11 in Pittsburgh and the Baby from Ofra (Judean Rose)

The Arab gunman raised his gun to the car window as the vehicle neared the bus stop and taking aim, shot that pregnant Jewess in the stomach first. “Good,” he thought, spraying the woman’s young husband, a couple of teenage girls, and then anyone else in range.

Targeting the Jewish woman was smart, aiming at her abdomen, even smarter. He’d killed two birds with one stone, or so he hoped. There was a good chance he’d hit a major organ, and hopefully, the baby in his Jew-Mama’s womb. Why let that baby Jew live when you can squash it like the cockroach it is, before it gets born to spurn the word of Allah and get in the way of building the Khalifa, the worldwide Muslim caliphate?

Robert Bowers raised his gun to spray the elderly Jewish woman first, then anyone else in shooting distance. A Jew is a Jew is a kike, and it doesn’t matter if that Jew is old or infirm. That’s all a mirage to make you have mercy on them, when what they are is no less than a “kike infestation.” No mercy, no how. These Jews can’t be allowed to continue flooding our country with immigrants who steal our jobs, steal our resources.

Killing that old woman was smart, a test of his bravery. He was no wuss. He was leading the way for others, no matter what would happen now when he got caught.

Killing that old woman was genius.

***

Two terror attacks. Two men. One Arab. One not.

Do we know the thoughts in their minds?

Can we state unequivocally that both attacks were antisemitic by nature?

Do we know that the Arab terrorist who shot Shira Ish Ran in her pregnant stomach (and killed her child) thought “Jew” and not “Zionist,” “Jew” and not “Occupier,” “Jew” and not “settler?”

Media pundits would claim there is a distinction. That you can be against Zionism without being against Jews. That you can be against occupation and not Jews. That you can hate the settlers, without hating all Jews.

But we know the truth, because of statements made by Arab leaders (government, military, and religious) on official PA TV. These endless antisemitic statements set a precedent which no measure of etymological chicanery can obscure. Listen, for instance, to Palestinian National Council member Najib Al-Qaddumi, who had this to say on the official PA TV program Palestine This Morning, regarding the Balfour Declaration:

“There is no choice but to return to the background behind the publication of this promise by then British Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour. We will return to the situation of the Jews in Europe and Russia, when they lived in a closed society and knew only to make money, trade, weave plots, corruption, and such. Even the European nations and Russia were sick of them and longed for when they would leave their country."

Or listen to the words of Masoud Rayyaan, lecturer on Islamic Shari'a at Al-Quds Open University, in this Friday sermon broadcast on official PA TV:

(Quran) “’Proceed throughout the earth and observe how was the end of those who denied’ ... The occupation government hasn't learned from history, from the corruption of the Children of Israel the first and second time.

“It hasn't learned. They [The Jews] didn’t learn from what Nebuchadnezzar did to them.

“They didn’t learn from what Titus, the great Roman leader, did to them.

“They didn't learn from what Hitler did to them, and the kings of Europe, and Spain – they didn't learn. They have continued to behave the same way: The mentality of arrogance toward other people. The mentality of superiority over other people. The mentality of seclusion, the mentality of settlement. This mentality, an ideology of planning and systematically working to incite wars and strife in the entire world. Those [Jews] have not learned from the events of history."

Hear the words of Hamas Commander Read Sa'ad:

"We won't abandon the way of Jihad and Shahada [Martyrdom] as long as one inch of our holy land is in the hands of the Jews. A day will come when our flag will fly above all of the regions of our land. Our flag will fly on the minarets of Jerusalem, and the walls of Acre, and the quarters of Haifa."

Or listen to PA Shari’ah Judge Muhannad Abu Rumi:

"[Khan Al-Ahmar is] holy land. We know its value, and not them [Jews], the foreigners, the fabricators of history, who dance and live on the body parts of others, and on the blood of others. Read their history: There is no global corruption that they are not behind. There is no global corruption that their rabbis did not allow... People could be deluded or think... that we have no way out with the Jews... The liberation of this land is a matter of faith, which will happen despite everyone. The Jews leaving this land is a divine decree... The war is not only over this strip of land, as you all know the Jews want everything and not just a part [of it]. They want to subjugate us, and that we be slaves to their command... There have always been two camps in history: the camp of truth and the camp of falsehood. The people of falsehood see themselves as those who rule over everything... Among the Jews we find nothing but corruption and depravity."

Lest you think these men represent the unwashed or uneducated, here are the words of an academic, one Imad Hamato, Professor of Quranic Studies at the University of Palestine in Gaza who hosts a weekly official PA TV program on Islam:‎

“Humanity will never live in comfort ‎as long as the Jews are causing devastating corruption throughout the land. Humanity ‎will never live in peace or fortune or tranquility as long as they are corrupting the land. ‎An old man told me: If a fish in the sea fights with another fish, I am sure the Jews are ‎behind it. As Allah says: ‘Every time they kindled the fire of war [against you], Allah ‎extinguished it. They strive throughout the land [causing] corruption, and Allah does ‎not like corrupters.’” (Sura 5:64)

Then there's the recent Hamas radio chatter picked up by Israel only last month, describing the operation that took the life of Officer “M”:

“Four fighter jets are above me. There was a strike near us. The jets are coming from the north. They attacked one of the (Hamas) cars. Hide. Close in on the Jews. Don’t let them leave Gaza," yelled one Hamas commando into his radio during the firefight.

He said "Close in on the Jews." Not "settlers," "Zionists," or "Occupiers." Not even "Israelis," but "Jews."

What are Arab children taught? On November 29, a young girl recited a poem at the Gaza Conference for the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People that referred to the Jews as wild apes, miserable pigs, and evil creatures destined for humiliation. She said that Jews are like herds of stupid cattle, and that Jerusalem "spits out [their] filth" because it is a pure virgin.


I did not have to scour the internet to find these examples. They are numerous. Antisemitism is not just the domain of a few oddballs or iconoclasts. Jew-hatred pervades the culture of the Arab terrorist who shot Shira Ish Ran in the abdomen, an act that led to the death of an infant she never got to hold.

To the terrorist who shot her, Shira was not a hands-off target, someone vulnerable, carrying life in her womb. She was less than human. A pest to be sprayed dead, along with the baby in her womb.

To think of her as a pregnant woman, like any other pregnant woman, or her baby like any other baby would have betrayed weakness, a fault in his basic foundational beliefs, a softness that must never be given quarter if the ultimate goal were to be achieved.

If he'd dared think of Shira Ish Ran as a pregnant woman, he would have had to try all the harder to prove his mettle by shooting to kill her and her unborn infant. Once he did so, of course, the terrorist was free to tell the world anything he liked, that he did not, for instance, think of Shira Ish Ran or the baby she carried as Jews, but as Zionists, settlers, occupiers, and oppressors. 

They would want to believe these things, the world, for the West is short on understanding how things really work and they prefer not to see the bigger picture.

Those who live in Europe or America, prefer you to couch such actions, the elimination of Jews, in the language of colonialism and oppression. That speaks to them, while antisemitism seems so, well, gauche. If you use language that is politically correct, they can excuse the targeted murder of a pregnant woman, the successful attempt at infanticide, or if you like, the long, drawn-out third-trimester abortion of a Jew-Pig.

After all, that baby would have grown up to be a soldier. Had he lived. That made him fair game. Right? Just another occupier, a thief, an oppressor in waiting.

As long as the world has an excuse to think of it in another, politically correct way, an Arab is safe to shoot whatever Jews he likes, whether it be a pregnant woman and the baby in her womb, or a couple of teenage girls. Europe looks the other way. The UN looks the other way. The New York Times looks the other way.

It’s all good.

The question is why Jews look the other way. Even the Arab terrorist, now dead thank God, couldn’t puzzle that one out. To him, in his short evil lifetime, Jews were Jews. No matter who shed their blood. No matter that their condition marked them among the most vulnerable sectors of society.

An old woman in Tree of Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh, in this respect, is exactly the same as a young pregnant woman standing at a bus stop in Ofra holding life inside her womb--a life soon extinguished.

The dead Arab terrorist knew there was no essential difference between him and Robert Bowers. He actually felt a lot of sympathy for Bowers, when he thought about him. After all, he hated Jews and Bowers hated Jews. Hates them still. The Arab terrorist saw Jews as less than human. So did and does Bowers.

When he thought about it, the Arab terrorist who shot Shira Ish Ran and killed her baby, knew that the only difference between him and Robert Bowers was that there was no possibility that Bowers would ever be set free in a prisoner exchange or receive a large government pension for killing Jews. Had the Arab terrorist not struggled during his capture, he would have ended up on easy street in a comfortable Israeli jail.

Of course, the 72 dark-eyed virgins are a nice compensation.

If only Bowers had been Muslim.

A pity.

---

---

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

Read More

UN Development Program says all of Israel is occupied territory

The United Nations Development Programme has released its Arab Human Development Report 2016.

This paragraph is all the evidence you need that this agency is more interested in anti-Israel propaganda than truth.

The conflict in Palestine has even deeper roots than those in the other conflict-affected countries in the region. The Israeli occupation has been constant for more than six decades, and there are periodic outbreaks of large-scale violence, particularly in Gaza. The 1990s were relatively calm in Palestine in terms of widespread violence, but armed conflict escalated again during the 2000s with the second Intifada in 2000–2001, the ensuing Israeli intervention, the blockade of Gaza after Hamas gained control in 2007 and Israeli assaults on Gaza.

If the Israeli "occupation" is more than six decades old, that means that according to the UNDP, it started in 1948, not 1967.

And this isn't a typo. In another section, the UNDP says:

The Israeli occupation of Palestine is one of the longest lasting territorial occupations in modern history. It is also one of the most prolonged denials of self-determination to a people that has formulated its own nationhood against all odds. The freedom to live in dignity is palpably absent. Seven decades of occupation have exposed people in Palestine to deep insecurity, loss of  opportunities, desperation and profound political frustration.

Seven decades? Since before modern Israel was established!

This means that this UN agency is saying that all of Israel is occupied Palestinian territory, and Israel is illegitimate.

There are plenty of other lies you can see in just those two paragraphs (such as the idea that the second intfada was less than 2 years long.) And there's lots more, like a sidebar on that same page that says how awful things are for Gaza children, for example, if you are less than six years old, there is a "10 percent chance that you have stunted growth due to prolonged exposure to malnutrition." Yet elsewhere in the same report it shows that this is one of the best rates in the entire region, with many Arab countries suffering from 20%, 30% or (in the case of Yemen) 57% stunting!

The UNDP's hate for Israel destroys the credibility it has in trying to actually help human development. It shows that bias and hate is part and parcel of the entire UN system, as we have demonstrated before. 

And no one in Europe or the US gives a damn.

---

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

Read More

UNbelievable - UN says "no proof" Hamas using smuggled cement for tunnels

A tunnel made of imaginary cement

From Middle East Monitor:

The head of the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UNOCHA) stressed on Sunday that there is no proof that the construction material entering Gaza through his organisation was used for “military purposes”, Safa news agency has reported.

Robert Piper’s comment was made in a film broadcast by Sky News about the reconstruction of the Gaza Strip.

I had seen this quoted in other Arab media as well as Iranian media.

Al Resalah, a Hamas mouthpiece, praised Piper's assertion.

Palestinian parliamentarian and senior Hamas leader Yahiya Mousa said the UN denial that cement has been used for military purposes is a move on the right direction. Mousa called the UN to take a stand that would lift the Israeli siege on Gaza, saying Israel fakes up lies to further tighten the siege on Gaza.

I tweeted Piper on Monday morning to allow him to confirm or deny this statement but as of this writing did not receive a response.

If he in fact said this, it would be an astounding example of willful blindness by the UN. In January, Ban Ki Moon said he was "alarmed" after Hamas explicitly promised to continue to build tunnels despite the deaths of many of its tunnel workers. Only two weeks ago, Moon condemned tunnel that Israel discovered as a dangerous and provocative move that undermines attempts to rehabilitate the Gaza Strip.

So what is the evidence that Hamas is using cement for military purposes?

• We know that Hamas is still building tunnels - they say it explicitly and we have seen terrorists killed while building them.
• We know that cement is necessary to build tunnels deep under Gaza.
• We know that cement that is earmarked to help ordinary Gazans is being sold on the black market.
• We know that very little cement can be smuggled in from Egypt, if any, as Egypt has destroyed the vast majority of tunnels on the Rafah border.
• We have known since 2014 that the system that allows cement to enter Gaza was rife with corruption and that Hamas has been taking advantage of it to enrich themselves and to grab more cement.

It doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to realize that these five facts are evidence that Hamas is using some of the cement meant for homeowners to build and rebuild terror tunnels. There is simply no other source for the cement.

But apparently Robert Piper and the UN prefer to turn a blind eye to what is happening literally under their noses.

In fact, the UN is spending money producing professional videos ostensibly about Gaza reconstruction but instead concentrating on how Israel, for no reason whatsoever, just decided to bomb civilians in Gaza and now restricts reconstruction. No mention of rockets or tunnels or weapons caches, no shots of armed Hamas or Islamic Jihad terrorists, no names of the homeless people so we could research which of their relatives were the target of the bombs that destroyed their houses and why they have been denied cement so far while allowing tens of thousands of other Gazans to rebuild.



My guess is that the UN spent at least $100 for each of the 130 people who viewed this video in the past three weeks.

(h/t Irene)

---

---

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

Read More

UN says 29.5% of WB "refugees" live in UNRWA camps. It doesn't ask why.

Robert Piper, UN Assistant Secretary General Development & Humanitarian Coordinator for Palestine, tweeted this graphic today with the (corrected) caption "29.5% of West Bank refugees still live in camps."

The question that the UN leaves unasked is - why do these camps still exist some 68 years after the last refugees were created? (There were essentially no refugees by any definition created by the Six Day War.)

This graphic claims that life in the UN-administered camps is dangerous due to IDF operations. Of course, it doesn't bother to say that the reason that many operations occur in these camps is because they are hotbeds of terrorism.

70% of the so-called "refugees" (actually, descendants of refugees) live outside the camps - meaning that there is no legal impediment to integrating the "refugees" with the rest of Palestinian society.

The Palestinian Authority, recognized by the UN as the State of Palestine, can build as many houses as needed for these people in Areas A and B. And they have had this autonomy for nearly 20 years now. 

Where are the infographics showing how successful the PA, with international aid, has been in dismantling these completely unnecessary and dangerous camps and mainstreaming the residents to become normal citizens?

They don't exist, because no such programs exist.

The PA doesn't want to dismantle the camps because they want to point to overcrowded, violence-filled ghettos as evidence of how Palestinians are still suffering from Israeli actions in 1948.

Jordan was happy to keep these camps around from 1948-1967 because the hundreds of million of dollars used to maintain the camps was money that Jordan didn't have to spend - even though the Palestinians were full Jordanian citizens.

The UN, which puts out reams of reports about how awful things are for Palestinians, has no interest in a single program to take vulnerable people out of these camps.

The graphic comes from a 33-page UN document that describes how many problems Palestinians have and all of the programs the UN has to help them. Yet these is not one program to mainstream camp residents into normal houses and apartments, going to normal non-UN schools and becoming self-sustaining members of society.

There is no reason that these camps should exist today. But the UN is complicit in keeping a second-class society of Palestinians in misery and insecurity, all while promising them a fairy tale that one day they will "return" and go back to their ancestors' houses that no longer (and in some cases never did) exist.

If the UN recognizes a "state of Palestine," isn't it time for the UN to help that entity to take responsibilities for its own citizens as every other nation does?

---

---

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

Read More

The UN trains the next generation of anti-Israel journalists

Did you know that there is a shortage of Palestinian journalists who want to use their skills to help the "resistance"?

According to the UN, there is.

As part of a special information programme mandated by the United Nations General Assembly, the UN Department of Public Information - Strategic Communications Division - Palestine, Decolonization and Human Rights Section organizes an annual training programme for Palestinian media practitioners. The programme aims to provide hands-on skills training on different topics, as well as access to UN officials and diplomats. The participants are usually aged between 23 and 33.

Since it started in 1995, more than 150 journalists/trainees have benefited from the programme.

The United Nations will cover the costs of travel and accommodation. 

They are now accepting applications for this year's batch.

If you look at previous year's trainees you see a theme emerging:

Mohammad Alazzaeh’s first photo was of a boy standing on the roof of his house, pointing a plastic gun at the Israeli soldiers attacking the refugee camp. ...He dedicates his time to teaching children in the camp photography skills so that they can learn a new form of resistance.

Osama [Awwad] ... admits that sometimes other journalists criticize him and accuse him of trying to divert attention from reality, but he believes what he is doing is a different form of resistance.

Sabreen Taha: "I believe that documenting and sharing the old architecture, culture and customs [of Jerusalem] is a form of resistance and respect.

If these so-called "journalists" consider their jobs to be "resistance," then they are not journalists - but anti-Israel activists.

The mandate of the UN Department of Public Information - Strategic Communications Division is to "formulate communications strategies on priority issues and carries out communications campaigns to support the substantive goals of the Organization." Which means that the UN's very mandate is to delegitimize Israel.

The UN is paying to train the next generation of anti-Israel activists under the guise of journalism. To put it another way, they are training UNjournalists.

And this is just one of the dozens programs in every nook and cranny of the UN dedicated against Israel.

---

---

This is just one of the many scoops that you simply cannot read in any other media. Please help support the creation of quality journalism like this at EoZ.

Read More

UN cannot find a single terror attack against Israel

Here is a screenshot of the "UN response to acts of terrorism" webpage:

The page lists 37 terror attacks acknowledged and condemned by the UN since November 2015. These attacks took place in 19 different countries:

• Afghanistan
• Burkina Faso
• Cameroon
• Chad
• Egypt
• France
• Indonesia
• Iraq
• Lebanon
• Libya
• Mali
• Nigeria
• Pakistan
• Saudi Arabia
• Somalia
• Syria
• Tunisia
• Turkey

But one country that has experienced a wave of terror in that exact timeframe is not mentioned.

It is hard to escape the message being given by the UN. To that organization, stabbings and bombings and knifings and car rammings and shootings of innocent Israelis is not terrorism. And if it is not terrorism, then it must be a form of freedom fighting.

Ban Ki Moon sort of implied that attacks against Israelis is terrorism in the New York Times, but as this list shows, he has not once issued a statement condemning them from the UN.

Arnold Roth has much more.

---

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

$5 : $5.00 USD - monthly$10 : $10.00 USD - monthly$25 : $25.00 USD - monthly$50 : $50.00 USD - monthly$100 : $100.00 USD - monthly$250 : $250.00 USD - monthly$500 : $500.00 USD - monthly

Read More

Ban Ki Moon doubles down on justifying (while "condemning") terror

UN secretary General Ban Ki Moon wrote an op-ed in the New York Times, striking back at critics who said he was justifying terror - by justifying terror:

IN Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories, 2016 has begun much as 2015 ended — with unacceptable levels of violence and a polarized public discourse. That polarization showed itself in the halls of the United Nations last week when I pointed out a simple truth: History proves that people will always resist occupation.

Some sought to shoot the messenger — twisting my words into a misguided justification for violence. The stabbings, vehicle rammings and other attacks by Palestinians targeting Israeli civilians are reprehensible. So, too, are the incitement of violence and the glorification of killers.

Nothing excuses terrorism. I condemn it categorically. It is inconceivable, though, that security measures alone will stop the violence. As I warned the Security Council last week, Palestinian frustration and grievances are growing under the weight of nearly a half-century of occupation. Ignoring this won’t make it disappear. No one can deny that the everyday reality of occupation provokes anger and despair, which are major drivers of violence and extremism and undermine any hope of a negotiated two-state solution.

Time to play the substitution game and see if it also sounds like something Ban Ki Moon would say:

• History proves that people will always resist being terrorized. No one can deny that the everyday reality of being targeted by knives, car rammings and shootings, not to mention bus bombings and other attacks on Israelis, provokes anger and despair, which are major drivers of violence and extremism and undermine any hope of a negotiated two-state solution.
• History proves that people will always resist being unfairly blamed for double standards. No one can deny that the everyday reality of being vilified by the UN and Europe for things that are often not true, and always far out of proportion compared to every other nation, provokes anger and despair, which are major drivers of violence and extremism and undermine any hope of a negotiated two-state solution.
• History proves that Jews will always resist antisemitism. No one can deny that the everyday reality of being the victim of pogroms, gas chambers and blood libels provokes anger and despair, which are major drivers of violence and extremism and undermine any hope of peace.

It doesn't quite flow, does it?

There are two underlying bigotries that even the Secretary General of the United Nations has deep down, despite a lifetime of studiously avoiding the public appearance of bias.  One is that only  Muslims are "understood" when they are violent - it is considered part of their culture. The other is that only violence against the Jewish state is justified, even if it is to be condemned - you will not hear Ban Ki Moon make the same kinds of statements about any Arab on Arab violence blaming the victims for forcing them to act this way.

In fact, this op-ed itself is in a way incitement to violence iitself. Let me explain

Israeli settlements keep expanding. The government has approved plans for over 150 new homes in illegal settlements in the occupied West Bank. Last month, 370 acres in the West Bank were declared “state land,” a status that typically leads to exclusive Israeli settler use.

At the same time, thousands of Palestinian homes in the West Bank risk demolition because of obstacles that may be legal on paper but are discriminatory in practice. Palestinians — especially young people — are losing hope over what seems a harsh, humiliating and endless occupation.

As we've recently learned, there had been a de facto building freeze in the settlements for nearly two years that the UN never acknowledged. But let's set that aside for now. Let's assume that Ban Ki Moon's description of the hopeless life of Palestinians is 100% accurate. He is saying that violence is understandable when you are the victim of:

1. Houses being built a few miles from your home.
2. Land being taken a few miles from your home.
3. Your illegally built home being at risk of being demolished.

Now compare these awful conditions with the everyday life of practically everyone in Africa, much of the Far East and essentially every citizen of an Arab state. Compare it to nations where you can be arrested and tortured for a Facebook post. Would Ban Ki Moon ever, in his wildest dreams, say that violence from people whose lives are immeasurably worse than that of Palestinians is understandable?

When the UN and EU say that Jews building homes in their ancestral lands is a reason for people to naturally turn to violence, it is causing those people to consider terrorism to be their right. By not expressing outright and unconditional outrage over Palestinian terrorism and incitement, the message that Ban Ki Moon is expressing is that, among all the conflicts in the world, this is the only one where violence can be blamed on the victims. 

In light of that, Ban's "condemnation" rings hollow.

---

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

$5 : $5.00 USD - monthly$10 : $10.00 USD - monthly$25 : $25.00 USD - monthly$50 : $50.00 USD - monthly$100 : $100.00 USD - monthly$250 : $250.00 USD - monthly$500 : $500.00 USD - monthly

Read More

HRW, UN and B'Tselem demand that Israel VIOLATE international law

Human Rights Watch issued a report:

The Israeli military unlawfully demolished at least 39 structures in Bedouin Palestinian communities in the West Bank on August 17 and 18, 2015. The demolitions left 126 people homeless, 80 of them children. Four of the communities where the demolitions took place are targeted by an Israeli government plan to forcibly “relocate” 7,000 Bedouin.

Such destruction of private Palestinian property and the forcible transfer of Palestinians violate Israel’s human rights obligations and the laws of occupation. The Fourth Geneva Convention prohibits an occupying power from destroying private property or forcibly transferring the protected population unless strictly necessary for military reasons. Israel does not claim the demolitions or planned relocations are justified for military reasons.

B'Tselem also says that this is against international humanitarian law. The UN had stated that previously and I fisked that UN statement.

What does international law say?

For the purposes of this post, we will assume that Israel is occupying Area C of Judea and Samaria, which is the legal basis of Israel's Supreme Court decisions, even though it never ruled on that question specifically.

The law prohibiting confiscating private property comes from the Hague Conventon IV article 46, which states flatly "Private property cannot be confiscated."

But these buildings weren't built on private property. They were illegally built on public state lands.

What does the Hague Convention say about the legal obligations of an occupying power?

That is in article 43:

The authority of the legitimate power having in fact passed into the hands of the occupant, the latter shall take all the measures in his power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country.

Under international law, Israel must do everything possible to respect the laws that were in place before the occupation - meaning the laws from the previous Jordanian and British and Ottoman governments.

And under none of those sets of laws would illegal building on state be considered to magically become private property and protected under the law from being demolished. That idea is nonsensical; Imagine what the New York City government would do if people built buildings in Central Park and then claimed to be homeless and forced to relocate when they were demolished.

HRW is clearly and knowingly lying when they use the "private property" argument.

B'Tselem is a bit more knowledgeable about international law than Human Rights Watch and doesn't try to use HRW's clearly incorrect legal reasoning. Instead, it only argues HRW's second reason, saying that "These expulsion plans run counter to the provisions of international humanitarian law, which prohibit the forcible transfer of protected persons, unless carried out for their own protection or for an imperative military need." But again it is absurd to say that legally demolishing buildings built without permits is "forcible transfer." On the contrary, it is enforcing the law. The alternative is to give anyone the right to squat on public lands, which is clearly absurd.

There are exceptions where the occupier may override pre-existing laws for security or other purposes, for example to strike down pre-existing laws that violate human rights or otherwise contradict the provisions of "public order and safety." The full extent of that permission is argued by various legal scholars. But as far as I can tell, no one says that Israel is mandated to change existing Ottoman/British land and zoning laws - and to do so without good reason would be a violation of international law! 

Yet this is exactly what these NGOs are demanding that Israel do - to uproot or ignore pre-existing land laws.

Perhaps these organizations have a point in that Israel is not enforcing the pre-existing laws equally between Jews and Arabs in Judea and Samaria. In this particular case, however, the illegal squatters on state land never even bothered to submit applications for building permits or to submit a master plan for rezoning areas for residential use. The reason, of course, is because these structures were meant as a land grab and not as a declaration of private property rights. The Bedouin knew very well that their buildings were illegal, and Jews who would build random structures on state land would be treated the same way.

Yet even if  you claim that Israel's application of zoning laws is not done evenly, "it's not fair" is not a principle of international law that is being violated.

One argument that may be made in favor of Israel's changing the zoning laws could perhaps come from an expansive reading of "public order and safety" in the Hague Conventions, a reading that Israel's Supreme Court in fact has used, translating the original French "la vie publique" as ‘civil life’ which is much more than "public order." Yet even then, that does not mean that Israel is obligated to go so far as to change existing laws. As legal scholar Marco Sasson writes:

Under the general rule, as its qualifications ‘all measures in his power’ and ‘as far as possible’ confirm, public order and civil life are not results that must be guaranteed by an occupying power, but only aims it must pursue with all available, lawful and proportionate means. One may argue that the required standard of action is below that with which human rights instruments expect states to comply in fulfilling human rights, in particular social, economic and cultural rights, since, as discussed below, the occupying power is not sovereign and its legislative powers are limited.

There is obviously a tension between the Hague provisions to ensure public order and civil life and to "respect, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country." But to demand that the latter, written in very strong language, trumps the former, and not doing so is a violation of international law, is clearly wrong.

The UN, B'Tselem and HRW are not telling the truth about international law, and they are twisting it deliberately to target Israel.

 (Israel's Supreme Court does not recognize forcible transfers within occupied territory to be against the Geneva Conventions prohibition on "forcible transfer," but the ICRC does, so we will not argue that point here.)

Read More

Wow! Look at the UN try to whitewash Chris Gunness' tweets!

As I mentioned last week, UNRWA's Chris Gunness had a Twitter meltdown over a reasoned, thoughtful op-ed piece by Bassam Eid in the Jerusalem Post, going on full attack mode by trying to smer the Post and calling to boycott the newspaper.

See how the UN spokesperson whitewashes this incident:



There was no "heated exchange" on Twitter, most of Gunness' tweets were unilateral and his call for boycott was way before anyone from the Jerusalem Post responded. He simply showed himself to be an unprofessional, spoiled whiner who lashes out when criticized.

And, of course, Gunness did call for a boycott. There is no other way to interpret his tweet.

Isn't it amazing that organizations like the UN that love to throw the word "impunity" around are the ones who always act with impunity with their holier-than-thou attitudes?

(h/t Ian)

Read More

UN interpreter accidentally tells the world the truth (video)

Hillel Neuer of UN Watch writes:

On Thursday a United Nations interpreter, unaware that her microphone was on, uttered words of truth in reaction to the General Assembly’s adoption of nine politically-motivated resolutions condemning Israel, and zero resolutions on the rest of the world.


Under the mistaken impression that she was speaking only to colleagues, the interpreter uttered the following words into the headphones of every UN delegate, and before a live webcast audience worldwide:

“I think when you have… like a total of ten resolutions on Israel and Palestine, there’s gotta be something, c’est un peu trop, non? [It’s a bit much, no?] I mean I know… There’s other really bad shit happening, but no one says anything about the other stuff.”

Laughter erupted among the delegates. “The interpreter apologizes,” said the unfortunate truth-teller, moments later, followed by her audible gasp. I sincerely hope she won’t get fired.

Because the one who should really apologize today is the UN. Founded on noble ideals, the world body is turning the dream of liberal internationalists into a nightmare.

For by the end of its annual legislative session next month, the General Assembly will have adopted a total of 22 resolutions condemning Israel—and only four on the rest of the world combined. The hypocrisy, selectivity, and politicization are staggering.

Today’s nine resolutions, adopted by the GA’s 4th committee, which is comprised of all 193 UN member states, condemned Israel for violating the human rights of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza, of Palestinian refugees, and even of Syrians in the Golan Heights.

That’s right: the UN adopted a resolution today that mentions the word “Syria” no less than 10 times—yet said nothing of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s massacre of more than 100,000 of his own people.

Keep in mind that this is not the UN Human Rights Council, which is known for its one-sided anti-Israel agenda. This is the United Nations General Assembly.

The video of the vote, a scene repeated with mind-numbing regularity at the UN, is what should be shocking, not the interpreter telling the truth. Every European country routinely votes for every anti-Israel resolution. 

And outside of a very few exceptions, no diplomat even takes the UN to task for routinely and obviously subverting its own mission.

It takes an anonymous interpreter to tell the world that the emperor has no clothes.

Read More

UN can't tell difference between peace activists and Arabs who want Israel destroyed

The UN is holding a "Media Seminar on Peace in the Middle East." As you can imagine, the seminar has nothing to do with peace in Egypt, Syria, Iraq or Lebanon.

The panel speaking today at the seminar "Youth activism, digital journalism and social media in the Middle East" reveals quite a bit about what the UN considers to be "peace."

Youth activism continues to be a driving force behind movements for peace, justice and democracy in Israel and Palestine, and across the Middle East. This panel will discuss how the acceleration in digital technologies and social media is affecting youth activism, and how the use of social media by youth activists has helped and/or hindered their causes.
Moderator: Mr. Ahmed Shihab Eldin, Producer and host, Huffington Post Live
Mr. Ahmad Alhendawi, United Nations Secretary-General’s Envoy on Youth
Ms. Rana Nazzal Hamadeh, Youth activist, Palestine
Ms. Sahar Vardi, Peace activist, Israel
Mr. Gökhan Yücel, Digital diplomacy expert and Lecturer at the Leadership, Politics and Diplomacy School of Bahçeşehir University

The Israeli representative, Sahar Vardi, is a far-left activist who refused to serve in the IDF and who participates in weekly anti-Israel protests. It seems clear that she really wants peace between Jews and Arabs, however misguided her viewpoint.

Contrast this with the Palestinian Arab representative, Rana Nazzal Hamadeh. She has this quote on her Twitter profile:

From you steel & fire, from us flesh, from you another tank, from us stones. So leave our country, our land, our sea, our wheat, our salt, our wounds- M Darwish

Does a demand that all Jews be ethnically cleansed from the area sound peaceful to you?

Can you imagine a Jew who says anything close to that ("leave our country, our land...") being invited to speak at any UN-sponsored conference, ever?

The fact is that any Jew who would speak like this would be considered an intolerant far-right bigot and would not be accepted in polite society. A Palestinian Arab who says this is honored as a leader on peace and justice.

There is a serious problem here.

The people who should properly protest this are the liberals. Hamadeh's attitude is the exact opposite of liberalism. But the acceptance and tacit encouragement of Arab violence is so ingrained in the "enlightened" Western world that nobody bats an eyelash.

(I tweeted Vardi asking if she agreed with Hamadeh's quote, but didn't receive a response yet.)

(h/t PMB)

Read More

Does the UN consider Gaza legally "occupied"?

Ma'an says, at the end of an article:

Gaza [is] considered to be occupied by Israel according to the United Nations, as Israel controls the Gaza Strip's airspace, territorial waters and movement of people and goods.

This is false. Israel's control of airspace, waters and some of the borders is not a definition of occupation, and the UN has never made that claim - only clueless anti-Israel activists made that argument up, but it has no legal validity.

Ma'an, being the twisted news agency it is, swallows and regurgitates anti-Israel lies without bothering to check the facts.

Less than two years ago, UN Watch specifically asked the UN why it continues to refer to Gaza as "occupied" when under any sane interpretation of international law, it isn't. The UN replied:

Under resolutions adopted by both the Security Council and the General Assembly on the Middle East peace process, the Gaza Strip continues to be regarded as part of the Occupied Palestinian Territory. The United Nations will accordingly continue to refer to the Gaza Strip as part of the Occupied Palestinian Territory until such time as either the General Assembly or the Security Council take a different view.

Question: Can I follow up on that? It is the legal definition of occupation and why is Gaza considered occupied?

Spokesperson: Well, as I have just said, there are Security Council and General Assembly resolutions that cover this. For example, there was a Security Council resolution adopted on 8 January 2009 — 1860 — and that stressed that the Gaza Strip constitutes an integral part of the territory occupied in 1967. And as you know, Security Council resolutions do have force in international law.

Furthermore, there is a resolution from the General Assembly from 20 December 2010, and while it noted the Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza Strip and parts of the northern West Bank, it also stressed, in quotes, “the need for respect and preservation of the territorial unity, contiguity and integrity of all of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem”. So just to repeat that the United Nations will continue to refer to the Gaza Strip as part of the Occupied Palestinian Territory until either the General Assembly or the Security Council take a different view on the matter.

Note that the UN isn't saying that Gaza is legally "occupied." It is saying that Gaza must be referred to as "Occupied Palestinian Territory" - it is arguing nomenclature, not law. The Hague Conventions makes it clear that occupied territory refers only to portions of territory under control of another party, not that an entire territory is either occupied or not if only part of it is.  Otherwise, Turkey would be considered to be occupying all of Cyprus, not only the northern part, since Cyprus is clearly a single territory. That is nonsensical.

At no point does the UN respond to UN Watch anything about control of borders or airspace - because it knows that it would be laughed out of court if it tried to make that claim. Ma'an is lying.

I discovered that the UN only started using the term "Occupied Palestinian Territory" formally in 1998, well after Oslo, but the UN website has been busily rewriting the titles of its documents to retroactively refer to "OPT" years before it started actually using the term.

Read More

UN awards Iran key post - on disarmament committee

In July:

Iran is campaigning for a key position on a U.N. General Assembly committee that deals with disarmament and international security amid strong criticism from Israel and others who accuse Tehran of seeking to develop nuclear weapons.

Iran is competing against Kuwait to be the rapporteur of the U.N. General Assembly's First Committee for its 68th session, which begins in October, U.N. diplomats said. The rapporteur reports on the proceedings of the 193-member committee.

A spokesman for Iran's U.N. mission confirmed the country's bid on Tuesday. Asked why Tehran was interested in the position, he said: "It's a normal routine by a member state."

The First Committee considers all disarmament and international security matters, cooperation in the maintenance of international peace and security, as well as principles governing disarmament and the regulation of armaments.

The UN approved it - an hour after Netanyahu's speech. From IRNA:

The Islamic Republic of Iran has been elected as rapporteur of the UN First Committee on Disarmament and International Security for the 68th annual meeting.

The election of a member of the Iranian delegation to the sensitive position in the UN took place despite months-long efforts by representative of the Zionist regime to prevent Iran’s election.

The Zionist regime representative issued a protest letter urging members not to let Iran be elected as a member of the commission’s presiding board.

The election took place in the site of the General Assembly just one hour after the Zionist regime prime minister vigorously criticized the attitude of the Iranian government during his remarks.

It is one thing to know that the UN is a joke, but to see it confirmed day after day after day is still remarkable.

(h/t Arsen/Arnold)

Read More

Text and video of Bibi's UN speech

I feel deeply honored and privileged to stand here before you today representing the citizens of the State of Israel.

We are an ancient people. We date back nearly 4,000 years to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. We have journeyed through time, we've overcome the greatest of adversities, And we reestablished our sovereign state in our ancestral homeland, the Land of Israel.

The Jewish people's odyssey through time has taught us two things: Never give up hope. Always remain vigilant.

Hope charts the future. Vigilance protects it.

Today, our hope for the future is challenged by a nuclear-armed Iran that seeks our destruction. But I want you to know: that wasn't always the case. Some 2500 years ago, the great Persian King Cyrus ended the Babylonian exile of the Jewish people. He issued a famous edict in which he proclaimed the right of the Jews to return to the Land of Israel and rebuild the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem. That's a Persian decree, and thus began an historic friendship between the Jews and the Persians that lasted until modern times.

But in 1979, a radical regime in Tehran tried to stamp out that friendship. As it was busy crushing the Iranian people's hopes for democracy, it also led wild chants of "Death to the Jews!" Now, since that time, Presidents of Iran have come and gone. Some presidents were considered moderates, others hardliners. But they've all served that same unforgiving creed, that same unforgetting regime – that creed that is espoused and enforced by the real power in Iran, the dictator known in Iran as the Supreme Leader, first Ayatollah Khomeini and now Ayatollah Khamenei. President Rouhani, like the presidents who came before him is a loyal servant of the regime. He was one of only six candidates the regime permitted to run for office. Nearly 700 other candidates
were rejected.

So what made him acceptable? Well, Rouhani headed Iran's Supreme National Security Council from 1989 through 2003. During that time, Iran's henchmen gunned down opposition leaders in a Berlin restaurant. They murdered 85 people at the Jewish Community Center in Buenos Aires. They killed 19 American soldiers by blowing up the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia.

Are we to believe that Rouhani, the National Security Advisor of Iran at the time, knew nothing about these attacks?

Of course he did.

Just as 30 years ago, Iran's security chiefs knew about the bombings in Beirut that killed 241 American Marines and 58 French Paratroopers.

Rouhani was also Iran's chief nuclear negotiator between 2003 and 2005. He masterminded the strategy which enabled Iran to advance its nuclear weapons program behind a smokescreen of diplomatic engagement and very soothing rhetoric. Now I know Rouhani does not sound like Ahmadinejad. But when it comes to Iran's nuclear weapons program, the only difference between them is this: Ahmadinejad was a wolf in wolf's clothing and Rouhani is a wolf in sheep's clothing – a wolf who thinks he can pull the wool over the eyes of the international community.

Like everyone else, I wish we could believe Rouhani's words. But we must focus on Iran's actions.

And it’s the brazen contrast, this extraordinary contradiction between Rouhani's words and Iran's actions that is so startling. Rouhani stood at this very podium last week and praised Iranian democracy. Iranian democracy, he said.

But the regime that he represents executes political dissidents by the hundreds and jails them by the thousands. Rouhani spoke of "the human tragedy in Syria." Yet Iran directly participates in Assad’s murder and massacre of tens of thousands of innocent men, women, and children in Syria, and that regime is propping up a Syrian regime that just used chemical weapons against its own people.

Rouhani condemned the "violent scourge of terrorism." Yet in the last three years alone Iran has ordered, planned or perpetrated terrorist attacks in 25 cities on five continents.

Rouhani denounces "attempts to change the regional balance through proxies." Yet Iran is actively destabilizing Lebanon, Yemen, Bahrain, and many other Middle Eastern countries.

Rouhani promises "constructive engagement with other countries." Yet two years ago, Iranian agents tried to assassinate Saudi Arabia's ambassador in Washington, DC.

And just three weeks ago, an Iranian agent was arrested trying to collect information for possible attacks against the American Embassy in Tel Aviv. Some constructive engagement!

I wish I could be moved by Rouhani's invitation to join his "WAVE" –a world against violence and extremism. Yet the only waves Iran has generated in the last 30 years are waves of violence and terrorism that it has unleashed on the region and across the world.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I wish I could believe Rouhani, but I don't because facts are stubborn things. And the facts are that Iran's savage record flatly contradicts Rouhani's soothing rhetoric.

Last Friday, Rouhani assured us that in pursuit of its nuclear program, Iran has "never chosen deceit… and secrecy." Never chosen deceit and secrecy?!

Well, in2002, Iran was caught red-handed secretly building an underground centrifuge facility at Natanz. Then in 2009, Iran was again caught red-handed secretly building a huge underground nuclear facility for uranium enrichment in a mountain near Qom. Rouhani tells us not to worry; he assures us that all this is not intended for nuclear weapons. Do any of you believe that? If you believe that, here's a few questions that you might want to ask:

Why would a country that claims to only want peaceful nuclear energy, why would such a country build hidden underground enrichment facilities?

Why would a country with vast natural energy reserves invest billions in developing nuclear energy?

Why would a country intent on merely civilian nuclear programs continue to defy multiple Security Council resolutions and incur the costs of crippling sanctions on its economy?

And why would a country with a peaceful nuclear program develop intercontinental ballistic missiles whose sole purpose is to deliver nuclear warheads? You don't build ICBM's to carry TNT thousands of miles away. You build them for one purpose – to carry nuclear warheads. And Iran is now building ICBM's that the United States says can reach this city in three or four years.

Why would they do all this? The answer is simple. Iran is not building a peaceful nuclear program. Iran is developing nuclear weapons.

Last year alone, Iran enriched three tons of uranium to 3.5%, doubled its stockpile of 20% enriched uranium, and added thousands of new centrifuges, including advanced centrifuges. It also continued work on the heavy water reactor in Arak. That's in order to have another route to the bomb – a plutonium path.

And since Rouhani's election – and I stress this – this vast and feverish effort has continued unabated. Ladies and gentlemen,

Underground nuclear facilities?

Heavy water reactors?

Advanced centrifuges?

ICBMs?

It's not that it's hard to find evidence that Iran has a nuclear weapons program. It's hard to find evidence that Iran doesn’t have a nuclear weapons program.

Last year when I spoke here at the UN, I drew a red line. Iran has been very careful not to cross that line. But Iran is positioning itself to race across that line in the future at a time of its choosing. Iran wants to be in a position to rush forward to build nuclear bombs before the international community can detect it, much less prevent it.

Yet Iran faces one big problem, and that problem is summed up in one word: Sanctions.

I have argued for many years, including on this podium, that the only way to peacefully prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons is to combine tough sanctions with a credible military threat. And that policy is today bearing fruit. Thanks to the effort of many countries, many represented here, and under the leadership of the United States, tough sanctions have taken a big bite out of Iran's economy. Oil revenues have fallen. The currency has plummeted. Banks are hard pressed to transfer money.

So as a result, the regime is under intense pressure from the Iranian people to get the sanctions removed. That's why Rouhani got elected in the first place. That's why he launched his charm offensive.

He definitely wants to get the sanctions lifted, I guarantee you that, but he doesn't want to give up Iran's nuclear weapons program in return.

Now, here's the strategy to achieve this:

First, smile a lot. Smiling never hurts. Second, pay lip service to peace, democracy and tolerance. Third, offer meaningless concessions in exchange for lifting sanctions. And fourth, and the most important, ensure that Iran retains sufficient nuclear material and sufficient nuclear infrastructure to race to the bomb at a time that it chooses to do so. You know why Rouhani thinks he can get away with this? I mean, this is a ruse; it's a ploy. Why does Rouhani think he can get away with it? Because he's gotten away with it before. Because his strategy of talking a lot and doing little has worked for him in the past. He even bragged about it. Here's what he said in his 2011 book about his time as Iran's chief nuclear negotiator: "While we were talking to the Europeans in Tehran, we were installing equipment in Isfahan…"

For those who you who don't know, the Isfahan facility is an indispensable part of Iran's nuclear weapons program. That's where uranium ore called yellowcake is converted into an enrichable form. Rouhani boasted, and I quote: "By creating a calm environment, we were able to complete the work in Isfahan."

He fooled the world once. Now he thinks he can fool it again. You see, Rouhani thinks he can have his yellowcake and eat it too.

And he has another reason to believe that he can get away with this, and that reason is called North Korea.

Like Iran, North Korea also said its nuclear program was for peaceful purposes. Like Iran, North Korea also offered meaningless concessions and empty promises in return for sanctions relief. In 2005, North Korea agreed to a deal that was celebrated the world over by many well-meaning people. Here is what the New York Times editorial had to say about it: "For years now, foreign policy insiders have pointed to North Korea as the ultimate nightmare... a closed, hostile and paranoid dictatorship with an aggressive nuclear weapons program.

Very few could envision a successful outcome.

And yet North Korea agreed in principle this week to dismantle its nuclear weapons program, return to the NPT, abide by the treaty's safeguards and admit international inspectors….Diplomacy, it seems, does work after all."

End quote.

Ladies and Gentlemen,
A year later, North Korea exploded its first nuclear weapons device.

Yet as dangerous as a nuclear-armed North Korea is, it pales in comparison to the danger of a nuclear-armed Iran. A nuclear-armed Iran would have a chokehold on the world's main energy supplies. It would trigger nuclear proliferation throughout the Middle East, turning the most unstable part of the planet into a nuclear tinderbox. And for the first time in history, it would make the specter of nuclear terrorism a clear and present danger.

A nuclear-armed Iran in the Middle East wouldn't be another North Korea. It would be another 50 North Koreas!

I know that some in the international community think I'm exaggerating this threat. Sure, they know that Iran's regime leads these chants, "Death to America!", "Death to Israel!", then it pledges to wipe Israel off the map. But they think this wild rhetoric is just bluster for domestic consumption. Have these people learned nothing from history?

The last century has taught us that when a radical regime with global ambitions gets awesome power, sooner or later, its appetite for aggression knows no bounds. That's the central lesson of the 20th century. Now, we cannot forget it.

The world may have forgotten this lesson. The Jewish people have not.

Iran's fanaticism is not bluster. It's real. This fanatic regime must never be allowed to arm itself with nuclear weapons.

I know that the world is weary of war. We in Israel, we know all too well the cost of war. But history has taught us that to prevent war tomorrow, we must be firm today.

This raises the question: Can diplomacy stop this threat?

Well, the only diplomatic solution that would work is one that fully dismantles Iran's nuclear weapons program and prevents it from having one in the future. President Obama rightly said that Iran's conciliatory words must be matched by transparent, verifiable and meaningful action, and to be meaningful, a diplomatic solution would require Iran to do four things. First, cease all uranium enrichment. This is called for by several Security Council resolutions. Second, remove from its territory the stockpiles of enriched uranium. Third, dismantle the infrastructure for a nuclear breakout capability, including the underground facility near Qom and the advanced centrifuges in Natanz. And four, stop all work at the heavy water reactor in Arak aimed at the production of plutonium.

These steps would put an end to Iran's nuclear weapons program and eliminate its breakout capability. There are those who would readily agree to leave Iran with a residual capability to enrich uranium. I advise them to pay close attention to what Rouhani said in a speech to Iran's Supreme Cultural Revolutionary Council. This was published in 2005: "A country that can enrich uranium to about 3.5% will also have the capability to enrich it to about 90%. Having fuel cycle capability virtually means that a country that possesses this capability is able to produce nuclear weapons.
Precisely. This is precisely why Iran's nuclear weapons program must be fully and verifiably dismantled. And this is why the pressure on Iran must continue.

So here's what the international community must do. First, keep up the sanctions. If Iran advances its nuclear weapons program during negotiations, strengthen the sanctions.

Second, don't agree to a partial deal. A partial deal would lift international sanctions that have taken years to put in place in exchange for cosmetic concessions that will take only weeks for Iran to reverse. Third, lift the sanctions only when Iran fully dismantles its nuclear weapons program.

My friends,
The international community has Iran on the ropes. If you want to knockout Iran's nuclear weapons program peacefully, don't let up the pressure. Keep it up.

We all want to give diplomacy with Iran a chance to succeed. But when it comes to Iran, the greater the pressure, the greater the chance.

Three decades ago, President Ronald Reagan famously advised: Trust but verify. When it comes to Iran's nuclear weapons program, here's my advice: Distrust, Dismantle, and Verify.

Ladies and Gentlemen,
Israel will never acquiesce to nuclear arms in the hands of a rogue regime that repeatedly promises to wipe us off the map. Against such a threat, Israel will have no choice but to defend itself. I want there to be no confusion on this point: Israel will not allow Iran to get nuclear weapons. If Israel is forced to stand alone, Israel will stand alone. Yet in standing alone, Israel will know that we will be defending many, many others. The dangers of a nuclear-armed Iran and the emergence of other threats in our region have led many of our Arab neighbors to finally recognize that Israel is not their enemy. This affords us the opportunity to overcome historic animosities and build new relationships, new friendships, new hopes. Israel welcomes engagement with the wider Arab world. We hope that our common interests and common challenges will help us forge a more peaceful future.

And Israel continues to seek an historic peace with our Palestinian neighbors, one that ends our conflict once and for all. We want a peace based on security and mutual recognition in which a demilitarized Palestinian state recognizes the Jewish state of Israel. I remain committed to achieving an historic conciliation and building a better future for Israelis and Palestinians alike.

Now, I have no illusions about how difficult this will be to achieve. Twenty years ago, the peace process between Israel and the Palestinians began. Six Israeli Prime Ministers, myself included, have not succeeded in achieving peace with the Palestinians. My predecessors were prepared to make painful concessions. So am I.

But so far, Palestinian leaders haven't been prepared to offer the painful concessions they must make to end the conflict. For peace to be achieved, the Palestinians must finally recognize the Jewish state and Israel's security needs must be met. I am prepared to make an historic compromise for a genuine and enduring peace. But I will never compromise on the security of my people and of my country of the one and only Jewish state.

Ladies and Gentlemen,
One cold day in the late 19th century, my grandfather Nathan and his younger brother Judah were standing in a railway station in the heart of Europe. They were seen by a group of anti-Semitic hoodlums who ran towards them waving clubs, screaming, "Death to the Jews!"

My grandfather shouted to his younger brother to flee and save himself. And he then stood alone against the raging mob to slow it down. They beat him senseless. They left him for dead. Before he passed out, covered in his own blood, he said to himself: "What a disgrace! What a disgrace! The descendants of the Maccabees lie in the mud, powerless to defend themselves."

He promised himself then that if he lived, he would take his family to the Jewish homeland to help build a future for the Jewish people. I stand here today as Israel's Prime Minister because my grandfather kept that promise.

So many other Israelis have a similar story: a parent or a grandparent who fled every conceivable oppression, and came to Israel to start a new life in our ancient homeland.

Together, we've transformed a bludgeoned Jewish people left for dead into a vibrant, thriving nation, defending itself with the courage of modern Maccabees, developing limitless possibilities for the future.

In our time, the biblical prophecies have been realized: As the prophet Amos said: They shall rebuild ruined cities and inhabit them,
They shall plant vineyards and drink their wine,
They shall till gardens and eat their fruit.
And I will plant them upon their soil, never to be uprooted again.

ושבתי את שבות עמי ישראל,
ובנו ערים נשמות ויישבו,
ונטעו כרמים ושתו את יינם,
ועשו גינות ואכלו את פרים,
ונטעתים על אדמתם ולא ינטשו עוד.

Ladies and Gentlemen,
The people of Israel have come home, never to be uprooted again.

Read More