Lies, Dissembling and Deceit

After 71 years of “pining” for their “ancient and indigenous” “homeland”, but with no political progress of any kind visible, over seven decades one must question whether the PA under Mahmoud Abbas is at all interested in peace and/or a negotiated settlement.

The short answer must clearly be “No” and is part of a decades-long exercise in double speak that some influential countries take as true statement of intent. This article will explain why, for over 70 years, the Levantine Arabs (PLO, PFLP {and derivatives}, Fatah, the PA and Hamas) have never been interested in peace.

The Palestinian Authority Charter dissected

The PLO, founded in 1964, became recognized and declared itself to be the legitimate representative of the “Palestinian” people wherever they are and the only agency empowered to negotiate on their behalf.

In 1964 too, during Arafat’s reign of terror, the Palestine National Authority (PNA) Charter was created which was a mixture of fiction and proven double-speak. Like the demonstrable history of dealing with the former mandate’s Levantine Arabs, the Charter stated highly debatable theories and some downright incorrect ones.

For example, Article 1 of the PNA charter states that: “Palestine is the homeland of the Arab Palestinian people…” This statement is a lie because it makes no mention of the legal homeland of the Jewish people who lived there for the previous 3,000 years.

Article 2 states: “Palestine, with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate is an indivisible territorial unit….” Here we have some lexical sleights of hand . If Palestine “during the British mandate” was “indivisible”, then Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Jordan have no right to exist. But Israel’s Arabs in Jordan and Lebanon have tried that already and got roundly smacked.

Article 3 continues: “The Palestinian Arab people possess the legal right to their homeland” Here is an example of verbal deceit. Arabs do indeed have a legal right to a homeland if they wish. However, the “Palestinian” Arabs in this particular scenario opted for war. Three times. And lost ever increasing amounts of territory which Israel has always maintained would be subject to a negotiated return in any final status settlement.

Article 5 “The Palestinians are …Arab nationals”. This is a confusing statement because if there is only an Arab Muslim ummah (nation) and no concept of state (See “indivisible territorial unit’ of Article 2), then the demand for a “Palestinian” “state” flies counter to the wishes of the ummah for an “indivisible” new and independent Arab entity called Palestine.

Peace Offers to end all Peace Offers

Anyhow, in 1993, it was the PLO which negotiated the Oslo Accords with Israel, which set into place, in 1994, the Palestinian Authority in certain specific regions of Gaza and Judea & Samaria.

Theoretically, the PA could speak only for those in those areas, under its authority. But over time, Israel began dealing only with the PA and not the PLO even though the offices of the PA were filled in the main by PLO people and where Arafat’s money-man and successor, Mahmoud Abbas, was head of both the PA and the PLO.

Thus it was that when Ehud Barak offered Arafat a state in 2000, he was speaking to him as head of the PA. In 2008, Abbas, as upholder of the PA Charter Article 22: “The People of Palestine believe in peaceful coexistence…” refused Olmert’s historic offer of peace AND a state, including forgoing sovereignty of Jerusalem because Abbas (mis)calculated on getting a better deal seeing that GW Bush was on the way out and that Olmert was finished politically. In 2009, Abbas was quite content to display the PA Charter’s Article 12 on Arab unity (“The Palestinian people believe in Arab unity….”) when the December 2008 Israeli operation against Hamas in Gaza (Cast Lead ) was initiated because it would politically and physically weaken his Arab “brothers”.

The flips and flops of the Arabs continue into 2019 when Abbas’ PA refuses to attend the latest peace initiative aimed at ending conflict. Dubbed the “Deal of the Century”, this stage-driven economic revival plan for Gaza and the “West Bank” as a precursor to a negotiated border settlement has also been vetoed by Abbas.  Given his refusal to two stunning previous Israeli offers which included more than 100% of the land he claims he wanted for a Palestinian state, it is no big surprise Abbas has announced that the PA has already rejected Trump’s peace proposal in his yet unpublicized “deal of the century”.

Orwell at the UNSC

Abbas’ fine words (and some downright porkies: We are the descendants of Canaanites that lived in the land of Palestine 5,000 years ago…) to the UN Security Council in February 2018 make the casual reader gasp as to the Orwellian nature of his address.

I do not here intend to counter these items of Abbas’ speech because to do so would give the man’s claims a veneer of legitimacy. The reader can make the judgement for her/himself.

For example, Abbas stated “We have been committed to fostering a culture of peace, rejection of violence, pursuit of sustainable development…agricultural farms and technological production, as opposed to establishing weapons factories…

As another example, in Feb 2018, Mahmoud Abbas said, “The Palestinian people…have made contributions to humanity and civilization witnessed by the world.

And, just to pick a third and final example of systemic dissembling by the PA/PLO, Mahmoud Abbas stated at that same meeting that he had been on “…a long journey and efforts to create a political path based on negotiations and leading to a comprehensive and just peace, as you are aware, we participated in the Madrid Conference in 1991 and signed the Oslo Accords in 1993…”

It thus becomes difficult to reconcile these fine words with Abbas’ adherence to the PA’s 1964 Charter where Article 9 states: “Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine.

Nor does Abbas apparently suffer any intellectual dissonance by supporting Article 10 of the Charter he espouses: “Commando action constitutes the nucleus of the Palestinian popular liberation war. This requires its escalation, comprehensiveness, and the mobilization of all the Palestinian popular and educational efforts and their organization and involvement in the armed Palestinian revolution.

And when we remember Abbas’ stirring words to the UNSC in 2018 about the value of history and the incontrovertibility of its facts, Abbas then supports Article 20 of his organisations Charter which states  “The Balfour Declaration, the Mandate for Palestine, and everything that has been based upon them, are deemed null and void. Claims of historical or religious ties of Jews with Palestine are incompatible with the facts of history.”

Demonstrably, the “Palestinian” leadership will say (and has said) anything you want to hear in order to achieve its goal.

Jerusalem: the Mecca we don’t know about

But in this 71 year old “quest” for “Palestine’s “ “indigenous Arabs to “regain” their homeland, with the ancient and holy Muslim city of Jerusalem as their capital, never once is Jerusalem mentioned as an issue in the Charter. Not heard of even, in 1948. Not in 1964. And not in 1968 (their revised Charter…). Only the refugees and right of return is mentioned.

As is well known, Jerusalem is not the place to which Muslims pray, this “sacred” Muslim city is not once mentioned by name in prayers, and it is connected to no mundane events in Muhammad’s life.

The city never ever served as capital of a sovereign Muslim state, and it never became a cultural or scholarly centre. Little of political import by Muslims was initiated there (Pipes, 2001).

In fact, it was only a long time AFTER the death of Mohammad that the Umayyads, a Muslim dynasty from Damascus, Syria, built a second mosque in Jerusalem, again on the Temple Mount, and called this one the Furthest Mosque (al-masjid al-aqsa, Al-Aqsa Mosque). It is only through this subterfuge that the Umayyads retroactively gave the city a role in Muhammad’s life….

Like everything else in the so-called “Palestinians” “struggle” for a “homeland”, Jerusalem, Israel’s capital was used only as a political pressure point to delegitimise Jewish legitimacy in the ancient city.

To illustrate this, Muslim scholars over the centuries had variously theorized about the prophet tying horse to the eastern or southern walls—but not one of them before the Muslim-Jewish clashes at the Western Wall in 1929 ever associated this incident with the western side. Once again, politics drove Muslim piousness regarding Jerusalem (Pipes, ibid).

In other words, its non-mention in the PA Charter notwithstanding, Jerusalem, for Muslim interests, served merely as a powerful vehicle for mobilizing Muslim opinion internationally. In this regard, post-1929 claims of newly-found passionate Muslim attachment to Jerusalem were only part of a public relations exercise to delegitimise Jewish history and indigeneity in the region.

This is echoed by June 6, 2019 article by Pinhas Inbari in his article in JCPA (vol 19; no. 8) where he says that the refugee issue (and not Jerusalem) is the “essence” of the PLO, and without the Palestinian refugee problem, the PLO would not exist.

Abbas’ PA and the Gazan dictatorship are given far too much credence as potential negotiating partners. They are not interested in peace with the Jews.

Of Might and Men

Published in English only in 1972, PFLP spokesman Ghassan Kanafani in his seminal pamphlet on the 1936 Arab revolt against the British nominates three main enemies of the Arabs. These enemies were: “the local reactionary leadership; the regimes in the Arab states surrounding Palestine; and the imperialist-Zionist enemy.”

In 2019 as in 1936, it has been made clear that the neighbouring Arab regimes have no sympathy for the “Palestinians” and the three most brutal examples of this deep dislike were the Jordanian massacre of “Palestinians” in 1970, the Chrisitan Arab Phalango massacre of same in Lebanon in 1982, and the recent 2015 massacre and wipe-out of “Palestinian” men, women and children in the Yarmouk camp in Damascus in 2015.

With regard to the massacre of the Syrian “Palestinians”, as the fate of the obliterated Palestinian Yarmouk camp became known, Abbas rejected a secret European initiative to transfer the refugees from the camp to the abandoned site of Aqbat Jaber in Palestinian-controlled Jericho, a fully PA administered area in what is popularly referred to as the “West Bank”.

Mahmoud Abbas rejected the initiative, on grounds that the right of return does not apply to territories in the Palestinian Authority but to Israel. In private conversations, however, senior Palestinian officials said that the Palestinian Authority did not want the refugees from Yarmouk within its boundaries because they supported Hamas.

Mahmoud Abbas will lie, dissemble and deceive regardless of the terrible cost in human lives and suffering of the people he says he fights for. How else can we reconcile his 2018 words to the UNSC (“Seventy years have passed since….6 million Palestine refugees continue to suffer from the cruelty of exile and loss of human security. “) with his documented refusal to save his own “people” from a known massacre in progress in Damascus?

For their part, the “local reactionary leadership” so bemoaned by Kanafani in 1936 continued its path of chaotic alliances and enmities. In 1969, the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (DFLP) split from the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP). And both the PFLP and the DFLP who’d had bitter experience of the Jordanian and Lebanese authorities, advocated overthrow of their Arab brothers in unity in alliance with local parties as well as later being violently opposed to Sadat’s Egypt.

As far as Kanafani’s “imperialist-Zionist enemy” is concerned, 71 years after the declaration of the State of Israel, unending conflict remains the strategy of the PA, Fatah and Hamas to attain the goal of dismantling the State of Israel.

In spite of this, Israel has for decades cultivated secret ties with the monarchical Arab dictatorships in the Gulf.   Saudi Arabia in particular has dropped any pretence or semblance of lip service to the Palestinian cause. The Sultan of Omar hosted Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in the country. Qatar has direct channels of communication with Israel and Bahrein defended Australia’s recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of “Israel” – in a tweet in Arabic, no less.

Those Who Ignore the Lessons of History…

With Trump’s economic summit on the future of “Palestine” only days away, it should come as no surprise that Abbas and his advisers will revert to past behaviour to torpedo even these measures to bring an end to the conflict and to underline that nothing the United States can offer will be enough.

This is arguably because the Palestinian National Charter of 1964 (amended in 1968) has never been about peace in the Middle East. It has ONLY been about the removal of the Jewish state from the Middle East.

It is not unreasonable to suggest that the time for a negotiated peace is long past. It is now time for an imposed peace with an annexation of parts of Judea and Samaria in return for a guarantee for an autonomous Palestinian Arab entity where Israel has military control of the Jordan valley.

Seventy one years of Arab terror against Israel has shown the world where their hearts truly lie. And seventy one years has shown that if peace is not imposed, the Levantine Arabs will continue to lie, dissemble and deceive. Too many lives have been lost to allow this to continue.




The Cairo redux

A recent Reuters article penned by Samia Nakhoul on June 2 outlines a laundry list of reasons why Trump’s peace initiative is unfair to Arabs and doomed to failure.

However, Nakhoul skirts around a number of core issues which reveal the actual focus of her opinion piece.

Nakhoul starts by saying that the initiative is essentially “…a plan to finish off the Palestinian cause.”

For 71 years, and particularly after 1964, the unequivocal “Palestinian cause” has demonstrably been the dismantling of the Jewish State.

In 71 years since Israeli independence there has not been a single “Palestinian” peace initiative. There have, however, been continual calls for Israel’s destruction.

Nakhoul quotes an unnamed “Arab source’ as saying that the peace initiative will not “… give justice to the Palestinians.”

On the question of “justice” for “Palestinians”, it is worth noting that Nakhoul’s understanding of political justice includes Arab rule over Jerusalem, a right of return for 5 million “Palestinian” ”refugees” in perpetuity, and a standing Arab army within the borders of the additional Arab state he envisions.

Nakhoul continuously refers to the term “Palestinians” as if this entity exists historically. A cursory look through the history books will show that such an entity has never existed. It is true that for around 30 years, the term Palestinian referred to the Jewish inhabitants of the British Mandate Levant after the defeat of the Ottoman Turks.

It is also true that Palestinian bodies/organisations such as the Palestine Post, the Palestine Orchestra founded by Bronisław Huberman in 1936, and the United Palestine Appeal were in fact Jewish entities which became the Jerusalem Post and the Israel Philharmonic Orchestra and the United Jewish Appeal as we know them today.

The same is true of the 1939 Palestine soccer team which played a series of games in Australia. That team consisted of player names like Ginzburg, Resnik, Werner, Viner and Liberman – an all-Jewish team of players who played for Maccabi Tel Aviv in Israel.

For their part, Mandate Arabs of the time eschewed the term “Palestine” as being “Jewish” and “Zionist.” For them, they were Muslims first, and “Southern Syrians” second.

Undeterred, Nakhoul ignores the fact that there has never been an Arab OR Muslim nation, state, country or people called Palestine/inians. Indeed, until the founding of the Palestine Liberation Organization in Cairo in 1964, “Palestine” and “Palestinian” had no meaning for Mandate Arabs. As late as 1967, even the UN did not refer to the term “Palestinians” merely calling them “refugees” (Resolution 242 of November 22, 1967).

Even other Arab states did not recognise this political group (PLO) until the Rabat Summit of 1974. For the Mandate Arabs and for the PLO (or PA of today), “Palestine” was just a part of the “Arab Muslim national homeland” that had to be liberated from the “infidel” Jews. Nakhoul further finds no cognitive dissonance in the fact that Levantine Arabs called their homeland, “Jazirat al-Arab” or “Island of the Arabians”. This is quite understandable given that, in general, a people give their name to a country, and not vice-versa. And as a final offering on this point, I suggest that in order to be considered a separately identified people, those people would need a common culture, history, often language, etc. that is different from other people. Today’s “Palestinians” have none of those things; they are totally indistinguishable from any other Arab with the exception that their “history” goes back less than 60 years….

In other words, the name “Palestine” and many other specific features of the 1922 Palestine Mandate were too closely associated with Jews and Zionism to have offered much of an attraction for Muslim Arabs. The term was appropriated by Arafat in 1964 merely as a bridgehead to delegitimise the right of Jews to a Jewish state.

Nakhoul then quotes Robert Satloff, executive director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy as saying that Trump’s peace initiative based on “positive economic proposals could be lost by the attempt to skirt around Palestinian rights.”

The casual reader might wonder what are “Palestinian rights” now that the veneer of Palestinianism has been peeled back to reveal what it is historically.

Those “rights” were enshrined in the 1947 U.N. General Assembly resolution recommending the partition of the territory of the national home for the Jewish people into two new independent states, the one Jewish and the other Arab. By refusing the recommendation and opting instead to declare war in May 1948, the Arabs lost any right to a “state” of their own determination by an definition of the laws of armed conflict. The Arabs of Palestine and their supporting neighbours then compounded their error with two further full scale wars in 1967 and 1973. There is no need to add anything further regarding “Palestinian rights” for an entity which has consistently demonstrated that they want not a homeland for what are today’s Israeli Arabs, but rather the destruction of a Jewish one.

In 2019 as in 1947, the issue is well summarised by Walter Russell Mead who stated:

“The real problem is exactly what it has been for sixty years: deeply rooted Palestinian opposition to a two-state solution. While many Palestinians are ready to accept that solution, many of those see it as only a temporary step on the road to a single, Palestinian state, and a very large group of Palestinians stands with the Hamas leadership in rejecting the legitimacy of Israel on any terms.”


The intentions and meaning of Donald Trump and the American peace plan remain in inverse proportion to meaning and intent of the declarations and actions of the Palestinians.

In the Middle East, more than anywhere else perhaps, blood begets blood, and the latest outright refusal of the PA and Hamas to consider peace and prosperity for their constituents in addition to a negotiated political settlement, is but another “NO” in the long line of Arab Muslim “nos”  in this 100 year war.

The Pink Flour Mill

The Pink Flour Mill – history as romance

In an article which recently originally appeared in the Washington Post, Marya Hannun’s article ‘commemorating” Nakba Day tells of the incidents of the 14th May 1948, the day Jaffa ‘fell” to the “marauding Haganah”. As she puts it, her Christian grandmother …” and her sisters fled by boat to Beirut as the violence of the militias (sic) reached her family’s town…her family lost their flour mill, houses and all their land.”

Several decades later, Hannun, granddaughter of the woman who fled by boat to Beirut in 1948 visited Jaffa and tracked down the family flour mill: “A pale pink building on an otherwise nondescript block…owned by Israelis and still operating…I wondered, as I often do, if she had had a choice, would she have left anyway?…I realized…that she did not have a choice in 1948, and like millions of Palestinians in exile, continues to be denied one today.”

In and of itself, Hannun’s article is typical of a revisionist history, handed down as family lore, of the formation of the State of Israel and the events that led up to its official founding on 14the May 1948.

And nothing could have been further from the truth of what actually happened.

While Hannun’s account is kit chen table history, what actually happened was that the overwhelming majority of Mandate Arabs left what was then the newly-established State of Israel on their own accord in a war their leaders created.

While the Mandate Jews in the Yishuv established their own civil society over the span of three decades under the Mandate, the Mandate Arabs invested all of their energies into fighting any form of Jewish polity-in-the-making.

The British actually encouraged the creation of an Arab Agency parallel to the Jewish Agency but that initiative to get local Arabs to follow a path of state-building similar to that of the Zionists once they envisioned the division of western Palestine in the 1920s was in vain. Thus, when the British departed, the Mandate Arabs remained unorganized and ill prepared not only for statehood (which they rejected in any case), but also for sustained conflict with the new State of Israel.

Moreover, and Hannun’s victim-account of the “fall” of Jaffa notwithstanding, history shows that even before the outbreak of hostilities in 1948, Mandate Arab social, political, and economic elites fled to neighbouring countries, which in turn spurred disillusionment and demoralization, setting an example for hundreds of thousands of other rank-and-file Arabs to take to the roads.

In January 1948, Hussein Khalidi, Secretary of the Arab Higher Committee complained to the Mufti:

“Forty days after the declaration of a jihad, and I am shattered…. Everyone has left me. Six [AHC members] are in Cairo, two are in Damascus – I won’t be able to hold on much longer…. Everyone is leaving. Everyone who has a check or some money – off he goes to Egypt, to Lebanon, to Damascus.”

Efraim Karsh, then head of the Mediterranean Studies program at London University’s King’s College added:

“By April 1948, a month before Israel’s declaration of independence, and at a time when the Arabs appeared to be winning the war, some 100,000 Palestinians, mostly from the main urban centers of Jaffa, (emphasis mine) Haifa, and Jerusalem, and from villages in the coastal plain, had gone. Within another month those numbers had nearly doubled; and by early June, according to an internal Hagana report, some 390,000 Palestinians had left. By the time the war was over in 1949, the number of refugees had risen to between 550,000 and 600,000.”

But it was not only Israeli historians who documented what really happened.

The Cairo newspaper, Akhbr El-Yom, 18 for instance, quoted the Mufti of Jerusalem on the first day of the invasion appealing to the Arabs of Palestine to leave the country for “the Arab armies were about to enter and fight in their stead….”

In fact, in two major cities with large Arab populations – Haifa and Jaffa – Arab authorities organized the exodus, ordering Arab residents to leave and the local populace, bereft of their feudal overseers who had already fled, obeyed not least because of Arab threats that those who stayed would be viewed as renegades.

The British commander in Haifa, Major-General Hugh Stockwell, pleaded with the Arabs of Haifa as they prepared to depart:

“You have made a foolish decision. Think it over, as you’ll regret it afterwards. You must accept the conditions of the Jews. They are fair enough. Don’t permit life to be destroyed senselessly. After all, it was you who began the fighting and the Jews have won.”

The flight of the Arab peasantry from Jaffa, Haifa and Lod remain a human tragedy, but they remain a tragedy of the Arabs’ own making. Historians estimate that of the roughly 500,000 Arabs who were “uprooted”, more than 50% left of their own accord. And prior to actual war in April and May of 1948, they ran away primarily from the chaos, the anarchy, the economic deterioration and the miserable living conditions under their tribal leaders and the civil war brought on by British incompetence.

There can be no doubt that if there had not been war, there would not have been Arab refugees, and while the Hagana DID indeed forcibly clear villages bordering Yishuv settlements during the outbreak of hostilities, they did so only because those villages were a present and direct violent threat to the legally created State of Israel at that time.

As the departing British High Commissioner Sir Alan Cunningham, no particular friend of the Jews, said in May 1948, that such steps were justified as a matter of sheer survival:

“The Jews for their part can hardly be blamed if in the face of past Arab irregular action and of continued threats of interference by Arab regular forces, they take time by the forelock and consolidate their position while they can.”

I have not personally been to the pink flour mill in Yafo (nee Jaffa). Yet. But I DO know that if I did visit, and if the walls could talk, they would tell me that had it not been for the mufti and tribal Arab leaders who exhorted the local population to flee or be counted as traitors, and had it not been for the complete breakdown of Mandate Arab society due to the treachery of their leaders, Marya Hannun’s family would still be running the mill.

Proportionality and the “Palestinian” pirouettes

The ongoing deliberate confrontations at the Gaza fence by Hamas have nothing to do with peace or rights. The weekly border riots and the daily dispatch of kites designed to burn sovereign Israeli land are acts of war and, as such, fall under a host of rules and regulations which apply to all warring parties, states or their organs.

Specifically, Hamas is in flagrant and ongoing breach of the 4th Geneva Convention in several chapters of that document and continues to breach its responsibilities under a self-styled Doctrine of Limited Liability war.

The Doctrine of Limited Liability per Hamas demonstrably allows an aggressor to reject a compromise settlement and gamble on war to win everything in the comfortable knowledge that, even if he fails, he may insist on reinstating the status quo ante.

It is time to stop this travesty which has been a core Arab strategy against the existence of a Jewish state since 1948. This for several pertinent reasons in international law.

On page 31 of its Preliminary Remarks on the 1949 4th Geneva Convention, it is  stated that the content therein was inspired by the 1907 Hague Conventions which govern the laws of war, and was later codified in Article 49 of the International Law Commission’s 1980 Draft Articles on State Responsibility.

This stated that the “eternal principles of the Laws and Customs of War on Land are the foundation and the safeguard of civilization “, and was designed to “ensure the respect of human personality and dignity by putting beyond reach of attack those rights and liberties which are the essence of its existence”.

Of particular relevance to the thesis of this short exploratory paper, it prohibits in particular:

  1. a) Violence to life and person………
  2. d) Outrages upon personal dignity…..founded on differences of race… nationality [and] religion….

Hamas should have absolutely no truck with Israel. It rules Gaza which is bounded by a land fence on its eastern limit. Attacking sovereign Israeli territory both on land and through the air is in breach of the letter and spirit of the Convention.

Hamas attacks Israel because Israel is a Jewish state. And Israeli nationals are Jews.  It attacks Israel because the State of Israel practises Judaism as a majority religion.

Hamas has repeatedly called for the destruction and murder of all Jews east of the fence in often gory purple prose. Hamas calls for the eradication of an ancient indigenous race and people because those people are not Muslim.

These are wrongful acts.

Hamas is quick to tell its enablers that it is a legal governing entity voted in through the ballot box. On the bare face of it, let us accept this premise. In that case, the elected government of the Gaza strip has responsibilities in international law and is accountable to international courts for its actions if it is in breach of those laws. After all, the “Palestinians” boast of (observer) member State status of the United Nations…..

Article 28 of the International Law Commission’s 1980 Draft Articles on State Responsibility stated that “The international responsibility of a State which is entailed by an internationally wrongful act in accordance with the provisions of Part One involves legal consequences as set out in this Part.”

This “Part” was then explicated and codified in Article 49 of the International Law Commission’s 1980 Draft Articles on State Responsibility Article 29

Continued Duty of Performance which stated “The legal consequences of an internationally wrongful act under this Part do not affect the continued duty of the responsible State to perform the obligation breached.”


In other words, regardless of whether states are party to the treaties above, experts say the principle is part of what is known as customary international law. And, in other words, no governing entity gets a free ride where it can flout international law and then ask for a return to the status quo ante…….

In its defence, Hamas also argues (and has) that Gaza is not a State and that therefore the above rules and regulations do not apply to it. Following this line of reasoning, it would then make Hamas’ actions against the sovereign State of Israel acts of terror across an international border. Hamas does not accept this designation either.

However, in the chapter entitled Attribution of conduct to a State. Article 4 of the 1980 Draft Articles on State Responsibility is as clear as can be on this: “The conduct of any State organ shall be considered an act of that State under international law, whether the organ exercises legislative, executive, judicial or any other functions, whatever position it holds in the organization of the State, and whatever its character as an organ of the central government or of a territorial unit of the State (all emphases mine)”.

Hamas really has nowhere to hide. It is either a pariah “state” in flagrant and continual breach of international law, or it is a terror organisation which deserves the impositions place on it. Hamas’ actions in the international arena drip entitlement when in fact there are no moral, or legal reasons to grant it exception.

The international community needs to put an end to Hamas and their fiscal enablers pirouetting between the raindrops: if they are a legal government, then they are bound by international law. If they are a terror organisation then they need to be proscribed as such by the international community and disarmed.

With regard to Hamas’ claims of Israel’s use of excessive force, here again they are in error according to that same customary international law which applies to all governments.

According to the doctrine of customary international law, a state is legally allowed to unilaterally defend itself and right a wrong provided the response is proportional to the injury suffered (emphasis added).

Armed Hamas combatants approached a designated international border fence with hostile intention to overrun it and physically harm civilians and others on the other side. Israel defended itself and righted a wrong.

Israel targeted known and active Hamas terrorists in the process of trying to breach a security barrier in order to kill Jews. According to Hamas’ own reckoning, 85% of those killed in the weeks of staged hostile attacks were registered members of the terror organisation. Thus, the response was proportional to the injury threatened given the potential for an extended bloodbath had the terrorists succeeded in entering Israel.

Then too, in accordance with international law as explicated in the International Law Commission (2001), response in defending oneself must also be immediate and necessary, refrain from targeting civilians, and require only enough force to reinstate the status quo ante.

Nobody would refute the fact that this, Israel did.

Again, referring to international law, Article 3 of the 1907 Hague Convention on the Laws of War states that “A belligerent party which violates the provisions of the said Regulations shall, if the case demands, be liable to pay compensation. It shall be responsible for all acts committed by persons forming part of its armed forces.”

Israel should now legally prosecute its rights to demand that Hamas cease and desist from engaging on a war footing with Israel according to Article 30 of the Legal Consequences of an Internationally Wrongful Act.

Together with this, Israel should additionally prosecute Hamas and its fiscal enablers through the courts to demand Hamas’ sponsors/enablers pay for physical damages to the border fence in line with Article 31 of the same Act:

  1. The responsible State is under an obligation to make full reparation for the injury caused by the internationally wrongful act.
  2. Injury includes any damage, whether material or moral, caused by the internationally wrongful act of a State.

Hamas and the “Palestinian” charade has wasted untold wealth both fiscal and moral for decades. It is time to call their bluff and make them responsible for their actions in line with that same international law they are so fond of quoting.

Finally, in case the reader wonders why I consistently put the word “Palestinian” in inverted commas, the reason is this: you do not become a nation, a state or a “people” just because you hate Jews.

The continuing forbearance of the State of Israel in the face of continuous wrongful acts is astonishing.

It has never happened in the history of any recorded conflict.

It should never be permitted to happen again.

The Yom HaShoah Reflection

The Yom HaShoah Reflection

“…[the] Arab and Palestinian view [is] that Zionism is a historical aberration that will not – and must not – last….[the “palestinian” Arabs] continue to believe that even if they lose a battle, the war isn’t over. And if the war isn’t over, there’s no need to admit defeat, no need to sign an agreement of surrender.”  –  Einat Wilf, Spring 20116-17.

Two days ago, the Lebanese newspaper Al-Akhbar reported that Saudi Arabia had offered Mahmoud Abbas $10 billion if he accepted the upcoming Trump deal of the century. Abbas is alleged to have retorted that would have meant the end of his political life.

Knowing what we do about Islamism, Abbas could also have added that that would also have meant the end of his physical life.

Elsewhere on my blog, I have written about the farce that is the two-state solution. I have also written about the rise of Islamism in the Middle East now going under the lawfare name of “Palstinian Right of Return”.

My focus today is on the support that Islamism has garnered in America and Europe, despite clear calls by others about its spread in those countries.

Islamism as Jihad against the Kafir

As background, I would like to state that Abbas’ refusal to buy the peace plan is rooted in Muslim ideology. That ideology, as reflected in its hard-line AND “moderate” practitioners, is that all non-muslims are kafir.

The word, Kafir, is usually translated as “unbeliever” but this translation is wrong. The word “unbeliever” is logically and emotionally neutral, whereas Kafir is the most abusive, prejudiced and hateful word in any language. The Koran says that the Kafir may be deceived, plotted against, hated, enslaved, mocked, tortured and worse.

To give you some context, Islam devotes a great amount of energy to the Kafir. The majority (64%) of the Koran is devoted to the Kafir, and nearly all of the Sira (81%) deals with Mohammed’s struggle with them. The Hadith (Traditions) devotes 32% of the text to Kafirs. These three central pillars of the Muslim faith as they pertain to kafirs thus make up about 61% of the trilogy.

But what of the Islamist line that Jews and Chrisitians are People of the Book and thus have a special place in the broader scheme of things?

You have to be well versed in the Koran and the Hadiths to realise that in Islam you are a Christian, if and only if, you believe that Christ was a man who was a prophet of Allah; there is no Trinity; Jesus was not crucified nor resurrected and that He will return to establish Sharia law. To be a true Jew you must believe that Mohammed is the last in the line of Jewish prophets.

Verse 5:77 of the Koran makes this clear: “Oh, People of the Book, do not step out of the bounds of truth in your religion, and do not follow the desires of those who have gone wrong and led many astray. They have themselves gone astray from the even way.”

But in case one felt there was some wiggle room here, verse 9:29 of the Koran states: “Make war on those who have received the Scriptures [Jews and Christians; emphasis mine] but do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day. They do not forbid what Allah and His Messenger have forbidden. The Christians and Jews do not follow the religion of truth until they submit and pay the poll tax [jizya] and they are humiliated.

The sentence “They do not forbid…” means that they do not accept Sharia law; “until they submit” means to submit to Sharia law. Thus, Christians and Jews who do not accept Mohammed as the final prophet are Kafirs.

And over and above this, Islam strives for the dejudeaziation of Christianity where the Four Gospels are touted as written by Isa (jesus), a “ great Muslim prophet and Islamic teacher”. By divorcing the biblical Jesus from Christianity, Islam strives to co-opt and Islamisize unthinking Christians by assimilating Jesus with Isa, the Muslim Palestinian prophet as affirmed by Arafat at the United Nations in 1983.

On the other hand, and as a side note, there is no sense of the ridiculous in this thesis where Muslim Arab “Palestinians” claim they lived in “Palestine,” on the basis of Jewish and Christian scriptures that they reject.

What is Political Islam?

Avi Melamed (2017) defines political islam as movements and parties in the Muslim world having the following things in common:

  • Their ultimate goal is to create a global Islamic cultural, political, and religious entity known as Khalafa / Caliphate in which no other independent or sovereign state exists.
  • The Khalafa should be governed and ruled by Islamic law; the Shari’ah (literally translated “the path”).
  • Shari’ah, the moral and religious law, is the Master Plan given by Allah (literally translated “the God”) to mankind. Accordingly, the Shari’ah should be the only source of legislation and the supreme governing authority, and should govern all areas of life – public and private.
  • Any other man-made political philosophy or political system (communism, democracy, socialism, etc.) is unacceptable because they are in defiance of Allah’s will.
  • They are willing to participate in [western-style] government as a temporary stage towards fulfilling their ultimate goal – to create a global Khalafa [such is the case with the MB in recent years as witnessed in Egypt under President Muhammad Morsi in 2012 or with the sharing of power with secular and liberal elites as in Tunisia after the Arab Spring].
  • Political Islam opposes, and is in direct conflict, with Western values such as gender equity, homosexuality, liberalism, pluralism and secularism which are seen as an imminent and existential threat to Islam.
  • They create their support and cultivate their power base through creating economic, educational, social, and welfare programs that benefit the broad MUSLIM public, especially people on the lower end of the socio-economic scale (Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Algeria, Tunisia, Morocco, Yemen and Gaza…..) [In keeping with the strategy of political islam of using “stop-gap” western constructs of democracy to further their own aims, it can be seen that electorally successful parties in Arab countries typically have a track record of successful provision of social services].
  • Absolute and uncompromising opposition to the existence of the State of Israel. The animosity towards Israel is justified on the basis that Judaism, as a religion that was once a valid religion, betrayed the Divine Mission that they were given by Allah, – to spread Allah’s rule and justice upon the land. Therefore, the existence of Israel is a direct defiance of Allah’s will.

How is political islam spread?

All ideologies, including political islam, need methodical organisation if they are to spread their influence and beliefs.

The most prominent representative of political Islam is the Jamaat al-Ikhwan al-Muslimin – the Muslim Brotherhood, the biggest mass movement in the Muslim Sunni world. The Muslim Brotherhood was founded in Egypt at the end of the 1920’s by Hassan al-Banna, an Egyptian teacher and Iman (preacher) who was alarmed by what he perceived to be a western threat to Islam and an attack on Islam’s codes, morality, and values – such as male-female social interaction, movie theatres, music, western dress, women’s liberation, etc. He created the Muslim Brotherhood as a revolutionary group to restore the Khalafa [Caliphate], through education, preaching, indoctrination and proselytization of the masses – a term known as da’wa (literally translated as “call” or “an invitation”).

Political Islam in Europe

It can be said that present-day Europe (read France and Germany) results from decisions taken in October 1973 in reaction to PLO terrorism and the OPEC oil boycott of countries friendly to Israel. These two pivotal factors altered Europe’s course and determined its political choices, despite the warnings of cautious other EU member states  in Europe who did not kowtow to Arab Muslim pressure.

Nevertheless, the EU concluded an alliance with Arab League countries in 1974 which concomitantly triggered the development and dissemination of an anti-semitic/anti-Zionist and pro-Palestinian culture propagated by the very organs of the European Community.

Forty three years later, it does not become difficult to see how and why antisemitism mainstreamed across Europe to the extent that Jew-haters can throw elderly Jewish women from their balconies and it is only through the expenditure of much capital that yet another Shoah is not precipitated.

For myself, and despite some micro-explanations by some academics, I use the term Islamism and political islam interchangeably here essentially because both have the same goal: broad acceptance of Sharia law either through economic burden (the jizya) or outright violence (jihad as it is explicated by Sunni MB and al-Qaeda today). The objective of both is to fulfill political aspects of Islam according to the example of prophet Mohammed in his interactions with the Kafir, and BOTH are guided by the trilogy of Islam I referred to above.

I do not accept European whitewashing of their vote-valuable muslim constituents when their politicians say that their various Muslim organisations under the umbrella organisation known as the New European Brothers (NEBs, and yes, THAT Brotherhood), are merely cultural interlocutors for Europe’s fastest growing demographic. Without exception, all of Europe’s disparate security services point to a constant discrepancy between the NEBs’ internal and external discourses as a sign of their duplicitous nature. In the media and in dialogues with European governments, NEB leaders publicly avow the group’s dedication to integration and democracy, tailoring their rhetoric to what they know their interlocutors want to hear. Yet when speaking Arabic, Urdu or Turkish before fellow Muslims, the NEBs often drop the veneer and foster an ‘us versus them’ mentality that is the antithesis of integration and tolerance. Even as NEB representatives speak about interfaith dialogue and integration on television, the movement’s mosques preach hate and warn worshippers about the evils of Western society. In the words of Alain Chouet, former head of French foreign intelligence, ‘Like every fascist movement on the trailof power, the Brotherhood has achieved perfect fluency indouble-speak’ (Chouet 2006).

The Netherlands AIVD and Belgium’s Sûreté de l’État concur.

In fact, Netherlands’ domestic intelligence agency, is even more specific in its analysis of the NEBs’ tactics and aims:

“Not all Muslim Brothers or their sympathisers are recognisable as such. They do not always reveal their religious loyalties and ultra-orthodox agenda to outsiders. Apparently co-operative and moderate in their attitude to Western society, they certainly have no violent intent. Butthey are trying to pave the way for ultra-orthodox Islam to play a greater role in the Western world by exercising religious influence over Muslim immigrant communities and by forging good relations with relevant opinion leaders: politicians, civil servants, mainstream social organisations, non-Islamic clerics, academics, journalists and so on.”

Today, about 5% of Europe’s inhabitants today identify themselves as Muslims. Numbers wise, this represents 25.45 million residents who identify as Muslim. Thus, there is an increasing presence of Muslims and Islam in European society, and this has caused an increase in their presence in politics.

In America, according to 2017 census figures, there were 3.75 million Americans who identified as Muslims (1.6%) and this statistic is set to become the second largest religion in America in another 20 years time (2040, by PEW projections).

What happened in America?

Political Islam did not attract serious attention from American officials until the 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran. But the event that set the tone for U.S. policy toward Sunni Islamist movements (Muslim Brotherhood et al) was the Algerian parliamentary election of 1991. Here, the FIS won 2/3 majority required to change the constitution.

The Clinton administration became concerned that Islamists coming to power through the ballot box would have been a case of “one man, one vote, one time.” In other words, Islamists would make instrumental use of the ballot box to capture the state, only to subsequently dismantle democracy. I have highlighted this precise strategy above.

In 1995, again under Democrat Bill Clinton, Washington ceased all contact with the Muslim Brotherhood at the request of Egypt. After the massacre of Americans in 2001, Bush’s invasion of Iraq and America’s 2006 refusal to accept Hamas electoral victory in 2006, Islamists were convinced that America was unwilling to let Islamists govern even though they used the edifice of democratic elections to come to power.

However, with the Obama administration’s Presidential Study Directive in 2011, focusing on the normalization of Islamists as political actors, things changed rapidly. Where previous administrations were wary of the Muslim Brotherhood Islamists, Obama used the language of “moderate Islamists” to describe the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, and he called Iran’s President Rouhani, a “moderate” reformist, despite the rise of human rights violations in Iran on Rouhani’s watch.

Obama’s red line in Syria was nothing but a ruse to please Tehran and ensure the success of a near-disastrous nuclear deal. Given that the Muslim Brotherhood appeared to be an important and growing partner for Iran, the Obama White House pandered to thr MB islamists to protect Iranian interests and the potential for the nuclear deal at all costs.

Where George W. Bush had affirmed that the U.S. was not at war with Islam, Obama drove home the point in numerous ways: purging military and intelligence training materials of any mention of Islam in connection with terrorism; employing the might of the Justice Department to win special accommodation for Muslims in workplaces and schools; and lending the prestige and power of his administration to the Organization of Islamic Cooperation’s efforts to compel Western states to criminalize criticism of Islam.

The Obama Justice Department quietly dropped terror finance prosecutions against CAIR and other Islamic supremacist groups. Contact between the Obama Administration and Muslim Brotherhood-linked groups extended to just over 14,000 documents. Obama even changed the mission of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), directing it to turn from space exploration to–of all things–Muslim outreach.

Obama’s administration blamed a video that portrayed Muhammad, the prophet of Islam, in a negative light for the murderous jihad attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi on September 11, 2012.

Caroline Glick (2009) noted that:

“From President Barack Obama’s intense desire to appease Iran’s mullahs in open discussions; to his stated commitment to establish a Palestinian state as quickly as possible despite the Palestinians’ open rejection of Israel’s right to exist and support for terrorism… to his plan to withdraw US forces from Iraq and so give Iran an arc of uninterrupted control extending from Iran to Lebanon, every single concrete policy Obama has enunciated harms Israel.”

Also in 2009, Obama sent his Senior Adviser Valerie Jarrett to give the keynote address at the Islamic Society of North America’s (ISNA) convention, indifferent to the fact that this group was created by the Muslim Students Association, a subsidiary group of the Muslim Brotherhood, godfather to al-Qaeda and Hamas.

In April 2010, the New York Times reported that Obama was reaching out to unnamed “Muslim and Arab-American advocates” groups in the United States to accommodate their views on “air security”. This led to the scrapping of a policy that subjected airline passengers from Muslim countries to greater scrutiny and AFTER the foiled December 25 2009 bombing plot to detonate a bomb aboard a jetliner over Detroit…

In March 2013, the Department of Homeland Security was set to give air passengers entering the U.S. from Saudi Arabia “trusted traveller” status, which would enable them to bypass normal passport controls despite the fact that fifteen of the nineteen 9/11 hijackers were Saudis.

So, was Islamism in America solely a result of the Obama administration policies? Certainly not.

But it is incontrovertible that between 2009-20017, the tacit as well as explicit pandering to Muslim Brotherhood interests in the White House from the leader of the world’s most powerful nation was a welcome starting gun for the (till then) largely covert American Islamic radicals and their attempts to change American domestic and religious and social culture. Barack Hussein Obama had indeed converted their audacity of hope into legislation.


It would be a mistake to ignore the fact that there is today a global Islamist movement determined to achieve a worldwide obeisance to Islam fully committed to use all means at its disposal – not just terrorism – to bring America and the West under its control.

I make no distinction whatsoever between jihadist islamism and institutional islamism of the sort advocated by the Muslim Brotherhood and CAIR in America and elswhere. Both jihadist and institutional Islamism pursue the same goal of an Islamist state, but disagree fundamentally on the strategy for achieving it. Whilst jihadism is committed to the idea of a (violent) Islamic world revolution, institutional Islamism embraces political institutions as a means to an end. Either way, it has no place in any western state, nation or country.

We like to think that liberal democracy is the most powerful force on the face of the earth, but liberal democracy is only 200 years old, and is very difficult to implement, whereas Political Islam is 1400 years old and is quite easy to implement. All one needs is a commitment to Sharia (the path).

And, as McCarthy (2010) states, “…sharia is the corpus of Allah’s law, prescribing a comprehensive legal and political framework….Sharia, not terrorism, must be our bright line because it reliably divides Muslims who embrace the West from Muslims determined to Islamize the West.”  And, quite honestly, nobody has any issue with Muslims who, like Hindus, Buddhists, Jews and Brahmins acculturate but still retain their unique religious and cultural identities. It is the very backbone of a successful multicultural policy in today’s global village(s).

And so, on this Day of Remembrance for 6 million Jews who were killed because they were Jews, it is only prudent to, once again, warn of the dangers of hate-filled antisemitism emanating not from Europe per se, but rather from a coalescing of a broad coalition of anti-semites exploiting the West’s inability to demarcate red lines about the changed demographics caused by Muslim expansion into Europe and America.

As Bassam Tibi, Professor emeritus (retired) of International Relations, University of Goettingen (Germany) memorably reminds us, in Islam peace only exists between Muslims, and not between Muslims and non-Muslims.

And that, dear kafir reader mine, will always and everywhere, mean YOU.

Islam demands it.

Twitter strikes again…

In case any of u were wondering, @jack has now suspended me on Twitter.

No reason was given, and no appeal by me was possible.

I have no idea WHY i was banned or what it is I tweeted.

Dems the breaks.

To all those who followed my tweets since May 2014 and engaged with me, thank you.

I had fun, and many of you helped make it so.

All the best and keep keeping the bastards honest.

Love yous!!

The Moral Case For Israel Annexing The West Bank—And Beyond – by Jason Hill

The Moral Case For Israel Annexing The West Bank—And Beyond

–   Jason Hill, The Federalist, April, 2019

If I was able to string words, sentences and thoughts on the Arab-Israeli conflict as effectively as Jason Hill, this is an article I would have been pleased to have written.

For me, the crux of the article is what Hill terms Israel’s “altruism”.

This is absolutely accurate, for, never in world history, has a nation behaved with such forbearance against an enemy sworn to effect its demise.

Of equal importance in this article is Hill’s contention that the purpose of war is to vanquish the enemy.

America and Europe have worked assiduously to prevent this from happening and thus kept alive a conflict which should have ended unequivocally in 1967.

Read and consider…..


The April 2019 election victory for Benjamin Netanyahu will see him serve a record fifth term as Israeli prime minister and form a new right-wing coalition government. It also brings the promise of a commitment Netanyahu made to the nation during his campaign: That he would annex Jewish settlements in occupied Palestinian territories.

Vowing to extend sovereignty without distinguishing between settlement blocks and the isolated settlements, Netanyahu promised not to transfer any sovereignty to the Palestinians. His victory in the elections will, hopefully, see the enactment of Netanyahu’s promise.

Israel has the moral right to annex all of the West Bank (even Area C) for a plethora of reasons.

Israel’s Mistake Was Allowing the Palestinian Pretense

Israel made an altruistic mistake toward the Palestinian people after the 1967 defensive war with Jordan. Rather than regard them as “war settlers” or refugees or, after legally occupying conquered territory, as “illegal occupants,” they made the Palestinian people their political and moral problem.

After victory, the “war settlers” could have been seen as enemies of the state: supporters of the Fatah (Palestine Liberation Organization) Charter, which basically calls for the end of Jewry in the region. Under a malevolent and illiberal regime, they would have been regarded and treated as such, not as Israel did treat them: as human beings with specific, inalienable rights.

Under a different set of political sensibilities, the Palestinian people would have been militarily removed from the area because, morally speaking, after the 1967 war, they never belonged there. The proper response from Israel should have been to immediately annex the land and make the people there the responsibility of their original political homeland: Jordan.

There can be no such thing as legitimate “Palestinian Territory” in a geographic region legally seized in a defensive war instigated by a foreign aggressor. The purpose of war is always to vanquish the enemy. The losers of the war cannot make demands on the victors that the victors themselves would not have been put in the position of meeting had the adversary or enemy not forced the victors into making it in the first place.

Israel was forced into a war, which it won. It was then expected to renounce and repudiate the consequences of its fairly won war by capitulating to the conditions of its vanquished enemy, which included, among other self-sacrificially undertaken goals, granting statehood, autonomy, right of return, and the ultimate elimination of Jewry from the region.

The Palestinian Authority Is a Terrible Government

Since the establishment of the Palestinian Authority in 1994, Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) have enjoyed joint rule by Israeli military government and the Palestinian Authority with around 98 percent of the Palestinians living in areas under jurisdiction of the PA. In such areas, the PA has destroyed the freedom Palestinians enjoyed under Israeli rule and their economy through kleptocracy, corruption, nepotism, and authoritarian forms of governance subject to none of the checks and balances that characterize Israel’s Knesset.

Jewish exceptionalism and the exceptionalist nature of Jewish civilization require an unconditional space for the continued evolution of their civilization. What’s good for Jewish civilization is good for humanity at large. Jewish civilization is an international treasure trove that must be protected.

Not all cultures are indeed equal. Some are abysmally inferior and regressive based on their comprehensive philosophy and fundamental principles—or lack thereof—that guide or fail to protect the inalienable rights of their citizens.

Given the voting patterns of Palestinians—towards Islamicism and terrorist organizations for the most part—that openly advocate and work for Israeli and Jewish destruction and annihilation, a strong argument can and ought to be made to strip Palestinians of their right to vote—period. The regional hostilities towards Israel in the Middle East are such that Israel must take those threats seriously. It must work for a coalition of forces to neutralize them.

Israel Has Every Right to Defeat Terrorists

The Israeli left should abandon its agonistic handwringing over so-called Palestinian occupation and realize that applying Israeli law in Judea and Samaria, meaning the wholesale destruction of Hamas in Gaza—Hamas being a terrorist organization that can claim no rights as a group and no right to any square inch of land in the region—is an application of democratic law protecting the rights of the individuals who rightfully belong there.

Speaking of Gaza, although the strip was unilaterally relinquished, when one considers the reign of terror executed by the Hamas terrorists and the unadulterated illiberality of the movement itself, Israel has every moral right to wage a ruthless and unrelenting war against Hamas and to re-settle the land if it ever so desires.

America must also admit that it owes Israel political and financial reparations for America’s many decades of support of the PLO and the PA, which have pledged destruction to Israel, and have rejected all plausible peace offerings from Israel, preferring instead war and destruction.

This political and economic reparation would see the United States supplying Israel even more advanced military capabilities, and funding Israel’s military defense in any manner Israel deems necessary for its survival and unrivaled military status in the Middle East. Some may ask why this is necessary. The answer is two-fold.

Should a regional conflict between Israel and her Arab neighbors emerge, Israel will need to demonstrate extraordinary, excessive, and unprecedented military might in a manner that can act as a deterrent and, if necessary, to irrevocably destroy her offensive enemies.

Additional U.S. militarization of Israel is also moral in its execution. It sends a univocally clear message to the world that in any conflict between Israel and her adversaries, the United States stands willing and ready—along with her ally—to destroy any political agent that attacks the sovereignty of Israel. This is because Israel’s right to exist is non-negotiable and it has a right to unilaterally apply Israeli law over its nation-state.

Why Palestinians Have No Moral Authority

Continued militarization of Israel comprises protracted support of our political and moral alter-ego in the Middle East. The decline of the Palestinian people is narrated by their willful ideological malfeasance. They have never come into their own as a people largely because they have never explicitly held a philosophy that can support freedom, the basic liberal principles of individual rights, and a free market economy.

Given Fatah and Hamas’s genocidal aspirations toward Israel and universal Jewry and, in the case of Hamas, of a global caliphate, a moral goal would be to reverse the potential sovereignty of every Palestinian movement in the region. It ought to force Jordan to re-revoke its citizenship status of the Palestinian majority in Jordan.

A people that overwhelmingly approves of their terrorist leaders cannot be made to become citizens of any civilized country such as Israel.

The Palestinian terror war Fatah launched after the 2000 Camp David Peace Summit and unilaterally accepted by the Palestinian people places them in a precarious position. Whatever actions Israel or any of her allies take against them in a war against terror are their responsibility, and are moral. A people that overwhelmingly approves of their terrorist leaders cannot be made to become citizens of any civilized country such as Israel. No moral or political distinctions must be made between Fatah, Hamas, and the people who elect and or support them. No constituted people responsible for the election and appointment of terrorist actors can or should be entrusted with the responsibility of voting.

They constitute a national security threat to Israel because a core feature of their identity is a commitment to destroying Israel as a Jewish state. Therefore, only a policy of radical containment or expulsion remains a viable option. No state can obstruct the case for the achievement of its own justice and territorial safety by aiding and abetting its own destroyers. By making strategic alliances with ISIS, Hezbollah, and other terrorist organizations—should political expediency dictate such a move—we will witness the destruction of Jewish secularism in the region and religious militarization of the entire region.

One cannot admit anti-Semitics devoted to the destruction of Israel into the domain of Jewish civilization. There has to be some semblance of re-shaping the political sensibilities of those outside the historic process. If this is not possible, then we have to admit to their intrinsic humanity, but also, nevertheless, confess to their tragic status as political ballasts.