David Mark, Author at Israel Rising

May 10, 2016May 10, 2016

Are American Jews Being Denied US Citizenship?

There is a pending court case set to break open systemic anti-semitism in the Department of State. Typical US Citizenship policy enshrined in law makes it clear that children born to two US citizens abroad automatically become citizens of the United States themselves. Section 301 (c ) of the INA (Immigration and Nationality Act) states that a child born to at least one United States Citizen are automatically citizens no matter where they are born in the world. The only stipulation is that at least one of the parents has ever resided the United States. No specific period of time for such prior residence is required.

A US policy shift starting 2007 ignores the law and has created a nightmare for Americans living outside the USA. With 85,000 US citizens in Israel, the policy change seems almost entirely directed at them. The policy, which is in conflict with the actual law, states that at least one parent must have been a permanent resident of the USA.

In 2011 the State Department actually revoked the citizenship of two children due to this policy and has since denied many more. After an appeal, a legal adviser to the Jerusalem consulate stated that in fact the children should be eligible for citizenship. Despite this the State Department overrode his opinion.

If the precedent is not changed, an incalculable amount of American Jews will be deprived their right to Citizenship at birth.

“For almost 10 years there has been an unconstitutional policy depriving American children of their citizenship. Although the law states a child born to 2 American citizens is automatically receives Citizenship at birth, countless children are being prevented, and some have even had their Citizenship revoked, their natural born rights,” Michele Wolgel, litigator for the case said. “This unlawful deprivation is specifically impacting American Jews born and living in Israel. If the precedent is not changed, an incalculable amount of American Jews will be deprived their right to Citizenship at birth.”

Is This Policy Really Directed at American Jews Living Abroad?

Although the policy remains agnostic in tone, most consulates abroad stick to the letter of the law, which seems to indicate that a day visit to the United States is sufficient for residency. This is backed up by procedure, enshrined in American Citizenship policy for all embassies and consulates. Section 1133.3-1 of the U.S. Foreign Affairs Manual, which specifies that “No specific period of residence is required” in such a case.

In Israel, the American Jewish expat community is growing and highly influential. They also happen to be no friend of the State Department’s policy on Israel. It does not take much to connect the dots on using a leftover policy from the Bush Administration to force a change in the relationship between American Jews and their new residence in Israel.

May 5, 2016

The British, the Holocaust, and the Responsibility for Fighting for Your Own Freedom

On May 16th 1943, the Warsaw Ghetto lay in ruin. The uprising that lasted nearly a month was extinguished by German forces. 12,000 Jews who would not go quietly died ts the hands of their merciless enemies and yet, something about the uprising changed the energy in regards to the Jewish Nation.

For centuries Jews had gone willingly to their deaths. Exile in Europe and the Arabs lands had beaten down the Jewish soul, grinding it to become one of sheeplike submission. The Warsaw Ghetto Uprising gave a new message: “We are not your slaves. We will not go quietly.”

Whether or not the fighters in the ghetto knew it, their valiant effort to restore a certain amount of respect and humanity into the Jewish Nation injected a new spirit in their brothers and sisters fighting for freedom in Israel.

The Holocaust was designed to destroy the hope of the eternal nation. Hitler was not content at wiping out European Jews. He sought to destroy them everywhere, including Israel. The British fought Germany in WW2, but when it came to Israel the Nazis and Brits colluded in attempting to stamp out the fledgling Jewish community in the Land of Israel. The Nazis worked to destroy the Jews of Europe, the Brits ensured they could not get into Israel, and of course the Arab street in the Holy Land acted as their willing foot soldiers in their continued attempts to wipe out the Jewish presence in the land.

It is not clear that a Jewish State could have happened before 1948, but what is clear is that if the British had allowed open immigration, there would have never been a Holocaust.

The World has been nurtured on the myth of an Israel born from the Holocaust, but this myth has perpetuated the lie that the Jews are to be eternal victims. The State of Israel came about, because the Jews decided not to be victims anymore. The Jews of Europe, the Middle East, and North Africa decided that it was time to actualize the promise that the Creator had given to them. It is not clear that a Jewish State could have happened before 1948, but what is clear is that if the British had allowed open immigration, there would have never been a Holocaust.

Most people bring up the demographic challenge in Israel in regards to the Arabs that live West of the Jordan River, but the same Europe that challenges Israel on this issue is the Europe and especially Britain that is responsible for the demographic challenges. By colluding with Israel’s enemies, the British sought to do what they did in all of their colonies and that is underhandedly ensure that a violent population opposed to the legitimate indigenous people would in effect dictate the future of the colony.

The tool for this policy was the White Paper, seen below. The key sentences are bolded:

Section 1

“His Majesty’s Government believe that the framers of the Mandate in which the Balfour Declaration was embodied could not have intended that Palestine should be converted into a Jewish State against the will of the Arab population of the country. […] His Majesty’s Government therefore now declare unequivocally that it is not part of their policy that Palestine should become a Jewish State. They would indeed regard it as contrary to their obligations to the Arabs under the Mandate, as well as to the assurances which have been given to the Arab people in the past, that the Arab population of Palestine should be made the subjects of a Jewish State against their will.”

‘The objective of His Majesty’s Government is the establishment within 10 years of an independent Palestine State in such treaty relations with the United Kingdom as will provide satisfactorily for the commercial and strategic requirements of both countries in the future. [..] The independent State should be one in which Arabs and Jews share government in such a way as to ensure that the essential interests of each community are safeguarded.’

Section 2

‘His Majesty’s Government do not [..] find anything in the Mandate or in subsequent Statements of Policy to support the view that the establishment of a Jewish National Home in Palestine cannot be effected unless immigration is allowed to continue indefinitely. If immigration has an adverse effect on the economic position in the country, it should clearly be restricted; and equally, if it has a seriously damaging effect on the political position in the country, that is a factor that should not be ignored. Although it is not difficult to contend that the large number of Jewish immigrants who have been admitted so far have been absorbed economically, the fear of the Arabs that this influx will continue indefinitely until the Jewish population is in a position to dominate them has produced consequences which are extremely grave for Jews and Arabs alike and for the peace and prosperity of Palestine. The lamentable disturbances of the past three years are only the latest and most sustained manifestation of this intense Arab apprehension […] it cannot be denied that fear of indefinite Jewish immigration is widespread amongst the Arab population and that this fear has made possible disturbances which have given a serious setback to economic progress, depleted the Palestine exchequer, rendered life and property insecure, and produced a bitterness between the Arab and Jewish populations which is deplorable between citizens of the same country. If in these circumstances immigration is continued up to the economic absorptive capacity of the country, regardless of all other considerations, a fatal enmity between the two peoples will be perpetuated, and the situation in Palestine may become a permanent source of friction amongst all peoples in the Near and Middle East.’

“Jewish immigration during the next five years will be at a rate which, if economic absorptive capacity permits, will bring the Jewish population up to approximately one third of the total population of the country. Taking into account the expected natural increase of the Arab and Jewish populations, and the number of illegal Jewish immigrants now in the country, this would allow of the admission, as from the beginning of April this year, of some 75,000 immigrants over the next four years. These immigrants would, subject to the criterion of economic absorptive capacity, be admitted as follows: For each of the next five years a quota of 10,000 Jewish immigrants will be allowed on the understanding that a shortage one year may be added to the quotas for subsequent years, within the five-year period, if economic absorptive capacity permits. In addition, as a contribution towards the solution of the Jewish refugee problem, 25,000 refugees will be admitted as soon as the High Commissioner is satisfied that adequate provision for their maintenance is ensured, special consideration being given to refugee children and dependents. The existing machinery for ascertaining economic absorptive capacity will be retained, and the High Commissioner will have the ultimate responsibility for deciding the limits of economic capacity. Before each periodic decision is taken, Jewish and Arab representatives will be consulted. After the period of five years, no further Jewish immigration will be permitted unless the Arabs of Palestine are prepared to acquiesce in it.”

Section 3

“The Reports of several expert Commissions have indicated that, owing to the natural growth of the Arab population and the steady sale in recent years of Arab land to Jews, there is now in certain areas no room for further transfers of Arab land, whilst in some other areas such transfers of land must be restricted if Arab cultivators are to maintain their existing standard of life and a considerable landless Arab population is not soon to be created. In these circumstances, the High Commissioner will be given general powers to prohibit and regulate transfers of land.‘

The Revolt and Never Again

The White Paper was built to create a Jewish dependent within the Land of Israel. The British knew the Jews had no hope of surviving under a majority Arab rule, which they created by allowing open Arab immigration while restricting Jewish immigration.

Each section can be summed up in the following way: “We British have no interest in a sovereign Jewish State and will ensure this by preventing Jews from moving to their ancestral homeland and restricting land sales to Jews.”

The White Paper was the British way of creating another Warsaw Ghetto The Jews of Israel began a Revolt in February of 1944, less than a year after their brothers and sisters in Europe rose up to fight instead of being gassed like passive sheep.

The revolt led by the Irgun of Menachem Begin and the Lehi of Shamir, Eldad, and Mor succeeded in taking the spirit of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising to the front lines of the war for Hebrew freedom in the Land of Israel. This war lasted until the the British left, licking their wounds on what is now Israel Independence Day.

Holocaust Remembrance Day is more than remembering the fallen Jews of the Holocaust, it is about understanding that it is up to us to ensure a prevention of profaning the name of G-d, which occurs when his children are wantonly destroyed. We may lose or win, but the fight is necessary to preserve the name of the Creator in the World. Blessings are eternal, but they can only be actualized by action.

Driving the British out and defeating five British trained Arab armies from destroying the Jewish state, restored the Name of G-d to its rightful place. The action which began this reversal was the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising.

Never Again, does not mean we always win. It means from now on the Jewish Nation will not allow the name of G-d to be tarnished by our passivity. Never Again!

May 4, 2016

Does Israel have a Biafra Strategy?

In 1914 the British took three distinct areas, Lagos Colony, Hausa, and Biafra and forced them together. This action was congruent with a similar policy in Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel, and India. The British had a particular paternal view of their colonies and because they decried the seemingly evil policies of France, Germany, and Belgium, they promoted their policies as civilized and caring.

Nothing is further from the truth. Most of the countries listed above are still suffering from the conflict oriented policy of the British Empire in the early 20th century. This policy thrived on forcing rivals to share space and backing non-indigenous peoples as rulers or agitators in that space.

The Igbo in Nigeria make up the third largest tribe, but in Biafra they are well in the majority. The fact that Nigeria as a British backed government has forced the Igbo to suffer at the hands of their worst enemies is only due to British interests. Before 1914 the Hausa never had access to the cost. The British backed them by forcing Biafra into Nigeria, thus paving the way to suppressing what they saw as the biggest threat to British control, Biafran independence.

A similar set of circumstances occurred in Israel. As the early Jewish residents busied themselves with building their Land and preparing to bring more and more Jewish exiles back home, the British decided to offset the rapid Jewish growth with new Arab workers and immigrants. To be fair this policy began with the Turks who allowed and encouraged Arab migration from other areas in the Ottoman Empire to the Land of Israel in order to offset the success of the early Zionists. Arabs often point out that they had lived in the Land of Israel for centuries, but they use statistics from 1912, because that was the year they finally became significant enough as a population throughout the Land. The British continued this policy, going as far as banning Jewish immigration altogether.

As mentioned above, a similar policy was implemented in Iraq, Afghanistan, and India. The British kept their rule in a all of these places by stirring discontent and thwarting independence movements through bribery and conflating the local leadership and colonial government.

Israel Needs a Clear Biafra Strategy

To truly be free and rectify the sins of European colonialism, Biafra must be allowed its independence. Israel needs to harness its resources and influence to force this outcome. They can do this by using the South-Sudan model or by encouraging its new found East Africa partners to push for Biafran independence.

If Israel fails at setting a clear strategy in a flailing Nigeria, it risks losing a potential ally as well as a bulwark against expanding Islamic influence. Bibi has been adept at sensing and grabbing onto the shifting currents in the Middle East and Africa. Biafra is key to his current strategy of building trusted and reliable allies in the former European colonies in Africa. It would be wise for him to formerly push for a stable and free Biafra.

May 3, 2016

To Annex or Not to Annex That is the Question

If anything proves the Left’s assertion that the Likud led government is pushing Israel towards a One State solution, it is the Norms Bill. The Norms Bill, pushed by the Justice Minister, Ayelet Shaked will apply Israeli Law to all Israelis living beyond the Green Law. Since 1967, the Southern command has been in charge of deciding which Israeli Law could apply for Israeli Citizens in Judea and Samaria.

Despite the Right’s rebuffing of the Left’s attack on the Norms Bill, the legislation does push forward the notion of a de facto annexation by directly applying civil law for its citizens, which in a sense contravenes the international law of an occupying power. Two points below are especially relevant:

The occupant does not acquire sovereignty over the territory.
Occupation is only a temporary situation, and the rights of the occupant are limited to the extent of that period.

It would be hard to prove that the Israeli government does not not understand this.

Forcing the Issue

The Norms Bill, although welcomed by the Right and a majority of the country creates a moment of decision if Israel wants to preserve the notion that it is playing by Western rules. The Israeli government has constantly displayed the need to preserve the status quo in relation to the Palestinian question.

The Norms Bill forces a true discussion of which direction the Israeli government wants to go. If passed, the signal is that Oslo is at last buried. The challenge is what comes next. The World and the Palestinian Street will use the measure to force Israel to make decisions that may be dangerous.

Bibi and his cabinet are not stupid, they understand that the status quo is long gone and it is time to push an Israel first agenda forward. The question will be, if the solution they want will be implemented in a way that not only works for Israel, but can be explained to others.

Bibi is Coopting Parts of Bennett’s Solution

Naftali Bennett ran on a proposal to deal with the Palestinian conflict by allowing limited autonomy in areas A and B, while applying full Israeli Sovereignty to area C. He called it the Stability Plan. With Bibi and Yaalon attempting to pull the IDF out of Area A, the push back from Bennett and Shaked was swift and serious. The Norms Bill gives Bennett and Shaked and the broader right of center camp a piece of what they want. Mix the two actions together and you get a condensed version of Bennett’s plan.

So why is Bibi doing this and why now? It is clear that the Western World is going to try to impose some sort of terms of agreement on the situation in Judea and Samaria. Bibi has always viewed the situation unsolvable. The most he will offer is some sort of Middle Eastern version of Luxembourg, which the Palestinians and their Arab allies will not accept. Given the terrain, the current Israeli government is trying draw up their own terms, but literally on the ground. Time will tell if this status quo with a few changes will be enough to stall the international consensus that some solution needs to be forced.

May 1, 2016December 16, 2016

Elor Azaria, Bibi Netanyahu, and the Collective Disconnect of Israeli Leaders

The case for or against Elor Azaria, a young soldier who shot dead a neutralized Arab attacker on Hebron has opened up a Pandora’s Box both within Israeli society and the IDF. Azaria is being charged by the army for manslaughter, since in their reasoning he had no need to shoot dead an already neutralized terrorist.

When news first broke out, condemnation from government officials was swift, after all the far left NGO B’Tzelem took the the film and distributed it, but the condemnation turned from a PR play into a much more insidious move. The IDF Spokesman immediately issued a seemingly kneejerk response: “The chief of staff views this as a serious incident. … This is not the IDF, these are not the values of the IDF and these are not the values of the Jewish people.”

Whoever supports these kinds of acts [the soldier’s] is damaging the values of the Israel Defense Forces.

The public outcry was swift and tremendous. Rallies were held, which seemingly forced the army to reduce the charge from murder to the present manslaughter. Yet, none of the public outcry has had an effect on the top brass of the defense establishment. “It really worries me. Part of the power [of the IDF], as many have described it — [David] Ben-Gurion, Menachem Begin and others — is our ethical strength. We aren’t Daesh. When there is a need to kill, you kill. When we need to be resolute, we are resolute. But when someone has his hands up, or is already neutralized, that’s when you arrest,” Defense Minister Moshe Yaalon said in response to the rally in support for Azaria held in Tel Aviv, prior to Passover. “Whoever supports these kinds of acts [the soldier’s] is damaging the values of the Israel Defense Forces.”

The incident has done more to damage the public’s faith in the government and IDF leadership than any security failure could have. The simple reason is that the young soldiers drafted into the army and put in harm’s way in defense of the Nation of Israel have always been regarded as off limits for public and media scrutiny. The IDF and government maliciously turning against one of their own has essentially confirmed for the public how out of touch the leadership really is with the plight of the common Israeli.

Whether he was guilty or innocent was beside the point. The point was that his commanders – beginning with the defense minister and the chief of General Staff – were treating him like a criminal instead of a combat soldier on the front lines defending our country from an enemy that seeks our destruction.

“For the public – including the five thousand citizens who came to the support rally for Azaria at Rabin Square on Tuesday – the critical moment was when the film of Azaria being led away from the scene in handcuffs was broadcast on the evening news. That image, of a combat soldier who killed a terrorist being treated like a criminal, was the breaking point for the public,” Caroline Glick wrote in her article about Azaria. “Whether he was guilty or innocent was beside the point. The point was that his commanders – beginning with the defense minister and the chief of General Staff – were treating him like a criminal instead of a combat soldier on the front lines defending our country from an enemy that seeks our destruction.”

Bibi is In Trouble

The last time Bibi lost the premiership, it was not because Ehud Barak was so much better, it was do to the fact that Bibi had cut off his base with the Wye River Accords, which broke his campaign promise to the Right not to hand anymore land to the Palestinian Authority as well as a back track on ending the disastrous Oslo accords. Bibi’s political blunders have never been against a weak Left, but happen when he forgets that his strength comes from the lack of follow up to the verbiage he gives to the Right.

Bibi’s political blunders have never been against a weak Left, but happen when he forgets that his strength comes from the lack of follow up to the verbiage he gives to the Right.

The problem with the Azaria case for Israel’s government is not whether, the soldier did anything wrong or not. In a fluid situation, armies always allow for flexibility in individual soldiers’ reactions. By making this case more about morality than a simple breaking of IDF rules of engagement, Bibi and his government (save for Bennett and other like minded ministers) have essentially cut off the very base that put them in power to begin with.

Bibi may be faced with a choice very soon to either jettison the left side of Likud, represented by Moshe Yaalon or be taken down by others who have not yet divorced themselves from the Israeli public.