I will not be blogging until probably Friday.
Don't OD on the cheesecake!
Tuesday, May 30, 2017
Chag sameach!
Wishing all my Jewish readers a chag sameach!
I will not be blogging until probably Friday.
Don't OD on the cheesecake!
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.
I will not be blogging until probably Friday.
Don't OD on the cheesecake!
05/30 Links Pt2: Glick: Sarsour and the progressive zeitgeist; Arabs planned to eliminate Israel in 6 Day War
From Ian:
Caroline Glick: Sarsour and the progressive zeitgeist
Caroline Glick: Sarsour and the progressive zeitgeist
In US academic tradition, university administrators choose commencement speakers they believe embody the zeitgeist of their institutions and as such, will be able to inspire graduating students to take that zeitgeist with them into the world outside.Ben-Dror Yemini: Arab leaders did plan to eliminate Israel in Six-Day War
In this context, it makes perfect sense that Ayman El-Mohandes, dean of the Graduate School of Public Health and Health Policy at City University of New York (CUNY), invited Linda Sarsour to serve as commencement speaker at his faculty’s graduation ceremony.
Sarsour embodies Mohandes’s values.
Mohandes’s Twitter feed makes his values clear. His Twitter feed is filled with attacks against Israel.
Mohandes indirectly accused Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of wishing to commit genocide. Netanyahu, he intimated, wishes to “throw the Arabs in the sea.”
He has repeatedly libeled Israel as a repressive, racist, corrupt state.
Mohandes has effectively justified and legitimized Islamic terrorism and the Hamas terrorist regime in Gaza. The Islamic terrorist assault against Israel, led by Hamas from Gaza, is simply an act of “desperation,” he insists.
By Mohandes’s lights, Hamas terrorists are desperate not because they uphold values and beliefs that reject freedom, oppress women and aspire to the genocide of Jewry and the destruction of the West. No, they are desperate because Israel is evil and oppressive.
During the 1967 war, Israel seized Egyptian and Jordanian operational documents with clear orders to annihilate the civil population. Nevertheless, different academics are distorting the facts in a bid to turn the Arabs into victims and Israel into an aggressor. Here’s the real story.Daniel Pipes: 6 days and 50 years
More than anything else, the Six-Day War has turned into a rewritten war. A sea of publications deal with what happened at the time. Gamal Abdel Nasser’s Egypt, the revisionists assert, had no ability to fight Israel, and anyway, he had no intention to do so.
It’s true that he made threats. It’s true that he sent more and more divisions to Sinai. It’s true that he expelled the United Nations observers. It’s true that he incited the masses in Arab countries. It’s true that the Arab regimes rattled their sabers and prepared for war. It’s true that he closed the Straits of Tiran. It’s true that Israel was besieged from its southern side. It’s true that this was a serious violation of international law. It’s true that it was a “casus belli” (a case of war).
All that doesn’t matter, however, because there is a mega-narrative that obligates the forces of progress to exempt the Arabs from responsibility and point the accusing finger at Israel. And when there is a narrative, who needs facts? After all, according to the mega-narrative, Israel had expansionist plans, so it seized the opportunity. Different scholars are distorting the facts in a bid to turn the Arabs into victims and Israel into an aggressor. (h/t Elder of Lobby)
Israel's military triumph over three enemy states in June 1967 was among the most successful wars in recorded history. The Six-Day War was also deeply consequential for the Middle East, establishing the permanence of the Jewish state, dealing a death-blow to pan-Arab nationalism, and (ironically) worsening Israel's status in the world because of its occupation of the West Bank and east Jerusalem.
Focusing on this last point: How did a grand battlefield victory translate into problems still tormenting Israel today?
First, because of rejectionism -- the refusal to accept anything Zionist dominates the Palestinian attitude toward Israel and renders Israeli concessions useless, even counterproductive. Rejectionism crystallized with Hajj Amin al-Husseini (1895-1974), a malign figure who dictated Palestinian politics from 1921 until his death. He so absolutely abhorred Zionism that he collaborated with Hitler and even had a key role in formulating the Final Solution. Husseini's legacy remains a powerful force in Palestinian life -- its latest manifestations include the "anti-normalization" and the boycott, divestment and sanctions movements. Assorted Israelis and do-gooders, however, ignore rejectionism and instead blame Israel's government for not making sufficient efforts.
Second, Israel faces a conundrum of geography and demography in the West Bank. Its strategists want to control the highlands, its nationalists want to build towns, and its religious want to possess Jewish holy sites; but Israel's continued ultimate rule over a West Bank population of 1.7 million mostly hostile Palestinians takes an immense toll both domestically and internationally. Various schemes to keep the land and defang an enemy people -- by integrating them, buying them off, dividing them, pushing them out or finding another ruler for them -- have all come to naught. Israelis are stuck in an unwanted role they cannot escape.
Third, the Israelis in 1967 took several unilateral steps vis-a-vis Jerusalem that created future time bombs: They vastly expanded its borders, annexed it, and offered optional Israeli citizenship to the city's Arab residents. This led to a long-term demographic and housing competition that the Palestinians are winning, jeopardizing the Jewish nature of the Jews' historic capital. Furthermore, 300,000 could at any time choose to apply for Israeli citizenship.
Iran ready to go back to funding Hamas (thanks to Obama!)
From Asharq al-Awsat:
Iran is holding meetings with Hamas and will allegedly resume its financial support for the organization, Palestinian sources said on Tuesday. Members of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards and senior Hezbollah figures were among those at the talks in Lebanon.Thanks, Obama! Iran can afford to return to its funding of the major Palestinian terror group (they never stopped funding Islamic Jihad.)
The move came after representatives from the Islamic Republic and the Palestinian terror group conducted intensive discussions in Lebanon over the last two weeks.
According to the sources, Iran and Hamas agreed to resume diplomatic relations to the level at which they were, before the Syrian civil war, when the sides broke off their close ties. It was also reported that Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh is expected to visit Tehran in the near future.
The agreement was supported by commander of IRGC’s al-Quds Brigades Kassam Soleimani, Ismail Haniyeh, and Hamas’ Gaza leader Yahya Sinwar.
Hamas reduced its staff and members by 30 percent including the Qassam Brigades because of difficult situations. Iran took advantage of Haniyeh’s elections as head of the organization to reinstate the relationship.
Iran supported Haniyeh reaching the leadership and didn’t support senior Hamas official Musa Abu Marzouk because of disagreements after Tehran accused Marzouk of falsifying truths when said that Iran was not transferring financial aid to Hamas or the Gaza Strip, and that relations between Hamas and Tehran were frozen.
Since the beginning, Iran was relying on Haniyeh’s diplomacy who leans towards reconciliation with Tehran unlike former leader Khalid Mashaal.
There is a small silver lining here.
This article in a pan-Arab newspaper refers to Hamas flatly as a "Palestinian terror group." Not a "resistance group," not even a "militant group." Asharq al Awsat uses the T word that Western news agencies are afraid to use.
Which means that Hamas has really lost the Sunni Muslim world.
05/30 Links Pt1: What not signing a Jerusalem embassy waiver would really mean; Terrorism Is Not Random
From Ian:
Eugene Kontorovich: What Trump not signing a Jerusalem embassy waiver would really mean
JCPA: The Psychological Profile of the Palestinian "Lone Wolf" Terrorist
Eugene Kontorovich: What Trump not signing a Jerusalem embassy waiver would really mean
On Thursday, President Barack Obama’s last waiver pursuant to the Jerusalem Embassy Act will expire. Absent a new waiver by President Trump, the provisions of the law will go into full effect. Trump promised during his campaign to move the embassy, a policy embodied both in federal law and the Republican Party platform. But since he came into office, Trump’s promise seems to have lost some momentum.Obama treated Israel ‘as part of the problem,’ says ex-envoy Oren. With Trump, ‘it’s love, love, love’
This piece will examine the mechanics of the Embassy Act waiver — it is not actually a waiver on moving the embassy. The details of the law make it a particularly convenient way for Trump to defy now-lowered expectations and not issue a waiver on June 1.
First, some context. Many commentators have sought to cast a possible Trump waiver as proof that Obama’s Israeli policy is really the only possible game in town. But whether or not a waiver is issued, Trump has succeeded in fundamentally changing the discussion about the U.S.-Israel relationship. Waivers under the 1995 act come twice a year, and for the past two decades, they have hardly warranted a news item. Under the Bush and Obama administrations, they were entirely taken for granted.
Now everyone is holding his or her breath to see whether Trump will sign the waiver. If he does, it will certainly be a disappointment to his supporters. But it will not be the end of the show — he will have seven more waivers ahead, with mounting pressure as his term progresses. Under Obama, speculation focused on what actions he would take or allow against Israel (and even these waited until very late in his second term).
The waiver available to the president under the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995 does not waive the obligation to move the embassy. That policy has been fully adopted by Congress in the Act (sec. 3(a)(3)) and is not waivable. Of course, Congress cannot simply order the president to implement such a move, especially given his core constitutional power over diplomatic relations.
But Congress, having total power over the spending of taxpayer dollars, does not have to pay for an embassy in Tel Aviv. The Act’s enforcement mechanism is to suspend half of the appropriated funds for the State Department’s “Acquisition and Maintenance of Buildings Abroad” until the law’s terms are complied with. The waiver provision simply allows the president to waive the financial penalty.
What this means is that by not signing a waiver, Trump would not actually be requiring the embassy to move to Jerusalem, moving the embassy or recognizing Jerusalem. That could give him significant diplomatic flexibility or deniability if June 1 goes by with mere silence from the White House.
As a noted historian, former Israeli ambassador to the United States and current Knesset member, Michael Oren has been grappling with the question of how Israel should be presented to the world for years.
Last year, shortly before being appointed deputy minister for public diplomacy, Oren was invited for a meeting with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to discuss just that.
“Delegitimization, the Boycott, Divest and Sanctions movement… What are we doing wrong? What could we be doing to present Israel better?” Oren, speaking to a crowded auditorium of English-speaking Israelis at a Times of Israel event Sunday night, recalled Netanyahu asking him.
Oren said he told the prime minister that he believed Israel was fighting the war of words with the wrong weapons. While “the other side” has a simple narrative peppered with buzzwords like “occupation,” “colonialism,” “oppression,” and “apartheid,” Israel, according to Oren, had yet to work out how to present a succinct and salient argument to counter its critics. Israel was falling behind in the battle for hearts and minds because it has not succeeded in creating a positive counter-narrative, Oren argued.
Tasked by Netanyahu with forming that narrative, Oren at first approached public relations experts, he recounted, but soon realized that traditional PR methods were the wrong approach to hasbara, or pro-Israel advocacy.
JCPA: The Psychological Profile of the Palestinian "Lone Wolf" Terrorist
A series of psychological measures was administered to Palestinian residents of a refugee camp as well as a neighboring village, with subjects asked to rate both themselves as well as how they imagined actual perpetrators of "lone wolf" violence would see themselves. Our sample included many in both groups who actually knew "lone wolves." Our goal was to construct a psychological profile of the young Palestinian "lone wolf" based on the descriptions of those who knew him or her best, namely peers.
We found distinct differences between the Al-Aroub refugee camp and the nearby village of Beit Ummar. The Beit Ummar subjects saw themselves no less "nationalistic" regarding the rights of Palestinians than they saw terror operatives being, while at the same time were more tolerant of Jewish rights and less tolerant of violent behavior towards Jews.
The refugee camp residents appear to have more closely identified with those that perpetrate attacks, while Beit Ummar residents see themselves as more psychologically intact, less hopeless, less violent in school settings and more moderate in their beliefs related to incitement. We found that many Palestinian Arabs see the "lone wolves" as psychologically distressed individuals who are not solely driven by ideology.
What is the Potential of an Israeli-Arab Child? (Forest Rain)
Little one looks at
me, clutching her mother’s hand.
She knows I don’t belong
in her village.
Does she know I am a Jew?
I don't know.
Something in my
clothes or possibly the way I was standing declares to her that I do not
belong.
She doesn’t know if
this is good, bad or indifferent.
Her family knows I
am a Jew. They say nothing. It wouldn’t be polite. Obviously, someone had
invited me, there is no way that I would be at the wedding by accident. I
wasn't bothering them so it was not necessary to acknowledge me.
Little one stared.
She couldn't help herself and no one told her not to.
Hesitation in her
eyes it seems she is considering, "Is this lady nice? Can we be
friends?" I smiled at her and her smile grew in return. Not a full smile
but a half smile, as if hoping but unsure.
When she grows
older, will she learn to hate me?
Will her parents teach
her to be a proud Israeli-Arab-Muslim?
Or will they teach her that she is a victim ‘Palestinian’? That she can only attain pride when the Jews are gone?
The eyes of
this little one speak of potential. I look at her and see both the possibility
of greatness and, the flipside, the potential for nothingness, stagnation,
anger and hate.
It all depends
on what she is taught.
You have to
be taught to hate. Preferably before you are six, or seven or eight.
It doesn’t come naturally, you have to be carefully taught.
“What do you want to be little one? A doctor? A lawyer? A scientist? An artist? You can be anything you want, if you work hard enough and take advantage of the opportunities this country, your country, Israel offers you.”
“Freedom and
opportunity are yours by right of birth in this unique land. Grasp it and use
it! It is your choice, what do you want? To grow or to stagnate? To achieve or
complain? Walk in gratitude or anger? Do you realize that you are blessed
beyond the wildest dreams of anyone in our neighboring countries and most
places around the world?”
“And your
neighbors? We can live side by side, little one. Maybe, one day, I can come celebrate your
wedding too.”
That is the
truth, but is that what she will be taught? I don’t know. What I know is that
those who choose what to teach this little one shape not only her future but mine
as well.
Saying "50-year occupation" without mentioning Khartoum is knowingly deceptive
There are lots of articles being published in recent and upcoming weeks about the Six Day War and its legacy.
Any article that talks about "occupation" and "colonialism" and all the other evils that are ascribed to Israel, that do not mention the Khartoum Resolution of September 1, 1967, is an example of deceit.
The main paragraph of the Khartoum Resolution said:
The Arab Heads of State have agreed to unite their political efforts at the international and diplomatic level to eliminate the effects of the aggression and to ensure the withdrawal of the aggressive Israeli forces from the Arab lands which have been occupied since the aggression of June 5. This will be done within the framework of the main principles by which the Arab States abide, namely, no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with it, and insistence on the rights of the Palestinian people in their own country.That last sentence means "destroy Israel," by the way. It was not referring to the territories in any way. Nobody at all demanded a Palestinian state in the territories in 1967.
As Michael Oren writes in an abbreviated history of the Six Day War published on Sunday:
A month after the war, Israel formally annexed East Jerusalem, but it also offered to return almost all of land captured from Syria and Egypt in exchange for peace.I don't think that returning the lands would have been a good idea, but the fact is that Israel did offer land for peace - a much more generous offer than the Palestinian Arabs are likely to ever receive.
The Arabs responded with “the three noes”: no negotiations, no recognition, no peace.
And the Arab leaders said "no."
Who can blame Israel for holding onto a small percentage of the territory it won in a defensive war, on a front where it warned its enemy to stay out of the fighting to no avail? Where the alternative is a state that is only nine-miles wide that is literally indefensible?
But Israel did make the foolhardy offer. And the Arabs responded that they would prefer war to peace - an attitude that the Palestinian Arabs have maintained and demonstrated very bloodily on multiple occasions, most notably in 2001 but also by encouraging the more recent "knife intifada."
If someone thinks that "occupation" is the ultimate evil and doesn't have a word to say about the Arab leaders' decision to reject peace in exchange for virtually all the land Israel gained in 1967, then that person doesn't care about "occupation" or peace - they support the old Arab genocidal attitude towards Jews in the Middle East.
"Wonder Woman" to be banned in Lebanon?
YNet reported yesterday that the Lebanese BDS campaign to ban the "Wonder Woman" movie because it stars Israeli Gal Gadot was unsuccessful.
It may have been premature.
From the Daily Star Lebanon, today:
Highly anticipated DC Comics American superhero film “Wonder Woman” will be banned in Lebanon, the state-run National News Agency reported Monday.But it isn't quite over. Arab News reports:
The movie’s casting, with the superhero played by Israeli actress Gal Gadot, prompted the Ministry of Economy and Commerce “to take necessary measures” to prevent the film’s screening in the country.
The ban is in alignment with Lebanon’s attempts to boycott supporters of Israel and Israeli-affiliated businesses.
According to a circulated information poster released by the ministry, on Monday it “prepared a directive for the General Directorate of Public Security to take the necessary measures to prevent the screening of this film.”
However, despite stirring up a social media frenzy, the reported ban has yet to be enforced and when contacted by Arab News, a representative of one cinema chain in Lebanon — who spoke on condition of anonymity — said that a premiere screening has been planned for Tuesday evening, pending an official announcement.
Significantly, the Saudi-based Arab News includes the trailer for the film in its article.
Last year, Lebanese boycotters attempted to ban "Batman v. Superman" where Gadot's character was introduced, but apparently that was not successful.
Someone Should Tell Hamas -- And The UN -- That There Is No Legal Right To Destroy Israel "By All Means Necessary" (Daled Amos)
In its new General Principles and Policies, Hamas proclaims:
Resisting the occupation with all means and methods is a legitimate right guaranteed by divine laws and by international norms and laws. At the heart of these lies armed resistance, which is regarded as the strategic choice for protecting the principles and the rights of the Palestinian people.This is actually something new for Hamas that is not found in the actual Hamas Covenant.
But the claim that the Palestinian Arabs have a right under international law to "resist" Israel "with all means and methods" -- implying including the targeting of civilians as well, is not specific to Hamas terrorists.
This latitude was already made in a 2004 post on the Electronic Intifada website by John Sigler, Palestine: Legitimate Armed Resistance vs. Terrorism:
However, among these legal forms of violence there is also the right to use force in the struggle for “liberation from colonial and foreign domination”. To quote United Nations General Assembly Resolution A/RES/33/24 of 29 November 1978:Electronic Intifada also notes that the United Nations applies this concept to the Palestinian Arabs, and goes one step further:
“2. Reaffirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available means, particularly armed struggle;”
This justification for legitimate armed resistance has been specifically applied to the Palestinian struggle repeatedly. To quote General Assembly Resolution A/RES/3246 (XXIX) of 29 November 1974:Sigler does make 2 concessions:
3. Reaffirms the legitimacy of the peoples’ struggle for liberation form colonial and foreign domination and alien subjugation by all available means, including armed struggle; [emphasis added]…
7. Strongly condemns all Governments which do not recognize the right to self-determination and independence of peoples under colonial and foreign domination and alien subjugation, notably the peoples of Africa and the Palestinian people;
o He admits that General Assembly Resolutions do not have the force of law, though he then goes on to claim, "when they [UNGA resolutions] address legal issues they do accurately reflect the customary international legal opinion among the majority of the world’s sovereign states." (Keep in mind that international law is not decided by a poll of countries)
o Sigler also will agree that civilians are off-limits. (Pity that Hamas do not make that distinction and that most of their targets actually are civilian, not military)
 |
| United Nations. Credit: Neptuul, Wikipedia |
One problem -- with both Sigler's and the United Nations approach -- is that the language adopted in the resolutions do not apply.
To claim that the Jewish State of Israel constitutes "colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation" ignores the fact that Jews are indigenous to the land and have been living there uninterruptedly for over 3,000 years. Since when is a people with historical, cultural, and religious ties to the land considered "colonial" or "foreign"? When archaeologists uncover finds that reveal the earlier history of the land, it is the history of the Jews -- not the Arabs. The name "Jew" comes from Judea, while the Arabs come from and are indigenous to Arabia.
But there is another issue here: since when does the United Nations sanction violence?
Article 1 of the United Nations Charter clearly states that its purpose is
To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;Article 33 adds
The parties to any dispute, the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, shall, first of all, seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice.Nowhere does the charter say that in the event that you just cannot resolve your differences -- go ahead and have at it.
 |
| The aftermath of a bus bombing in Haifa in 2003. Credit: Wikipedia, B. Železník |
This discrepancy between these language of the UN resolutions and its original charter is the point made by Joshua Muravchik in The UN and Israel: A History of Discrimination. Muravchik sheds light on some of the history behind those UN resolutions that Electronic Intifada quotes. On the UN apparent sanctioning of violence, Muravchik writes:
This stance, which contradicts the UN Charter, originated in the struggles for African independence and then was carried over to the Arab-Israel conflict. In the 1960s, the General Assembly passed several resolutions regarding Portugal’s colonies and the white-ruled states of southern Africa, affirming “the legitimacy of the struggle of the colonial peoples to exercise their right to self-determination and independence” (e.g., Resolution 2548). In 1970, an important modification was added in the phrase “by all the necessary means at their disposal” (Resolution 2708).From Portuguese territories to Israel is a slippery slope.
The PLO, backed by the Arab states and the Islamic Conference, was to cite this language as sanctioning its deliberate attacks on civilians. In his famous speech to the General Assembly, Arafat claimed that “the difference between the revolutionary and the terrorist lies in the reason for which each fights. Whoever stands by a just cause?.?.?.?cannot possibly be called [a] terrorist.”
Just a week after Arafat’s appearance, the General Assembly affirmed “the right of the Palestinian people to regain its rights by all means” (Resolution 3236). Any ambiguity in this phrase was wiped away in a 1982 resolution that lumped the Palestinian case together with lingering cases of white rule in southern Africa and affirmed “the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples against foreign occupation by all available means, including armed struggle” (Resolution 37/43). Since the Palestinians were engaged neither in conventional nor even, for the most part, guerrilla war with Israel, but rather a campaign of bombings and murders aimed at civilian targets, this is what was meant by “armed struggle.” [emphasis added]
Leave it to the UN to go from UN Resolution 3236 recognizing "the right of the Palestinian people to regain its rights by all means in accordance with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations" to using all available means, including armed struggle.
The bottom line is that just as there is no unalienable right of the remaining Palestinian Arab refugees to return, neither is there a right under international law to allow Palestinian Arab to violently attack Israelis.
Monday, May 29, 2017
Arabs chanting anti-Israel slogans at Hebrew Ul; counter-protesters with Israeli flags banned
Unreal. This isn't Ramallah but Hebrew University in Jerusalem.
(h/t Yoel)
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.
(h/t Yoel)
05/29 Links Pt2: Jewish Voice for Peace’s Hidden Agenda; Israeli govt: UN has broken the law in Jerusalem
From Ian:
Jewish Voice for Peace’s Hidden Agenda
Israeli government admits: UN has broken the law in Jerusalem
Jewish Voice for Peace’s Hidden Agenda
A Jewish Voice for Peace demonstration. Photo: Twitter.When starting a political movement, choosing the right name is perhaps the most important step. We tend to make snap decisions about whether or not to support an organization based on what its name implies. The danger, of course, is that an organization can misrepresent itself with false connotations.Jewish Voice for Peace internet ad supported failed Palestinian terrorist hunger strike
Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) has done just that, because the group does not represent the views of most Jews — and it does not stand for peace.
While their name may sound innocent and upstanding, JVP seeks to delegitimize and demonize the State of Israel through the use of double standards and false allegations. JVP is also an avid supporter of the Boycott, Divest, and Sanction (BDS) movement, which attempts to harm, isolate and weaken Israel — the only Jewish state in the world, and the only democracy in the Middle East.
A more accurate name for the group would be Jewish Voice for Palestine — because it seems that JVP truly opposes the existence of a Jewish homeland. This year, the group even went so far as to invite Rasmea Odeh as the guest of honor at their National Membership Meeting. Odeh is a convicted terrorist who murdered two Israeli college students in 1969 by planting a bomb in a supermarket in Jerusalem. An organization that supports terrorists cannot claim that they also support peace.
Only hardcore anti-Israel activists in the West seemed to care, like Jewish Voice for Peace.
JVP, which also was one of the biggest supporters of convicted supermarket bomber and immigration fraudster Rasmea Odeh, was all in for Barghouti, including helping organize protests and petitions.
Very little that JVP does surprises me any more given their obsessive demonization of Israel, enabling of anti-Semitism by providing Jewish cover, and twisting of Jewish holidays into anti-Israel events.
I was surprised, though, to find a JVP pop-up ad supporting Barghouti at the left-wing Israeli Haaretz website (the image below is a pop-up ad screenshot from my phone when visiting the Haaretz home page on May 26, 2017)
Israeli government admits: UN has broken the law in Jerusalem
After repeated delays, the state finally responded Sunday to the request for an interim injunction filed by Regavim against the illegal construction carried out by the UN at the Government House in the Armon Hanatziv neighborhood.
The state admitted for the first time that the extensive construction activity there, including works to preserve the historic buildings in the compound, as well as the construction of additional illegal structures in the compound, were carried out without permits. "The planning and building laws of the State of Israel apply to the compound and to the works that are the object of the petition, and the UN is expected to act in accordance with the principles of the relevant planning and building laws."
In a petition submitted by the Regavim movement to the Jerusalem District Court two months ago, it was revealed that the United Nations had committed a large number of building offenses during the past year, in a site registered in the Land Registry in the name of the State of Israel.
The state expressed its opposition to issuing an interim injunction prohibiting continued construction of the compound, since the UN enjoys immunity from prosecution and legal action against it.
The State noted that "if there are differences between the State of Israel and the United Nations on this issue, they should be brought to a solution through diplomatic channels" and detailed the contacts held by the Foreign Ministry over the past few weeks with relevant UN officials in Israel and New York.
World's leading sponsor of terror says "Israel is a threat to humanity."
From Iran's Farsnews:
Iranian Parliament Speaker Ali Larijani warned against the rising threat of the Israeli regime to the mankind.These are the people who make videos literally threatening to drop an atomic bomb on Israel.
"The racist and aggressive spirit of the Zionist regime has always been and will be a threat to both humanity and the regional nations," Larijani said in a message to Hezbollah, Secretary General Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah on Monday.
The Iranian parliament speaker, meantime, pointed to the axis of resistance, and said, "Integration and unity among different Lebanese groups will bring a promising future for the Lebanese people and the Islamic Resistance."
Larijani reiterated that the Islamic Ummah can achieve its goals only through resistance and solidarity.
CUNY role model Linda Sarsour in her own words (Petra Marquardt-Bigman)
On June 1, the City University of New York (CUNY) will honor
Linda Sarsour by hosting her as a speaker at the commencement ceremony of the
CUNY Graduate School of Public Health and Health Policy. While Sarsour has been
described
as “an arsonist in our midst,” criticism of the decision to invite the
controversial activist was firmly rejected
by CUNY chancellor James B. Milliken, who wrote that Sarsour was chosen “because
of her involvement in public health issues in New York City and her position as
a leader on women’s issues, including her role as co-chair of the recent
Women’s March in Washington.” The chancellor also highlighted that “Ms. Sarsour
has been recognized by President Obama at the White House as a ‘Champion of
Change’ and was recently named one of Time magazine’s 100 leaders and Fortune
magazine’s 50 global leaders.”
In short, as far as CUNY is concerned, it is fully justified
to ignore all criticism of Sarsour and to present her as a role model for the
university’s graduates.
As Michael D. Cohen of the Simon Wiesenthal Center
acknowledged when he recently denounced Sarsour as “an arsonist in our midst,”
she is “a brilliant tactician who manipulates the media to gain attention and
sympathy for her cause.” One might add that the media love to be manipulated
by her, without asking tough questions about what exactly Sarsour’s “cause” is
and how she pursues it.
During one of the recent controversies, Sarsour declared
that she wants to be judged by her own words, but it is abundantly clear that
she also wants people to ignore plenty of her own words that actually tell us a
lot about Sarsour’s “cause” and her activism.
So let’s look at a small sample of those of Sarsour’s own
words that are arguably very revealing, even though she will lash out at
anybody who quotes them to her.
Indeed, Sarsour was recently recorded berating
a student who asked her about her notorious
tweet from 2011, when she declared that prominent women’s right activist
Ayaan Hirsi Ali and strident Islam critic Brigitte Gabriel “don’t deserve to be
women;” therefore, Sarsour wished she “could take their vaginas away.” If we
take Sarsour’s response to the student who asked about this tweet seriously,
White men (capital W, please!) have no business being disturbed by her vile
outburst – an answer that reflects the divisive identity politics Sarsour often
employs
when it suits her, while calling for unity and solidarity when this seems more
opportune.
But as the Dartmouth students who enthusiastically applauded
Sarsour’s put-down of their impertinent White male fellow student illustrated,
many people are all too willing to ignore an obscene six-year-old tweet posted
when Sarsour was almost 31 – not, as she falsely claimed, in her twenties.
Moreover, in spring 2011, Sarsour reportedly
already served as director of the Arab American Association of New York; she
was also about to be named “a fellow at the NYU Wagner Graduate School of
Public Service Women of Color Policy Network” and boasted about her excellent
access to the Obama administration.
And soon enough, Sarsour would also boast about being
victorious over Hirsi Ali. In fall 2012, Sarsour was still jealously wondering “What does Ayaan Hirsi Ali got
that I ain’t got? Front page covers and shit. #MuslimRage;” but by the spring
of 2014, Sarsour was able to celebrate a blow against her nemesis, and she jubilantly
announced on Twitter: “Online activism
WINS again. @BrandeisU does the right thing and rescinds honorary degree 2
hatemonger Ayaan Hirsi Ali;” she also added:
“Hats off 2 @BrandeisU 4 rescinding honorary degree 2 Ayaan Hirsi Ali. U have
restored integrity of your institution;” and she thanked the university’s president: “Thank
you @PresidentFred for making the right choice today and rescinding honorary
degree to Ayaan Hirsi Ali. We are all very grateful.”
Isn’t it deeply ironic that CUNY would so strongly defend
its decision to honor Sarsour who celebrated so enthusiastically when she and
other activists succeeded in denying a similar honor to Ayaan Hirsi Ali?
Sarsour’s “#MuslimRage” was apparently not diminished by the
fact that Hirsi Ali established a foundation that has been
working since 2007 “to end honor violence [including Female Genital Mutilation]
that shames, hurts or kills thousands of women and girls in the US each year,
and puts millions more at risk;” the foundation also promotes “the belief that
there is no culture, tradition or religion that justifies violence against
women and girls.”
But very different from Hirsi Ali, Sarsour is eager to
defend the conservative traditions of Muslim societies, even when they are
clearly harmful to women. Sarsour has asserted
that “shariah law is reasonable,” ignoring the widespread
and well-documented
human rights abuses committed
in Muslim majority states in the name of sharia.
Sarsour has even gone so far as to praise
Saudi Arabia – where women are completely dependent
on the whims of their male guardians: “10 weeks of PAID maternity leave in
Saudi Arabia. Yes PAID. And ur worrying about women driving. Puts us to shame.”
Since Sarsour often emphasizes her Palestinian Muslim
identity, it is also interesting to note how Palestinians view sharia. As documented in a Pew survey from 2013, 89% of Palestinians want sharia
law; 66% endorse the death penalty for Muslims who convert to another religion;
76% support mutilation as a punishment for theft, and a shocking 84% want
adulterers stoned to death. The survey also shows that less than half (about
45%) of Palestinian Muslims reject so-called “honor killings” as never
justified, and 87% insist that a wife must always obey her husband.
Given that CUNY has explicitly stated that they want to
honor Sarsour as a “leader on women’s issues,” it is also noteworthy that she
has repeatedly defended arranged marriages like her own, in which her parents married
her off at the age of 17. In late 2007, Sarsour told Al
Arabiya News: “Every year, we see more than a hundred arranged marriages in
our community alone […] In our community […] you not only have to find a spouse
who is Arab and Muslim; that person also needs to be Palestinian and from the
same village as you.” According to the reporter, “Women like Linda accept being
set-up because they don’t really believe in ‘love story weddings’.” And as
Sarsour reportedly added to explain the benefits of arranged marriages: “If I
fight with my husband, I can always run to my father because he is the one who
chose him for me.”
But Sarsour has also defended the practice recently: in an interview
with the Mecca Post on March 8, 2017, which begins with a related
question, Sarsour answered by asserting: “I feel I have become mature much
earlier in life than may be other sisters who are still in high school or in
college.”
Well, maybe CUNY should start a “Sarsour Program for
Arranged Marriages” to benefit female students in their last year of high
school?
The Mecca Post interview with Sarsour includes also
plenty of other interesting material. She dismisses her critics as “right wing
supremacists” who “engaged in alternative facts and false accusations” and
asserts that “there really is nothing that they said that really is true.” She
also confidently claims Jesus was “a Palestinian Jewish refugee” who is “very
co-essential to us Muslims” but misunderstood by many “who call themselves
Christians.” She then proceeds to press Islam’s founder into the service of her
agenda, breathlessly describing Muhammad as her “inspiration”:
“he was an activist he was a human
rights activist, he stood up for the poor, he wanted to stand up against
tyrants and oppressors, he loved animals he loved earth and taking care of the
earth, he talked about environmental justice […] He talked about racial
justice, and uplifting people regardless of what colour their skin was. […] I
also think about Islamophobia now, the man who experienced the most
Islamophobia they did not call it Islamophobia 1400 years ago was our beloved
Prophet (SAW).”
One really is left to wonder if Sarsour is too naïve to
realize that if she transforms Islam’s founder into a 21st century social
justice warrior, she ultimately legitimizes those who employ the norms of our
time to denounce him for his marriage to an underage girl (which was then
common and unfortunately remains
accepted in some countries); similarly, by the standards of our time, the
supremely successful warlord,
who founded not just a faith, but also an empire, committed numerous
atrocities.
But when it comes to anything that has to do with Islam,
Sarsour is an ardent advocate of double standards. She will denounce Hirsi Ali
as a “hatemonger” while uncritically embracing a group like the Nation of Islam
(NOI), which, according
to the the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), “has maintained a consistent record of
anti-Semitism and racism since its founding in the 1930s.” The ADL considers
veteran NOI leader Louis Farrakhan as “the leading anti-Semite in America;” the
Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) provided a similarly unequivocal condemnation, denouncing “the
deeply racist, anti-Semitic and anti-gay rhetoric” of Farrakhan and other NOI
leaders, whose conduct “earned the NOI a prominent position in the ranks of
organized hate.”
Yet, in 2012, Sarsour embraced
the NOI as “an integral part” of “the history of Islam in America,” emphasizing that “Sunni, Shia, Sufi, Nation
of Islam - we are #Muslim, we are all part of one ummah, one family. #Islam.”
Two years later, Sarsour insisted that it
was not possible to “learn or teach about the history of Islam in America
without talking about the Nation of Islam (NOI).”
As I have recently documented,
Sarsour joined two other leading activists at a major rally organized by
Farrakhan and his associates in 2015, where she delivered a strident speech
that echoed Farrakhan’s antisemitic efforts to blame Jews for problems and
hardships experienced by African-Americans. Sarsour also seems to share
some of Farrakhan’s bigoted views on the malignant Jewish influence in America,
even though she often claims that she firmly opposes antisemitism. In this
context it is important to realize that Sarsour apparently does not accept
common definitions of antisemitism and has instead endorsed (#73) the truly Orwellian
re-definition that veteran anti-Israel activist Ali Abunimah published
in fall 2012, reflecting his preposterous
view that Zionism is “one of the worst forms of anti-Semitism in existence
today” and that support for Zionism “is
not atonement for the Holocaust, but its continuation in spirit.”
Perhaps CUNY doesn’t care much about Sarsour’s pronounced
hostility to the world’s only Jewish state, but one would think they should
care about this scene which happened in New York and was witnessed
by Michael D. Cohen of the Simon Wiesenthal Center:
“Last September, I stood along with
many of my colleagues at a New York City Council Public Hearing on that body’s
resolution to officially condemn the BDS movement — a hearing at which all
those in favor, including myself, were shouted down as “Jewish pigs” and
“Zionist filth” from provocateurs strategically placed in the audience. It was
Linda Sarsour who was at the forefront — manipulating the camera shots and
sound bites. It was Linda Sarsour who sat for hours listening with great
satisfaction to the libelous rants and screamed obscenities alleging that
Israelis murder Palestinian babies. It was Sarsour who nodded approvingly and
congratulated individuals who were kicked out of the hearing room for being out
of order, for walking in front of individuals providing testimony in support of
the resolution, and for shouting down our supporters with anti-Semitic slurs —
all in the name of protecting free speech.”
So much more material could be cited to show how little
Sarsour deserves to be held up as a role model for graduates of a respected
American university, but let me just conclude with this: when Sarsour addresses
her audience at the commencement ceremony of the CUNY Graduate School of Public
Health and Health Policy and says she is honored to do so, remember that she
also recently
said she was “honored” to share a stage with convicted
terrorist murderer and confessed
US immigration fraudster Rasmea Odeh.
05/29 Links Pt1: Incentivizing Terrorism; Corbyn attended terror conference after honouring Munich killer
From Ian:
JCPA: Incentivizing Terrorism: Palestinian Authority Allocations to Terrorists and their Families
Corbyn attended terror conference after honouring Munich killer
JCPA: Incentivizing Terrorism: Palestinian Authority Allocations to Terrorists and their Families
The PA maintains longstanding legislation and payments to subsidize terrorists and their families. This amounts to an officially sanctioned PA government incentive system to kill Israelis. When I learned of this in November 2015, I was quite shocked. I proceeded to raise the issue with organized American Jewish community leaders and Israeli policymakers, and was told “everybody knows.” Disconcerted by my own lack of knowledge, I canvassed numerous American political leaders who, without exception, were unaware of the PA legislation/budget. The few leaders who were aware that the PA directly pays terrorists thought that the funding was only $5-6 million; they were shocked to learn that according to the official PA budget online, it was $300 million for 2016.Palestinians paid terrorists $1b in past 4 years, Knesset panel hears
During the past year, the prevailing opinion was that the wave of knifers against Israelis consisted of young and disaffected “lone wolves.” As I examined the issue more closely, I realized that the “incitement” is much more than just an errant cleric or wayward school board, but rather is an institutional campaign of violence against Israel, coordinated and funded by the PA itself. This “struggle” or war is endorsed by the Palestinian leadership, as evidenced by their 2004 legislation specifying, “The prisoners and released prisoners are a fighting sector and integral part of the fabric of Arab Palestinian society.” PA budget line items are earmarked for funding prisoners, released prisoners, and families of “martyrs.”
Brig.-Gen. Yossi Kuperwasser, my friend, led a distinguished career as an IDF intelligence officer at the most senior level, as well as a brilliant strategist, most recently serving as Director General of the Ministry of Strategic Affairs. In this study, he accurately presents the history and current state of the PA legislation/budget for terror, as well as policy recommendations.
The Palestinian Authority has paid out some NIS 4 billion — or $1.12 billion — over the past four years to terrorists and their families, a former director general of the Ministry of Strategic Affairs and ex-head of the army’s intelligence and research division told a top Knesset panel on Monday.
Setting out the figures, Brig.-Gen (res.) Yossi Kuperwasser told the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee that the longer the period for which a Palestinian security prisoner is jailed, “the higher the salary… Anyone who has sat in prison for more than 30 years gets NIS 12,000 ($3,360) per month,” said Kuperwasser, according to the (Hebrew) NRG website. “When they’re released, they get a grant and are promised a job at the Palestinian Authority. They get a military rank that’s determined according to the number of years they’ve served in jail.”
Kuperwasser also told the committee that PA claims that the payments to terrorists’ families are social welfare benefits to the needy are false. The Palestinians’ own budgetary documents, he said, “clearly state that these are salaries and not welfare payments.”
Kuperwasser was briefing MKs days after US President Donald Trump visited Israel and held talks with PA President Mahmoud Abbas in Bethlehem. In an apparent public upbraiding of Abbas over the payments, Trump told him at their joint press conference: “Peace can never take root in an environment where violence is tolerated, funded or rewarded.”
Corbyn attended terror conference after honouring Munich killer
Yesterday Jeremy Corbyn told Sky News he was “searching for peace” when he honoured a Palestinian terrorist involved in the Munich massacre. He was looking in some odd places…
Guido can reveal the next stop on Jezza’s 2014 Tunisia trip. After the wreath-laying ceremony, Corbyn attended a conference of Palestinian terrorists in Tunis. In his own words, the future Labour leader recalled hearing speeches from Hamas and the PFLP:
“The conference… heard opening speeches from Palestinian groups including… Hamas, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine”
Hamas is a proscribed terrorist organisation. The PFLP is a murderous terror group – also proscribed by the UK government – which has killed large numbers of civilians in bombings and armed attacks and aeroplane hijackings. In an article for the Morning Star, Corbyn described the conference as a “special event” and praised the “shared agenda and endeavour” and “the unity between all Palestinian factions”.
Corbyn also praised a speech given at the conference by Ramsey Clark, the lawyer of Slobodan Milosevic and Radovan Karadzic. Clark famously said that “History will prove Milosevic was right”. Corbyn praised his speech at the conference as “very poignant and much appreciated”. Worth noting that Corbyn has also previously defended Milosevic.
A food truck in Portland is the latest Arab target for "appropriating" falafel
There is a highly amusing article in Al Khaleej Online sputtering against the success of IDF Arab spokesperson Avichay Adreaee, who has over a million followers in the Arab world.
Adraee has wished his Muslim fans a happy Ramadan, and has discussed various Ramadan TC programs on his Facebook page. He also showed this photo of Israeli Arab soldiers in one of his Ramadan posts.
All of this is Israeli propaganda falsely portraying Israel's respect for diversity, the article sputters, saying that everyone knows that Israel is anti-Muslim and massacres Palestinians.
"It seems that Avichay Adraee represents a new type of Israeli propaganda that is more professional and sophisticated, especially with its publications on social networking sites with pictures and videos that have been professionally produced, by experts, all considered part of modern psychological warfare" complains the newspaper.
Then the article goes off on a tangent, first complaining that Adraee encourages his readers to eat Middle Eastern foods like falafel and hummus, and then saying that Israelis have stolen these dishes.
And then, it gives an example: Gonzo's food truck in Portland, Oregon.
I don't think there is a truck anymore; Gonzo's Israeli owner, Tal Caspi, has now gone more mainstream.
But his webpage doesn't say the word "Israel" at all! He positions his foods as "Middle Eastern." One of his menu items is called a "Kibbuts Egg." That's it.
It is entirely possible that Caspi deliberately downplays the Israeli part of his food because of the leftist, anti-Israel atmosphere of Portland. But it is clear that the animosity that the Arab world has towards a tiny food truck in Portland has nothing to do with its "cultural appropriation" and everything to do with the fact that the very politically correct owner of the enterprise is Israeli.
His food is not certified kosher, unfortunately.
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.
Adraee has wished his Muslim fans a happy Ramadan, and has discussed various Ramadan TC programs on his Facebook page. He also showed this photo of Israeli Arab soldiers in one of his Ramadan posts.
All of this is Israeli propaganda falsely portraying Israel's respect for diversity, the article sputters, saying that everyone knows that Israel is anti-Muslim and massacres Palestinians.
"It seems that Avichay Adraee represents a new type of Israeli propaganda that is more professional and sophisticated, especially with its publications on social networking sites with pictures and videos that have been professionally produced, by experts, all considered part of modern psychological warfare" complains the newspaper.
Then the article goes off on a tangent, first complaining that Adraee encourages his readers to eat Middle Eastern foods like falafel and hummus, and then saying that Israelis have stolen these dishes.
And then, it gives an example: Gonzo's food truck in Portland, Oregon.
I don't think there is a truck anymore; Gonzo's Israeli owner, Tal Caspi, has now gone more mainstream.
But his webpage doesn't say the word "Israel" at all! He positions his foods as "Middle Eastern." One of his menu items is called a "Kibbuts Egg." That's it.
It is entirely possible that Caspi deliberately downplays the Israeli part of his food because of the leftist, anti-Israel atmosphere of Portland. But it is clear that the animosity that the Arab world has towards a tiny food truck in Portland has nothing to do with its "cultural appropriation" and everything to do with the fact that the very politically correct owner of the enterprise is Israeli.
His food is not certified kosher, unfortunately.
Israel offering money to Arab schools is denounced as a "heinous crime"
From Haaretz:
The cabinet on Sunday approved a plan to financially induce Arab East Jerusalem schools to switch from the Palestinian curriculum to the Israeli one, as proposed by Education Minister Naftali Bennett and Jerusalem Affairs and Heritage Minister Zeev Elkin.
“The purpose of this five-year plan is to improve the quality of education in East Jerusalem, with an emphasis on encouraging the study of the Israeli curriculum in the schools,” the Education Ministry statement said. “This is part of an effort to improve the quality of life and the environment in the Arab neighborhoods of Jerusalem, and to enhance the ability of East Jerusalem residents to integrate into the Israeli economy and society, and thus strengthen the economic and social resilience of the entire capital.”
A source involved in the plan in the Education Ministry said, “The Israeli curriculum and the Israeli bagrut is a choice, it’s not required. Anyone who isn’t interested won’t join up. Whoever does join the Israeli curriculum, whether it’s an elementary school or a high school, will get economic incentives like extra teaching hours and curricular hours, an educational envelope, without undermining what was already there. Whoever was teaching the Palestinian curriculum and received X amount of funding will continue to receive it, with the additional budget that will be allocated to the Israeli curriculum.”
Meaning that if Arab schools choose not to adhere to the new curriculum, they don't have to.
But that's not how the PA is reporting this.
Here is their hysterical, lying, over-the-top reaction :
The [Palestinian] Ministry of Education and Higher Education voiced extreme disapproval and rejection of "Israel"s attempt to impose a project aimed at the Judaization of educational curricula in Jerusalem, especially after the announcement of the funding of a five-year "Israeli" government plan under the pretext of improving the quality of education in Jerusalem, which reveals Israelization plans and attempts to attack the elements of the Palestinian national identity.It also called this voluntary plan to give more money and resources to Arab schools a "heinous crime." The media called it "a declaration of war."
The Ministry warned, in a statement on Sunday, of the repercussions and risks of these plans, which demonstrates once again the occupation mentality and policies of the oppressive and racist violation of all international laws and humanitarian norms, notably those related to education, stressing that it will employ all the possibilities to thwart these plans in order to preserve the national identity of education in Jerusalem.
The Ministry called on all human rights, humanitarian and media organizations to expose these schemes affecting education in Jerusalem, stressing the need to devote all efforts to protect education in Jerusalem and address the Israeli attempts to fight national identity in the holy city.
This is instructive. It shows that when the PA goes equally crazy at other stuff, it is just as likely to be exaggerating, lying and using its ability to implicitly threaten violence if it doesn't get its way as leverage towards Western NGOs and governments.
Truth isn't the issue in an honor/shame society. Appearances are. And if they appear to be so upset, well, in the Western view, there must be a logical reason, right?
"50 year occupation of Palestinian territories"?
This article by William Booth of the Washington Post is only one of many being published this week with variants of the same meme:
Certainly not in 1967. News articles routinely referred (erroneously) to the West Bank as "Israeli-occupied Jordan" through at least 1968.
The New York Times continued to refer to Judea and Samaria as "occupied Jordan" into the 1970s:
And here in 1976:
The widespread use of the word "Palestinian territories" took many more years to take root. That was mostly because the UN started using that term in the late 1970s in anti-Israel resolutions - the phrase "Palestinian territories" is the only reason Jimmy Carter's government abstained from an anti-Israel resolution in 1977 rather than vote for it:
Jordan did not officially claim not to have jurisdiction over the West Bank until 1988.
So how can it be that "Palestinian territories" have been "occupied" for 50 years when you cannot find a single person in 1967 referring to them as such? And, more importantly: what was the exact date that these territories, promised to the Jewish people by the League of Nations and illegally seized by Jordan in 1948, become "Palestinian?"
It seems that such a date must exist, perhaps somewhere between 1977 and 1992. But no one can point to such a date.
The term "Palestinian territories" is not factual - it is propaganda that has taken root as fact.
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.
The Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip began 50 years ago in June.When did Judea and Samaria become known as "Palestinian territories?"
Certainly not in 1967. News articles routinely referred (erroneously) to the West Bank as "Israeli-occupied Jordan" through at least 1968.
The New York Times continued to refer to Judea and Samaria as "occupied Jordan" into the 1970s:
And here in 1976:
TEL AVIV, Aug. 2—Israeli forces blocked an attempt by more than 50 Jewish militants to set up an unauthorized settlement near Jericho in occupied Jordanian territory today,Slowly, Judea and Samaria morphed from Jordanian into simply the "West Bank," a new political entity that never existed before, as in this 1977 article - which still had to spell out "West Bank of the Jordan" because the phrase "West Bank" was even then not ubiquitous enough to be understood:
The widespread use of the word "Palestinian territories" took many more years to take root. That was mostly because the UN started using that term in the late 1970s in anti-Israel resolutions - the phrase "Palestinian territories" is the only reason Jimmy Carter's government abstained from an anti-Israel resolution in 1977 rather than vote for it:
The United States was known to have tried strenously without success to induce Egypt to drop a reference in the resolution to the “Palestinian” territories, which the Americans objected would prejudge the decisions to be taken in Geneva.Either way, very few people outside the UN and Palestinian Arabs themselves referred to the territories as "Palestinian" until decades after 1967 and that is simply the results of a huge, extended propaganda campaign to change the territories from "Arab" to "Palestinian" - to convert Israel from David to Goliath.
The United States was said to have ‘told Arab countries two days ago that without such a change it could not vote for the text even though it had supported the language of the resolution in a number of other texts.
Privately, Arab representatives complained that the United States had delayed asking for the changes until was too late, and they suggested that the Americans had yielded to pressure from the pro‐Israeli lobby in deciding not to support the text but rather to abstain.
Jordan did not officially claim not to have jurisdiction over the West Bank until 1988.
So how can it be that "Palestinian territories" have been "occupied" for 50 years when you cannot find a single person in 1967 referring to them as such? And, more importantly: what was the exact date that these territories, promised to the Jewish people by the League of Nations and illegally seized by Jordan in 1948, become "Palestinian?"
It seems that such a date must exist, perhaps somewhere between 1977 and 1992. But no one can point to such a date.
The term "Palestinian territories" is not factual - it is propaganda that has taken root as fact.