Home Author
Author

Joseph Pruder

Joseph Puder is the Executive Director of Stand With Us in Philidephia. He is an American born journalist and writes frequently on issues connected to the Middle East.

PoliticsRedemption Watch

ISRAEL AT 70 – MATURE AND PROSPEROUS

by Joseph Pruder
written by Joseph Pruder

The ingredients for a bright future.

I am on my way to Israel to celebrate the 70th birthday of the Jewish state.  Having experienced many of Israel’s birthdays before, when the country was noticeably less mature or prosperous, this birthday is a special occasion.  With all the glory attached to the coming of age, there are also sets of precedents that require caution and good judgment.

The number 70 has meaningful commutations in Jewish tradition.  It recalls the 70-year Babylonian Exile that led to the start of the Second Jewish Commonwealth in 530 BCE.  The return to the Land of Israel occurred through the Charter given by the Persian Emperor Cyrus the Great, allowing Jews who wished to return to “Jerusalem that is in Judah” and build a “House for the God of Heaven” to do so.  Prime Minister Netanyahu, in praising Donald Trump’s recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, compared him to King Cyrus the Great.  Similarly, President Harry Truman was told that in recognizing the Jewish state, he would become another King Cyrus for Jews everywhere.

Zerubbabel, a descendent of King David, led the first wave of returnees to Jerusalem.  The second wave come with the Scribe Ezra (book of Ezra in the third portion of the Hebrew Bible called Ketuvim).  The third stage of mass return to the land occurred with Nehemiah, a high official in the Persian Empire administration.

The first returnees had to deal with the Samaritans and the Ammonites, in the same way the 19th and 20th century returnees had to deal with the Arabs.  The Samaritans, like the Arabs of later times, were brought into the land of Israel by the Assyrian kings at the end of the Eight Century BCE in place of the Israelites they had deported.  Arabs settled in the Land of Israel following the deportation of the Jews (most but not all) by the Romans in the aftermath of the Jewish rebellion, which ended in the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE.

Waves of conquerors of the land of Israel, which the Romans renamed Syria Palestina, settled in place of the exiled Jews.  The name Palestina had nothing to do with Arab-Palestinians of today.  It was named after the Philistines, people related to the Greeks who originally invaded the coastal cities of Israel from the Aegean Sea.  By the time the First Temple was destroyed by the Babylonians in 586 BCE, no traces were left of the Philistines.  Under the Arab conquerors and the Ottoman Turkish rule (1516-1918), and especially during the British Mandate (1918-1948), many Arabs from neighboring states settled in Palestine, propelled by industry and jobs created by Jewish pioneers.

There are additional similarities between the returnees from the Babylonian Exile and Israelis today.  Many were “post-Zionist.”  Zerubbabel intended to rebuild the land of Zion, shaping it in the image and glory of the kingdoms of David and Solomon.  Many of the returnees sought to blend with the prevailing cultures of the surrounding nations.  In Israel today, a segment of the population are regarding themselves as post-Zionist.  They seek to be part of the larger world and blend with the prevailing western culture. They are choosing universalism versus Jewish particularism.

In recent decades, Israel as a nation has become largely conservative.  It is evidenced by the electoral majorities of the right-of-center parties’ garner.  Surveys indicate that 65% of the electorate has been voting for parties right-of-center.  The leftist parties, including the Labor Party now called the Zionist Camp, is a fading shadow of its progenitor, the once powerful Mapai (Mifleget Poali Eretz Israel) party.

Under PM Netanyahu, Israel turned away from its socialist past and adopted capitalism.  That, coupled with incentivizing risk-taking, created innovation and prosperity not seen before.

While Israel has become a richer country, not everyone has shared in its prosperity.  The current Israeli government seeks to motivate the ultra-religious haredi community into entering the workforce as well as increasing the Arab sector involvement in the workforce. The current unemployment rate in Israel (April 2018) is 3.8%.  Israel has a far higher employment rate than the average European Union or even the U.S., at 64%.   Israel’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is forecasted by the International Monetary Fund to be $37,485.67 PPP (Purchasing Power Parity) in December, 2018.  In December, 2022 Israel’s GDP PPP is projected to stand at $42,496.31.  In 1980, Israel’s GDP PPP was $7,062.57, meaning that Israel’s GDP PPP grew by over six times.  Italy, with a population of over 60 million, by comparison grew only four times from 1980 ($10,543.69) to 2022 ($44,129.81).  Israel’s innovations in bio-technology, agriculture, medicine, to name but a few sectors, are incredible.  Israeli companies are second only to the U.S. in trading on the U.S. stock markets.

Life has improved for most Israelis not only in economic terms.  A 2016 UN survey showed that the Jewish state ranks 11th in the Global Happiness Index, above Germany, the UK, Italy, Ireland, France and the U.S., in spite of facing wars on a regular basis in the volatile and unstable Middle East region.  Denmark was listed as the happiest nation in the world.

A survey conducted by Israel’s Democracy Institute and Tel Aviv University in May, 2017 found that 66% of Arab-Israeli respondents considered life in Israel as being “good” or “very good.”  According to the Jewish People Policy Institute (JPPI) Annual Pluralism Index (April 20, 2017), “90% of Jewish Israelis and almost 80% of Arab Israelis felt ‘comfortable’ or ‘very comfortable’ to be ‘who they are’.  Among Jews the sense of comfort is greater for those who define themselves further to the right on the political or religious spectrum.  Among Arabs, the sense of comfort is greater for those who define their main identity as ‘Israeli’, and lower among those who define their main identity as ‘Arab’ or ‘Palestinian’.

Israel, in 2018, is a stronger state militarily as well in relation to its regional enemies.  Moreover, the threat that Iran poses to the Middle East region as a whole, has brought the Gulf Arabs and Saudi Arabia in particular, to recognize Israel as an “ally” of sorts.  Iran is seen by them as an existential threat, and it is likewise for Israel.  Egypt’s economic weakness has impacted on its potential threat to Israel.  Cairo, much like Riyadh, views Iran and its agent Hezbollah as a greater threat than Israel.  Israel’s military is now larger in manpower, better equipped than ever before, and still highly motivated.  Syria and Iraq, once bitter enemies of Israel, have been incapacitated by civil-wars and internal strife. Hezbollah, the Lebanese based terror organization poses a danger to Israel’s population, but Israel has the means to deal with it, as it has dealt with Hamas in Gaza.

The Talmud attributes the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE to groundless hatred (Sinat Chinam), which was endemic to national Jewish life at that time.  Famed Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook, the first Chief Rabbi of Israel, wrote that if the Second Temple was destroyed and the people scattered through groundless hatred, then the Temple will be rebuilt and the Jewish people gather together through Causeless Love (Ahavat Chinam).  As Israel celebrates its 70th birthday, it must be cautious not to repeat the divisiveness of the Second Commonwealth in which groundless hatred and in-fighting brought down the Temple and caused Exile.  Only good judgement and national cohesion will lead to Israel’s bright future.

Originally Posted on FrontPageMag.

0 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Politics

TROUBLES OF A TWO-STATE SOLUTION

by Joseph Pruder
written by Joseph Pruder

Why a Palestinian state would be a disaster for Israel and the region.

Howard Kohr, AIPAC’s (American-Israel Public Affairs Committee) CEO created a bit of an uproar among certain Jewish organizations when he stated at the AIPAC conference earlier this month that, “We must work toward that future: two states for two people. One Jewish with secure and defensible borders, and one Palestinian with its own flag and its own future.”  It was a reiteration of last year’s call on the U.S. administration to undertake steps that “Could create a climate that encourages the Palestinians to negotiate in pursuit of the goal we desire: a Jewish state of Israel living side by side in peace and security with a demilitarized Palestinian state.”

There is no question that Howard Kohr’s motives are pure and honorable in seeking a secure Israel alongside a peaceful and demilitarized Palestinian state.  Unfortunately reality dictates otherwise.  At the moment we actually have a need to solve more than a two-state question.  We have a third state question and that is the Hamas ruled Gaza Strip.  Hamas has vowed to fight until the liberation of all of Palestine and the destruction of Israel.  The Los Angeles Times reported (March 1, 2017), “In a shift, the new document (as it relates to the Hamas Covenant-JP), formally endorses the goal of establishing a Palestinian state in Gaza and the West Bank, with Jerusalem as its capital, as part of a ‘national consensus’ among Palestinians (this was during the reconciliation process with Fatah and the Palestinian Authority-JP).  While that may be a tacit acknowledgment of Israel’s existence, the revision stops well short of recognizing Israel, and reasserts calls for armed resistance toward a ‘complete liberation of Palestine’ from the river to the sea.”

The attempted assassination of the Palestinian Authority (PA) Prime Minister Rami Hamdallah earlier this month in Gaza, put a stop to the reconciliation efforts between Hamas and the PA, which is dominated by Fatah.  Fatah spokesperson and Revolutionary Council member, Osama al-Qawasmi said, “Hamas is fully responsible for this cowardly operation that targeted the homeland, reconciliation, and unity. This cowardly act is outside of our values and national relations, and has repercussions.”  It is clear that even if PA President Mahmoud Abbas should return to the negotiating table, and that is doubtful, Hamas will continue its campaign of terror against Israel.  Hamas is unwilling to give up control of its arms, its rockets, or its mortars, to the PA.

In December, 1998, President Bill Clinton responded to Arafat’s letter.  He thanked Arafat for the move in January of the same year, which allegedly struck out and amended the call in the Palestinian Charter for the destruction of Israel, by the raised arms verbal vote of the Palestinian National Council (PNC).  The Palestinian Charter specifies in Clause 33 as amended in 1968, that the charter can only be changed if 2/3rds of its membership met to vote on the change.  This did not occur.  It is abundantly clear that the PA is still committed to the destruction of Israel, albeit, without openly using the extremist verbiage that Hamas is using.  The continued incitement to violence and terror by Mahmoud Abbas, and the entire educational and informational apparatus of the PA that advocates hatred for Jews and Israel, negates the idea of a peaceful Palestinian state living side by side with the Jewish state of Israel.

The idea that a future Palestinian state would adhere to being a “demilitarized state” is totally unrealistic, especially if we consider the history and nature of Arab regimes. Louis Rene Beres, Emeritus Professor of International Law, has pointed out that even “If the government of a fully sovereign Palestinian state were in fact willing to consider itself bound by some pre-state agreement to demilitarize, in these improbable circumstances, the new Palestinian Arab government could likely identify ample pretext and opportunity to invoke lawful ‘treaty’ termination.

Palestine could withdraw from any such agreement because of what it would regard as a ‘material breach,’ a purported violation by Israel, one that had allegedly undermined the object or purpose of the accord.  It could also point to what international law calls Rebus sic stantibus: ‘permissible abrogation,’ known more popularly as a ‘fundamental change of circumstances.’  If Palestine should declare itself vulnerable to previously unseen dangers, perhaps even from interventionary forces, or the forces of other Arab armies or insurgencies that it could claim might be trying to occupy it, it could lawfully end its previously codified commitment to stay demilitarized.

There is another reason why any hopes for Palestinian demilitarization must remain unsupportable. After declaring independence, a Palestinian government — any Palestinian government – could point to particular pre-independence errors of fact, or to duress, as appropriate grounds for invoking selective agreement termination. In this regard, the grounds that may be invoked under domestic law to invalidate contracts could also apply under international law, whether to actual treaties, or, as in this particular case, to lesser treaty-like agreements.”

Professor Beres pointed out that according to the ‘Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties’ (1969), an authentic treaty must always be between states.”  Beres argues that “any treaty or treaty-like compact is void if, at the time of its entry into force it conflicts with a ‘peremptory’ rule of international law — that is, one from which ‘no derogation is permitted.’ As the right of sovereign states to maintain military forces for self-defense is always such a rule, Palestine would be within its lawful right to abrogate any pre-independence agreement that had (impermissibly) compelled its own demilitarization.”

The “2005 Gaza experience,” of unilateral withdrawal from Gaza, has taught Israel a painful lesson.  Once it vacates land it will ultimately become a base for terror attacks against its cities and citizens.  With Israel’s major cities within rifle fire of a Palestinian state, not to mention rockets, life inside Israel would become impossible.  Palestinian terror attacks and Israel’s retaliation will serve as an excuse for the future state of Palestine to discard demilitarization.  International guarantees, even by its closest allies won’t have any meaning. Israel learned this lesson following the Sinai Campaign of 1956.  The Maritime powers guarantees (including the U.S.) didn’t prevent Egypt’s dictator, Abdul Nasser, from closing the Straits of Tiran and the Suez Canal to Israeli navigation. The International community did nothing.

A one-state solution in which Israel would absorb about two-million Palestinians as its citizens is not an ideal solution either.  It isn’t so much the demographic threat that it once was, but rather a threat to peace within the country, where two cultures are in conflict.  Perhaps the ideal solution is for the Kingdom of Jordan to federate with the West Bank Palestinians.  Israel would annex area C under the Oslo Accords, where most of the 500,000 Jews live, and the Jordan River would serve as the international border between Israel and Jordan, which would insure Israel’s security.  The Palestinian-Arabs will have a flag (the Jordanian and Palestinian flags are almost identical), a representation in the federated government, possibly a Palestinian Prime Minister (Jordan’s population is already 70% Palestinians), an outlet to the sea (Aqaba if not Gaza) and total religious homogeneity (Sunni-Islam).

Under normal circumstances many Israelis, much like Howard Kohr, would prefer a two-state solution.  But the realities in the Middle East indicate that another authoritarian state (and most likely terrorist state) won’t contribute to stability or peace in the region.  On the contrary, it would serve as a focal point of conflict.  Perhaps in the next few generation things might change, but for now a Palestinian state would be a disaster for Israel and the region.

Originally Published in FrontPageMag.

0 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
BordersPolitics

VERBAL COMBAT: IRAN VS. ISRAEL

by Joseph Pruder
written by Joseph Pruder

Might it lead to war?

U.S. voices at the United Nations (UN) and in the U.S. Congress are warning of the dangers of relying on Russia to curb Iran’s incursion deep into Syria, and warning of the treat this poses to U.S. allies, Israel and Jordan.  Yet, the Trump administration seems to consider the status-quo in Syria, (minus ISIS), acceptable, essentially conceding the field to Russia when considering the future of Syria.  In the meantime, verbal combat is occurring between Iran and Israel that might lead to a real war.

Earlier this month, the State Department announced a deal with Russia to expand “deconfliction zones” in southwestern Syria.  It is allegedly designed to keep Iranian, Hezbollah, and Iranian recruited Shiite militias from Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan and Yemen, away from Syria’s borders with Israel and Jordan.  But, if the Trump Administration is sincere about stopping Iran’s advance toward the Mediterranean Sea, or preventing a major conflict in the Middle East, it certainly falls short on this score.  Moreover, Russia is using its air power to protect Iranian backed ground forces.  The U.S., on its part, plans to end its involvement in Syria and Iraq once the Islamic State is defeated and ejected from the region. Regrettably, unlike the Russians, who have protected their Middle East allies, the U.S. appears to be abandoning their hitherto allies, the Syrian Democratic Forces, who are predominantly Kurds.  This would allow the dictator, Bashar Assad, whose army slaughtered most of the 500,000 fellow Syrians using outlawed chemical weapons, to stay in power under Russian and Iranian protection.




At the UN last week, Russia vetoed the extension of a UN panel set to investigate Assad’s regimes use of chemical weapons, called the Joint Investigative Mechanism (JIM).  Nikki Haley, U.S. ambassador to the UN, twitted that “By using the veto to kill the mechanism in Syria that holds users of chemical weapons accountable, Russia proves they cannot be trusted or credible as we work toward a political solution in Syria.”

At a counterterrorism conference hosted by the Hudson Institute in Washington DC, U.S. Senator Tom Cotton (R-AK) (leading member of the Senate Armed Services and Intelligence committees) had this to say about the Iranian threat to Israel. “Iran’s aggression against Israel has become much more widespread.  It’s a very dangerous advance that Iran is making through northern Iraq and southern Syria.  Iran is now providing not just rockets, it’s helping build precision-guided munitions factories in Syria, on the border with Lebanon, where Hezbollah can manufacture its own precision-guided munitions to use against Israel.” Cotton added, “We can’t allow the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) to have unmolested, resupply lines going from Iran to the Levant.  It is not in the interest of the U.S. to have a revolutionary cause backed with the powers of a nation state expanding its influence throughout the region.”

The Iranian regime may be a threat to U.S. vital interests in the Middle East, as stated by U.S. Senator Tom Cotton, but it is a definitive existential threat to Israel.  Tehran’s threats to Israel are not confined to rhetorical remarks by its leaders. It has now developed capabilities that will enable it to carry out its intentions to “destroy Israel.”  The 2015 Nuclear Deal, which Iran is clearly subverting in various ways, includes developing long-range ballistic missiles and the accompanying delivery system.

Earlier this year, Mojtaba Zonour, a senior member of Iran’s National Security and Foreign Policy Commission and a former Revolutionary Guards official, commented that, “Only 7 minutes is needed for the Iranian missile to hit Tel Aviv.”  He also warned that his country (Iran) “would immediately strike Israel if the U.S. makes a mistake.”

Reuters reported (11/18/2017) that Iranian military chief-of-staff General Mohammad Baqeri said that the Islamic Republic would not accept Israeli violations of Syria, according to the Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA).  Baqeri stated during a visit to Damascus that, “It is not acceptable for the Zionist regime to violate Syria anytime it wants.”

Israel’s Defense Minister, Avigdor Lieberman, on a visit to Israel’s northern border last week stated that, “Israel is prepared and ready for all eventualities.”  He added that Israel will reserve its absolute freedom of action.  He said that Israel won’t allow Iranian bases in Syria, and will not permit southwestern Syria to become a forward outpost against Israel.

Lieberman was accompanied on his visit with Israel’s Defense Forces (IDF) Chief-of-Staff Gadi Eizenkot, and senior IDF generals.  It reflects Israel’s concerns over the recent Iranian moves that includes efforts to erect a permanent base on Syrian soil.  Iran, it appears, is seeking to upgrade its threats against Israel, should her nuclear facilities be attacked, hence, an Iranian presence in Syria is extremely dangerous for Israel.  In addition, Israel fears that in the near future, Iran might transfer to Syria advanced anti-aircraft and land-to-sea missiles that will directly threaten Israel’s freedom of navigation and its aircraft.

Behind the warlike declaration delivered over microphones, Israel is investing heavily in worldwide briefings, and in particular, appealing to Washington.  Israeli representatives are explaining to officials the dangers of a permanent Iranian presence in Syria.  Hitherto, the U.S. administration has shown little interest in acting on it.

When the dust of war clears over Syria, Bashar Assad, the butcher of Damascus, will be the winner in the civil war.  The true rulers of Syria will be however, the Russians.  Putin’s diplomats tell every side what they want to hear, including Israel.  It is clear nonetheless that the Russians see their interests coincide with that of Iran.  Sergey Lavrov, Russia’s foreign Minister, confirmed that last week when he suggested that the Iranian presence in Syria is “legitimate.”  On October 16, 2017, Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu, visited Israel after Israeli Air Force (IAF) planes conducting a photography mission over Lebanon, were fired upon by an anti-aircraft SA-5 battery of the Syrian army. A quartet of Israeli jets took off from an IAF base, and with four precise bombs, made direct hits and destroyed the radar unit launcher and the firing battery.  In meetings with PM Netanyahu and DM Lieberman, Shoigu offered little practical solutions in dealing with Iranian expansionism.

According to the London-based Asharq Al-Awsat, Russia has rejected Israel’s request for a 40 kilometer buffer zone from the Israeli Golan Heights border, but was willing to expand a 10-15 kilometer zone, which will be off-limits to Iranian forces.

The escalating war of words between Jerusalem and Tehran can easily turn from verbal volleys to missiles flying on all sides.  Although none of the parties want to be dragged into a war, the escalating threats and counter threats have their own dynamic force, and wars break out as a result of misunderstandings between enemies.  This is an explosive situation that the Trump administration must not ignore.  It is time for the U.S. to flex some muscle in Syria.

Oringally Published in FrontpageMag.

0 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Politics

The Fatah-Hamas Unification

by Joseph Pruder
written by Joseph Pruder

What it means for Israel.

Earlier this month, a new Palestinian unification agreement was signed in Cairo through Egyptian mediation.  It is unlikely to differ much from the previous 2011 agreement between Fatah and Hamas that fizzled away.  In control of Gaza since 2007, Hamas is committed to the destruction of Israel without much pretense.  Fatah, the party of President Mahmoud Abbas, would like the Jewish state to disappear in stages, albeit, with internationally sanctioned agreements, and good doses of terror inspired by the Ramallah regime.  Just like a leopard cannot change its spots, the Palestinians cannot discard their deep enmity toward the Jewish state.

Al-Jazeera reported on October 12, 2017 that “Palestinian political parties Hamas and Fatah signed a reconciliation deal in the Egyptian capital, Cairo, on Thursday, as part of an effort to end the decade-long rift. The announcement comes after representatives from Hamas and the Fatah-led Palestinian Authority (PA) convened in Cairo on Tuesday to implement a unity agreement that was signed in 2011 but not put into action.”

In recent months, Hamas has been under increased pressure to give up its sole control over the Gaza Strip.  The PA has cut the salaries of PA employees living in Gaza, and at the same time electricity to Gaza has been reduced.  On top of that, Israel’s blockade has furthered the power shortages in Gaza.  One of the elements in the agreement signed would allow Palestinian Authority Security forces to control the Rafah crossing between Gaza and Egypt, as of December 1, 2017.  This is believed to be a way to end Egyptian closure of the border crossing, and thus allow goods and people to cross into and out of the Gaza Strip.

Western powers, hoping that the reconciliation agreement would signal momentum toward an eventual Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement would have to be skeptical given the existing precedence of Palestinian factions inability to come to terms.  Moreover, in order for a genuine Israeli-Palestinian peace process to materialize into a peace agreement, the agreement has to fulfill two vital conditions.

The first being that the unification of the two factions (Fatah and Hamas) must produce a unified leadership that can speak with one voice, and be empowered to proceed with peace negotiations with Israel.  This objective must be publicly announced by all Palestinian factions.  If, on the other hand, the objective of the unification is to solidify Palestinian opposition to a peaceful coexistence with Israel by allowing Hamas to keep its military arm, and continue its acts of terror by firing rockets at Israel, building tunnels, and commit murderous acts against Israeli civilians, then this unification will lead nowhere but to continued bloodshed.  It will also make it impossible for the international community to seek continued Israeli-Palestinian negotiations.

The second condition is for the unified Palestinian administration to openly reaffirm all Palestinian commitments regarding Israel and the international community signed at the Oslo Accords and witnessed by the international community.

In the meantime however, none of these condition have been met.  While PA officials seek to “sell” Western powers on the efficacy of Palestinian unification on the peace process, other top PA officials are revealing Palestinian true intentions.  The Times of Israel reported (October 20, 2017) that an official at the Palestinian Mission to Columbia tweeted a quote from former Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat calling for the destruction of Israel.  The tweed read, “Our goal is the end of Israel, and there can be no compromises or mediations… We do not want peace. We want war and victory.”

Hamas leader in the Gaza Strip Yahya Sinwar, declared on October 19, 2017, during a speech in Gaza that his terror organization will never disarm, adding that, “Gone is the time in which Hamas discussed recognition of Israel. The discussion now is about when we will wipe out Israel.”

Ynet-News reported that “U.S. President Donald Trump’s special Mideast envoy, Jason Greenblatt, said that if Hamas wants to play a role in any Palestinian government, it must renounce violence and commit to peaceful negotiations with Israel, adding that they must meet the international demands to recognize Israel and accept previous agreements with it.” Greenblatt added that Hamas must accept these basic requirements, which are also the Middle East Quartet’s (UN, EU, U.S. and Russia) requirements.

It is downright naïve to believe that Hamas would renounce violence, or that the PA is truly interested in real peace with Israel.  It is worth remembering that in Geneva, Switzerland, on a cold December day in 1988, Arafat “renounced” violence and pledged to recognize Israel, only to authorize six months later a terrorist attack on Israel at Palmachim beach in central Israel.  This reporter was a witness to Arafat’s coached Geneva pledge in order to initiate a dialogue with the U.S. administration.

The PA has allegedly accepted the key principles outlined by the quartet.  Hamas though, views the Quartet’s demands as conflicting with its position of using armed resistance against Israel (i.e. terrorism), supposedly to end the occupation.  Yet Israel handed over control of the Gaza Strip to the Palestinians in 2005, exposing Hamas’ uncompromising stance.

In a Facebook statement (October 12, 2017), Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu wrote that “Israel opposes any reconciliation in which the terrorist organization Hamas does not disarm and end its war to destroy Israel. There is nothing Israel wants more than peace with all our neighbors.  Reconciliation between Fatah and Hamas makes peace much harder to achieve.  What does it say when you reconcile with a terrorist organization that: seeks to annihilate Israel, advocates genocide, launched thousands of rockets at civilians and digs terror tunnels, murders children, represses minorities, bans LGBT, rejects international obligations, refuses to free Israeli civilians it holds hostage, refuses to return the bodies of Israeli soldiers to grieving mothers and fathers, tortures opposition, and mourns Ben Laden’s death.  Reconciling with mass-murderers is part of the problem, not part of the solution. Say yes to peace and no to joining hands with Hamas.”

It seems that Fatah has capitulated to Hamas rather than the reverse.  Fatah will not seek to force Hamas to give up its “resistance,” a euphemism for terrorism.  According to Palestinian Media Watch (PMW) Jibril Rajoub, a member of Fatah Central Committee and former head of the Preventive Security Force in the West Bank, told Al-Mayadeen TV (Lebanon), October 6, 2017, “the Fatah-Hamas unity government will not give up resistance.” Another Fatah Central Committee member, Azzam Al-Ahmad, elaborated on Rajoub’s statements by explaining that Fatah has not changed its principles, which remain “popular resistance, armed struggle, and negotiations.”

The new unification agreement between Fatah and Hamas, which includes admission of Hamas into the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO), does not much differ from the previous agreement in its attitudes toward Israel.  The agreement enshrines “resistance,” (terror), and resistance cannot go together with peace.  What makes this agreement somewhat different is Egypt’s role in it.  Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, Egypt’s president, has put his prestige on the line, and both Hamas and the PA know the consequences of failure.  Hamas has been branded a terrorist organization by the U.S., the European Union and Israel.  It has also been an enemy of Egypt’s President el-Sisi by virtue of its ties to the Muslim Brotherhood.

For Israel, a key question is, in a Palestinian unity government, will PA security forces be able to thwart terrorist attacks against Israel as they have done in the past? Israel’s response to the reconciliation agreement this time has been more measured and cautious, but few Israelis expect the agreement to bring the Palestinians closer to making peace.

Originally Published in FrontPageMag.

0 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
PoliticsRadical IslamRegional Analysis

ERDOGAN’S GENOCIDAL INCITEMENT

by Joseph Pruder
written by Joseph Pruder

Funding Palestinian Jew-hatred.

Turkey’s dictatorial president Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s recent efforts to mediate between the Saudis, their Arab Gulf allies and Egypt on one side versus his Qatari ally (both are staunch supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood) on the other, have failed to materialize.  At the same time, his war of words with Germany, and the European Union’s cold shoulder, has left the arrogant Erdogan with one avenue to make headlines – incite Muslims against Israel.  His crude anti-Semitic incitement has gone hand-in-hand with his posturing as the leader of the Sunni-Muslim world.

Erdogan has called on Muslims to show solidarity with the Palestinians by flooding Jerusalem’s Temple Mount.  He has used invectives against Israel with such words as “racist and discriminatory.” This comes after the Israeli government backed away from a confrontation with the incited Muslim community, and ordered the removal of the metal detectors and security cameras.  The Israeli actions followed a week of Palestinian rioting, and the murders of three Israeli family members by a Palestinian terrorist.  Erdogan declared that, “In our religionand historical responsibility for Al-Quds and the fight of our Palestinian brothers for rights and justice is of great importance to us.”

Israel’s Foreign Ministry was quick to respond to Erdogan’s repeated incitement (he previously ranted about a proposed bill that would ban the religious institution from using loudspeakers. Switzerland already banned loudspeakers in mosques.) It called Erdogan’s comments “baseless slander,” adding that, “anyone who systemically violates human rights in their own country should not preach about morality. It’s absurd that the Turkish government, which occupies Northern Cyprus, brutally represses the Kurdish minority and jails journalists, should lecture Israel, the only true democracy in the region. The days of the Ottoman Empire have passed.” The Foreign Ministry statement added, “Israel strictly adheres to protecting full freedom of worship for Jews, Muslims, and Christians – and will continue to do so despite this baseless slander.”

Build Jerusalem Fund

Erdogan’s incendiary remarks, in a speech to his party’s parliamentary group in Ankara, stated, “When Israeli soldiers recklessly pollute the grounds of Al-Aqsa with their combat boots by using simple issues as pretexts and then easily spill blood there, it is because we [Muslims] have not done enough to stake our claim over Jerusalem.” Turkey’s Erdogan is currently the chairman of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC). Clearly, in Erdogan’s mind, Jews and Israelis are merely dhimmis who should be disciplined by the Islamic Empire, and he considers himself a ‘Sultan’ of sorts.

Israeli political leaders reacted this time to Erdogan’s incitement with unsuppressed anger. Israel’s President Reuven Rivlin said, “We have heard voices which attack Israel for building Jewish life in Jerusalem. I must tell these people: For the last 150 years there has been a Jewish majority in Jerusalem. Even under the Ottoman Empire there was a Jewish majority in Jerusalem. Under Israeli sovereignty we continue to build Jerusalem, the eternal capital of the Jewish people.”

Jerusalem’s mayor, Nir Barkat, went even further in responding to Erdogan’s charges saying that, “Turkey ruled Jerusalem for 400 years under the Ottoman Empire.  It is surprising that Erdogan, who leads a state that occupied Jerusalem for 400 years, wants to preach to us about how to manage our city.  Unlike, during the Turkish occupation, Jerusalem under Israeli sovereignty is a flourishing, open, and free city that allows freedom of religion and worship for all.  In recent years, record numbers of Muslims have visited the Temple Mount and held prayers, exercising their absolute freedom of religion under Israeli sovereignty.”  Barkat added, “The connection of the Jewish people to Jerusalem dates back more than 3,000 years.  Jerusalem is and will remain, our eternal united capital forever. In every corner of the city, we see Jewish roots – from the time of the First and Second Temple to the Muslim period and the Ottoman conquest.”

Israeli Knesset (Parliament) Speaker, Yuli Edelstein, said, “As long as Erdogan is Turkey’s leader, ties will not be back to what they were.”  Ex-Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon was more adamant, saying that “Erdogan aspires for there to be Muslim Brotherhood hegemony in the Middle East, and is working toward an Islamic Europe. This should be surprising only to those who ignore the facts.” Former Interior Minister Gideon Sa’ar, in an interview with 103FM Radio, stated that “We made a mistake by paying damages and apologizing for the Marmara incident.”

Erdogan’s latest attempt to scapegoat Israel with his Al-Aqsa speech comes after his failure to bring an end to the Arab Gulf crisis. In fact, Erdogan’s meddling on behalf of Qatar has cost Turkey a lucrative shipbuilding contract with the Saudis to sell four warships to the Saudi navy, worth $2 billion.  Erdogan’s expedited bill in the Turkish parliament to send Turkish soldiers to a Turkish military base in Qatar, doomed the prospects for expanding Turkish trade with the Arab Gulf states.

It was not only in the Middle East that Erdogan suffered a significant setback…he recently created a crisis with Germany as well. The relationship between the two countries had already soured.  Last March, the German government refused to allow Erdogan and his ministers to hold election campaigns in Germany.  In response, Erdogan accused the German government of implementing “Nazi practices.”  Turkey’s refusal to allow German parliament members to visit their contingent at the Incirlik air base led Germany to move its soldiers to Jordan. Things deteriorated further when the Turkish government arrested a Turkish-German journalist reporting for the German newspaper Die Welt on phony charges, alleging support for a terrorist organization.  Germany also provided political asylum for Turkish generals. Erdogan is holding German nationals in detention as a bargaining chip.

Erdogan’s spat with Israel didn’t advance his standing with Germany, the European Union or with the Arabs.  His anti-Israel and anti-Semitic tendencies were already on display in January, 2009 at the Davos, Switzerland World Economic Forum. At a panel discussion, Erdogan walked off the stage in protest because the moderator ended the discussion.  Yet he managed to say to the late Israeli President Shimon Peres, “When it comes to killing, you know well how to kill.” He was referring to Israel’s campaign in Gaza in retaliation for Hamas’ missile attacks on Israel. Peres responded by saying Turkey would have reacted the same way had rockets been falling on Istanbul. In May, 2010, a Turkish organized flotilla attempting to break Israel’s blockade of Gaza, resulting in Israeli commandos boarding the Turkish Islamist lead ship, the Navi Marmara. Nine violent Turkish Islamists died in the confrontation with Israel, which the Turks provoked.  Erdogan called for Israel to be punished for its “bloody massacre.”

Erdogan assumed dictatorial powers following an April referendum in Turkey, and has jailed at least 47,155people without charges in the wake of last year’s failed coup against his continued rule. A consistently bellicose supporter of the Palestinians, Erdogan has frequently made anti-Semitic remarks, along with veiled threats to the Turkish Jewish community.

Erdogan is providing money to Palestinians to continue their violent demonstrations against Israel, allegedly to “defend” Al-Aqsa. This is a dangerous game the megalomaniacal Erdogan is playing in order gain influence with the Arab masses, ultimately, at the cost of Palestinian and Israeli blood.

Originally Published on FrontPageMag.

0 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Newer Posts
Older Posts