Tuesday, December 19, 2017
Elder of Ziyon(h/t Yerushalimey)
Tuesday, December 19, 2017
Tuesday, December 19, 2017
Elder of Ziyon
Hamas is bragging that someone shot at an Israeli bus near Hebron last night in an 'operation," quoting Israel's Channel 2.
In fact, we learn from Hamas, there have been four such attacks in recent weeks, which Hamas says "resulted in injuries and damage and panic."
Hamas stops short of taking credit for these shootings.
But isn't it interesting that the media (outside Israeli media) doesn't think shooting attacks on public buses is worth mentioning?
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.
In fact, we learn from Hamas, there have been four such attacks in recent weeks, which Hamas says "resulted in injuries and damage and panic."
Hamas stops short of taking credit for these shootings.
But isn't it interesting that the media (outside Israeli media) doesn't think shooting attacks on public buses is worth mentioning?
From Ian:
Nikki Haley: A Diplomat who Delivers
Israeli Ambassador Danon to U.N. Security Council: Israel's connection to Jerusalem was never broken by the Romans, Babylonians, Ottomans, British, and NOT by the U.N.!
Nikki Haley: A Diplomat who Delivers
Nikki Haley’s diplomatic career is no longer nascent, but her support for the Jewish state, while no longer surprising, is still one of the most reassuring features of the Trump administration.
Today, 14 members of the Security Council voted for an Egyptian-sponsored resolution regarding Jerusalem’s status. Nikki Haley, speaking for the United States, vetoed that resolution. She explained declaratively and unhesitatingly: “We do it with no joy, but we do it with no reluctance. The fact that this veto is being done in defense of American sovereignty and in defense of America’s role in the Middle East peace process is not a source of embarrassment for us.” And then the zinger: “It should be an embarrassment for the rest of the Security Council.”
Speaking directly to those who would accuse the United States of being unconcerned with the plight of the Palestinians, she noted that the U.S. funded nearly 30 percent of UNRWA’s budget last year. Uninterested in the soft subtlety once expected of female diplomats, Haley minced no words. “I’ll be blunt,” she promised. “When the American people see a group of countries whose total contributions to the Palestinian people is less than 1 percent of UNRWA’s budget, when they see these countries accuse the United States of being insufficiently committed to peace, the American people lose their patience.”
As they should.
Haley, too, seems to have run out of patience. “What we witnessed here today in the Security Council is an insult,” she said. “It won’t be forgotten.”
Thank you, Ambassador Haley. On Hanukkah, you spoke like a Maccabi. You lit a candle of truth. You dispel the darkness. One defeated the many. Truth defeated lies. Thank you, President Trump. Thank you, Nikki Haley. pic.twitter.com/zFIiStoait— Benjamin Netanyahu (@netanyahu) December 18, 2017
Israeli Ambassador Danon to U.N. Security Council: Israel's connection to Jerusalem was never broken by the Romans, Babylonians, Ottomans, British, and NOT by the U.N.!
The United States vetoed an Egyptian-sponsored draft Security Council resolution on Jerusalem on December 18, 2017. In his remarks following the vote, Israeli Ambassador to the U.N. Danny Danon stated that the United Nations could not sever the historic connection of Jews to Jerusalem.
In his words:
"Today, the United Nations has taken another step backwards. Another step away from advocating for truth and justice.
Almost exactly one year ago, in this very same room, this body adopted the shameful resolution 2334. It was a resolution that had the audacity to try to designate Israel's presence at the Western Wall, at Judaism's holiest site in Jerusalem, as a flagrant violation of international law.
Those words pierced the hearts of Jews everywhere. They mocked the generations of Jews who prayed toward Jerusalem for thousands of years. They belittled the ancient declaration of the Jewish people that states, 'next year in Jerusalem.'
Yet here we are again. We still find ourselves fighting the same battle for truth and morality.
Those who voted for today's resolution have only reaffirmed the UN's decades-long double standard when it comes to Israel. They are guilty of blatant hypocrisy.
Every other country in the world has the right to designate its capital city.
But when it comes to Israel, somehow this most basic national right is questioned and condemned.
We thank the United States for staying loyal to the truth and vetoing this absurd resolution.
- Tuesday, December 19, 2017
- Elder of Ziyon
Daled Amos, Linda Sarsour
On December 9th, taking to her Facebook account, Linda Sarsour justified Palestinian terrorism:
In context of what's happening in Palestine in response to the announcement about Jerusalem and in general living under the longest and most brutal military occupation - we have to get a few things straight.Let's put aside how Linda Sarsour, who lives in the US, has a say in this "conversation" -- but not anyone critical of Palestinian Arabs who attack and kill Israeli civilians.
Nobody gets to tell an occupied people how to respond to their own oppression and the continued stripping of their humanity, agency and land whether they are Palestinians or not. Nobody. Oppressed people determine how, when and where to resist. They set the parameters. You don't have to agree. Unless you have lived in their condition under the boot of a racist, supremacist, violent regime that sees them as less than human - you have no say in this conversation... [emphasis added]
First of all, the Muslim attacks and persecution of indigenous Jews in that land is nothing new.
It has continued for over a millennium -- how could it be otherwise for non-Muslims under Sharia law which originated the requirement for Jews to wear a yellow star to distinguish them from Muslims and shame them, disallows non-Muslims to testify against Muslims outside of commercial cases and obligates non-Muslims to pay a special, onerous, jizya tax.
Arab attacks and mistreatment of Jews has nothing to do with Arabs being oppressed, but rather the continuation of their being the oppressors. For example, Muslims have a history of stoning Jews that predates the re-establishment of the state of Israel, going back to when the Arabs played host to Jews.
- In 1955, S. D. Goitein, in his book Jews and Arabs: Their Contacts Through the Ages, wrote:
In former times--and in remote places even today--it was common for Muslim schoolboys to stone Jews. When the Turks conquered Yemen in 1872, an envoy was sent from the Chief Rabbi of Istanbul to inquire what grievance the Yemenite Jews had against their neighbors. It is indicative that the first thing of which they complained was this molestation by the schoolboys. But when the Turkish Governor asked an assembly of notables to stop this nuisance, there arose an old doctor of Muslim law and explained that this stone-throwing at Jews was an age-old custom (in Arabic 'Ada) and therefore it was unlawful to forbid it. [p. 76, emphasis added]
- In Eight years in Asia and Africa from 1846-1855, Israel Joseph Benjamin includes among the multiple indignities regularly suffered by Jews at the hands of the Muslims of Persia:
Under the pretext of their being unclean, they are treated with the greatest severity, and should they enter a street, inhabited by Mussulmans, they are pelted by the boys and mob with stones and dirt.[p 212]
- Andrew Bostom gives examples in The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism: From Sacred Texts to Solemn History
.He quotes from Robert Satloff's book, Among the Righteous -- Lost Stories from the Holocaust's Long Reach into Arab Lands
, where Satloff tells the story of Yehuda Chachmon, who lived under Italian rule in Benghazi, Libya, during WWII and wrote about Arab street gangs:
“Arabs would throw oranges, tomatoes, stones at us,” he said. “Every Jew would hide in his house after five in the evening. The houses were closed [i.e., locked up] with bars and you could not leave until the morning.’” [p 153]
1660: The Jewish community in Safed is massacred. [p. 178]In contrast, in Israel today, under what Sarsour glibly refers to as a "racist, supremacist, violent regime that sees them as less than human," Israeli Arabs participate in all aspects of Israeli life: social, judicial and political. Among the high-profile political, military, and judiciary roles Israeli Arabs have:
1742: A rabbi is allowed to settle in Tiberias and his arrival "brought back the Jewish community of Tiberias, which had been virtually purged of Jews for seventy years" [p. 179]
1775: Blood libel is spread against Jews in Hebron, resulting in mob violence. [p. 179]
1799: Safed's Jewish Quarter "was completely sacked by the Turks" [p. 179]
1801: Djezzar sends troops to destroy crops in Nazareth while in Ramleh "during the three days of pillage, the local Latin Christians were either murdered, or lost all their property and fled" [p. 180]
1830's "One book reported the game 'Burn the Jew,' a Christian-Arab children's pastime at Lent in Jaffa. [p. 1888]
1834: Egyptian ruler Ibrahim Pasha levies conscription and when those in Eastern Palestine cross the Jordan to join in a revolt, "forty thousand fellahin rushed on Jerusalem...the mob entered, and looted the city for five or six days. The Jews were the worst sufferers, their homes were sacked and their women violated." [p. 183]
1834: In Safed, the Jewish community is "brutally attacked by Muslim and Druzes" [p. 183]
1834: In Safed, Muhammed Damoor 'prophesies' that on the 15th of June "the true Believers would rise up in just wrath against the Jews, and despoil them of their gold, and their silver, and their jewels"--this becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. [p. 185-6]
1837: Safed is hit by an earthquake which results in another attack by the Muslims on the Jews. [p. 183]
1840: Blood libel in Damascus has repercussions in Palestine. [p. 183]
1847: Charge of ritual murder is brought against the Jewish community in Jerusalem. [p. 190]
1847: Jewish visitor to Palestine writes about the Jewish community "They do not have any protection and are at the mercy of policemen and the pashas who treat them as they wish...they pay various taxes every now and then...their property is not at their disposal and they dare not complain about an injury for fear of the Arabs' revenge. Their lives are precarious and subject to daily danger of death" [p. 190-1]
1848 Hebron plundered. [p. 191]
1848-1878: Reports from the British Consulate in Jerusalem document scores of anti-Jewish violence. Example--"July, 1851: It is my duty to report to Your Excellency that the Jews in Hebron have been greatly alarmed by threats of the Moslems there at the commencement of Ramadan..."
1858: Muslim in Hebron is confronted with his theft and vandalism of Jews and responds that "his right derived from time immemorial in his family, to enter Jewish houses, and take toll or contributions at any time without giving account" [p. 173]
- Jamal Hakrush, Israeli police deputy commissioner.
- Mariam Kabha, Attorney. Unanimously approved by Israel's cabinet to be national commissioner for equal employment opportunities
- George Deek, Israel's Deputy Ambassador to Norway
- Colonel Ghassan Alian, Commander of IDF Golani Brigade
- Naim Aradi, Israel's Ambassador to Norway
- Yusef Mishleb - IDF Major General
- George Kara, led 3-judge panel that convicted Israeli ex-President.
- Jamal Zahalka, received BA, MA and Ph.D. Member of Israeli Parliament and leader of Balad political party -- while describing himself a victim of "Israeli racist apartheid"
- Omar Barghouti, Doctoral student at Tel Aviv -- while a leading Arab advocate for the academic boycott of Israel.
- Majalli Wahabi, Former Deputy Speaker of the Israel Parliament -- and acting President of Israel during February, 2007
- Reda Mansour, historian, poet and former Israeli ambassador to Ecuador
- Salim Joubran, Israeli Supreme Court Justice
Meanwhile, Palestinian Arabs in the "West Bank" now have the closest thing they have ever had to their own sovereign state, something they have never had -- least of all under the rule of the Ottoman empire.
The crux of the problem with Sarsour's convenient claim to Palestinian right to murder Jews is that second paragraph:
Nobody gets to tell an occupied people how to respond to their own oppression and the continued stripping of their humanity, agency and land whether they are Palestinians or not. Nobody. Oppressed people determine how, when and where to resist. They set the parameters.This actually sounds familiar -- it is reminiscent of the claim Maureen Dowd's made about Cindy Sheehan, whose son was killed in the Iraq War. Dowd wrote that "moral authority of parents who bury children killed in Iraq is absolute" This arbitrary assignment of superior judgment, or in this case, giving Palestinians a pass on murder, just does not cut it.
Her words may resonate rhetorically, but they fall apart when examing the facts.
In his book, The Case for Israel, Alan Dershowitz examines this issue in the chapter, "Is There Moral Equivalence between Palestinian Terrorists and Israeli Responses?"
It is perhaps a sign of how far Sarsour is willing to go, that instead of talking about moral equivalence, Sarsour is claiming moral superiority.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Elder adds:
I think that Sarsour's statement is far more outrageous than Daled Amos is saying in this excellent essay.
Sarsour is saying three things:
1. There is no one who can judge the level of oppression that someone suffers independently of the person claiming oppression.
2. The person who believes he or she is being oppressed is no longer bound by any moral code whatsoever.
3. This "resistance" may be done anywhere, at any time, against any target.
This is a conveniently self-serving definition of morality tailor-made for Palestinians, but it is the height of immorality.
If you take Sarsour's assertion literally, it means that if I am very, very upset at you calling me a bad name (hence you are an oppressor and only I can determine how badly I am being oppressed), I have the moral right to slowly torture your child to death in the most grisly way while making you watch (since no one has the right to tell me how to resist.)
Sarsour's formulation also justifies attacks against any Jews worldwide, as long as the word "resistance" is used. If the attacker believes that the target is complicit with Israel, then it is fair game.
This is in reality the way that Palestinians think, aided by years of coddling by the world. They do claim, in their writings in both Arabic and English, that "occupation" can be legally and morally fought using any means.
There is literally no limit on how depraved they can be in the name of "resistance."
The Geneva Conventions and all international laws disagree. Every religious moral code disagrees. But the Palestinians arrogate to themselves not only moral superiority, but the complete right not to be bound by any morality whatsoever.
Sarsour is also apparently unaware that she has also just justified every alleged crime she claims Israel does to Palestinians. After all, only Israelis can define how they are oppressed and how and when to respond, right?
No....only Palestinians have the right to take advantage of the New Sarsour Morality.
- Tuesday, December 19, 2017
- Elder of Ziyon
Ma'an reports that the Fatah Youth Movement has decided that all Palestinian universities should cut all ties to American programs, paid for by USAID, claiming that this is a "Palestinian national decision.'
According to the article, Al Quds Open University has announced that they will cut all forms of academic cooperation with the US.
Fatah posted a video showing a student taking down what is claimed to be a display from USAID at Al Quds University in Tulkarem.
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.
According to the article, Al Quds Open University has announced that they will cut all forms of academic cooperation with the US.
Fatah posted a video showing a student taking down what is claimed to be a display from USAID at Al Quds University in Tulkarem.
The Palestinian strategy seems to be a full court press to isolate the US on this issue the way the Arabs have tried to isolate Israel over the decades. They seem to believe that with Trump in office, the EU will side with them against the US, which is what the UNSC draft resolution by Egypt was about yesterday, which is likely to be followed by a similar symbolic UN General Assembly resolution in the coming days that the US cannot veto.
The question is whether other Western countries will go along with this strategy. The UNSC resolution indicates that, regrettably, they will - publicly siding with the Palestinians no matter what.
They seem to forget that the US funds the bulk of the UN budget, as well as being the biggest source of the Palestinian budget.
The question is whether other Western countries will go along with this strategy. The UNSC resolution indicates that, regrettably, they will - publicly siding with the Palestinians no matter what.
They seem to forget that the US funds the bulk of the UN budget, as well as being the biggest source of the Palestinian budget.
- Tuesday, December 19, 2017
- Elder of Ziyon
A beautiful new synagogue was opened inside the tunnels that abut the Western Wall, and in fact this synagogue is closer to the site of the Holy of Holies of the Jewish Temples than any other place to pray.
It was dedicated last night , appropriately, right after the candlelighting of the seventh night of Chanukah.
The unique Ark holding the Torahs is spherical, and includes texts from the Shema and the Song of Songs.
Of course, Palestinians are upset at a new synagogue. Ma'an reports it this way:
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.
It was dedicated last night , appropriately, right after the candlelighting of the seventh night of Chanukah.
The unique Ark holding the Torahs is spherical, and includes texts from the Shema and the Song of Songs.
Of course, Palestinians are upset at a new synagogue. Ma'an reports it this way:
Despite the tension in the Holy City and the popular and official Arab and international rejection of Trump's decisions regarding Jerusalem, the occupation authorities opened a new synagogue in the Al-Buraq Wall in Jerusalem.The reaction is so far muted, less angry than opening of other synagogues in the Old City, but it has been less than 24 hours and there hasn't been time for the PA to do its normal organizing of "spontaneous" anger.
- Tuesday, December 19, 2017
- Elder of Ziyon
US Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley gave a statement before the UNSC vote on Jerusalem and another after the US vetoes the resolution.
Here they are:
Thank you, Mr. President. In this meeting, I will not use Council’s time to address where a sovereign nation might decide to put its embassy, and why we have every right to do so. I will address a more appropriate and urgent concern.
This week marks the one-year anniversary of the passage of Resolution 2334. On that day, in this Council, in December 2016, the United States elected to abstain, allowing the measure to pass. Now it’s one year and a new administration later. Given the chance to vote again on Resolution 2334, I can say with complete confidence that the United States would vote “no.” We would exercise our veto power. The reasons why are very relevant to the cause of peace in the Middle East.
On the surface, Resolution 2334 described Israeli settlements as impediments to peace. Reasonable people can disagree about that, and in fact, over the years the United States has expressed criticism of Israeli settlement policies many times.
But in truth, it was Resolution 2334 itself that was an impediment to peace. This Security Council put the negotiations between Israelis and the Palestinians further out of reach by injecting itself, yet again, in between the two parties to the conflict. By misplacing the blame for the failure of peace efforts squarely on the Israeli settlements, the resolution gave a pass to Palestinian leaders who for many years rejected one peace proposal after another. It also gave them encouragement to avoid negotiations in the future. It refused to acknowledge the legacy of failed negotiations unrelated to settlements. And the Council passed judgment on issues that must be decided in direct negotiations between the parties.
If the United Nations’ history in the peace efforts proves anything, it is that talking in New York cannot take the place of face-to-face negotiations between the regional parties. It only sets back the cause of peace, not advance it.
As if to make this very point, Resolution 2334 demanded a halt to all Israeli settlement activity in East Jerusalem – even in the Jewish Quarter of the Old City. This is something that no responsible person or country would ever expect Israel would do. And in this way, Resolution 2334 did what President Trump’s announcement on Jerusalem as the capital of Israel did not do: It prejudged issues that should be left in final status negotiations.
Given the chance today, the United States would veto Resolution 2334 for another reason. It gave new life to an ugly creation of the Human Rights Council: the database of companies operating in Jewish communities. This is an effort to create a blacklist, plain and simple. It is yet another obstacle to a negotiated peace. It is a stain on America’s conscience that we gave the so-called BDS movement momentum by allowing the passage of Resolution 2334.
To the United Nations’ shame, this has been a disproportionately hostile place for the Middle East’s most enduring democracy.
The United States refuses to accept the double standard that says we are not impartial when we stand by the will of the American people by moving our U.S. embassy, but somehow the United Nations is a neutral party when it consistently singles out Israel for condemnation.
For decades, Israel has withstood wave after wave of bias in the UN and its agencies. The United States has often stood beside Israel. We did not on December 23, 2016. We will not make that mistake again.
This week marks the one year anniversary of a significant setback for Middle East peace. But the United States has an undiminished commitment to helping bring about final status negotiations that will lead to lasting peace.
Our hand remains extended to both parties. We call on all countries that share this commitment to learn the hard lessons of the past and work to bring Israel and the Palestinian people in good faith to the peace table.
Thank you, very much.
Thank you, Mr. President.
I have been the proud Representative of the United States at the United Nations for nearly a year now. This is the first time I have exercised the American right to veto a resolution in the Security Council. The exercise of the veto is not something the United States does often. We have not done it in more than six years. We do it with no joy, but we do it with no reluctance.
The fact that this veto is being done in defense of American sovereignty and in defense of America’s role in the Middle East peace process is not a source of embarrassment for us; it should be an embarrassment to the remainder of the Security Council.
As I pointed out when we discussed this topic 10 days ago, I will once again note the features of the President’s announcement on Jerusalem that are most relevant here. The President took great care not to prejudge final status negotiations in any way, including the specific boundaries of Israeli sovereignty in Jerusalem. That remains a subject to be negotiated only by the parties. That position is fully in line with the previous Security Council resolutions.
The President was also careful to state that we support the status quo regarding Jerusalem’s holy sites, and we support a two-state solution if that’s what the parties agree to. Again, these positions are fully consistent with the previous Security Council resolutions.
It is highly regrettable that some are trying to distort the President’s position to serve their own agendas.
What is troublesome to some people is not that the United States has harmed the peace process – we have, in fact, done no such thing. Rather, what is troublesome to some people is that the United States had the courage and honesty to recognize a fundamental reality. Jerusalem has been the political, cultural, and spiritual homeland of the Jewish people for thousands of years. They have had no other capital city. But the United States’ recognition of the obvious – that Jerusalem is the capital and seat of the modern Israeli government – is too much for some.
First, some have threatened violence on the street, as if violence would somehow improve the prospects of peace.
Now today, buried in diplomatic jargon, some presume to tell America where to put our embassy. The United States’ has a sovereign right to determine where and whether we establish an embassy. I suspect very few Member States would welcome Security Council pronouncements about their sovereign decisions. And I think of some who should fear it.
It’s worth noting that this is not a new American position. Back in 1980, when Jimmy Carter was the American President, the Security Council voted on Resolution 478, which called upon diplomatic missions to relocate from Jerusalem. The United States did not support Resolution 478.
In his remarks, then-Secretary of State Ed Muskie said the following: “The draft resolution before us today is illustrative of a preoccupation which has produced this series of unbalanced and unrealistic texts on Middle East issues.”
Specifically, regarding the provision on diplomatic missions in Jerusalem, Secretary Muskie said this: “In our judgment, this provision is not binding. It is without force. And we reject it as a disruptive attempt to dictate to other nations. It does nothing to promote a resolution of the difficult problems facing Israel and its neighbors. It does nothing to advance the cause of peace.”
That was in 1980. It is equally true today. The United States will not be told by any country where we can put our embassy.
Buried even deeper in the jargon of this resolution is the accusation that the United States is setting back the prospects of peace in the Middle East. That is a scandalous charge. Those who are making it should consider that it only harms the very Palestinian people they claim to speak for. What does it gain the Palestinian people for their leaders to throw up roadblocks to negotiations?
A “peace process” that is damaged by the simple recognition that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel is not a peace process; it is a justification for an endless stalemate. What does it gain the Palestinian people for some of their leaders to accuse the United States of being hostile to the cause of peace? It gains them nothing, but it risks costing them a great deal.
The United States has done more than any other country to assist the Palestinian people. By far. Since 1994, we have given over $5 billion to the Palestinians in bilateral economic assistance, security assistance, and humanitarian assistance.
The United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees operates schools and medical facilities throughout the region. It is funded almost entirely by voluntary contributions. Last year, the United States voluntarily funded almost 30 percent of UNRWA’s budget. That’s more than the next two largest donors combined. And it’s vastly more than some of the members of this Council that have considerable financial resources of their own.
I’ll be blunt: When the American people see a group of countries whose total contributions to the Palestinian people is less than one percent of UNRWA’s budget – when they see these countries accuse the United States of being insufficiently committed to peace – the American people lose their patience.
I have been to the Palestinian refugee camps the United States supports with their contributions. I have met with men, women, and children. I have advocated on their behalf. I can tell you that their leaders do them no favors by being more open to abandoning peace negotiations than to doing the hard work of seeing them to completion.
The United States has never been more committed to peace in the Middle East. We were committed to it before the President announced our recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, and we’re committed to it today.
What we witnessed here today in the Security Council is an insult. It won’t be forgotten. It’s one more example of the United Nations doing more harm than good in addressing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Today, for the simple act of deciding where to put our embassy, the United States was forced to defend its sovereignty. The record will reflect that we did so proudly. Today, for acknowledging a basic truth about the capital city of Israel, we are accused of harming peace. The record will reflect that we reject that outrageous claim.
For these reasons, and with the best interests of both the Israeli and the Palestinian people firmly in mind, the United States votes no on this resolution.
Thank you.
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.
Here they are:
Thank you, Mr. President. In this meeting, I will not use Council’s time to address where a sovereign nation might decide to put its embassy, and why we have every right to do so. I will address a more appropriate and urgent concern.
This week marks the one-year anniversary of the passage of Resolution 2334. On that day, in this Council, in December 2016, the United States elected to abstain, allowing the measure to pass. Now it’s one year and a new administration later. Given the chance to vote again on Resolution 2334, I can say with complete confidence that the United States would vote “no.” We would exercise our veto power. The reasons why are very relevant to the cause of peace in the Middle East.
On the surface, Resolution 2334 described Israeli settlements as impediments to peace. Reasonable people can disagree about that, and in fact, over the years the United States has expressed criticism of Israeli settlement policies many times.
But in truth, it was Resolution 2334 itself that was an impediment to peace. This Security Council put the negotiations between Israelis and the Palestinians further out of reach by injecting itself, yet again, in between the two parties to the conflict. By misplacing the blame for the failure of peace efforts squarely on the Israeli settlements, the resolution gave a pass to Palestinian leaders who for many years rejected one peace proposal after another. It also gave them encouragement to avoid negotiations in the future. It refused to acknowledge the legacy of failed negotiations unrelated to settlements. And the Council passed judgment on issues that must be decided in direct negotiations between the parties.
If the United Nations’ history in the peace efforts proves anything, it is that talking in New York cannot take the place of face-to-face negotiations between the regional parties. It only sets back the cause of peace, not advance it.
As if to make this very point, Resolution 2334 demanded a halt to all Israeli settlement activity in East Jerusalem – even in the Jewish Quarter of the Old City. This is something that no responsible person or country would ever expect Israel would do. And in this way, Resolution 2334 did what President Trump’s announcement on Jerusalem as the capital of Israel did not do: It prejudged issues that should be left in final status negotiations.
Given the chance today, the United States would veto Resolution 2334 for another reason. It gave new life to an ugly creation of the Human Rights Council: the database of companies operating in Jewish communities. This is an effort to create a blacklist, plain and simple. It is yet another obstacle to a negotiated peace. It is a stain on America’s conscience that we gave the so-called BDS movement momentum by allowing the passage of Resolution 2334.
To the United Nations’ shame, this has been a disproportionately hostile place for the Middle East’s most enduring democracy.
The United States refuses to accept the double standard that says we are not impartial when we stand by the will of the American people by moving our U.S. embassy, but somehow the United Nations is a neutral party when it consistently singles out Israel for condemnation.
For decades, Israel has withstood wave after wave of bias in the UN and its agencies. The United States has often stood beside Israel. We did not on December 23, 2016. We will not make that mistake again.
This week marks the one year anniversary of a significant setback for Middle East peace. But the United States has an undiminished commitment to helping bring about final status negotiations that will lead to lasting peace.
Our hand remains extended to both parties. We call on all countries that share this commitment to learn the hard lessons of the past and work to bring Israel and the Palestinian people in good faith to the peace table.
Thank you, very much.
Thank you, Mr. President.
I have been the proud Representative of the United States at the United Nations for nearly a year now. This is the first time I have exercised the American right to veto a resolution in the Security Council. The exercise of the veto is not something the United States does often. We have not done it in more than six years. We do it with no joy, but we do it with no reluctance.
The fact that this veto is being done in defense of American sovereignty and in defense of America’s role in the Middle East peace process is not a source of embarrassment for us; it should be an embarrassment to the remainder of the Security Council.
As I pointed out when we discussed this topic 10 days ago, I will once again note the features of the President’s announcement on Jerusalem that are most relevant here. The President took great care not to prejudge final status negotiations in any way, including the specific boundaries of Israeli sovereignty in Jerusalem. That remains a subject to be negotiated only by the parties. That position is fully in line with the previous Security Council resolutions.
The President was also careful to state that we support the status quo regarding Jerusalem’s holy sites, and we support a two-state solution if that’s what the parties agree to. Again, these positions are fully consistent with the previous Security Council resolutions.
It is highly regrettable that some are trying to distort the President’s position to serve their own agendas.
What is troublesome to some people is not that the United States has harmed the peace process – we have, in fact, done no such thing. Rather, what is troublesome to some people is that the United States had the courage and honesty to recognize a fundamental reality. Jerusalem has been the political, cultural, and spiritual homeland of the Jewish people for thousands of years. They have had no other capital city. But the United States’ recognition of the obvious – that Jerusalem is the capital and seat of the modern Israeli government – is too much for some.
First, some have threatened violence on the street, as if violence would somehow improve the prospects of peace.
Now today, buried in diplomatic jargon, some presume to tell America where to put our embassy. The United States’ has a sovereign right to determine where and whether we establish an embassy. I suspect very few Member States would welcome Security Council pronouncements about their sovereign decisions. And I think of some who should fear it.
It’s worth noting that this is not a new American position. Back in 1980, when Jimmy Carter was the American President, the Security Council voted on Resolution 478, which called upon diplomatic missions to relocate from Jerusalem. The United States did not support Resolution 478.
In his remarks, then-Secretary of State Ed Muskie said the following: “The draft resolution before us today is illustrative of a preoccupation which has produced this series of unbalanced and unrealistic texts on Middle East issues.”
Specifically, regarding the provision on diplomatic missions in Jerusalem, Secretary Muskie said this: “In our judgment, this provision is not binding. It is without force. And we reject it as a disruptive attempt to dictate to other nations. It does nothing to promote a resolution of the difficult problems facing Israel and its neighbors. It does nothing to advance the cause of peace.”
That was in 1980. It is equally true today. The United States will not be told by any country where we can put our embassy.
Buried even deeper in the jargon of this resolution is the accusation that the United States is setting back the prospects of peace in the Middle East. That is a scandalous charge. Those who are making it should consider that it only harms the very Palestinian people they claim to speak for. What does it gain the Palestinian people for their leaders to throw up roadblocks to negotiations?
A “peace process” that is damaged by the simple recognition that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel is not a peace process; it is a justification for an endless stalemate. What does it gain the Palestinian people for some of their leaders to accuse the United States of being hostile to the cause of peace? It gains them nothing, but it risks costing them a great deal.
The United States has done more than any other country to assist the Palestinian people. By far. Since 1994, we have given over $5 billion to the Palestinians in bilateral economic assistance, security assistance, and humanitarian assistance.
The United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees operates schools and medical facilities throughout the region. It is funded almost entirely by voluntary contributions. Last year, the United States voluntarily funded almost 30 percent of UNRWA’s budget. That’s more than the next two largest donors combined. And it’s vastly more than some of the members of this Council that have considerable financial resources of their own.
I’ll be blunt: When the American people see a group of countries whose total contributions to the Palestinian people is less than one percent of UNRWA’s budget – when they see these countries accuse the United States of being insufficiently committed to peace – the American people lose their patience.
I have been to the Palestinian refugee camps the United States supports with their contributions. I have met with men, women, and children. I have advocated on their behalf. I can tell you that their leaders do them no favors by being more open to abandoning peace negotiations than to doing the hard work of seeing them to completion.
The United States has never been more committed to peace in the Middle East. We were committed to it before the President announced our recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, and we’re committed to it today.
What we witnessed here today in the Security Council is an insult. It won’t be forgotten. It’s one more example of the United Nations doing more harm than good in addressing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Today, for the simple act of deciding where to put our embassy, the United States was forced to defend its sovereignty. The record will reflect that we did so proudly. Today, for acknowledging a basic truth about the capital city of Israel, we are accused of harming peace. The record will reflect that we reject that outrageous claim.
For these reasons, and with the best interests of both the Israeli and the Palestinian people firmly in mind, the United States votes no on this resolution.
Thank you.
Monday, December 18, 2017
- Monday, December 18, 2017
- Elder of Ziyon
The lyrics aren't particularly for Chanukah, but the sweaters are!
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.
From Ian:
BOMBSHELL REPORT: Obama Colluded With Putin To Release Lebanese Terrorist Responsible For Targeting Americans
US vetoes Security Council bid to reverse Jerusalem recognition
BOMBSHELL REPORT: Obama Colluded With Putin To Release Lebanese Terrorist Responsible For Targeting Americans
We’re all supposed to believe that President Trump, as a candidate, colluded with the Russian government to “steal” the 2016 election. There’s no serious evidence to that effect, despite a massive FBI investigation, a Congressional investigation, and a special counsel investigation initiated by the Department of Justice.Linda Sarsour Accused Of Enabling Sexual Assault Against Woman Who Worked For Her
But there is clear evidence that the Obama administration colluded with the Russian government to free an Islamic terrorist responsible for the deaths of Americans — all in order to appease Iran to pave the way for the Obama administration’s surrender to the burgeoning Iranian nuclear program and Iran’s escalating regional ambitions.
A little-noticed bombshell report from Josh Meyer of Politico reports that Ali Fayad, a Lebanese arms dealer and “suspected top Hezbollah operative whom agents believed reported to Russian President Vladimir Putin,” was captured by the Czechs in 2014. Fayad had been indicted in the United States already for “planning the murders of US government employees.” But the Obama administration did nothing to push for extradition. Instead, Fayad ended up in Lebanon, where he’s back at his terrorist work; he’s particularly active in supply weapons to the barbarous Syrian regime.
According to Politico, “administration officials also blocked or undermined their efforts to go after other top Hezbollah operatives … And when Project Cassandra agents and other investigators sought repeatedly to investigate and prosecute Abdallah Safieddine, Hezbollah’s longtime envoy to Iran, whom they considered the linchpin of Hezbollah’s criminal network, the Justice Department refused.”
In other words, working with Russia in order to swing the Iran deal trumped the prosecution of people responsible for continuing murder, including murder of Americans.
The inspiration behind the Women’s March on DC, Linda Sarsour, has been accused of enabling the alleged sexual assault and harassment of a woman who worked for the feminist activist, according to the victim and two sources directly familiar with the matter.CNN: Twisting Facts and Emotions to Demonize Israel
Allegations of groping and unwanted touching were allegedly brought to Sarsour during her time as executive director of the Arab American Association. In response, Sarsour, a self-proclaimed champion of women, attacked the woman bringing the allegations, often threatening and body-shaming her, these sources alleged. The most serious allegations were dismissed, Asmi Fathelbab, the alleged victim told The Daily Caller, because the accused was a “good Muslim” who was “always at the Mosque.”
“She oversaw an environment unsafe and abusive to women,” said Fethelbab, a former employee at the Arab American Association. “Women who put [Sarsour] on a pedestal for women’s rights and empowerment deserve to know how she really treats us.”
Fathelbab is a 37-year-old New York native and was raised in a Muslim household. She was excited in 2009 to begin working at the Arab American Association of New York as a contractor. At the time, Sarsour was the executive director of the organization. Fathelbab worked for Sarsour for almost a year, according to employment documents reviewed and authenticated by TheDC.
Fathelbab claims the Arab American Association was an unsafe workplace where she was allegedly sexually assaulted, body-shamed and intimidated.
Oftentimes, Sarsour was directly involved, according to the ex-staffer’s account.
Did Israel destroy Jaffa? Evict all the Palestinians? Shoot a woman's son in cold blood? Drive a man out of his home? CNN''s Senior International correspondent Arwa Damon made a video but the facts didn't sufficiently demonize Israel. So dramatic speech, emotional language, and twisted facts substitute for professional journalism. CNN what were you thinking?
US vetoes Security Council bid to reverse Jerusalem recognition
The other 14 members of the council voted in favor of the text, but US Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley’s “no” vote ensured that it was rejected. It was the first US veto in the Security Council since US President Donald Trump took office nearly a year ago.
Recalling previous Security Council resolutions, Monday’s text expressed “deep regret at recent decisions concerning the status of Jerusalem,” referring to Trump’s December 6 decision to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and his announced intention to move the US embassy to the city.
The draft resolution, sponsored by Egypt, also affirmed that “any decisions and actions which purport to have altered, the character, status or demographic composition of the Holy City of Jerusalem have no legal effect, are null and void and must be rescinded in compliance with relevant resolutions of the Security Council, and in this regard, calls upon all States to refrain from the establishment of diplomatic missions in the Holy City of Jerusalem.”
Without naming any country, it would have expressed “deep regret at recent decisions concerning the status of Jerusalem
Key US allies Britain, France, Italy, Japan and Ukraine were among the 14 countries in the 15-member council that backed the measure.
Some representatives of countries defended their “yes” vote by citing international consensus on Jerusalem, saying the status of the city should be determined by final-status peace negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians.
Ahead of the vote, French Ambassador Francois Delattre praised the Egyptian draft as a “good text” and argued that “without an agreement on Jerusalem, there will be no peace accord” between Israel and the Palestinians.
- Monday, December 18, 2017
- Elder of Ziyon
- Monday, December 18, 2017
- Elder of Ziyon
Anna Baltzer writes for the "US Campaign for Palestinian Rights:"
Anyone who knows anything about menorahs would instantly recognize this as one of the hundreds, if not thousands, of menorahs erected by the Chabad hasidic movement worldwide. Wanting to fulfill the Jewish mitzvah of "publicizing the miracle," they erect huge menorahs all over the place.
Including checkpoints, so soldiers can enjoy them for eight days out of the year.
It is not a political statement. It is not meant to rub anyone's nose in Judaism. It is meant to do a mitzvah, exactly the same as lighting a menorah in one's house.
But when your entire concept of Judaism is so perverted as Anne Baltzer's and that of the pro-BDS Jews, everything any Jew does in Israel is considered an affront to Palestinians.
They are the bigots.
Would they complain about how Muslims co-opt Jewish and Christian holy places? About how Muslims send their calls to prayer out at ear-splitting volume towards communities of non-Muslims?
Of course not. They are antisemites first, and they only pretend to care about people's feelings when it is convenient to them.
And only people who deeply hate their own religion would think of a menorah as primarily a tool of oppression.
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.
Friends,The story is illustrated with a photo of one of these supremely offensive menorahs "erected by Israeli soldiers:"
Last night, as I lit the menorah with my family for the sixth night of Hanukkah, I remembered how, in Palestine, Jewish holidays translate into escalating oppression of Palestinians. ...I remembered the massive menorah erected by Israeli soldiers at the Zatara checkpoint between Ramallah and Nablus as a reminder to Palestinians of who was in charge and to whom Israel believes the land belongs – a grotesque cooptation of Jewish identity and symbols.
Anyone who knows anything about menorahs would instantly recognize this as one of the hundreds, if not thousands, of menorahs erected by the Chabad hasidic movement worldwide. Wanting to fulfill the Jewish mitzvah of "publicizing the miracle," they erect huge menorahs all over the place.
Including checkpoints, so soldiers can enjoy them for eight days out of the year.
It is not a political statement. It is not meant to rub anyone's nose in Judaism. It is meant to do a mitzvah, exactly the same as lighting a menorah in one's house.
But when your entire concept of Judaism is so perverted as Anne Baltzer's and that of the pro-BDS Jews, everything any Jew does in Israel is considered an affront to Palestinians.
They are the bigots.
Would they complain about how Muslims co-opt Jewish and Christian holy places? About how Muslims send their calls to prayer out at ear-splitting volume towards communities of non-Muslims?
Of course not. They are antisemites first, and they only pretend to care about people's feelings when it is convenient to them.
And only people who deeply hate their own religion would think of a menorah as primarily a tool of oppression.
- Monday, December 18, 2017
- Elder of Ziyon
1) Jerusalem is a final status issue and no unilateral moves are allowed.
2) The UNSC once recommended that all diplomatic missions to Jerusalem be closed.
3) We should maintain the status quo in such a sensitive spot.
Now, Reuters and plenty of other media report, Turkey intends to open an embassy in East Jerusalem, according to a Sunday statement by Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan.
And since then....silence. The Europeans who stumbled over themselves to condemn Trump are silent on Erdogan. The UN and NGOs aren't saying anything.
Even though all the arguments against the Trump declaration apply even more so to the Erdogan declaration.
How can this be? How can the Europeans allow Erdogan to violate the very principles that they so loftily defended in the Security Council two Fridays ago?
A cynical reason could be a latent undercurrent of antisemitism that no one cares to admit. But I don't think you have to play that card here.
Because the main difference between Trump's and Erdogan's words is that no one threatened violence if Erdogan somehow managed to open an embassy, while leaders of hundreds of millions "warned" (meaning, incited) violence against Trump.
So the three reasons that are given above against the US embassy move are justifications after the fact. There is only one rule that matters, which is "Don't piss off the Muslims."
The enlightened world knows, viscerally: Muslims perform terror attacks. Muslims riot. Muslims threaten the world. Therefore, taking the Muslim side in any matter is the only position that the moralistic, ethical world bodies can consider - because they don't want to be on the opposite side of Muslim wrath.
Try this exercise yourself:
Choose any human rights imperative - being anti-apartheid, being against genocide., supporting women's rights, being pro-democracy - literally anything.
Now, look at how Western nations act towards Muslim nations concerning any of those topics. Is there a consistent message being given to Muslim nations about these human rights issues? The answer, of course, is no.
When Western nations deal with Muslim-majority countries, they do not apply any single moral or ethical or political rule consistently. But the one rule that is entirely consistent across Western nations dealing with Muslim nations is the maxim: Don't Piss Off the Muslims.
That is the only rule you need to know to rise in the ranks of the world's diplomatic community.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
