"Banning People Because of Their Religion is Horrible, Right?"

In yer face young Englishman Paul Joseph Watson on Trump's immigration ban, including this reminder to the Soros Sorority and the rest of the anti-Trump Outraged Left:

 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JNu4xU9qOEM) 

"Is He a Jew, That One?" (video)

Bibi Netanyahu at the International Holocaust Remembrance Day at Yad Vashem in Jerusalem:

 "....The Holocaust, thank G-d, is behind us, but the hatred and intolerance that drove it is not.

Antisemitism, which is the world’s oldest hatred, is experiencing a revival in the enlightened West, you can see this in European capitals, just unbelievable. The rise of antisemitism, the resurgence of antisemitism that is happening, and few would have imagined that this would be possible a few years ago.

It’s true that governments have shown responsibility, and on the whole have taken this up, in Eastern Europe and in Western Europe alike. But it is also true that this hatred is bubbling, coming out of these cracks, coming out in the open again.

Yet, as disturbing as this is, the greatest danger that we face, of the hatred for the Jewish people and the Jewish state, comes from the East. It comes from Iran. It comes from the ayatollah regime that is fanning these flames and calling outright for the destruction of the Jewish state.

I want you to think about a regime that openly declared its intention to eliminate every black person, every gay person, every European. I think the entire world would be outraged, and rightly so.

But when a regime merely calls to wipe out every Israeli – which is what they say day in day out, their most prominent leaders, they say it – what do we encounter? A deafening silence.

Now, that may change. I hope it will change. I believe it will change. Because I spoke a few days ago to President Trump and he spoke about the Iranian aggression. He spoke about Iran’s commitment to destroy Israel. He spoke about the nature of this nuclear agreement and the danger it poses. We spoke about it together.

I’m talking now not only in political terms. I’m talking about every person in the world, any person of conscience who’d speak out about the resurgence of the same attitude that decades ago openly said we’re out to destroy the Jewish people and today the same attitude that says we’re out to destroy the Jewish people of Israel or we’re out to destroy the Jewish state – it must encounter forceful consistent powerful resistance, in words and also in deeds.

As prime minister of Israel, I will not be silent, I haven’t been silent, and we don’t intend to be inactive either.

We don’t merely intend to speak out but we will take all the measures we need to defend ourselves, and we will take all the measures necessary to prevent Iran from getting the means of mass murder to carry out their horrible plans.

We cannot and will not be silent in the face of Iran’s stated aim of destroying Israel.

But we also know that the issue is not merely the Jewish state or the Jewish People. Because we’ve seen that this hatred, when it goes unchecked, spreads around the world, and in fact, in many ways, that is what is happening.

So it’s up to the forces of civilisation, the forces of conscience, the forces of responsibility to join together to stop this process."

Meanwhile, in a country whose monarch, during the Holocaust, set a shining example by famously standing steadfast with the Jews, the antisemitic face of Leftism, directed at a Jewish reporter who wanted to do a story about the "anti-fascist" group Antifa:

 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=osqx2MyfdnQ)

And from MEMRI.org, the current state of play regarding a nuclear Iran:

 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qTEAG1WhhE4)

A Palestine-born Scholar of Islam's Advice for President Trump (video)

"Dear Mr President," begins the following video, an address in the form of an Open Letter by Professor Sami Aldeeb, a much-published Swiss scholar of Islam who happens to be of Palestinian Christian background.

'Your country, like Europe, the region where I come from, and the world are facing the rise of violence in particular by various Islamic terrorist groups. This violence is one of the causes of immigrant waves breaking on the shores of Europe, the US and other countries. In your statements, you highlighted these two issues.

 You  described “radical Islamic terrorism” as an “evil” unseen before, adding that it should be just “eradicated off the face of the earth”: “we gonna end it. It’s time. It’s time right now to end it”. But you have not said how you will achieve this goal. You also called Angela Merkel’s open door policy to refugees a “catastrophic mistake”, saying that Berlin, instead of hosting refugees, would have done better to advocate more for the creation of no-fly zones in Syria in order to protect the local population from the bombing. “The gulf states should have had to pay for them. After all, they have money like hardly anyone else has”.

Let me give you my humble opinion on these two issues.

Regarding radical Islamic terrorism, it is certainly necessary to fight it with weapons, but weapons alone will not suffice. It is also particularly important to eliminate the ideology on which radical Islamic terrorism is based, namely the Islamic ideology. To take adequate action we must call things by their name.

The radical Islamic terrorism is based on the Koran, the Sunnah of Muhammad and the teachings of Islam. Radical Islamic terrorist groups are only putting into practice what universities, Islamic centers, schools and mosques have been teaching for fourteen centuries in all Muslim countries, and even in Western countries, including yours. Egyptian journalists and intellectuals continue to denounce this teaching, which is the source of terrorism that destabilizes Egypt. This teaching is conveyed by mosques, schools and universities of Al-Azhar, the most important religious institution in the Sunni world. Without a radical change of this teaching, it is impossible to end the radical Islamic terrorism. But how to proceed?'

View the video to find out, or read Professor Aldeeb's post here

(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vfuJaCvdLh4)

"ISIS and other radical Islamic terrorist groups faithfully apply the teachings of Islam. Western leaders who claim that the practices of these terrorist groups have nothing to do with Islam are misled and are in turn misleading their citizens. This is why they fail to eradicate radical Islamic terrorism. A doctor who wrongly diagnoses a disease exposes the patient to fatal danger...."

Pertinent advice for Theresa May, wouldn't you say?



Not to mention all the other Western leaders in denial:

"Regarding immigration, it is extremely likely that if Western countries open their doors, some hundred million Muslims will emigrate to escape the hell of the Arab and Muslim countries. Thousands of Muslims are trying to cross the borders risking their lives and finding themselves in inhuman situations. These Muslims carry the ideology that destroyed their own country, an ideology that will ultimately destroy the West too. On the other hand, many Muslims are incarcerated in Western prisons where they are further radicalized. It is estimated that 70% of prisoners in France are Muslims. When these prisoners will leave their prisons after they have completed their sentences, they will destroy the West. Terrorists who committed attacks in Europe and in your country went through these prisons, which are real terrorist nurseries."

Meanwhile, at Birzeit University near Ramallah:

"O Shabiba, this is a call to arms!"

 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4Eb6CfMKIg)

To quote the translator and uploader, Memri.org:

'The Birzeit University "Shabiba" student movement marked the 52nd anniversary of the establishment of Fatah with military parades and festivities. Armed and masked men in fatigues marched and shouted slogans, such as "Blow up the head of the settler!" Footage was uploaded to the Facebook page of Birzeit University's Shabiba in January.'

Hat tip: Vlad Tepes blog

I Thought I Saw A Pussy Hat

Well, actually, I know I did, at the end of the brief footage here:

 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZpV-bMBGATw)

Donning hijabs in Washington.  Proclaiming a certain well-known Islamic supremacist phrase in Berlin.  (As we saw here).

Staying shtum on Islamic crimes against girls and women, including the ongoing torment of the Yazidi females captured as sex slaves (good article on that theme here).

That's Soros's Sorority and its fellow travellers for you.

What a lot of crazy mixed up kids these radical anti-Trump feminists are.  (Et tu, Madeleine?)

For Penny see here

David Singer: Trump and May Must Circumvent Security Council Resolution 2334

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

He writes:

President Trump’s meeting with UK prime minister Theresa May this coming Friday affords them a perfect opportunity to discuss reaffirming their countries commitments to the Jewish People made by America in 2004 and Great Britain in 1922 – which were seriously undermined when neither country vetoed Security Council Resolution 2334 on 23 December 2016.

America’s commitments were given in a letter from President George Bush to then Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon dated 14 April 2004 to:

* encourage Israel’s unilateral disengagement from Gaza and part of the West Bank and

* give the Bush-Quartet Roadmap (“Roadmap”) every chance of ending a conflict that had raged unresolved for about 85 years.

Bush’s commitments included:

1. Preventing any attempt by anyone to impose any plan other than the Roadmap.

2. Acknowledging that Israel must have secure and recognized borders, which should emerge from negotiations between Israel and the PLO in accordance with UNSC Resolutions 242 and 338.

3. Agreeing in light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli populations centers, that it was unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations would be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949.

These commitments were overwhelmingly endorsed by the Congress by 502 votes to 12.

President Obama actively attempted to subvert these commitments during his eight years in office  – culminating in Obama’s failure to veto Resolution 2334 in the dying days of his presidency – which trashed the above commitments and made them meaningless.

Great Britain had pledged to the Jewish People in 1922 that the reconstitution of the Jewish National Home in Palestine would take place within 23 per cent of the territory designated in the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine – today called Israel, East Jerusalem, Gaza and Judea and Samaria (West Bank) – whilst the remaining 77 per cent would become an Arab homeland – today called Jordan.

This 23/77 division was embodied in Article 25 of the Mandate – after violent Arab riots in 1920-21 accompanied by strident and strenuous Palestinian Arab political opposition to any idea of a Jewish National Home in Palestine had led to the British White Paper in June 1922 declaring that Arab apprehensions were partly based on exaggerated interpretations of the meaning of the Balfour Declaration.

The White Paper stated:

'Unauthorized statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in view [of the Balfour Declaration – ed] is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine. Phrases have been used such as that Palestine is to become "as Jewish as England is English." His Majesty's Government regard any such expectation as impracticable and have no such aim in view. Nor have they at any time contemplated, as appears to be feared by the Arab delegation, the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language, or culture in Palestine. They would draw attention to the fact that the terms of the Declaration referred to do not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a Home should be founded ‘in Palestine'.”

Resolution 2334 has now declared as illegal the rights vested by the Mandate in the Jewish People to reconstitute the Jewish National Home in East Jerusalem, Gaza and Judea and Samaria (West Bank)  – despite such rights having been preserved by Article 80 of the United Nations Charter.

Vetoing Resolution 2334 would have averted America and the UK betraying their commitments to the Jewish People.

Reaffirming those commitments will do more to resolve the Jewish-Arab conflict than moving the American embassy to Jerusalem.

Commitments when made by States should never be shredded without mutual agreement.

The True Totalitarianism: Marvellous Melanie on Trump's Leftist Demonisers

Nobody says it better ...

(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7iWaUoMCko)

"Reaction to Donald Trump's election is like all movements of fanatical believers, religious or secular. It’s totalitarian in its instincts and above all it incites hatred, paranoia and aggression."

Blog and updates: www.melaniephillips.com

On the Muslim Response to moving the Tel Aviv Regime's US Embassy to Al Quds, & the role of BDS (video)

On the satellite propaganda channel of the land of the ayatollahs, urbane presenter Raza Kazim  talks to Oxford Professor Tariq Ramadan regarding the appropriate Muslim response to Donald Trump's proposal to move the US embassy in Israel "The Tel Aviv Regime" to Jerusalem (noted the shocked emphasis in his voice, as if Jerusalem has as scant relevance to Jews, Judaism and Israel "The Zionist Entity" as it does to, well, er, to the text of the Quran. 

Professor Ramadan discusses the pressure Muslims in the UK and the West can exert ("as citizens we are here to speak out"), and then launches into a spirited discussion of BDS strategies. 

 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H83D-i6eI4s)

Bonus: Here's (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ni5HL6N0kbM) the former Mr Witz with his usual good sense:

                                      

Red Caps, Pussy Hats, & Greens Leader Pippa on the "Rothchilds" Again

First, the red caps.

They're what the smart gals in Yemen's capital, Sanaa, have been wearing on top of their niqabs, while taking part in a mass parade and military display in support of the Houthi movement.   Brandishing weapons, this chapter of the Israel-hating Sisterhood  chanted: "Death to America! Death to Israel! A curse upon the Jews!"

Memri.org video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ktp4ZVtHymY  The parade was broadcast on the Yemeni Al-Masirah TV channel on 17 January this year.)

Second, the "pussy hats".

They're the specially knitted pink or red chapeaux with the little pointed ears that anti-Trump feministas (who typically say not one word of condemnation of Islamic misogyny but, rather, tend to be in the forefront of the Useful Idiot and anti-Israel movement) have been sporting at anti-Trump marches this weekend.

Why didn't these women march in support of the sexually assaulted women of Cologne in January last year?   Against the Muslim youths who have made Sweden the rape capital of Europe?  Against the truly benighted patriarchal attitudes that Islam is introducing into Europe?

The hats can be seen at this march in Halifax, Nova Scotia, where the crowd is at least seemingly good natured (the video bears last year's date in error).

How nauseating yet utterly predictable, given the Left's proven track record of hypocritical absurdity, to see, here, "Hanoi Jane" smiling approvingly at Miley Cyrus, whose obscene stage acts have done more to degrade women and perpetuate the "sex object" stereotype than Trump's admittedly appalling adolescent-level lewd boastings have!

Crazy feministas making hijabs for themselves (out of the American flag):

Malevolent madness in Merkeland: at Berlin march an anti-Trump feminist intones a certain Islamist supremacy phrase while other feminists listen enraptured!:

One of the gung-ho "protesters from around the world" is British Greens politician Pippa Bartolotti, who's taken part in the march in Cardiff.

But demonstrating against Trump is not all Pippa has been getting up to in the past few days.

She's had a go at the "Rothchilds" again.  Remember last time, in November, regarding the US election?

 Now, in linking to a video:

The response:

Also among the supporters of anti-Trump demos, Baroness Tonge:

  Whose Facebook friends include the poster to Tonge's wall of this abhorrent nonsense:
 

Time to defriend such antisemites, Your Ladyship. After all, you're not an antisemite yourself.  Are you?

Kol Hakavod!

JFK, LBJ and Clinton were "unqualified" by the same criteria!

'As we enter 2017, the legacy of the year gone by gives us little room the be comforted. In the so-called "Brexit" referendum, in the rise and strengthening of fascist parties in France and Italy, and in the election of Donald Trump as president of the United States, we have witnessed events that should generate within any student of history - let alone a Jewish student of history - a sense of foreboding.
While I believe we should be careful not to make exaggerated comparisons with 1930s Europe, the return of white supremacy and minority scapegoating should rightly concern us all.'

Thus wrote a senior Australian rabbi in an op-ed piece in the Australian Jewish News a fortnight ago that made Trump and support for Trump the main focus of his ire, and attributed a dark racist motive to ordinary men and women who are thoroughly fed up with the duplicity and stupidity of the political elites whose enactments and attitudes are eroding traditional freedoms and putting in jeopardy the Western way of life.

I can only suppose that the above-quoted rabbi, along with certain rabbis in the United States who  expressed similar views, and decried the Simon Wiesenthal Center's Rabbi Marvin Hier's agreement  to recite a prayer at the presidential inauguration, are ignorant of the external and internal dangers Western societies face and view the world not as it actually is but how they would like it to be.

They seem unwilling or unable to grasp the fact that today's fascists and antisemites are drawn largely from sources other than the far right.  (Indeed, we see Leftist fascism in action, with the outbreaks of violence and hooliganism in America that greeted Trump's swearing in.)

How very heartwarming it was that Rabbi Marvin Hier not only spurned calls for him by certain wet liberal co-religionists to boycott the ceremony but based his prayer upon Psalm 137, with its overt references to Zion and Jerusalem. 

 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5nxAi9WEf5g)

Kol Hakavod!

David Singer: UN Security Council Members Trash Quartet Roadmap and Two-State Solution

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

He writes:

Twelve of the fifteen members of the United Nations Security Council have apparently had a major rethink on the terms of Resolution 2334 which they approved 14:0 on 23 December 2016 with only America abstaining.

They were among those who issued the Joint Declaration following the Paris Conference held on 15 January – attended by delegations from 70 countries, the United Nations, the European Commission, the European Union, the Arab League and the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation.

Thirteen of the fifteen Security Council member States were in Paris including its five Permanent Members – China, France, Russia, United Kingdom and United States.

Absent were New Zealand and Malaysia – two of the four sponsors of Resolution 2334.

The Joint Declaration differs substantially from Resolution 2334 in three fundamental respects:

1. Resolution 2334 envisages a region where:

“two democratic States, Israel and Palestine, live side by side in peace within secure and recognized borders”

The Joint Declaration shredded this objective by affirming:

“that a negotiated solution with two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security, is the only way to achieve enduring peace”

The “two democratic states solution” in Resolution 2334 was replaced by a vague and nebulous “two state solution” in the Joint Declaration. Gone were secure and recognised boundaries.

2. Resolution 2334 aims to achieve:

“without delay a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East on the basis of the relevant United Nations resolutions, the Madrid terms of reference, including the principle of land for peace, the Arab Peace Initiative and the Quartet Roadmap and an end to the Israeli occupation that began in 1967”

The Joint Declaration more specifically calls for the resolution of:

“all permanent status issues on the basis of United Nations Security Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973)”

The Quartet Roadmap – so painstakingly put together in 2003 by President Bush calling for negotiations to create a democratic Palestinian State – and under which negotiations had been conducted since then – was unceremoniously dumped in Paris.

This leaves no agreed negotiating framework under which to conduct any resumed negotiations.

3. Resolution 2234 underscored:

“the importance of the ongoing efforts to advance the Arab Peace Initiative”

The Joint Declaration underscored:

“the importance of the Arab Peace Initiative of 2002 as a comprehensive framework for the resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict, thus contributing to regional peace and security.”

Israel had agreed to negotiate under the Quartet Roadmap but listed 14 reservations – one of which required:

“The removal of references other than 242 and 338 (1397, the Saudi Initiative and the Arab Initiative adopted in Beirut). A settlement based upon the road map will be an autonomous settlement that derives its validity therefrom. The only possible reference should be to Resolutions 242 and 338, and then only as an outline for the conduct of future negotiations on a permanent settlement.”

Replacing the Quartet Roadmap with the Arab Peace Initiative guarantees no hope for the stalled negotiations to be resumed.

The United Kingdom refused to endorse the Joint Declaration.

It is incredible that the other twelve Security Council member States present – especially the five permanent members – could approve the terms of the Joint Declaration that so materially changes what they voted for or abstained on just three weeks earlier.

They obviously engaged in cherry picking bits and pieces of Resolution 2334 that they had rushed through with unseemly haste and now have second thoughts on.

A new agreed negotiating framework for any two-State solution now needs to be constructed to replace the trashed Quartet Roadmap.

The Security Council looks decidedly stupid and increasingly irrelevant.

Outrageous Obama (videos)

Not directly related to the main focus of this blog, but sufficiently relevant to include.  What a terrible president, in many ways, Barack Obama has been.

 

  (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvnZm4KbcTA)

 

 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yx8hMGKYqWs)

UnAbel to Attend, UnAbel to Comprehend, Abel to (Try to) Claim an Alibi

Photo: Tom Koprowski

Dr Peter Abelson (pictured left at a Polish communal event) is the Mayor of Mosman, on Sydney's North Shore.

As reported here, this elected functionary has refused a personal invitation to attend the annual Law Service at Sydney's Great Synagogue that marks the beginning of the legal year, informing Rabbi Benjamin Elton that the reason for this boycott is ascribable to Israel.

 "Thank you for your invitation to the Great Synagogue Law Service for 2017. I will not be attending.

I should express my deep personal concern about the gross and illegal occupation of the West Bank which creates intense international division and bitterness and, unresolved, will cause endless terrorism across the globe, including here." [Emphasis added.]

The reply has left the rabbi a trifle shaken:

"Sometimes people decline with thanks, but to receive a reply with a stark message that attacked Israel’s policies ... I’m astonished, really.

The policies of the state of Israel is another discussion. To boycott a Jewish event in Sydney because of the actions of Israel, that’s a form of antisemitism."

 "A form of antisemitism".  That view is reflected in the following from Mr Vic Aldaheff, president of the New South Wales Board of Deputies:

"We are appalled that you would refuse to represent the Jewish constituents of your ward because of your views on the Israel-Palestine conflict.”

He cited the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of antisemitism, a section of which defines antisemitism as “holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel”.

But Dr Abelson is having none of that.  

"To say someone who is critical of the West Bank is anti-Jewish is just nonsense." 

 After all,

"My father’s family was wholly Jewish."

And

"There is no discrimination against Jewish or any other race in Mosman."

I wonder whether the Mayor would boycott a Muslim function on the grounds that most terrorism around the world is being perpetrated by, er, well, by Muslims.

 I reckon we know his answer to that.

Would he boycott a Muslim event in protest at the appalling misogyny that exists in some Muslim communities, including here in Australia, where the sexual-apartheid practising Hizb-ut-Tahrir calls openly for a Caliphate, where an imam has just been convicted of facilitating the forced marriage of a minor, and where female genital mutilation (on girls as young as five months old) has been found to be occurring.  And where books such as this are found for sale, yep, right in Sydney:

'Mansoor Abdul Hakim’s charming 2009 text, “Women Who Deserve to go to Hell.” Turns out there are quite a lot of them.“Some people keep asking about the denizens of Hell and the reason why women will go to hell in large numbers,” writes Hakim in the book’s foreword before listing various types of hell-bound females, including the grumbler, the quarrelsome woman, women with tattoos and women who refuse to have sex during menstruation.  “Men’s perfection is because of various reasons: intelligence, religion, etc,” Hakim explains. “At most, four women have this perfection.”.'

 Maybe we should ask him.  It would surely be difficult to pin the blame for those excrescences on the Zionist Project (as rabid Israel-haters seem to be terming Israel nowadays).

 A commenter on J-Wire here observes:

'Mr Alhadeff and Rabbi Elton’s response should have been to point out to this person that Judea and Samaria are an integral part of the Jewish National Home, and were recognised as such in secular international law in 1922 in the Act of Law known as the Mandate for Palestine. UN Security Council Resolution 242 endorsed that ruling by clear implication. Mr Alhadeff and Rabbi Elton should have pointed out to this person that in the 1947-49 War of Arab Aggression the Arab princedom of Transjordan (now called Jordan) ethnically cleansed all the Jews out of Judea and Samaria, including the old part of Jerusalem.

Mr Alhadeff and Rabbi Elton should have pointed out to this person that Jordan’s illegal occupation between 1948-1967 does not diminish Israel’s national territorial rights nor impart any collective territorial rights to the Arabs who call themselves ‘Palestinians.” Mr Alhadeff and Rabbi Elton should have pointed out to this person that the Arabs who live in Judea and Samaria and the rest of Eretz Yisrael enjoy more civil rights than any Arab in any Arab state.

 Instead, Mr Alhadeff and Rabbi Elton chose to respond in an entirely inappropriate apologetic manner that will merely reinforce the kind of atavistic predisposition of people like this mayor.

 None of the above facts would have influenced the mayor’s animus, but my suggested response would at least have demonstrated some Jewish dignity.'

Perhaps the mayor might consider boycotting his own functions in future, since many Australians would argue that Mosman occupies "stolen land".

David Singer: Paris Buries Palestine and UN Security Council Resolution 2334

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

He writes:

72 States and Organizations meeting in Paris on 15 January have repudiated Security Council Resolution 2334 (“UNSCR 2334”)  just – three weeks after it was passed on 23 December 2016.

UNSCR 2334 had reiterated the Security Council’s

“vision of a region where two democratic States, Israel and Palestine, live side by side in peace within secure and recognized borders”

The final Paris communique dumped this “two democratic states solution” by reaffirming:

“that a negotiated solution with two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security, is the only way to achieve enduring peace”.

The word “democratic” was in fact omitted in the Paris communique in nine places – signalling that Paris did not accept the definitive terms of the “two-state solution” proposed by the Security Council.

The Paris communique deliberately sought to mislead and deceive what UNSCR 2334 had actually stated – declaring the participants:

“welcomed international efforts to advance Middle East peace, including the adoption of United Nations Security Council resolution 2334 on 23 December 2016 which … called on both sides to take steps to advance the two state solution on the ground;"

– blatantly failing to identify that it was the “two democratic states solution” that was envisioned in UNSCR 2334.

Paris went even further in attempting to gloss over the obligation for any Palestinian State to be democratic – the communique noting:

“the importance of addressing the dire humanitarian and security situation in the Gaza Strip and called for swift steps to improve the situation”.

No mention about addressing the absence of democracy in Gaza – where Hamas has denied the Arab population any elections for the last 10 years.

Paris omitted any reference to the only framework within which Israel and the PLO have been negotiating during the last 13 years – the 2003 Bush Roadmap – which clearly states:

“A settlement, negotiated between the parties, will result in the emergence of an independent, democratic, and viable Palestinian state living side by side in peace and security with Israel and its other neighbors.”

The Paris communique:

“called on both sides to take steps to advance the two-state solution on the ground ; the recommendations of the Quartet on 1 July 2016; and the United States Secretary of State’s principles on the two-state solution on 28 December 2016”.

However one Quartet recommendation states:

“Gaza and the West Bank should be reunified under a single, legitimate and democratic Palestinian authority on the basis of the PLO platform and Quartet principles and the rule of law, including control over all armed personnel and weapons in accordance with existing agreements.”

Kerry mentioned “two-state solution” 29 times but never once uttered the word “democratic”.

Israel should now not fall into the trap of negotiating with any entity less than one already democratically elected and functioning in Areas “A” and “B” of the West Bank and Gaza – nor rely on any promises of democracy emerging there in the future.

Paris has managed to bury the “two democratic states solution” in just 24 hours.

The Roadmap and UNSCR 2334 have received the last rites.

Perhaps the Security Council and the Paris participants should now consider the “two-state solution” first envisaged in 1922:

One Jewish State – Israel – and one Arab State – Jordan – in the territory covered by the Mandate for Palestine.

This territorial subdivision has already happened in 95 per cent of the Mandate territory. It can happen very quickly in the remaining 5 per cent.

In fact it only involves redrawing the existing international boundary between Israel and Jordan – two states already living side by side in peace within secure and recognised borders.

Simple and achievable.

Un-Ley-ashed?

Remember the British MPs' great expenses scandal some years ago?

Well, here in Australia federal health minister Sussan (born Susan) Ley (pronounced lee) has quit her Cabinet portfolio in a similar scandal involving claimed travel expenses.

A punk afficionado who as "a high school student in Canberra in the 1970s ... walked around with no shoes, black lipstick, spiky purple hair, a dog collar, and a nose piercing connected to the razor blade in her ear,"  Ms Ley's addition of a superfluous consonant to her given name (invoking for most Aussies the name of a ubiquitous chain of women's wear stores) was apparently a numerology thing.

Before being given ministerial office by former prime minister Tony Abbott, she was one of the most outspoken pro-Palestinian politicians in Canberra, chair, no less, of Parliamentary Friends of Palestine.  (Hence the reaction of anti-Zionist conspiracy theorists, seen in these images, to her recent downfall!)

"When she was just a baby, her family moved [from Nigeria] to the United Arab Emirates where her father was attached to British intelligence. She attended school there until she was 10 and was then sent to boarding school in England while her parents remained in the UAE."

 On 25 June 2003 she informed the House of Representatives (Aussie Hansard, Wednesday, 25 June 2003, page 17560):

"I wish to let the House know that I have this week taken on the task of chairing this parliament's Friends of Palestine group. I pay tribute to the previous chair, the member for Parramatta [Ross Cameron, who established it in 1999 with former National Party leader Tim Fischer as then chairman], for his leadership of the group and the way he has consistently promoted friendship from us, as parliamentarians, towards the Palestinian people.

My involvement in this issue comes from my upbringing in the Middle East and the keen interest in its history and future I acquired then and still have today. As a child I lived in Qatar and the Emirates and grew up knowing the Arabs as open, friendly and generous..."

 In 2011 she was one of four female federal parliamentarians who went on a "study tour" of "Palestine" (the others were Jill Hall, Melissa Parke, and Maria Vamvakinou).

'Palestinians and their President Mahmoud Abbas have reaffirmed their commitment to peace and their readiness for statehood.... As articulated in UN Resolutions, the vision of a peaceful settlement to the Palestine question  is met with the reality that “it has been more than sixty years since the adoption of resolution 181 (II) of 1947, and more than forty years since the occupation of Palestinian [sic] territories, including East Jerusalem, in 1967.”....'

 As federal MP Michael Danby observed the day after a speech Ms Ley made in the House following that visit, she described her visit to Israel as “ten days in the occupied West Bank.”

'Ms Ley met with leaders of the Palestinian Authority, but did not meet any representatives of Israel, leaders, members of the Knesset or diplomats.

She did meet critics of Israeli society - the Israeli Soldiers group-Breaking the silence, and paid tribute to another group of Palestine supporters she described as,“the amazing Rabbi’s for Human Rights....

A bright future for the two peoples will not come through a unilateral declaration of a Palestinian State with an automatic majority of Muslim and Arab supporters at the United Nations General Assembly.'

In 2014 the splendidly clear-sighted and courageous columnist Andrew Bolt drew attention to the naive remarks Ms Ley had made on the ABC's Q and A program (Australia's equivalent to the BBC's Question Time):

'As I said yesterday, no more sweet untruths:

I mean well-meaning deceptions like this, from federal frontbencher Sussan Ley:

".... Islam is a religion of peace. It absolutely is."

Really? [Journalist] Tim Blair checks into the Lakemba Hotel to visit the Islamic heartland of Australia:

 A few weeks ago a large crowd of mostly young men assembled outside the Lakemba Hotel. Waving black flags, the men chanted: "Palestine is Muslim land The solution is Jihad ... You can never stop Islam From Australia to al Sham...

 ... Across the road from the hotel is the Islamic Bookstore... Three books caught my eye. Here’s an extract from Muhammad bin Jamil Zino’s What a Muslim Should Believe, a handy 64-page Q & A guide to the Koran’s instructions:

Question 43: Is it allowed to support and love disbelievers? Answer: No, it is not allowed.

...The History of the Jews seems a bland enough title, but the back cover quotes lines from Martin Luther that were used by Nazi propagandists: “The sun never did shine on a more bloodthirsty and revengeful people as they.” The book offers this view, on page 16: No one can deny the fact that the Jews are the worst kind of barbarian killers the world has ever known!!! The decent great Adolf Hitler of Germany never killed in the manner of the Jews!!! Surely only mad people or those who love killing infants, pregnant women and the infirm will think differently....'

[The third book that caught his eye was as anti-woman as books get.] 

 Now that Ms Ley is no longer bound by the restraints of ministerial office, the unanimity required of Cabinet members on policy issues, it will be interesting to see whether  further "well-meaning deceptions" will come from her lips regarding Israel and the Middle East.

 (Meanwhile, for that "Israeli diplomat" issue in Britain that is exciting the anti-Zionists and antisemites see David Collier's brilliant analysis here)

"There is No Other Example in the World Today of a State Targeted for Extinction" (video)

Still sharply relevant, as this video extract by Moshe Borisoff (with Hebrew subtitles) recognises..

"There were no settlements prior to 1967.  Why wasn't there peace?"

Dennis Prager's brilliant speech at the Oxford Union in 2014 on the "facile moral thinking that pervades our world":

(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsBR2nomfwc)

Oxford Union longer version here

David Singer: Paris Conference Challenges UN Security Council Resolution 2334

Reuters image

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

He writes:

Seventy countries flocking to Paris on January 15 seem set to challenge Security Council Resolution 2334 before the ink has hardly dried.

America’s House of Representatives voting 342:80 has already declared that it:

“opposes United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334 and will work to strengthen the United States-Israel relationship, and calls for United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334 to be repealed or fundamentally altered so that –

(A) it is no longer one-sided and anti-Israel; and

(B) it allows all final status issues toward a two-state solution to be resolved through direct bilateral negotiations between the parties.”

Now the Paris Conference seems set to blindside the Security Council’s vision expressed in the preamble to Resolution 2334:

“a region where two democratic States, Israel and Palestine, live side by side in peace within secure and recognized borders”

Four indicators point to this Security Council “two democratic states solution” being deliberately abandoned at the Paris Conference:

1. A statement by France’s Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Development on 28 December 2016 welcomed:

“.. John Kerry’s clear, courageous, and engaged speech in support of peace in the Middle East and the two-state solution, with Israel and Palestine living side-by-side in peace and security.

France shares the US Secretary of State’s conviction that it is necessary and urgent to implement the two-state solution.” 

Kerry’s speech mentioned “two states” 29 times without stipulating they must be “democratic”.

The Foreign Minister’s above statement does likewise twice.

2. An updated draft of the Paris Conference’s summary statement obtained in advance by Haaretz – indicates that the conference decisions are already a done deal before one glass of champagne or a canape have been enjoyed by the delegates and their entourages.

This summary statement mentions the term “two-state solution” eight times without highlighting they be “democratic” once.

3. The summary statement (Paragraph III) says that looking ahead the conference participants:

“expect both sides to restate their commitment to the two-state solution and to disavow official voices on their side that reject this solution”

This statement is the very antithesis of democracy – seeking to shame duly elected politicians from freely expressing their ideas and thoughts.

Paul Waldman asks what is the point of the “disavowal ritual” and answers as follows:

“its real purpose is to define the boundaries of the acceptable, both within each party and in politics as a whole. When someone gets disavowed, we all know that to be associated with them will lead to shame and reproach. That person and what they represent, it has been made clear, is out of bounds.”

Disavowal might appeal to those seven UN Security Council member-States that are not democracies and repress free speech – China, Russia, Angola, Egypt, Malaysia, Ukraine and Venezuela.

However the other eight democratic member-states on the Security Council – France, United Kingdom, America, Japan, New Zealand, Senegal, Spain and Uruguay should be appalled.

Demanding two democratic States envisioned by Security Council Resolution 2334 – and the disavowal of official voices on both sides that reject the Security Council’s solution – will not be embraced at this Conference.

4. Not one word in the summary statement says how and when democracy will be achieved and maintained in the “State of Palestine”.

The “two-state solution” does not necessarily require:

a) Mahmoud Abbas to terminate the thirteenth year of his four-year presidential term,

b) Gazan and West Bank Arabs being given the vote for the first time since 2006 and

c) two non-elected governing authorities making way for one elected Government.

Paris promises the sudden death of Resolution 2334 with the burial of the Security Council’s “two democratic states solution”.

"What is Really Going on in the West Bank?" (video)

In the aftermath of John Kerry's infamous speech, Ami Horowitz on Fox News investigates:

 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-QvvXpVmGs)

Typically good Gatestone Institute article here

"Kick Israel Out of FIFA" Fanatics upstaged by an Evangelical Preacher (video)

Here are the "Kick Israel out of FIFA" brigade outside the Spurs vs Aston Villa game in London at the weekend, spewing, courtesy of their loquacious Irish-accented spokesperson, their usual bile.

Unhappily for them, they find themselves unexpectedly sharing their patch with an old-tyme Evangelical preacher:

(Mr AlexSeymour video)

Meanwhile, across the La Manche, more BDS mischief (scroll down for English translation)

David Singer: Congress rebuffs Obama and Kerry for abandoning American Policy on Israel

Here, hot on the heels of his previous must-read article (see previous post), is Sydney lawyer and international affairs analyst David Singer's latest incisive contribution.

He writes:

The US Congress has swiftly moved to rebuff the efforts by President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry to reverse long-standing American policy in relation to Israel. By a vote of 342:80 Congress resolved on 5 January 2017:

“the passage of United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334 undermined the long-standing position of the United States to oppose and veto United Nations Security Council resolutions that seek to impose solutions to final status issues, or are one-sided and anti-Israel, reversing decades of bipartisan agreement” 

Congress’s decision goes a long way to restoring America’s reputation and integrity.

Vice President-elect Pence has certainly signalled the incoming Trump Administration’s approval of such Congress action with the following tweet:

Congress now needs to rectify Obama’s abandonment of the written commitments made to Israel by President Bush in his letter to then Israeli Prime Minister Sharon on 14 April 2004 (“Commitments”).

Congress has a vested interest in seeing those Commitments restored - because it overwhelmingly approved Bush giving those Commitments to Israel by a massive vote of 502 to 12.

Among those voting to support those Commitments was Senator Hillary Clinton.

Senator John Kerry – whilst not casting a vote in the Senate –  made his position very clear to moderator Tim Russert on Meet The Press on 18 April 2004:

Russert: On Thursday, President Bush broke with the tradition and policy of six predecessors when he said that Israel can keep part of the land seized in the 1967 Middle East War and asserted the Palestinian refugees cannot go back to their particular homes. Do you support President Bush?

Kerry: Yes.

Russert: Completely?

Kerry: Yes. 

Subsequent decisions by both Clinton and Kerry respectively as Secretary of State played an active role in aiding and abetting Obama’s abandonment of the Bush Commitments - marking a shameful period in American history.

Bush gave his Commitments to Israel for the following stated reasons: 

“We welcome the disengagement plan you have prepared, under which Israel would withdraw certain military installations and all settlements from Gaza, and withdraw certain military installations and settlements in the West Bank. These steps described in the plan will mark real progress toward realizing my June 24, 2002 vision, and make a real contribution towards peace. We also understand that, in this context, Israel believes it is important to bring new opportunities to the Negev and the Galilee. We are hopeful that steps pursuant to this plan, consistent with my vision, will remind all states and parties of their own obligations under the roadmap.

The United States appreciates the risks such an undertaking represents.”

Neither Bush nor Sharon could have envisaged what followed:

1. Hamas installed as the Government in Gaza;

2. a terrorist tunnel network being dug into Israel;

3. thousands of rockets indiscriminately fired into Israeli population centres;

4. chaos in Sinai;

5. three wars with heavy Jewish and Arab casualties;

Clinton and Kerry should have resigned in protest at Obama abandoning the Bush Commitments.

Reaffirming those Commitments should be an immediate priority for Congress – which is clearly in no mood to allow Obama to do any further damage.

Congress has signalled it will not tolerate Obama or Kerry attempting to subvert American foreign policy on Israel at the forthcoming international conference in Paris on 15 January or in the Security Council in the last five days of Obama’s presidency.

America can stand tall and proud. American commitments to Israel will be honoured once again.

David Singer: Anti-Israel Security Council Resolution 2334 violates UN Charter

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

He writes:

United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334 violates Article 80 of the United Nations Charter and accordingly is illegal in international law.

Any attempt by the Security Council to enforce Resolution 2334 or to pass any new Resolutions based on Resolution 2334 will also be illegal.

Article 80 preserves the legal rights vested in the Jewish people to reconstitute the Jewish National Home within 22 per cent of the territory comprised in the 1922 Mandate for Palestine (“Mandate”). That territory includes what is known today as Area "C" located in Judea and Samaria (West Bank) and East Jerusalem (“disputed areas").

Resolution 2334 seeks to erase and annul – not preserve – those vested Jewish legal rights in the disputed areas by:

1. Claiming that Jews now presently living – or seeking in the future to live – in the disputed areas constitutes "a flagrant violation under international law" – when in fact their right to live there is sanctioned by Article 6 of the Mandate and Article 80.

2. Alleging that the right to reconstitute the Jewish National Home in the disputed areas requires the consent of any other party.

3. Calling on all States to discriminate between Jews living in the disputed areas and Jews living in Israel.

4. Discouraging Jews from living in the disputed areas when Article 6 of the Mandate specifically encourages close Jewish settlement in the disputed areas.

The questionable legality of Resolution 2334 needs to be urgently resolved by the Security Council itself seeking an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice (“ICJ”) under Article 96(a) of the United Nations Charter.

The General Assembly so acted when it sought an advisory opinion in 2003 from the ICJ on the legality of the security barrier erected by Israel.

That decision was fundamentally flawed because contrary to Article 65 (2) of the ICJ Statute - two vital documents – the Mandate for Palestine and Article 80 – were not included in the dossier of documents submitted to the ICJ for consideration by then UN Secretary General Kofi Annan – an omission never explained until today.

Give the ICJ half the documents and you will only get half a judgement.

Indeed the Egyptian Judge sitting on that case – Justice El Araby – cautioned in his judgement:

“The international legal status of the Palestinian Territory (paras. 70-71 of the Advisory Opinion), in my view, merits more comprehensive treatment. A historical survey is relevant to the question posed by the General Assembly, for it serves as the background to understanding the legal status of the Palestinian Territory on the one hand and underlines the special and continuing responsibility of the General Assembly on the other. This may appear as academic, without relevance to the present events. The present is however determined by the accumulation of past events and no reasonable and fair concern for the future can possibly disregard a firm grasp of past events. In particular, when on more than one occasion, the rule of law was consistently side-stepped. The point of departure, or one can say in legal jargon, the critical date, is the League of Nations Mandate which was entrusted to Great Britain.”

The Security Council needs to ensure that this time round the Mandate and Article 80 are put centre stage before the ICJ to consider when ruling on the legality of Resolution 2334. Justice for the Jewish People – and the standing, integrity and reputation of the United Nations – demands nothing less.

The Security Council cannot act in violation of the UN Charter – nor countenance any suggestion of illegality in its dealings with member States.

That is a certain recipe for absolute disaster.

By George, Vicar! Another Turbulent Priest!

To date, the Asia Pacific regional contingent on the rather strangely titled "Board of Reference"of Rev Dr Stephen Sizer's so-called "Peacemaker Moderators" outfit, which is to be launched on 6 May following the vicar's resignation from his Surrey pulpit on Easter Sunday, consists of the following persons:

 Dr Philip Church, a senior research fellow at Laidlaw College in New Zealand whose publications include (as joint editor) The Gospel and the Land of Promise: Christian Approaches to the Land of the Bible, published in 2011.

Alistair Donaldson, who lectures in Biblical Theology, Biblical Studies and Hermeneutics at Laidlaw College and is the author of“The Kingdom of God and the Land: The New Testament Fulfillment of an Old Testament Theme,” an essay in the above-mentioned book.

The Right Revd Azad Marshall, about whom I wrote here

Rev Abraham W. Yeung, principal of the Macau Bible Institute (more here)

and

Sydney Anglican priest and keen amateur boxer Father Dave Smith, a sort of antipodean Sizer whose anti-Israel bias will be familiar to regular readers of my blog.

See, for example, his breath-taking Al Quds Day corker here

 Father Dave is seen in this photo practising some nifty dance steps at a function given by the Australia Palestine Advocacy Network (APAN) last year.

The president of APAN (the top photo, rather tellingly showing Arabic poems superimposed on a certain map, was a prize at their annual dinner in 2015) is another cleric with a hostile view of Israel.

For report click here

He's British-born, Aussie-raised George Browning, former Anglican Bishop of Canberra and Goulburn.

A firm and outspoken BDSer is he.

Yesterday (4 January) a letter by Browning was printed in the Brisbane Courier Mail, which has long been one of the most anti-Israel of Australian newspapers.

It's behind a paywall, but is entitled "Malcolm Turnbull is wrong Australia must not side with Israel"

Intended as a riposte to  prime minister Turnbull's condemnation of UN Security Council Resolution 2334, it consists of the usual bile, with all the usual Israel-hating disregard for Israeli sufferings, Hamas atrocities, and Arab rejectionism.

It concludes:

"For the prime minister to ally Australia with Israel against both our ANZUS partners and almost the whole of the international community raises some troubling questions regarding his foreign policy priorities.

What Australian interests are being served in taking such an isolated position on an issue of such international sensitivity? Has Mr Turnbull thought through the national security implications of this policy?

While such partisanship may win him the support of certain powerful domestic constituencies [emphasis added], it is no substitute for a realist foreign policy based upon an understanding that Australia’s interests are best served by upholding a regime of collective security grounded in a commitment to universal human rights and international law."

(Above at left, a "domestic constituency" with which APAN flirted in May last year.)

APAN-indoctrinated Aussie politicians pose in Canberra late last year

What is striking about Browning's letter is the number and calibre of the comments denouncing his stance.

At random:

Commenter Michael:

"So despite the multitude of Human Rights abuses in Saudi Arabia,Syria, Iran and other predominately Muslim countries the UN over the last year has made the majority of it's rulings against Israel.

 The Muslim countries and Palestinians have openly professed to destroy Israel and have backed that up by launching major wars in 1948,1967 and 1973. Followed up by a constant barrage of missiles and Terrorist attacks on the Israeli population to this day. The West bank was secured by Israel 1967 after four Arab nations attacked Israel in an attempt to wipe it out.

Palestininan "ambassador" Izzat Abdulhadi addresses APAN

Nearly 2 million Muslims are free to work and reside in Israel without threat,no Jew is permitted to reside in the surrounding Arab countries. Children in Palestinian are raised and taught to hate the Jews by their leaders so what hope is there of a peaceful coexistence?

Palestinian leader Yassar Arafat in 2000 rejected the two state solution put on the table by Israel which included handing over the Gaza strip and most of the West Bank, simply because they refuse to  recognise Israel as a nation.I am glad that after the Holocaust the Jews swore"Never again" and that because of the hatred shown towards them by the surrounding Arab nations and even yourself. The Jews have far more claim to that land than any other nation,secular history and archaeological finds and the bible  show the deep roots the Jews have with this land. The Israeli's currently share their land with nearly two million Muslims who work and study freely in that nation,it is far more than what the surrounding Arab nations offer to a Jew.

APAN uses a Jewish refugee's poster from the Mandate period

Maybe if the Palestinians had accepted the generous two state solution offered to them in 2000 which included the Gaza strip and the majority of the West Bank it may have produced peace. The offer was turned down flatly by Yassar Arafat the Palestinian leader who refused to acknowledge the right of Israel to exist as a nation and began a series of terrorist attacks on the Israeli population This is still the belief of the surrounding Arab nations openly professed by their leaders who would like to see Israel removed from the map. With this open aggression shown to Israel and it's citizens they have no other choice than to defend themselves."

Commenter Les:

For report (and VIDEO of Turnbull dancing) click here

'The Jews were permitted in Article 80 of the UN Charter recognising the League of Nations "Mandate For Palestine", to live ANYWHERE in Palestine - including Judea and Samaria (Note the Jewish Names) which the Arabs are now claiming for a future Arab State. When Jordan invaded Israel on the declaration of Israel's independence, they moved in Arab settlers, and the UN did nothing.

If this was a war between Arab and Arab over Palestine, no-one would care. Half a million people can die in Syria but this gets only one resolution in the UN General Assembly, but if Israel expands towns and cities in Area C, which even Abbas recognises would go to Israel in exchange for other land in Israel, the UN gets upset, claims "illegality" without any real legal reason, and passes twenty motions against Israel. No wonder even Ban ki Moon, the outgoing Secretary General of the UN said the UN is biased against Israel.'

Commenter Russell

"What's a former Australian Anglican Bishop doing as President of a Palestinian Avocacy Network anyway? Does he support the terrorist activities of Hesbollah and Hamas?"

Commenter Katherine

"Actually he does - in 1993 Bishop Browning, as he was then known, denounced Israel for deporting 415 Palestinian Hamas militants back to Lebanon. They were plotting to murder israeli citizens and were involved in bus bombings. He's be[en] a virulent Israel hater for a very long time"

Commenter Russell again:

Interesting isn't it how the anti Israel constituency simply ignore the terrorists atrocities of Hezbollah and Hamas whose sole aim is the entire destruction of Israel. If these torrorist organisation laid down their weapons there would be peace. If Israel laid down their weapons they'd cease to exist."

Commenter Jonathan:

"Yeah Israel can have peace with a Palestinian government that pays lucrative pensions to the family of anyone who murders a Jew and refuses to recognise that Israel has any right to exist at all. We should totally side with murderers and Muslim extremists"

Commenter Colours:

"I stand with Israel against a genocidal medieval theocracy. It always makes me uncomfortable how often you can scratch the surface of a Protestant minister and find a Jew hater hiding underneath."

Hear, hear, sir or madam!

Any bets the ex-bishop of Canberra and Goulburn will be co-opted onto Stephen Sizer's "Peacemaker Mediators" outfit before long?