Eretz Israel is our unforgettable historic homeland...The Jews who will it shall achieve their State...And whatever we attempt there for our own benefit will redound mightily and beneficially to the good of all mankind.(Theodor Herzl, DerJudenstaat, 1896)
We offer peace and amity to all the neighbouring states and their peoples, and invite them to cooperate with the independent Jewish nation for the common good of all. The State of Israel is ready to contribute its full share to the peaceful progress and development of the Middle East.(From Proclamation of the State of Israel, 5 Iyar 5708; 14 May 1948) With a liberal democratic political system operating under the rule of law, a flourishing market economy producing technological innovation to the benefit of the wider world, and a population as educated and cultured as anywhere in Europe or North America, Israel is a normal Western country with a right to be treated as such in the community of nations.... For the global jihad, Israel may be the first objective. But it will not be the last.(Friends of Israel Initiative)
Here's the latest article by Sydney lawyer and international affairs analyst David Singer.
He writes:
President Trump appears determined to defund the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) should the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) refuse to resume negotiations with Israel.
Such negotiations – suspended since April 2014 – won’t re-commence until Trump’s eagerly-awaited peace plan – his “ultimate deal” - sees the light of day. Until then current UNRWA funding will probably continue.
Trump will have been singularly unimpressed with PLO Executive committee member Hanan Ashrawi describing America’s threat to defund UNRWA as “blackmail”.
US Ambassador to the United Nations – Nikki Haley – explained America’s future intentions regarding UNRWA:
“The President has basically said he doesn’t want to give any additional funding, or stop funding, until the Palestinians agree to come back to the negotiation table. We still very much want to have a peace process. Nothing changes with that. The Palestinians now have to show they want to come to the table.
As of now, they’re not coming to the table, but they ask for aid. We’re not giving the aid. We’re going to make sure that they come to the table.”
America has long borne the lion’s share in funding UNRWA’s refugee program.
Contributions to UNWRA are purely voluntary. US$1243 million was donated to UNWRA in 2016 by:
1. America – US$368 million
2. The European Union – US$160 million
3. Saudi Arabia – US$148 million
4. The rest of the world – US$567 million
China donated US$300000, Indonesia US$5000 – whilst only 9 of the 22 members of the Arab League donated to UNWRA and their contributions (apart from Saudi Arabia) totalled US$31 million.
UNRWA is doing nothing to relieve itself of its ongoing financial liability and responsibility for an ever increasing number of refugees – who comprise:
1. those persons whose normal place of residence was Palestine during the period from 1 June 1946 to 15 May 1948 and who lost both home and means of livelihood as a result of the 1948 Arab-Israel War. (“Qualifying Refugees”)
2. the descendants of male Qualifying Refugees, as well as their legally adopted children.
Palestine refugees constitute the only group of refugees in the world whose descendants can claim refugee status long after the death of their refugee ancestors. Their numbers have increased from 750,000 in 1950 to 5 million in 2017.
UNRWA could reduce this ever-burgeoning number of refugees by closing many refugee camps in the West Bank like Dheisheh – which UNRWA states:
“was established in 1949 and is located along the main street in Bethlehem. The camp was built to serve 3,000 refugees. Today, the number of residents in Dheisheh has reached roughly 15,000.”
How can Dheisheh’s residents then continue to be classified as “refugees” when they are being governed by the PLO – the "sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people" – along with 200,000 other Palestinian Arabs living side by side with them as their next door neighbours?
Shouldn’t Dheisheh’s four schools, one health centre, Shams Health Centre for Non-Communicable Diseases and the Environmental health office be open to all Bethlehem residents – and the 15000 Dheisheh residents taken off the UNRWA register and absorbed into the Palestinian Arab population of Bethlehem?
UNRWA keeps Dheisheh open in apartheid-style segregation from Bethlehem – causing ongoing stress, suffering and dependency on its hapless residents.
No wonder most countries contribute precious little to UNRWA. America seems set to emulate their example – especially if Israel/PLO negotiations aren’t resumed.
"The Hamas threat is against America itself and all that it stands for in the world" A number of front groups are involved.
Here's former CIA operative Clare Lopez, now, inter alia,Vice President of the non-profit forumThe Intelligence Summit, and a professor at the Centre for Counterintelligence and Security Studies, introducing the Center for Security policy's monograph HAMAS, CAIR & the Muslim Brotherhood by Ilana Freedman.
And so repeated Lebanese-born Sheikh Jamal Taleb, Imam of the Islamic Centre of SW Ontario in London, Ontario (ICSWO) since 2001, in a Friday sermon there on 15 December, in the wake of President Trump's announcement that the US Embassy will be moved to Jerusalem. Taleb is a member of the Canadian Council of Imams.
"America's Rabbi" (as he describes himself) Shmuley Boteach has never, to put it mildly, shied away from publicity, and if you look at his Facebook page you'll see that he's been getting very excited each time a news outlet reports on this ad, which he's taken out in the Washington Post.
The ad does make excellent points regarding Lorde's decision to cancel her June gig in Tel Aviv (about which the great David Collier posted so very eloquently here).
The antisemites are, of course, out in force, attacking the rabbi and da Joos Khazars in intemperate terms. But many supporters of Israel are questioning whether taking out this ad was wise, arguing, inter alia, that it has given inordinate publicity to a Kiwi performer who's not been exactly a household name and that Boteach's stunt will backfire, being interpreted as bullying, and making as many converts to the odious BDS cause as it would hope to allay.
As the antipodean J-Wire service reports:
'.... A spokesperson for the New Zealand Jewish Council said: “The advertisement funded by The World Values Network does not promote understanding or engagement. The New Zealand Jewish Council is committed to dialogue and tolerance and distances itself from the inflammatory and aggressive material that stoops to the level of BDS rather than rising above it ....'
The huge kerfuffle over Lorde has, incidentally, tended to obscure a victory for the BDS movement in November that has been the subject of this triumphalist video featuring the plummy-voiced London-based Sandra Watfa from Inminds.
It concerns hip hop artist Rag'n'Bone Man's (Rory Charles Graham's) decision to cancel his gig in Tel Aviv scheduled for next May, and we see the decision played out in real time, as it were, with his manager liaising with anti-Israel protesters outside his concert in Brixton, South London demanding that he do so, and telling them that their demo has convinced Rag'n'Bone man not to go ahead.
“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 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.
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".
'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....'
'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.'
