Tag Archives: terror

Israel, Ha’aretz and the ICC – lest we forget.

Mohammed Wattad’s Jan 2015 impassioned appeal to Ha’aretz readers states that: “In principle, nothing is wrong about {PA} joining the ICC. If they are serious about their commitment to international law, all countries must sign and also ratify the Rome Statute, [emphasis mine] which paves the way in that process. International law is not an open buffet of “pick and choose.” The ICC is the direct outcome of World War II and the Nuremberg trials.” Very laudable.

What Wattad omits to remind the reader is that the ICC is an outcome of the 1998 UNITED NATIONS “Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court”, where the UN ADOPTED the Rome Statute, blessing the operations of the International Criminal Court.

The issue at hand, of course, is not Israel’s refusal to be a signatory to the staute, but the reasons behind it.

Those reasons are demonstrated, documented and increasingly biased UN behaviour over the past 50 years; 1965 to 2015.

Specifically, Wattad does not mention the UN Arab and African anti-Israel ethnoracist bloc of “automatic majority third world member states” and their ongoing sabotage of the UN itself, thru organisations like the ICC,HRW and UNHCR. By funding and endorsing groups like those and through adopting/adapting that same international law Wattad champions, what concerns Israel regarding the Rome Statute is that that same UN has never seen fit to bring to trial leaders of murderous racist ethnoreligious states like North Korea, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Russia, China, Cuba, Nigeria or any other of the world’s great tyrannies.

As a sample of why Israel is leery of the ICC and other UN organistaion, we need merely look at Special Raporteur to the UN from 2001 -2007, South African John Dugard. Dugrad’s brief (unbelievably) was to investigate only violations by Israel. This one-sided duty John Dugard has zealously embraced since his appointment to the post and he was followed with equal zeal by Richard Falk. Dugard’s reports in particular stand out, even by UN standards, for their virulently anti-Israel prejudice because Dugard systematically ignored Palestinian acts of terror, their breaches of international human rights law and international law itself in its pursuit of destroying the Jewish state.

On another tack, UNHCR High Commisioner for Human Rights,Navi Pillay, another South African, has a long track record of demonizing Israel. High Commissioner between 2008-2014, in 2014, Pillay accused Israel of committing war crimes by not doing enough to protect civilians in the Hamas initiated Gaza war. And it was UNHCR’s Pillay who was behind the infamous and totally discredited Goldstone Report of 2009, which accused Israel of deliberately targeting Gazan civilians — a finding that the report’s author, Richard Goldstone, later retracted, although Pillay did not.

For UN employees like Dugard, Falk and Pillay, the 20th century job description of the United Nations “to maintain international peace and security” based on “the sovereign equality of all its members,” and to do “nothing [to] impair the inherent right of self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a member of the UN” does not seem to apply.

This because, under pressure from MENA and OIC, the UN of the 21st century has an exception clause. Every time Israel is attacked, not only does the UN fail to maintain peace and security – it attempts to gut Israel’s inherent right of self-defense.

In an article for the Gatestone Institute in 2014, Anne Bayefsky makes the point that “In accordance with this pathology, UN actors manufacture a cycle of violence that begins with Israeli aggression; assert a moral equivalence between Arab terrorists and their Israeli victims; and concoct a litany of Israeli human rights abuses. They conclude that Israeli actions in self-defense are crimes, and Israel’s enemies are understandably…protecting [their] human rights.”

Wattad, apart from failing to acknowledge documented general UN anti-israel bias, also fails to acknowledge that the UN itself is a changed organisation. When it was founded in 1945, it had 51 members, and was created to prevent the sort of mass horrors Jews and other minorities had faced in 1930s Europe. The United Nations was created precisely to “…take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace…for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, to… [ensure] conformity with the principles of justice and international law and to develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples…”

Thus, the United Nations legally created the state of Israel in 1947 to implement the purposes of the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine in accordance with their 1945 San Francisco Charter and their legal stated purposes and principles.

In 1945, only ten UN members were non-Western states, and the UN was driven by Western values. Today, there are 193 member states. Seventy two of those are (in rough terms) non-Western, and 56 of those are member states of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC). All of the OIC states are vehemently anti-Israel, and more than one has, at some point, actually engaged in wars with Israel, or supplied money and arms to Israel’s terrorist enemies, or advanced media lies against Israel and the West, or taught its populations hatred for Jews and Israel, or opposed democratic rights for its citizens.

Wattad does not mention that the purposeful introduction of so many Muslim states from Africa, Asia, and the Middle East has warped the manner in which the United Nations today reaches its decisions and conducts its affairs. There is now a broad swathe of states that push an agenda of “post-colonialism,” “anti-Western-‘imperialism,'” and hostility to liberal democracies and the original human rights agenda of the UN.

Many of these states are dictatorships like Iran, Syria, China, or Sudan, and many that are far from being democracies in any sense of the word.

The Islamic OIC organised bloc of fifty-six states has waged a steady campaign in key UN bodies to gut anti-Semitism of its meaning, by making the absurd argument that the term also refers to hatred against Arabs and Muslims. This is glib and misleading distortion of language and meaning designed to prevent the UN from coherently expressing sympathy for Jews as victims, and to create a form of immunity for Arab and Islamic states accused of fostering anti-Semitism.

Additionally, Wattad ignores the annual onslaught of one-sided UN resolutions in the General Assembly and the Human Rights Council that contribute—whether by intent or in their effect—to an atmosphere that demonizes the Jewish state and promotes hostility toward Jews as a whole. In the past year at the General Assembly, only a handful of countries were criticized, in no case by more than one resolution.

Israel, by contrast, was targeted in no less than twenty-two resolutions, all of them one-sided. Worse, in 2006-07, the Human Rights Council passed one hundred percent of its condemnatory resolutions against Israel, ignoring the other 191 UN member states, including the world’s worst abusers.

As further proof of the increasing biased dysfunction of another UN supported body, the UNHRC, is controlled by African and Middle Eastern countries, and is supported by China, Russia and Cuba.
Currently, members include (each with a three-year term) 13 African states, 13 Asia-Pacific states, 8 Latin American and Caribbean states, and 8 Western European and other states (the “other” being the United States). Of the thirteen African states, two (Burkina Faso and Sierra Leone) have large majority Muslim populations, and two (Côte d’Ivoire and Ethiopia) have large Muslim minorities.
Of the thirteen Asia-Pacific states, seven are fully Muslim entities. It has condemned Israel a total of 50 times between the time it was formed in 2006 and end 2014.

The OIC has even made efforts in the UN to have the Cairo Declaration (and, through it, sharia law) be officially adopted by the UNHRC.

Beginning in the late 1960’s, the full weight of the UN was gradually but deliberately turned against the country it had conceived, by General Assembly resolution, a mere two decades earlier. The campaign to demonize and delegitimize Israel in every UN and international forum was initiated by the Arab states together with the Soviet Union which was nervous of American influence in the warm water ports it cherished for itself, and supported by what has become known as an “automatic majority” of Third World member states.

Wattad omits the backstory of the UN endorsed ICC, which thru its committees, annual UN resolutions, an entire UN bureaucratic division, permanent UN exhibits in New York and Geneva headquarters – are all dedicated to a relentless and virulent propaganda war against the Jewish state.

Together, they have made the UN into Ground Zero for today’s new anti-Semitism, which is the irrational scapegoating of Israel with the true intended target being Jews.

The Arab backed campaign of scapegoating Jews and Israel reached new strength in wake of the Arab oil embargo of 1973. Many African states were pressured into severing relations with Israel. In 1975, following a steady drumbeat of UN-endorsed anti-Israel Muslim-bloc instigated declarations were pushed through. This included organisations like the International Women’s Year Conference in Mexico, the Organization of African Unity, and the majority of the General Assembly itself which, influenced by OIC manoeuvrings actually adopted the “Zionism is Racism” resolution, later repealed for the blatant racist resolution it was.

The virulent anti-Israel apparatus within the UN, therefore, is of considerable magnitude, and cripples the even-handed functioning of the organization.

Currently, no fewer than three UN entities exist that are dedicated to furtherance of the Palestinian cause (which is, in its simplest form, dedicated to destroying Israel). There are no UN entities to advance the Israeli cause, which has always been eager to make peace with its neighbours and to help its citizens – Jews, Christians and Muslims — build good lives for themselves.

So, in response to the brief above, one can now say that never in history has a human institution for goodwill and peace among men been so betrayed by those who seek to use it for their own ethnoreligious hatreds.

It is true that Israel is not signatory to the Rome Statute of 1998. The discerning reader will begin to see why…..

Mohammed Wattad cheerfully states in his opening paragraph that “…International law is not an open buffet of “pick and choose.”…”. He doesn’t realise how right he is, and how the UN, corrupted by the MENA OIC bloc today does exactly that in its peremptory, biased ways.

Mohammed Wattad and Ha’aretz have either forgotten about the value of true journalism or are writing for sheeple.

WHEN INTERNATIONAL LAW’S THE THING…..

Without question, Israel is currently facing an increasingly coordinated and concerted effort by Europe and the Arab world, to delegitimise and cripple her.

Barack Obama is presiding over seismic shifts in geopolitical alliances instigated by a foreign policy that is foreign to everything America has said they stand for till now.

It is not coincidental that China and India are strenuously courting the tiny Jewish state as it becomes increasingly clear that liberal democrat America does not have Israel’s best interests at heart.

Consider the present administration’s full-throated support of “Palestinian” statehood and its increasingly strident efforts to accommodate a landscape-changing Iranian nuclear deal.
Both developments would seriously affect Israel’s ability to adequately protect itself without using the nuclear option if the Arab world continues to see as its primary foreign policy objective, the removal of the Jewish state from the Middle East.

But are Europe and America barking up the wrong tree? Do the Chinese and Indian governments more accurately evaluate the danger of spreading radical Islam given the chaos Muslim minorities cause in their respective countries? Does Russia, whose propaganda campaign is responsible for much of the European shift towards delegitimisation of Israel, also know what the Israelis know: that radical Islam unchecked today will rapidly convert significant sections of European cities into expanding Sharia-controlled no-go Muslim enclaves? Will Muslim terror stop once the world recognises the illegality of the Zionist enterprise in the Middle East. Is the foundation of the state of Israel illegal under international law?

The short answer is that the formation of the State of Israel is completely legal under international law, even if Arab backed European politically motivated communities would like to revise the fact.

There is a reason, in international law, there has been no “Palestinian” state these past 66 years.

And as long as there are those who would delegitimise a UN member state, there will always be those who will make sure that petty, genocidal, religious dogma neither changes the facts of history nor subverts international law which has at its very core, the objective of limiting the institutionalised violence we call war.

Israel is a sovereign state under international law. International law is a set of rules that are generally accepted in relations between states (Glick, 2014). International law is based on consent, and states follow the rules of international law to which they consent.

International law comprises two strands: treaties and custom. Treaties may be bilateral, based on international conventions like the 1948 Geneva Convention, or they may be multilateral such as is the case with the NATO treaty.

However, while treaties are binding under international law, institutions created by the treaties cannot make new law. Thus international bodies such as the UNGA can only pass resolutions which are recommendations. The UNSC may pass binding resolutions, but exercise of that power is limited to situations that are 1) threats to peace, 2) breaches of peace, 3) and acts of aggression against UN member states. Clearly, in the case of the Israeli Arab conflict as regards “Palestine”, “Palestinian” Arabs, hyperbole notwithstanding, have no legal leg to stand on. They have continuously threatened the peace, breached innumerable ceasefires, and often attacked a UN member state.

On the other hand, treaties do not carry the same weight as legislation, and states only have to obey treaties to which they are parties. In other words, no consent, no law.
Does this mean that a would-be “Palestinian” ‘nation’ could refuse to honour a treaty to which they were not party?

The brief legal answer is no.

International law permits self-determination claims to be satisfied by incorporation into the ruling state, by sovereign independence, or by anything in between.

In order to abide by its international obligations as a member of the family of nations to respect the self-determination rights of “Palestinians”, Israel is required to take good-faith negotiations with the “Palestinians” in a bid to satisfy these self-determination rights.

Nobody would dispute that the two unprecedentedly generous Israeli peace offers to Arafat and Abbas, in attempts to reach a peace settlement over the past 20 years, in addition to the commencement of the Oslo Accords which recognised the PLO as official representative of the “Palestinian” people, do not constitute good-faith efforts by the Israelis to satisfy “Palestinian” self-determination rights. The remarkable Barak and Olmert offers are historically documented proof of that.

Thus, Israel has fulfilled its obligations in this sphere as well.

Unlike Israel, there has never been a polity/state called “Palestine”. Thus not agreeing to international law has never been an option for them, despite their bombast and continuous claims of victimhood over the years.

And finally in this section about the legality of the Israeli negotiating position under international law, the prospect of the PA unilaterally approaching the UN for membership and thus statehood, would be a grave violation of the PLO’s signed agreement with Israel, under international aegis, which specifically barred such unilateral actions. Under international law, this agreement was witnessed by outside parties including the United States, Russia, Norway, the EU and so on.

This means that any material violations of agreements that were witnessed by the EU or similar, would irreversibly jeopardise the worth of such agreements in international law and the worth of such witnessing, and would free Israel to act in its best interests without fear or favour. A scenario fraught with potential for untold violence anyway you care to look at it.

Custom in international law, on the other hand, is different in that it results from general and consistent practice of states followed by them from a sense of legal obligation.

International law requires states to follow customary law even when the states have not explicitly consented to the custom (Glick, 2014). However, because customary law is also based on implied consent, a state that consistently objects to an international custom, is not bound by that custom.

Once again, in the absence of there ever being a sovereign “Palestinian” state to even invoke customary law and thus invoke consistent objection to the legal establishment of the State of Israel, in the light of the point blank refusal of three offers of “Palestinian” statehood 1947-2014 thus abrogating its rights to sovereignty in PA controlled “West Bank”, and in the absence of any codification of rules and charters minimising violence against Jews by the current “unity” government as per the requirement of an intending member of the United Nations, “Palestinian” claims that they are a people living in a non-self-governing territory and thus have a right to self determination is belied by the fact that the “Palestinians” have been exercising self rule over inhabited parts of Judea and Samaria since 1994 when PA was formed…….

Thus, the PA’s invocation of even this tenet of international law is baseless.

In light of the above, understanding “Palestinian” Arab violence towards the State of Israel becomes even more difficult to accept in any form, because of the documented incidents of a violent minority which proffers its own apocalyptic Islamic interpretation of how the world should be, and what should replace western interpretations of law and order.

In Gaza, and further afield, the rebirth of Islamic imperialism and violence post 9/11, from the World Trade Center, to a discothèque in Bali, to beheadings in the barren stony lands around Dabiq and Raqqa point to what Buruma and Margalit (2004) have termed Occidentalism.

Like Orientalism, which was perceived as a general patronizing Western attitude towards Middle Eastern, Asian and North African societies, Occidentalism sees the West as something less than human, something to be destroyed, something that goes beyond Wall Street, Hollywood, capitalism or the all-too-convenient catch-cry of “US imperialism”.

The current crop of jihadis see western liberalism as a threat to their religious fundamentalism, self-appointed caliphs and religiously inspired “pure” and “authentic” cleansing of the kuffar through blood letting, because it deflates the pretensions of their own brand of heroic Islamic utopianism.

Wherever it occurs, this Occidentalism is fed by an inflated Muslim perception of humiliation, of defeat.

The current wave of Islamic Occidentalism seeks to right a perceived historical wrong. And nothing matches the perceived Arab Muslim sense of failure and humiliation as much as the perception that a once glorious civilization has been left behind in every respect by the post-Enlightenment West.

This over-indulged perception of humiliation, historically redolent of the Arab psyche, can easily turn into a self-aggrandising cult of the pure and the authentic. And it is when “purity” or “authenticity”, of faith or race, leads to purges of the supposedly inauthentic, of the allegedly impure, that mass murder begins. The fact that anti-Americanism, anti-Zionism, anti-Semitism, and a general hostility to the West currently overlaps is no coincidence. (Buruma & Margalit, 2004).

However, in a modern world dominated by the spread and take up of western values of business and culture, copied and practised skilfully by the very people who would kill you for it, international law remains the final fragile red barrier “authenticity” and “purity” of Islamic thought must breach in order to imprint its brand of religious fundamentalism on a wide swathe of the world’s peoples.

To that extent, I submit that Muslim violence today against the west is not the fault of anyone else except irrational, inverted Muslim Quranic interpretation and thought, and a willingness to shed as much blood (of others) as it takes to spread a violent, radical brand of Islam.

This vision radical Islam has of itself as an antidote to “Westoxification”, is a mixture of the universal and the pure: “universal” because all people can/should, in the eyes of the believers, become orthodox Muslims; and “pure” because those who refuse the call are not simply lost souls but savages who must be removed from this earth.

Thus the “pure” and/or “authentic” Occidental hero is the one, whether he is a Nazi or an Islamist, who is just as ready to destroy those who sully the purity of his race or creed. It is indeed his duty to do so. When the West is seen as the threat to authenticity, then it is the duty of all “holy warriors” to destroy anything to do with the “Zionist Crusaders,” whether it is a U.S. battleship, a British embassy, a Jewish cemetery, or a Bali discotheque; even unto the extreme of beheading well-meaning western aid workers and journos in Dabiq and Raqqa as a terror tactic to induce compliance (Buruma & Margalit, 2004).

But, whatever the rest of the world might be comfortable acceding to in appeasing Muslim violence by permitting Sharia police no-go zones in European cities and towns, with regards to the Israeli- “Palestinian” conflict, there is always the question of international law.

It is the source of greatest frustration to large hostile bodies such as the Arab League and their enablers in the European Union that, since their inception in 1945, they have never been able to either militarily extract a territorial concession from Israel in all the wars they have initiated, nor circumvent the rule of international law in their efforts to financially and socially/legally cripple the sovereign Jewish state these past 66 years….

The sovereignty of the Jewish state became a legal issue in 1917 with the demise of 400 years of Ottoman Muslim rule in the Levant.

Whereas the Levant Arabs, now freed from the oppressive yoke of the Ottomans, agreed to League of Nations mandates to create Muslim entities in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and Gaza in return for supporting the British and the French, those self-same Arabs did not see their way clear to the same League of Nations establishing the Jewish state of Israel in what was called the British Mandate for Mesopotamia……

Thus, with the disintegration of the despotic Ottoman rule in the region, the Arabs accepted international law in the creation of five more Muslim entities along national ethno-religious lines, but just not a single Jewish one.

Fortunately for Israel, its creation has always been anchored in international law both through treaty and through custom as described above. For example, Israel is well within its international legal rights in building as it sees fit in Judea and Samaria. Yehuda and Shomron were always included territory in the intended Jewish state under both the League of Nations and the legally approved British Mandate, despite the illegal invasion and occupation of the area (euphemistically called the West Bank [of the Jordan]) by Jordan in 1948. In 1967, Judea and Samaria were returned to Jewish sovereignty in a defensive war where Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Iraq combined to try and wipe out (again) the tiny Jewish state.

Forty years previously, the 1937 Peel Commission succumbed to Arab violence and recommended the partition of the remainder of the Mandate, now not including Jordan, into a further division of Jewish and Arab land. The Jews were now to receive a mere 19% of the truncated Mandated lands, with 81% going to the creation of yet another Muslim Arab state. The Jewish Agency accepted even this disappointing breach of promise. The Arabs rejected the compromise.

The records will always show the facts of the matter: Arab intransigence and religious racism are the only reasons there is no “Palestine” today. The Arab-Israeli conflict never had anything to do with land. It was always a war of religion.

Clearly, as it has always done since 1917, international law will always back up the Israeli position on any future negotiated settlement.

International law (and an innate sense of fairness in other nations around the world that is difficult to legislate for) remained the major stumbling block in MENA and the EU preventing the dismemberment of the Jewish state.

But, in the end, all of history shows that people do not like continuous change or violent upheaval. The average person in the street does not approve of murder and mayhem, be they from Dubai or Donetsk. The average person just wants to get on with life and make the most of their time while alive.

For this reason alone, the current orgy of Islamic violence will splutter and die as the internet continues to interleave the commonality of the human condition, race, religion or creed notwithstanding.

And because of this, the State of Israel will continue to survive and prosper.

Because of this, and international law……….

Propaganda in the Service of Untruths

The recent rush to recognise “Palestine” by the British Parliament and the Government of Sweden fails to take into account several anomalies and illegalities which can’t but be viewed as biased anti-Jewish animus.

The State of Israel was, of course, just one of many new or recreated nations that, in the wake of World War I, were carved out of the former German, Austro-Hungarian, Czarist and Ottoman empires.

These included, for example, Finland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Mandate Syria and Mandate Iraq. All of these states entailed the granting of sovereignty, or promised sovereignty in the case of the Mandates, to previously largely disenfranchised peoples, and all also encompassed other ethnic groups within their borders that chafed at the new national arrangements. Yet, 66 years later, none have stirred anything like the animosity displayed by a mainly liberal-left elite in Europe, in thrall to a rampant radical Islamism, to the fact of a recreated Jewish national home.

Rather, a vocal anti-Jewish lobby in Europe and Britain today has opted instead for a smug and casual hatred of the Zionist project, under a transparently ludicrous veneer of moral superiority.

It is not to be forgotten that the medieval blood libel that Jews kill Christians, particularly children, to use the blood of Christian innocents for Jewish rituals, was first introduced in England with the earliest recorded such claim involving the death of one William of Norwich in 1144.

And it should also be remembered that the blood libel was exported from England to the continent, where over eight centuries it provided a rationale for the murder of thousands of Jews. It’s most gruesome and horrific iteration was the Final Solution proposed by an amoral German Nazi regime, but since the end of World War II it has enjoyed its greatest popularity in the Arab world.

Today, Britain and Europe, with enthusiastic backing from a demographically significant European Muslim migrant population together with financial muscle from Arab Muslim kings, emirs and other petty but monied ME tyrants, join in the markedly racist and illegal call for the creation of a Judenrein “Palestinian” state, while still others call for the Jewish state to be subsumed into a binational (read: Arab majority) “Palestine”.

Indeed, with the renewed anti-semitic upsurge in Ireland, long a PLO/Fatah/Hamas backer from the time of the now-sanitized, re-invented Sinn Fein leader Gerry Adams, together with official political bodies in the UK and Sweden, there is a concerted European push calling for the recognition of “Palestine”, claiming that such recognition would “contribute to securing a two-state solution.”

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Any unilateral moves and declarations by Europe to recognise “Palestine” are based on questionable legal, historic and political premises since no Palestinian state exists, and the issue of the status of the territories is subject to negotiation.

In fact, the European and British claim that recognising “Palestine” would “contribute to securing a two-state solution” is the antithesis of what it purports to be by pre-judging the outcome of the very negotiations, under international law and several UN resolutions, they purport to support.

One does not need a degree in international law or political history to see what is the real aim of the parties concerned.

Furthermore, those aims rely on illegal interpretations of international rulings and a willingness to manipulate the law to produce a Final Solution by other means.

While the ultimate aim of a “negotiated two-state solution” correctly acknowledges the present legal situation in which the issue of final status of the territory is a distinct negotiating issue between Israel and the “Palestinians”, pursuant to the Oslo Accords, it is clear that the issue of the permanent status of the territory remains an open negotiating issue, yet to be agreed-on, and one may assume that upon resumption of the negotiating process, it will be duly addressed by the parties as one of the central agenda items.

Thus, imposing an agreement by outside parties will not further a “negotiate” peace process one iota.

The British House of Commons, the Irish Upper House and the Swedish prime minister would appear to contradict themselves by recognizing that negotiations are still pending, while at the same time prejudging the outcome of the very negotiation they purport to support, by calling for recognition of the state of Palestine.

Clearly no such Palestinian state or sovereign entity exists and thus cannot logically be recognized or acknowledged by the Irish Upper House or others.

Similarly, no international treaty, convention or binding international resolution or determination has ever been adopted or entered into, that determines that the territories in dispute are indeed “Palestinian”.

Further, the Palestinian leadership itself is committed, pursuant to the Oslo Accords, to negotiate the issue of the permanent status of the territory.

Article V of the Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements signed by Yasser Arafat and Yitzhak Rabin on September 13, 1993 states as follows:
“2. Permanent status negotiations will commence as soon as possible, but not later than the beginning of the third year of the interim period, between the Government of Israel and the Palestinian people representatives.
3. It is understood that these negotiations shall cover remaining issues, including: Jerusalem, refugees, settlements, security arrangements, borders, relations and cooperation with other neighbors, and other issues of common interest.”

Clearly then, the ultimate status of “Palestine”, whether as a state or any other sovereign entity agreed-upon by the two sides, cannot be arbitrarily imposed by external parties, including the UK, Irish or Swedish parliaments, or the UN.

It can only result from a genuine negotiating process in accordance with accepted norms and requirements of international law regarding the characteristics of statehood.

The 1933 Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States clearly determines that:
“The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: a ) a permanent population; b ) a defined territory; c ) government; and d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.”

Clearly, the “Palestinians” do not meet the requirements set out in this convention.

Thus, the attempt by House of Commons, the Irish Upper House of Parliament and the Swedish prime minister to recognise a “Palestinian” state clearly pre-empts the outcome of any negotiation the trio above are themselves legal signatories to through a one-sided determination that totally ignores legitimate legal and historic claims to the territory by Israel, including those based on historic and legal commitments to which the United Kingdom itself is bound. They would, therefore, appear to be intervening in a bona fide negotiating process (in international law) by supporting one side only.

That these three groups do not see the bias, animus and disregard for international law when it suits them, in holding such a position, strains credulity.

If the “Palestinians” do not meet internationally codified definitions of statehood, what about the claim by “Palestinians” that Israel occupies the West Bank.

Article 42 of the Hague Regulations, primarily because it actually falls under a category titled, “Military Authority Over the Territory of the Hostile State,” unequivocally explains the type of territory in question. The West Bank was never/is not a state; it is disputed territory taken in a defensive war after an illegal occupation so-named by all but 2 nations in the world and subject to negotiation under that same international law that Ireland, Britain and Sweden would today conveniently ignore.

In international law, as in any type of law, one should look to an interpretation only if the wording of the original is somehow unclear or vague. The wording of Article 42 is blindingly clear.

Pursuing this theme of Eurabian anti-Jewish animus, in 1967, the ICRC quickly branded Israel’s acquisition of the territory as an “occupation,” but made no such finding during the 19 years of illegal Jordanian rule. In fact, one would be hard-pressed to find any ICRC assertions that a territory is “occupied” by a particular nation in the dozens of other territorial disputes that have yet to find a resolution…..

In addition, the legality of Israeli settlement in Judea and Samaria including Jerusalem beyond the 1949 armistice lines is clearly addressed in Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. Taken from the ICRC’s own website, it states that “The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.” Here, the terms “deport” and “transfer” are active, meaning that civilians are not acting on their own behest.

As the ICRC itself acknowledges, Article 49 was drawn up in the wake of the Nazi policy of forcibly transferring parts of its own population into territories it occupied before and during the war. The most infamous of these forcible transfers or deportations was the masses of Jews who were sent to occupied territories to be murdered en masse in Poland and elsewhere.

This provision of the Geneva Convention regarding forced population transfer cannot possibly be viewed as prohibiting the voluntary return of individuals to the cities, towns and villages from which they, or their ancestors, had been ousted.

In 1970, regarding Israel’s case, former State Department legal adviser Stephen Schwebel, who later headed the International Court of Justice in The Hague, wrote: “Where the prior holder of territory had seized that territory unlawfully, the state which subsequently takes that territory in the lawful exercise of self-defense has, against that prior holder, better title.”

In 1980, Julius Stone, professor of jurisprudence and international Law, wrote: “Because of the ex iniuria principle [unjust acts cannot create law], Jordan never had, nor now has, any legal title in the West Bank, nor does any other state even claim such title. Article 49 thus seems simply not applicable. Even if it were, it may be added that the facts of recent voluntary settlements seem not to be caught by the intent of Article 49, which is rather directed at the forced transfer of the belligerent’s inhabitants to the occupied territory, or the displacement of the local inhabitants for “other than security reasons”(emphasis mine).

And finally, in 1991, Prof. Eugene Rostow, former US undersecretary of state for political affairs, wrote: “The Jewish right of settlement in the area is equivalent in every way to the right of the local population to live there.”

Attempts to impose a state of “Palestine” on Israel by Britain, Ireland and Sweden rest on very shaky legal grounds.

There is a reason there has been no “Palestinian” state these past 66 years.

The Arab leadership refusal to accept the Partition Plan, the repeated attempts to bend international law through waging war, the three “Nos” of Khartoum which precluded legal negotiations, the rejection of three peace initiatives by the “Palestinian” ‘leadershp’ in the past twenty years, all point to an oft-stated goal by the very people Israel is supposed to be negotiating with for its continued safety and survival: an Arab Muslim state from the river to the sea.

The willingness of Britain, Ireland and Sweden to unilaterally press for a “Palestinian” state on the basis that Israel has to end its “occupation” of the West Bank despite the fact that Judea and Samaria did not belong to any state before 1948, flies in the face of any reasonable application of Article 42 of the Hague Regulations to which the trio above, as EU members, are signatories.

And finally, the willingness of Britain, Ireland and Sweden to wilfully ignore the last provision of Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which states that an active transfer or deportation of its own citizens has to be undertaken by the state occupying the area, something that has clearly never happened in the history of Israel’s control of the territories in question, merely serves to strengthen the perception that the new/old anti-semitism is prepared to sacrifice Jewish lives again for the sake of new-found “friends” and short term expediencies.

There may yet be a “Palestinian” state in one form or another. But any iteration of that state will have no choice but to take Israel’s security needs into consideration given the neighbourhood it lives in. “Palestine” will come into being through negotiation.

In the meanwhile, the European trio’s rush to recognise “Palestine” will always come up against legal precedent and international law against which it has no recourse now nor in the foreseeable future.

There is a sense of Arab-Muslim privilege which exists today that makes anti-Semitism “okay,” acceptable in academic discourse, and even politically correct. It enables impressionable college students looking for a cause to question a Jew’s very identity, to challenge their ancient history, and therefore allows them no future.

This type of prejudice will be fought against in all the relevant arenas.

It is one thing to be perceived as trying to right a wrong. But no wrong has been committed; a dispersed people have fought for, and earned the right for their very noisy, opinionated, fractious, democratic, cultured, lawful survival.

It needs to be understood that the current Arab-Muslim sense of “entitlement” are ethnically and religiously biased variations of the old European libels that manifested themselves in racist anti-Jewish laws for centuries in Western Europe, and which culminated in the Holocaust.

The politics of internal national voting patterns and demographic demagoguery will never create a ‘nation’ state. International law will see to that.

 

This article is a synthesis of the intellectual property of Yair Shamir, Alan Baker, Jacques Gauthier, Howard Grief and essential principles from Anthony Cullen’s book: “The Concept of Non-International Armed Conflict in International Humanitarian Law”.

Is Hamas Losing its Protective Edge?

Most media outlets across the world without any particular axe to grind, peg Hamas as the instigator for this latest round of violence in the Middle East.

It continues to hurl rockets at nearby Israeli civilian centres with the express purpose of causing solely civilian Jewish casualties. But why is it doing this? And is Hamas losing its ‘protective edge’ in the battle for the hearts and minds of the “Palestinian” street?

It is increasingly clear to many observers here in Australia, that Hamas has been stung by the Israeli operation in Judea and Samaria in the wake of the kidnapping of the three Jewish teenagers.

Their 5-year long wait for release of arab prisoners in the Shalit deal has come to naught because Israel has used the west bank initiative to re-imprison most of the top Hamas west bank-based operatives who were released back in 2011.

In the psychology of perceptions in mid-east politics, Hamas lost face.

Not only face, but Hamas is financially strapped now that Shia Iran has withdrawn its financial backing of the terror group because of its support of the rebel Sunni militias in Syria. Needless to add, Assad to has revoked backing the group.

Add to this PA refusal to pay Hamas salaries, the lukewarm support from PA chief Abu Mazen across the country and his reticence to further foment a second front there, and the near hermetically sealing off of the land/tunnel access to Egypt and the Sinai by al-Sisi, has meant that Hamas needed an event to justify its existence.

That leaves only the sea access, but Israel has recently reduced the perimeter blockade to its original distance of three nautical miles, further negating gains made by Hamas in the international arena.

Thus, the round-up of top Hamas operatives in Judea and Samaria provided just such an excuse for Hamas to try and restore its flagging fortunes and relevance in the “Palestinian” street.

Until the two Hamas members who murdered Gilad Shaer, Naftali Frenkel and Eyal Ifrach are located and brought back to Israel, it is not entirely clear or proven beyond reasonable doubt that Hamas itself was actually involved in the kidnap and murder.

This would have added to Hamas’ sense of “injustice” at the hand of the Israelis, and would have been a blow to their image as the only arabs taking the physical fight to the ‘Zionist entity’. In this regard, they might yet turn out to be entirely vindicated!….

For his part in the discomfiture of Hamas at the hands of the Israelis, Abu Mazen in Ramallah must be privately delighted that political rival Hamas is bleeding men, materiel and prestige in the current ill-advised debacle. He has further turned the screws by refusing a recent Hamas demand that the Palestinian Authority in Ramallah take employees of the disbanded Gaza government onto its payroll.

This dispute over money is symptomatic of the wider malaise and schism afflicting a ‘unity’ government recently sworn in in a bid to end seven years of rival administrations in Gaza and Ramallah. Politically too the two groups are on different trajectories, and Hamas is incensed at the ongoing international recognition of Ramallah as representative of the “Palestinian” struggle at the expense of its violent sibling in Gaza.

Militarily, it is in a bind. Now that Egypt has closed off tunnel access to smuggled medium and long-range rockets from Iran, its need to replenish its stock will grow stronger the longer this conflagration drags on.

In addition, the longer the successful Israeli aerial assault continues on Arab rocket infrastructure in Gaza without any reciprocal success in taking Jewish lives, the more likely it is that a focused ground offensive by the Israeli army would destroy Hamas’ military capabilities and morale even further. This is because hitting the rocket launching system can be done in a far more systematic manner, in places where the rockets and their production facilities are hidden deep in the heart of their non-combatant population. And finally, an IDF ground assault would effectively signal a psychological blow to Hamas who may well believe that Israel is reluctant to initiate a ground operation. However, a ground assault could be exactly what Hamas wants so that anti-tank weapons can take out slow-moving Israeli tanks and army jeeps and other large slow-moving objects in the confines of Gaza’s warrens of streets.

On balance, this writer couldn’t care less what Hamas may or may not believeabout Israeli valour: sanctity of Israeli life in such an operation is paramount and though I hope that Israeli brass will eschew such an option, I will understand why it had to happen.

In the short to medium term then, with Hezbollah and Syria tied up in the north, with Egypt barricading them from the south, with Jordan increasingly turning to military cooperation with Israel against an ISIS threat in the east, Hamas is inexorably running out of options. Unquestionably, it will be dismayed by the heavy physical and strategic damage it has so far sustained. It now appears that al-Sisi’s ouster of the Brotherhood in Egypt was more than just an omen of what was in store for the Gaza-based affiliate……

And that is quite OK by Israel.

In the end, Operation ‘Protective Edge’ will have succeeded in its stated mandate of stopping the rockets.

2014: Why Israel is hitting Gaza

Propaganda value aside, why is Israel attacking Hamas in Gaza today?

Hamas (Islamic Resistance Movement) is considered a terrorist organization by much of the non-Arab international community including the the European Union, the U.S., Canada, Japan, the U.K., Australia and Israel.

Its declared goal is to destroy the Jewish state and replace it with an Islamic one. Indeed, its enmity is directed not only toward Israel but toward Jews in general.

Hamas has deliberately targets Israeli civilians and endangered the welfare of Palestinians.

It has made a mockery of Jimmy Carter’s now-infamous statement: “Hamas’ return to unified Palestinian governance can increase the likelihood of a two-state solution and a peaceful outcome.”

After the Hamas/PA “unity government” signing, Hamas deputy chief Musa Abu Marzouk, immediately insisted that despite the agreement with the American and Saudi funded PA, Hamas would not recognize Israel’s right to exist.

Then Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal himself declared that “the only campaign we have is against Israel…Our common enemy is Israel. Israel must be fought through force and diplomacy.” All this in 2014…..

Israel is pressured by the European Union and America to make concessions and give up territory to a terror group whose very reason for existence is suspect.

While Hamas’ distaste for a legal Jewish state in the Middle East is palpable and on the record, there are excellent reasons, apart from their rocket attacks on a sovereign state, why Hamas in Gaza should be curbed.

1) Hamas completely rejects a Jewish state.
Hamas believes that Israel, by virtue of its being Jewish and of having a Jewish population, defies Islam and the Muslims. Hamas Charter, Article 28 states: “Israel with its Jewish identity and Jewish people is challenging Islam and the Muslims. May the cowardly know no sleep.”

2) Hamas’s ultimate mission–”no matter how long it takes”– is to “fight the Jews and kill them” and to replace the Jewish state with an Islamic caliphate.
Hamas Charter, Article 7 states: “The Prophet, Allah’s prayer and peace be upon him, says: “The hour of judgment shall not come until the Muslims fight the Jews and kill them, so that the Jews hide behind trees and stones, and each tree and stone will say: ‘Oh Muslim, oh servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him,’…”
Hamas Charter, Article 9 states: “[The goals] are to…defeat [the Jews] so that…the [Muslim] call for prayer will ring out announcing the rise of the rule of Islam, so that people and things shall all return to their proper place.

3) Hamas’ enmity is not directed against Israel alone but against the Jewish people as a whole. Jews are demonized repeatedly in Hamas’ governing document.

Hamas Charter, Article 22 states: “[Jews were] behind the French Revolution and the Communist Revolution and [they are behind] most of the revolutions about which we hear from time to time here and there. ….the Freemasons, the Rotary Clubs, the Lions, the Sons of the Covenant [i.e. B’nei B’rith], etc….are organizations of espionage and sabotage….They were behind World War I… They were [also] behind World War II, through which they reaped enormous profits …They [also] suggested the formation of the United Nations and the Security Council to replace the League of the United Nations [sic] and to rule the world through this [new organization]…..”

4) Hamas (and the Palestinian Authority) regularly incite “Palestinians” to violence.
In Dec. 14, 2010, Interior Minister Fathi Hammad explained to “Palestinian” Arabs on Al Aqsa TV:
“The Jews have become abhorred and loathed outcasts, because they live off corruption and the plundering of the peoples…The entire world says: “Bravo, Hamas, for confronting these people pf corruption.” Whenever we score a goal, by achieving something against the Jews, the world applauds us…. the hatred for the Jews is on the rise, and people who hate the Jews…will support us.”
In a further televised rally in 20111, Hamas’ Al Aqsa TV told West Bank Palestinians that: “You [Allah] have made our killing of the Jews an act of worship through which we come closer to you…. Oh sons of Palestine, oh sons of the Gaza Strip, oh mujahedeen, wage jihad, wreak destruction, blow up and harvest the heads of the Zionists.”

5) The language of violent, racist confrontation and zero-sum rhetoric regularly inflame “Palestinian” passions.

” We demand the liberation of the West Bank, and the establishment of a state in the West Bank and Gaza, with Jerusalem as its capital – but without recognizing [Israel]. This is the key – without recognizing the Israeli enemy on a single inch of land…This is our plan for this … Our ultimate plan is [to have] Palestine in its entirety. I say this loud and clear so that nobody will accuse me of employing political tactics. This is unequivocal…”
“The Zionists – I swear to you, by God, by the world… We will not recognize Israel. If you want security or peace, you should go back to where you came from.” (Hamas “message” to the Israeli people: Broadcast Jan. 11, 2009).

“The day will come, within several years, when this world will change, submitting to the Arab Islamic will, Allah willing.” (Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal, Al Jazeera TV, October 12, 2008).

“The approaching victory, about which we are talking, is not limited to Palestine…Why? Because Allah has chosen you to fight the people He hates most – the Jews. Allah said: “You shall find the worst enemies of the believers to be the Jews and the polytheists….Therefore, the reward of our martyrs is great, and your reward is also great.” (Hamas MP Fathi Hammad, Hamas Al Aqsa TV, Sept. 8, 2008).

“The annihilation of the Jews here in Palestine is one of the most splendid blessings for Palestine. This will be followed by a greater blessing, Allah be praised, with the establishment of a Caliphate that will rule the land and will be pleasing to men and God.”  (Hamas cleric Muhsen Abu ‘Ita, Hamas Al-Aqsa TV, July 13, 2008).

And these are only the recordings we know about. Over time, words like these create a pervasive and deadly cultural poison and “national” narrative…..

6) Hamas’ targeting of Jewish civilians is deliberate policy. Today’s ongoing rocket attacks against random Jewish civillian population centres is proof enough of that.

Since September 2000, Hamas has carried out hundreds of attacks targeting civilians.

Even after Israel’s disengagement from Gaza in August 2005, Hamas has continued to use the Gaza Strip as a launching pad to escalate rocket and mortar attacks against Israeli civilians inside Israel’s sovereign territory:
• Port: Ashdod Port, March 14, 2004: Hamas double suicide bombing at Ashdod Port which killed 10 people and wounded 16.
• City buses: Hamas has carried out numerous attacks on Israeli commuters: more than 18 attacks on or near civilian buses, bus stops, train stations and taxis.
• suicide bombing of Bus 19 in the center of Jerusalem which took the lives of 11 civilians and wounded 50 more
• two suicide attacks targeting city buses on Be’ersheva’s main street, killing 16 and wounding over 100 people.
Abduction: Hamas claimed responsibility for the abduction and murder of Israeli businessman Sasson Nuriel.
• Shopping mall: Hamas claimed responsibility for suicide bombing at a shopping mall which killed one woman and critically wounded her husband, as well as 38 more people. A Hamas statement following the event urged more such attacks.
• Rocket and mortar attacks: Hamas consolidated its control over the Gaza Strip and enabled Palestinian terrorist organizations both to expand the facilities that manufacture rockets inside the Gaza Strip and to smuggle rockets into Gaza from Egypt. Rocket and mortar attacks soon became the main method of attack emanating from Hamas-controlled Gaza.

Since 2005, 5,700 rockets and mortars were fired into Israel (more than 3,500 rockets and 2,200 mortars), killing 14 civilians and one soldier. In addition, hundreds of people were wounded, and thousands were treated for shock of minor injuries.

 

In 2008 alone, 3,500 rockets and mortar shells landed in Israeli territory (almost 2000 rockets and 1,642 mortar shells) and put almost 1 million Israelis (i.e. 15% population) into rocket range.

On 8th July 2014, more than 100 rockets hit Israeli civillian targets in urban population centres.

By 9th July, 2014, more than 3.5 million Israelis sleep in or near bomb shelters in event of ongoing Hamas rocket attacks in blatant breach of the 4th Geneva Convention.

7) Hamas rejects compromise, peace negotiations or a diplomatic end to the conflict.
[Peace] initiatives, the so-called peaceful solutions, and the international conferences to resolve the Palestinian problem, are all contrary to the beliefs of the Islamic Resistance Movement (see above).

Hamas Charter, Article 15 states: “…There is no solution to the Palestinian problem except by Jihad.”

8) No Hamas representative has ever renounced the charter calling for the killing of Jews and destruction of the State of Israel.

Quite the opposite. The incitement to violence and a further ethnic genocide continue:
On the anniversary of Israel’s declaration of Statehood, Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh stated: “Palestinians mark ‘Naqba Day’ this year with great hope of bringing to an end the Zionist project in Palestine.”

At an earlier Hamas/Fatah reconciliation agreement in Cairo, Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal stated: “Our aim is to establish a free and completely sovereign Palestinian state in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, whose capital is Jerusalem, without any [Jews]. Israel must be fought both with force and through diplomacy.”

That mission is still being carried out today.

No sovereign nation should have to put up with that: Khaled Mashaal, Hamas leader again:

“ Before Israel dies, it must be humiliated and degraded. Allah willing, before they die, they will experience humiliation and degradation every day… Allah willing, we will make them lose their eyesight, we will make them lose their brains.” – Khaled Mashal, Hamas leader (Al-Jazeera TV)

Hamas rockets

 

 

 

 

Hamas for Dummies

The article below was written by a Swedish blogger who has been blogging for over 11 years on stealth islamisation in Scandinavia. While written before the sad news of the boys’ murder, and before the release of the harrowing 2 minute phone call to Israel Police, the piece is instructive because it itemises the ways the kidnapping has served Hamas less well than it hoped.

Hamas for Dummies

June 18th, 2014 by Ilya Meyer

Truth be told, the title of this piece should instead be “Hamas are Dummies”.

Here’s why.

All the intel indicates that the three Israeli Jewish schoolboys kidnapped on June 12 were abducted by Hamas.

Almost a week later, their whereabouts are still not known. Palestinian Arab society erupted into paroxysms of joy, public celebration and calls for more kidnappings. And who can blame them – for so many decades now their leaders have assiduously taught them to rely on crime, murder, theft, lies, indoctrination, racism and genocide as noble tools for achieving an even nobler goal: the extinction of Jews from the region.

The Palestinian Arabs even enlisted their own youngest schoolchildren in their propaganda, proudly showing young kids flashing three fingers in celebration of the “victory” of having kidnapped three Jewish schoolchildren. Read that again: Palestinian Arab society has so brainwashed its own children that they celebrate the kidnapping of other children. It speaks volumes of that society – and neatly addresses the non-issue of the chances for peace in the future. What peace with a society whose future leaders are today being taught (at UN, EU and US taxpayer-funded expense) that kidnapping children is a cause for celebration? The world is noting this with revulsion, and the backlash is already on the way.

Because when all is said and done, what has the “success” of the kidnapping given Hamas?

Yes, they are still holding three Jewish schoolchildren whose sole crime is that they are Jewish. But here are just some of the costs to Hamas and the other Palestinian Arab terrorist groups and indeed the general Palestinian Arab populace:

1. Day after day, night after night, Israel is identifying, locating, rounding up and destroying illegal weapons caches. That’s hundreds of thousands of shekels worth of smuggled weapons crushed to dust. Weapons belonging not just to Hamas, but to all Palestinian Arab gangs. When the first round is over, the search will proceed deeper: water wells will be excavated in the hunt for concealed weapons, apartment building foundations will be dug up, warehouses will be torn apart. Oh, it will all be put back together, but the price to the general populace in the meantime will be uncountable. And it’s all down to Hamas.

2. Soon the only place to safely store weapons will be in mosques, a common Palestinian Arab tactic, but as the Israeli surveillance drones continue their untiring unmanned missions, that is where the weapons will be forced to remain. Hidden and useless. Your planning is impeccable, Hamas.

3. Night after night, more and more Hamas operatives, terrorists and leaders are being rounded up by the IDF. But these searches also disrupt the operations of the other terrorist gangs, those that had nothing to do with the kidnappings. Fatah is already gunning for Hamas because of the resultant loss of its freedom of movement and its resultant inability to continue its targeting of Israeli children. Jihad Islami and the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade are also being severely curtailed in their ongoing activities. So they all have Hamas in their cross-hairs – anything to get the IDF off their backs and restore calm.

4. With the kidnappings, Hamas has succeeded in doing something that not even Israel’s own politicians have achieved: they have welded together ALL of Israeli society in the face of this terrible predicament. Israeli society is 100 percent behind the country’s political and military leaders. Not even Benjamin Netanyahu managed to do that in all his years in power. Now the Prime Minister has the whole nation behind him. Thanks Hamas.

5. Even the traditionally anti-Israel UN and EU, two organisations that are firmly antagonistic to the Jewish state, have come out in support of Israel over the kidnapping of the three schoolboys. Never could Israel have dreamed of getting both the UN and the EU firmly behind the Jewish state. Seriously, big thanks Hamas.

6. Even overseas Jewish groups not always comfortable about supporting Israel have come out in full support of the Jewish state following the kidnapping. Hamas has succeeded in bringing together world Jewry where even the Jewish Agency failed – and the effect will last. Many thanks, Hamas.

7. Almost the best bit of all: following the kidnappings, Norway has indefinitely postponed a long-scheduled international donors’ meeting for financial aid to the Palestinian Arabs. Following the “unity government” that brought together the two main Palestinian Arab terrorist groups, Fatah and Hamas, it now transpires that not only Hamas but also Fatah will suffer the financial consequences of cancelled aid. Seriously Hamas, you should candidate for a position in the Israeli Knesset because you are doing more for Israel in its ongoing battle against Palestinian Arab extremism – including curtailing international funding – than the Jewish state has ever managed on its own. Keep up the good work.

8. Convicted Palestinian Arab terrorists already in Israeli jails are now having all their privileges withdrawn. Including Israeli taxpayer-funded university education – so Israeli taxpayers are overjoyed.

9. Already freed Palestinian Arab mass-murderers, 1000 of whom were released in exchange for one (1) Israeli abductee Gilad Schalit a couple of years ago, are now being rearrested by Israel. So Hamas are not exactly their flavour of the month there either…

10. And finally, that perpetual thorn in Israel’s side, that fifth-columnist and traitor guilty of multiple treason against the country in which she serves as a Member of Knesset (parliament), Arab MK Hanin Zoabi, has at last overplayed her hand, joyfully proclaiming her support for the kidnapping of the citizens of her own country by agents of an enemy entity. Calls to expel her from the Knesset are now gathering broad support all across the Israeli political spectrum. When she went so far as to condemn Mohammed Zoabi, a teenage member of her own family, simply because he as an Israeli citizen expressed support for the three teenage Israelis kidnapped by Hamas, his lawmaker relative Ms Hanin Zoabi publicly abused and threatened him. Her extremist family took their cue from her – resulting in Israel Police arresting three members of her family for threatening the life of the teenage Mohammed. The whole of Israel is caught up in the drama of the three kidnapped Jewish Israeli schoolboys – and equally in their fervent support of Arab Israeli schoolboy Mohammed Zoabi whose crime was to express dismay at the kidnapping and empathy with the victims.

So all told, Hamas, you’ve done a great job: united all of Israel, ensured international backing for the Jewish state, cut off funding to your own people, seen masses of Palestinian Arab terrorists arrested and rearrested, and finally outed Hanin Zoabi, a treacherous fifth columnist within Israel. Tactically, strategically, short-term and long-term, you’ve done a brilliant job.

Really, Hamas, you’re giving us everything we ever wanted.

Now keep looking over your shoulders. Not for the Israeli army, who as you know will always treat you humanely.

But for your very own Palestinian Arab comrades-in-arms. You’ve cost them a whole lot.

Once again, thanks.

Signed: the Jewish people and the nation of Israel, who have come together as never before.

Jerusalem – Confusing Fact and Fiction

Confusing fact and fiction – Gerard Henderson, The Sydney Institute
Is Jerusalem occupied by Israel? The answer is: “not under international law”. Gerard Henderson of the Sydney Institute explains why

[Since the 6 Day War in 1967] there have been…references to the occupied territories [in the ongoing Arab-Israeli conflict].

This description [“occupied”] was once used by some to refer to areas such as the Sinai, Gaza, the Golan Heights and the West Bank.

Israel returned the Sinai Peninsula to Egypt in 1982. In 2005, Israel withdrew from Gaza, which is now ruled by the terrorist Hamas organisation. The Golan Heights still remains disputed between Israel and Syria. The Palestinian Authority, which recently included Hamas in its government, presides over much of the West Bank, with the obvious exception of the Israeli settlements.

Following its defensive war in 1967, Israel captured East Jerusalem and the West Bank, which had been occupied by Jordan for some two decades.

Jordan never created a Palestinian state and no such nation has ever existed.

Clearly in 1967 Israel did not conquer and occupy any territory ruled over by a Palestinian nation.

Any successful Middle East peace process will almost certainly involve the withdrawal of Israel from nearly all areas of the West Bank and, possibly, a part of East Jerusalem. Also, it is likely that there would be land swaps between Israel and what would become the nation of Palestine in a two-state solution.

This would be consistent with the UN Security Council Resolution 242, passed in November 1967, which called on Israel to withdraw from “territories”, not all territories, as part of what would now be called a land-for-peace deal. In such an eventuality, it is likely that Israel would swap some land within its borders since the creation of the state in 1948 for some of the land that it took from Jordan (not Palestine) in 1967.

Anyone familiar with the topography of Jerusalem would be aware that Israel is not defendable on its 1967 borders.

Former Labor foreign minister Bob Carr is a critic of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his government. Yet even Carr concedes in Diary of a Foreign Minister that Israel’s security concerns are real. Carr relates a conversation at the Knesset in Jerusalem when he asked the Israeli Prime Minister to explain his security concerns. An aide pulled aside the curtains and Netanyahu declared: “I don’t want Iran on that hill.”

If the [Australian Senator and member of the communist movement that supported the Soviet Union right up until the collapse of the Berlin Wall in 1989] Rhiannon line [in the Australian Parliament] prevails, there will be no peace process at all. And no Palestinian nation.

Even beyond the obvious security concerns, East Jerusalem includes the Jewish quarter of the Old City including the Wailing Wall, Judaism’s holiest site.

It is doubtful whether any democratically elected Israeli government would willingly facilitate a pre-1967 situation occurring again whereby Jews are driven out of East Jerusalem and prevented from praying at or visiting the Wailing Wall.

At the Senate hearings, Rhiannon…declared she had been insulted when [Attorney General] Brandeis commented on her longstanding membership of that part of the Australian communist movement that supported the Soviet Union right up until the collapse of the Berlin Wall in 1989.

Rhiannon’s past association with communism is a matter of public record.

Interviewed on Radio National on December 6 last year, she even admitted to having studied at the Lenin International School in Moscow in 1977, at the height of Leonid Brezhnev’s brutal totalitarian dictatorship.

A two-state solution may take place in the Middle East. Even if it does, this will not suddenly bring peace and stability to the region. The Israel-Palestine dispute is but a sideshow in the looming battle between the Shia and Sunni brands of Islam.

Sunni Saudi Arabia is much more concerned with Shia Iran than with Israel. And, right now, the Sunni terrorist movement the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham seems more interested in murdering Shia Muslims than Jews or Christians.

On ABC’s Insiders last Sunday, David Marr suggested “there is a very real possibility that the Arab world is going to respond to Australia’s unique stand on East Jerusalem by saying: ‘Well, we won’t buy your wheat.’ ”

Similar views have been expressed by Suzannah Moss-Wright of the Australia Arab Chamber of Commerce.

This seems unduly pessimistic. The Arab world, plus Iran, appears to be involved in a religious civil war of disturbing ferocity.

In such a reality, Australia’s position concerning the appropriate terminology on East Jerusalem is of scant importance. Despite Rhiannon’s Green-left advocacy.

Note: It is worthy of note that Rhiannon has the vocal support of independent Senator Nick Xenophon in Parliament  on whose selective xenophobia I have written in a previous post (http://bit.ly/1q07S1G )