuine, accurate reflection of this vision will be something that we will be able to work with.”

Bush’s Roadmap in final form was made public on 30 April 2003.

Israel’s response was markedly different from its response to Reagan’s proposal:

“The Government of Israel, today (Sunday), 25.5.03, considered the Prime Minister's statement on the Roadmap, as well as Israel's comments on its implementation. Following its deliberations, the Government, by a majority vote, resolved:

Based on the 23 May 2003 statement of the United States Government, in which the United States committed to fully and seriously address Israel's comments to the Roadmap during the implementation phase, the Prime Minister announced on 23 May 2003 that Israel has agreed to accept the steps set out in the Roadmap.

The Government of Israel affirms the Prime Minister's announcement, and resolves that all of Israel's comments, as addressed in the Administration's statement, will be implemented in full during the implementation phase of the Roadmap.”

Secretary of State Colin Powell and National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice had given the following assurances to Israel from the lawns of the White House on 23 May 2003:

The roadmap was presented to the Government of Israel with a request from the President that it respond with contributions to this document to advance true peace. The United States Government received a response from the Government of Israel, explaining its significant concerns about the roadmap. The United States shares the view of the Government of Israel that these are real concerns and will address them fully and seriously in the implementation of the roadmap to fulfil the President's vision of June 24, 2002.

This astute and finely-crafted process paid off handsomely – with Israel being sufficiently encouraged by Bush’s assurances to agree to enter into negotiations based on Bush’s Roadmap.

The success of Trump’s ultimate deal could depend on Trump rejecting the Reagan approach and adopting the Bush strategy.