Monthly Archives: November 2022

The Tyranny of the Judges

On Wednesday 9 November 2022, the UN Social, Humanitarian and Cultural Affairs Committee is set to begin debating, and voting on, a motion tabled by Nicaragua on behalf of the non-member state PA, that the Israeli presence in Jerusalem and the “West Bank” is de facto annexation., and therefore illegal under international law. In the likely event that the committee approves the measure, the UN General Assembly will vote on it next month and depending on that outcome, the issue may be forwarded to the ICJ for adjudication.

Such a move by the PA and its supporters throws up a range of difficulties and arguments as to why such a move may well prove to be ineffective in its broader (unstated) goal of delegitimising Jewish sovereignty and legality.

Firstly, it shows the continuing practical no-through roads delivered to the PA in the legal arena as evidenced in the tactic switch of abandoning a hitherto favourite PA support-base invocation, the Fourth 1949 Geneva Convention (GCIV). This is because that GCIV provision does not deal with the voluntary movement of individuals who do not displace local inhabitants, neither in Jerusalem nor in Area C of the West Bank.

Secondly, in pressing their claim for a ruling that Israeli presence in Israel’s capital Jerusalem is de facto Israeli “annexation” of Jerusalem, the Nicaraguan/PA request states that Jerusalem was intended to be a corpus separatum as foreseen in UN General Assembly Resolution 181 of 1947.

That Jerusalem, on partition in 1948, was intended to be a corpus separatum is in fact accurate.

But, the Nicaraguan/PA (and aided by a current secondary similar attack by the COI…) UN request turns a conveniently turns a blind eye to the fact that the moment six Arab armies attacked the nascent Jewish state which accepted its legal 1948 borders and the designation of Jerusalem as a corpus separatum per Resolution 181, UNGAR 181 became, arguably, moot.

That is to say, the concept of returning to a status quo ante after having lost a war one initiates, has never occurred in history and demanding it of Israel because the Arab world didn’t like the outcome, has several possible interpretations, none of them positive.

And indeed, while also remembering that UNGAR 1947 was, however, only a recommendation with no binding effect, the Resolution recommended the establishment of an Arab state, a Jewish state, and a special entity of Jerusalem.

UNGAR 181 never, ever, mentioned a Palestinian State. Nor did Resolution 242, post the 1967 Six Day War nor even Resolution 338 after the 1973 Yom Kippur war.

That the Arab League, in contrast to the Jews who accepted the territorial borders of the state they then called Israel, advised against accepting that Arab state per UNGAR 181 and gambled the farm on obtaining an easy military victory against a tiny legal and sovereign new state and subsequently lost, is not a sufficient reason to claim that “Palestinian” Jerusalem and the “Palestinian” West Bank have been annexed by the very state they sought to wipe out in 1948 in the first place but couldn’t/didn’t…..

There was, thus, no legal obligation under international law to accept and implement the corpus separatum regime which would only have become binding if the two parties had agreed to it.

Added to this legal difficulty for the PA, is the fact that on 14 May 1948 the Jordanian army attacked Jerusalem. The battle for the Old City ended with the surrender of the Jewish quarter to the forces of the Jordanian Arab legion (on 28 May 1948, 14 days later while the Israelis were in control of the western sector of the city. Jordan annexed East Jerusalem and the West bank in 1949 under the banner of “unification”.

Jordan had created a de-facto annexation of the eastern section of Jerusalem, an act recognized only by Britain and Pakistan, and an act they legislated with a formal annexation  a year later.

No representation was ever made by anybody to any UN body about UNGAR 181 and the principle of corpus separatum. So, no demand for a status quo ante then.

When Jordan saw fit in 1967 to attack Israel again, this time they lost not only the eastern section of Jerusalem, but also the territory they had annexed back in 1948 in what they termed the West Bank (of the Jordan River). With regard to Jerusalem, Israel immediately applied Israeli law to the newly gained sector of the city as well in the re-unification of Judaism’s cultural and religious core. The legality of this move is enshrined in the fact that because Israel had effectively occupied the area in an act of self-defence, over three wars of self-defence, it is a lawful occupant of that territory.

Of note, and also on 14 May 1948 the Israel’s declaration of independence, when the British mandate over Palestine was about to end, representatives of the Jewish community in Palestine adopted the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel. The declaration did not mention Jerusalem, but it declared that Israel “will safeguard the Holy Places of all religions”.

For 74 years, Israel has kept its unwavering commitment to “…safeguard the Holy Places of all religions” as witnessed by complete freedom of worship for Christians, Muslims and Bahai in the Jewish state.

This is in contrast to the Jordanians and the PA which does not allow Jewish prayer on the Temple Mount, and where any Jewish presence during Jewish holidays and festivals are referred to by the rather comical PA term: “storming the Temple Mount/ al-Aqsa etc..

This brings us, finally, to the concept of the PA’s stab at pursuing a variant of universal jurisdiction as it applies to the PA’s latest moves at the UN.

Universal jurisdiction is the relatively new tool in the toolbox of Israel’s delegitimisers and critics. It is “a strategy of using or misusing law as a substitute for traditional military means to achieve military objectives.” (Anne Herzberg, September 2008: 2, “NGO “Lawfare,” Exploitation of Courts in the Arab-Israeli Conflict”, NGO Monitor Monograph Series)

Here we have a non-member and non-sovereign observer UN entity, the PA, using the services of a sovereign member state, Nicaragua, to ask the ICJ to exercise universal jurisdiction over a legal sovereign state on grounds of illegal annexation, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and genocide, effectively in absentia.

And here, the implementation of universal jurisdiction in absentia, is not against a single person, (though that too was tried: Ariel Sharon, Doron Almog, Moshe Ya’alon, Tzipi Livni and Avi Dichter….), but against a state whose crime is apparently forcefully resisting genocidal attempts against it and undercutting its documented legitimacy.

Here, even the judges of the International Court of Justice (the ICJ), which is no

friend of the State of Israel, warned against the possible abuse of the principle of universal jurisdiction in the Yerodia case in 2002, stating: “If, as we believe to be the case, a State (the PA is not a state) may choose to exercise a universal criminal jurisdiction in absentia, it must also ensure that certain safeguards are in place. They are absolutely essential to prevent abuse and to ensure that …[it] does not jeopardize stable relations between States.” (Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Belgium), 2002 I.C.J. 3 (February 14) (Joint Separate Opinion of Judges Higgins, Kooijmans, and Buergenthal).

At the risk of repetition, the PA is not a state, and the state of Nicaragua is a million miles removed from the Middle East.

That said, the glaring issue raised by the latest PA assault on Israeli legitimacy and security is that of the inviolability of the sovereign state of Israel when the principle of universal jurisdiction is abused to benefit a political agenda as in the Israel Palestinian conflict.

“As recognized by the UN Charter, Article 2(1), all states enjoy “sovereign equality” – that is, all states are equal members of the international community of states, and are to be treated accordingly. Universal jurisdiction, by its very nature, violates sovereign equality of states by allowing one state (here Nicaragua as the supplicant) to judge the actions of the officials of another state.  The principle therefore disregards one of the precepts of modern international law.” (Morrison and Weiner, 2010:7 “Curbing the Manipulation of Universal Jursidiction”, JCPA)

Under consideration in this article is the judicial outcome of the PA’s latest tilt at using lawfare to determine a political outcome; an example of how the political opportunism of ingrained entitlement, not negotiation, has, till now, been a successful strategy.

The issue here is not that the Arabs (now Palestinians) have an understandable right to their newfound wish for statehood, but that that relatively recent nationalistic endeavor has, at its core, the continued and oft-voiced statement(s) that any future Palestinian state will be at the expense of the destruction of the Jewish one, that any future Palestinian state will never agree to live in peace with a neighbouring legal and sovereign Israeli state.

Resolution 181 be damned.

Israel has never wavered in its commitment to face-to-face talks in final outcome negotiations, nor in its documented exchange of land for peace with its Arab neighbours.

What is documented though, is that, time after time after time, the Arab world has exchanged unsuccessful warfare for equally unsuccessful lawfare supported by organisations like the UN, and judicial courts like the ICJ, totally and comfortably removed from the violence and realities on the ground in Israel.

That is the tyranny of the judges.


The War on Zionism –  and the West

“Zionist is the code word. Jew is the actual word.”

                      Diana Fersko, Tablet, November 4, 2022

Since the November 1, 2022 elections in Israel and the victory of the Israeli right at the polls, there has been an avalanche of anti-Israel rhetoric by media experts and commentators foreshadowing the rise of Israeli fascism, racism, isolationism, and, of, course, apartheid Zionism.

It could reasonably be argued that this splurge of anti-Israel commentary is a result of those commentators not seeing the results their world-view would want in Israeli elections and an attempt to anchor the conversation within parameters they are traditionally comfortable with.

And, given the vicious invective of some of those columnists on the results of the latest round of fair and free Israeli election, it could also be reasonably argued that the win of the Israeli right wing in Israel has provided more grist to the mill of the we-are-anti-Zionist-not-antisemitic naysayers.

Some examples of the vocabulary used to opine on the results are radical, a threat to democracy, mysoginistic and extremist. In another example, the leftist American liberal J-Street called the results “deeply troubling”.

The Norwegian Refugee Council forecast a “vicious cycle of violence” as well as the “dol(ing) out (of) systematic and institutionalised discrimination and oppression”. Others commented that the outcome was “…an intolerable racist Jewish religious Right…”. A breathless Thomas Friedman postulated that the very “soul of democracy” was in the balance in the 2020 centre-right Israeli elections, while in 2022, he labels PM elect Netanyahu’s prospective cabinet ministers as an “…illiberal Israeli constituency…” the ominous consequences of whose governance will be akin to “…entering a dark tunnel.”

I do not propose to give additional airspace to comments from social media and pro-Palestinian outlets on the election results because, predictably, they range from somewhere between tense and negative to shaming, vitriolic, hyperbolic, and unambiguously condemnatory.

The above is a prelude to the core discussion of the war on Zionism which is near identical to that same ideological war on the West.

The War On Zionism

In recent years, there continues to exist a war, a culture war against Zionism, much like the one against the West.

In both cases, a remorseless war is being waged against all roots of Zionism as it is against the West.

Delegitimisers of political Zionism and, by extension, its realisation in the eventual creation of the State of Israel, made the demand, as they did of Western democracies, that in order to have any legitimacy, Israel should fundamentally alter its demographic by allowing in 5.7 million Arab (now Palestinian) refugees whose grandfathers fled the civil war in Mandated Palestine 1947-49.

Similarly, in pushing the trope that Zionism is racism/racist/anti human rights, nothing on the scale as it applied to Zionist Israel is applied to, for example, China. Despite the documented racial abuses by the Chinese Communist Party against Uyghurs, nobody speaks out against China with the rage and invective levelled against Israel, people still buy cheap Chinese clothes, nobody calls for a boycott on items with a “Made in China” tag on them, and no author who refuses to have his book translated into Hebrew has any qualms when it is translated into Chinese.

This myopic leftist racial lens is also applied to the West as it is to the Zionist State of Israel. However, those same lenses cannot publicly distinguish/ comment on, the horrific, violent racism by back Africans against other black Africans or in the Middle East outside of Israel where a thriving caste system exploits unprotected foreign workers as an imported labour class. Nor even in today’s India where the chamars/harijans/dalits are “untouchables” for no reason other than an accident of birth.

Yet, Zionism, and the West, are “racist” because the West, and especially Zionist Israel, are treated by different sets of standards that obviously do not apply to ideological Orientalists, Africa and swathes of the Middle East.

Orientalism as anti-Zionism – a quick analysis

Orientalism was a singularly anti-Western treatise by the Christian Arab writer Edward Said, and which was published in 1978. Its central theme was that anything western was to be both condemned and derided, because it viewed the Orient through western eyes, and that any crimes committed by non- western governments, regimes and dictatorships were of no interest. The big crime was that Western societies viewed other societies they came into contact with through western eyes. This is as unremarkable as it is obvious because, for example, one would not expect China to view the Middle East through Australian Aboriginal eyes. Nor Russia to view the Ukraine through Punjabi eyes….

Yet, Said was simply intellectually unable or unwilling to see that European Zionism which was realised in the Middle East in the State of Israel, was anything but a colonial, foreign enterprise.

In the final analysis, Said’s Orientalism was an openly political work beloved by both Islamists and the International Left. Its aim was not to investigate the array of disciplines or to elaborate exhaustively the historical or cultural provenance of Orientalism, but rather to fault western discourse, by analysing it from the point of view of Edward Said the Oriental.

Further, Edward Said pilloried the “West” for essentialising all interactions with societies in the East; that is, to lump disparate the one with the other. Yet, he is guilty of being the quintessential essentialiser himself when he stated in his 1978 book “It is therefore correct that every European…[is] consequently a racist, an imperialist, and almost totally ethnocentric.” (Said, 1979, Orientalism, p 204). Every European? Every single one of them?

The irony here is that if one replaced the word “European” with “Arab Christian” or “African”, there would not be many who would claim your work is seminal and a revelation. And yet, chief librarian at the British Library Liz Jolly’s woke 2020 comment that “racism is the creation of white people” (Simpson, Daily Telegraph, August 29, 2020) must be juxtaposed with a Saudi Arabian ban on all non-Muslim entry to Mecca, or the Palestinian Authority President’s 2013 stating that not a single Israeli would be allowed in a future Palestinian state based on two states for two peoples.

Edward Said’s anti-West hate in Orientalism was transposed onto the Arab-Israeli conflict supported by Islamists and the Left where that thesis was used as the base for the false claim that Zionists were western European implants (Said said so…), and NOT a displaced Jewish Oriental diaspora wanting to recreate a Jewish home despite its tragedies and return to its indigenous territory as recorded in three religious tracts: Tanakh, the Bible and the Koran. Or even as recorded in the non-religious Egyptian Merneptah stele from 1213 BCE…..

And, to further the strengthen the premise of a war on the West as well as Zionism, there can be little difference of opinion that Islamists and the Left do not agree about feminism, homosexuality, religion, secularism, and the aims of socialism, and yet they clearly share a common anti-Western and anti-Zionist agenda.

One might like to consider that in his thesis, Orientalism, Said had no idea of the glaring discrepancies in his work or what he was actually saying. Worse is to consider that he actually did, and attempted/preferred to perpetuate the lie.

The War on Zionism and the West – everything is “woke”

The basis of the war on Zionism, as it is on the West, is that it is anchored in a negative re-framng and delegitimisation of both through, among other strategies, disseminating the falsehood that the religion and culture of both  are dominated by a sense of superiority and superciliousness towards others.

These are generally, and arguably especially, theories developed by those who have no firsthand knowledge of the issues in question.

Thus Jesus became a Palestinian, the Kew Gardens, a repository for plants from around the world, is racist for having tropical climate rubber and bamboo plants on show (yes, racist gardening is a thing), the Temple Mount was in Hebron not Jerusalem, Zionism is racism, the archbishop of Canterbury flagellated the Church of England for its “institutional racism” in a nod to the church’s apparently new faith in critical race theory and Marxist ideas of exploitation rather than in Christ, and the Roman Catholic Church denounced the (unfortunate and unnecessary) police killing of George Floyd not as an over-reaction to a known violent offender with priors, but as systemic racism in the American police system. This despite the fact that more American blacks were killed by blacks than police in statistical data to date.

Music in the woke West too is under attack in that a 2018 New York Times bestseller by Ijeoma Oluo suggests that white people rapping, while (still?!) legal, should not be allowed because it is cultural appropriation and is unfair because it allows  non-black rappers to make money from music sales. This apparently also applies to Israeli falafels and western exponents of Indian music, but not to black musicians using western technology to record the rap to make money from music sales, or wearing western style trousers in Chad or driving Japanese cars in Jamaica.

This sort of narrow minded “stay in your lane” bigotry sees only rape and pillage in everything instead of acknowledging that cultural osmosis in the arts, literature, medicine, science and technology is acknowledgement of, and a tribute to, the worthy endeavours of others for the wider good.

But the broad-based attacks on the foundations of the West continue. For example, Marx’s 14 foot China-donated statue in Trier, near the borders of Luxembourg, Belgium and France is but testimony to the left’s blindness in its attacks on Zionism; and the West.

In an 1861 letter to Engels, Marx stated: “The expulsion of a Leper people from Egypt, at the head of which was an Egyptian priest named Moses. Lazarus, the leper, is also the basic type of Jew” in Marx and Engels Collected Works, 1861, vol 41, p285).

Yet the veneration of Marx (and Edward Said by a later demographic) whose ideals fill left liberal governments and liberal administrations today is to be expected because their writings and reputations are useful for anyone wishing to delegitimise and pull down the West and, concomitantly, pressure the Zionist State of Israel to forfeit its legitimacy and sovereignty.

In the context of continuing anti-Zionist-but-not-antisemitic attacks on the very core of the founding of the State of Israel, and in the spirit of agreeing that if Marxism, Socialism, Capitalism, Communism, Catholicism, Mohammedanism, being black, white or brown, or being religious or an atheist are all acceptable norms and are not constructed as negative, then Zionism too and the kind of cultural, religious and cultural commonalities around that realisation in the creation of the State of Israel too may not be constructed as negative.

Continuing to use virulent “anti-Zionist” (sic) discourse then becomes unambiguously and transparently antisemitic.

It is time to change the language of that discourse as it pertains to Israel.

The End Game – Deliberations on the Israeli – Palestinian Conflict – Part IV

That the Israeli- Palestinian conflict seems to be intractable is a sad, if accurate, truism.

Given the inability or the unwillingness of the Arab (now Palestinian) leadership(s) in Ramallah and Gaza to negotiate a peace, the outlook for any cessation in the cyclical outbreaks of violence between Israel and the Palestinians remains bleak. This is particularly so because initiatives like the Abraham Accords which might have bestowed on the hitherto rejectionist Palestinians a package of concessions from Israel that is more favourable to them than those that they have rejected in the past and particularly in 2000 and 2008.

The bald facts today are that antisemitism is surging in a manner eerily reminiscent of the mid-20th century, when World War II broke out, with Islamist groups, extreme right-wingers, and the hard left coalescing around new media platforms to spread their hate-based philosophy(ies). Conspiracy theories continue to be shared about Jewish banking families controlling the weather and Jewish space lasers igniting wildfires. Year after year there has been a rise in antisemitic hate crimes, which may even be underreported.

It is not particularly constructive to re-hash who did, said or claimed what in the past in order to end the conflict today because competing narratives are always aligned with personal world views arguably impervious to history, logic or a consistent communal or universal moral compass.

This final article in the series, Part IV, will look at possible “solutions” or alternatives to the Israeli Palestinian conflict and consider the merits of each including accepting that the conflict might never be resolved, only ameliorated.

Alternatives, Compromises and Negotiations

It is no secret that, in 2022, and particularly as a consequence of the 2nd intifada, the overarching principle of a two-state solution as envisioned in Oslo I and II is effectively dead. This does not mean that both Israelis and Arabs (now Palestinians) do not need to separate. They do, and despite the failure of Oslo, a separation between Israelis and Arabs as two peoples is consonant with universal principles of legitimate, legal sovereignty. And while national self-determination is a right of both Jew and Arab in a contested territory, it can ONLY be based, and as a precondition to ANY solution, on security for both.

Given the recorded modern history of the relations between Israel and its Arab and Muslim neighbours, both contiguous and non-contiguous, and given the fact that in 74 years the State of Israel has never once embarked on a war of aggression with its Arab neighbours, the prognosis for an ameliorated peace in the medium to long term remains slim.

This prognosis is not helped by contrasting declarations by the interim Prime Minister of Israel in September 2022 on the one hand stating that he pledges support for a 2 state resolution to the Israeli Palestinian conflict, and the statement made on 14 September 2022 by Chairman Abbas appointed Fatah/PLO/PA Jenin Branch Secretary Ata Abu Rmeileh, that the current round of violence in the West Bank is the decision of the Palestinian people “…. on a comprehensive confrontation…[which] will not stop… a heroic operation of the Al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigades, Fatah’s military wing…[bringing] general joy in all the streets and all the alleys. This proclamation was a follow up to his 3 September 2022 declaration on the Official PA TV News outlet that “…only through the rifle will Palestine be liberated.” That, clearly, has not worked in the past 74 years and will not succeed in the future. It is mere self-defeating repetition.

The Report

A 2021 research report by Egel, Karan, Efron et al identified five alternatives in the Israeli Palestinian conflict (Egel et al, 2021, “Alternatives in the Israeli Palestinian Conflict, Rand Corporation). These were perpetuation of today’s status quo, a two-state solution, a confederation, annexation and a one-state solution.

The report was tabled in a range of findings.

The first was that none of the alternatives were acceptable to the majority of the Israelis or the Arabs (Palestinians).

For Israeli Jews, the only alternative judged as “acceptable” by a majority of focus group participants was the status quo. For the other three populations—Israeli Arabs, Gazan Palestinians, and West Bank Palestinians—none of the alternatives were acceptable to a majority of participants. (Egel et al, 2021:xii, “Alternatives in the Israeli Palestinian Conflict”, Rand Corporation)

Regarding findings for a two-state solution, the most politically viable alternative for all respondents, with modifications by the Palestinians and general scepticism by all, the two-state solution was the preferred alternative for both the Israeli Arabs and West Bank Palestinians and the second-highest-rated alternative for Israeli Jews.

For the Palestinians, a two-state solution modification included an army to defend itself and protect its borders and the need to have economic control over its borders. Support for a confederation was low because it would not provide the desired separation both sides wanted.

In fact, separation was “…the most important overall factor in determining support for alternatives” (Egel et al, Ibid.)

While most Israeli Jews preferred the status quo in the absence of a viable working solution and out of concern for all the things that could go wrong with the other alternatives, this alternative was disliked by the Israeli Arabs who wanted more political opportunities and improved economic conditions, and by the Palestinians in particular who expressed an urgent need for a change to address their living conditions and, in particular, the poor economic situation, unemployment, lack of education, water shortages, lack of mobility, and lack of independence.

And finally, the report found that while economic peace and prosperity was a desirable outcome for the West Bank Palestinians who, while they wanted political separation, also wanted to retain economic partnerships with Israel which they saw as critical to their livelihoods. Economic prosperity was less imperative for Gazans and Israeli Arabs, the report concluded that such a strategy was unlikely to be successful for the Gazan and West Bank Palestinians unless accompanied by significant security and other guarantees. This was echoed by many Israelis particularly in their experience of Israel’s disengagement from Gaza and the establishment in the strip of a fundamentalist Islamic government publicly committed to destroying the State of Israel.

The End Game

Unsurprisingly, the report ended thus:

“[In an effort] to determine whether there were areas of overlap in opinions and feeling between Israelis and Palestinians that might offer avenues for negotiation…the data show the opposite…deep distrust and profound animosity of each side for the other. In light of our
findings, it is hard to imagine a departure from present trends” (Egel et al, 2021: xvi, “Alternatives in the Israeli Palestinian Conflict”, Rand Corporation)

In other words, the majority view of the Israelis appear to be the most grounded in the current realities on the ground. As Inbar, 2022 puts it, “The idea that Jewish and Arab states will coexist peacefully is widespread in contemporary academic and political circles but ignores the reality on the ground.” (Efraim Inbar, October 3, 2022, Understanding Israeli-Palestinian two-state solution delusion, Jerusalem Post)

A pessimism such as this, and that of the authors of the Rand Corporation report above is understandable given Hamas’s stated view in Gaza that Israel’s mere existence is religious sacrilege, intermittent PA sanctioned Palestinian terror in the east (West Bank), the chasm between Israel and the Palestinians on the core issues of Jerusalem, refugees, and borders, the credence and support given to young Palestinians who blow themselves up among Jews and ongoing Arab-on-Jew knife attacks and car rammings inside Israel’s sovereign borders point mainly to the fact that the PLO/PA, that body which described itself as the sole representative of the Palestinian political future, is essentially not a functioning political entity.

As Inbar so accurately puts it, there are some protracted national conflicts which do not have “an immediately available solution” (Inbar, Ibid), and with the growing realisation based on the verifiable facts, that a putative Palestinian state will declaredly not live peacefully next to a sovereign Israel, there seems little choice but to concur with Inbar’s pessimistic observation in this deliberation of the Israeli Palestinian conflict, the end game as it currently stands:

Often, societal exhaustion – rather than an opportunity for an optimal compromise – ends protracted ethnic conflict. If pain is the most influential factor on the learning curve of societies, it seems that Israelis and Palestinians have not suffered enough to settle. (Efraim Inbar, October 3, 2022, Understanding Israeli-Palestinian two-state solution delusion, Jerusalem Post)

Today, Tuesday, 1st November, 2022, as Israel goes to the polls for a fifth time in just under four years, it remains to be seen just what message the uptick in unbridled violence and murder of Jews, courtesy terror groups like the Lion’s Den, sends to Israeli voters, and what that translates to in the wider context of even a beginning basis for peace in the 75 year old Israeli Palestinian conflict.