Category: Politics

Posted on

President of Turkey: “Israel is a state of occupation”

In an unhinged reaction to President Trump’s recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan on Saturday described Israel as a “state of occupation” which used “terror” against the Palestinians.

“Israel is a state of occupation,” Erdogan said in a speech in Istanbul. “And now they are making use of terror and are bombing young people and children,” he continued. 

Erdogan was referring to Israel’s response to the firing of rockets into civilian areas from the Gaza strip.  He conveniently left out the fact that one of the rockets destroyed a kindegarden in the Israeli city of Sderot.

Interestingly enough, while Erdogan labels Israel an “occupier” it is Turkey that far outweighs most countries in the world in that category.

Turkey currently occupies half of Cyprus, Northern Kurdistan with its 20 million Kurds, and West Armenia. Turkey was also responsible for the Armenian Genocide that saw more than 1.5 million Armenians killed at the hands of the Turks from 1915 to 1917.

Under Erdogan’s watch, Turkey has grown into an Islamic centric country that eschews minority rights and champions Jihadism.  It was afterall Erdogan’s Turkey that was a key backer of ISIS in its early days by allowing thousands of foreign fighter to traverse the border between Turkey and Syria.  Erdogan’s children were behind medical supplies specifically destined for ISIS. It was Turkey’s backing that lent a hand to Obama’s decision to help prop up ISIS in its early days.




By allowing Turkey to take the mantle of leadership of the Muslim world and thus the “Palestinian Cause” proves the very point that Israel supporters have been careful to make over the past decades and that is the existance of a “Palestinian Nation” is nothing but a hypocritical trojan horse designed to destroy the Jewish State from the inside.

It would be best for the Arab and Islamic world to clean up their act before chastising the only country that may be able to save them from their moral and ethical morass and yes the coming crisis with Iran.

Posted on

Celebrate the Decision, Brace for Impact

While President Trump and his Administration gained a political achievement with the recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of the State of Israel, their decision will be testing many sensitivities.

A historic day that aims to bring Israel closer to a final status with the Palestinians, keep the Saudis and the wider Arab world on a track to normalization with Israel, and bring together a coalition to deter an aggressive Iranian regime.

In the Old City of Jerusalem, there is celebration and there is awareness. President Trump’s decision to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and move the American Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem is seen as an act of recognizing reality. The fear in Eastern Jerusalem is what comes next.

Until the Israeli security council decided to remove the metal detectors at the Temple Mount, Palestinian Muslims immediately protested and rioted in Eastern Jerusalem and many West Bank towns. Notably the Lion’s Gate in the Old City’s Muslim Quarter was a hotbed of riots and other drama. Not to mention the incitement stirred by the Palestinian Authority and international media organizations such as Al Jazeera, whose reporters were seemingly involved in organizing Lion’s Gate protests.

Starting earlier this week, Israeli Police in Jerusalem’s Old City have been guarding in heavier numbers. This recognition by Israel’s Authorities has brought calmness for the first day off of the United States’ historic move to recognize Jerusalem.

Since the era of King David, Jerusalem has been the center of the Jewish People. In 70 CE, we lost her and have been yearning to return for almost 2000 years. Jerusalem has been the capital of the State of Israel longer than London has been the capital of Great Britain and longer than Washington DC has been the capital of the United States. Israel does not need the approval of world powers for the Israeli people to know that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. To the East sits a tense audience, watching their past military defeats and international successes change course. Internally, Saudi Arabia under the Crown Prince is moving forward, understanding Israel’s importance in the region. Especially towards the aggressions of the Iranian regime. As the Arab states take this decision on the chin, admirably they are also looking for a stronger future.

The Ayatollahs in Iran also see this decision as destructive. They speak publicly to taunt Israel’s emotions for a war with a strengthened Hezbollah, though they also see the future Sunni-Israeli alliance. Their next few moves will determine their long-term possibilities. Trump’s decision could bring the consequence of an intifada, but not long-scale war between Israel and Iranian proxies. Consequentially, an “intifada” brings upon the death of targeted Israeli soldiers, residents living their daily lives, and even visiting tourists. We do not forget about the deaths of terror inspired young adults from local Palestinian neighborhoods.

Enjoy this historic moment for Israel and brace for impact, Jerusalem has awoken again.

Posted on

Trump Marks the End of Revisionism

“If you repeat a lie often enough people will believe it….”

President Trump has announced Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. Is this news? Hardly. Jerusalem has been the official capital of the Israel since its rebirth in 1948. Never mind it has been the eternal capital of the Jewish people throughout all of history.

Yet with Trump’s announcement most of the world has gone upside down, especially the Arab world. Why is there such an uproar about this announcement? Some think it may be complicated while others see it differently.

For me his announcement is more of a yawn. Why? The simple fact is Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. This is not an opinion, or up for debate. Is London the capital of Brittan? Is Paris the capital of France? Clearly the answer is yes to both. So why would anyone have a problem with Jerusalem being called the capital of Israel?

It’s when you ask this question the issue becomes less of a yawn and more complicated.

One must unpack who is saying it and why?

Leading the charge of the nay sayers is the Arab world. Virtually every nation, including Jordan and Egypt which have formal peace agreements with Israel have voiced objection to Trump’s announcement.  Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Iran and others have criticized Trump. The UN is scheduling an emergency meeting of the Security Council .To no one’s surprise the Muslim terrorist groups have also decried it.

Mahmoud Abbas, President of the PA has declared “endless war” will commence, and the US is no longer seen as an “honest broker” of the so-called “peace process.”




For those who see Trump’s move as damaging or ‘killing’ the peace process, I say what “peace” process are you talking about? The two key players in the “peace” process are the Prime Minister of Israel and the leader of the Palestinians.  They are the ones who would participate in such a process.

It seems to me if there was an actual “peace” process there would be ongoing negotiations regarding the key issues that divide the parties involved. Yet Mahmoud Abbas has stated and restated he will never recognize the Jewish state of Israel. He’s also said the Jewish people have no connection to Jerusalem. Plus, he’s denied there has ever been a Jewish Temple on Temple Mount. How is Israel supposed to “negotiate” its very right to exist?

As if these statements aren’t enough proof that Abbas is devoid of reality, he actually wrote his college thesis on denying the Holocaust.  Sadly, much of the Arab Muslim world, and indeed many outside the Arab world are in alignment with Abbas’s views.

With such statements it’s clear Mr. Abbas is living in his own world of revisionism. The Bible, historical records  and countless archaeological digs prove his comments to be utterly false and without merit.

Further, as if there isn’t enough reason to confirm that Abbas has no interest in a genuine “peace” process, he is paying large salaries to Muslim terrorists that have been jailed for murdering innocent Israelis. He considers these payments to be a “holy duty.” Much of the money he pays terrorists with comes from  US taxpayers in the form of aid from the US government.

Americans are so outraged that their tax dollars are being used to pay Muslim murderers, Congress is in the process of passing legislation which will strip the PA of US aid.

So the question again begs, where is the “peace” process?

Seems there is more than one definition of this. According to the Palestinians and the Israel bashers, the “peace” process consists of Israel agreeing to give away every inch of land beyond the ’67 cease fire lines. This would include the eastern portion of Jerusalem where the Holy Old City is located. Approximately 400,000 Jews living in Judea/Samaria would have to be relocated.

I recall in 2005 when roughly 8,000 Jews were forcibly removed from the Gaza Strip after a 38 year presence, civil war almost broke out in Israel. Keep in mind this was a unilateral decision made by Israel that land for peace would work. Given what’s happened in the Gaza Strip since then, it’s obvious the land for peace concept does not work.

So why would any clear thinking person believe giving more land away would bring peace? Especially, when Abbas refuses to accept the existence of the Jewish state of Israel no matter what the borders are?

In reality, there is no “peace” process. So Mr. Trump has done nothing to damage it by stating a simple fact that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. Unless you happen to be one of those who believe if you tell a lie often enough people will believe it.  Seems Abbas has been hedging his bets on this.

Of course the moon might be made of cheese……

Dan Calic is a writer, history student and speaker. See additional articles on his Facebook Page (https://www.facebook.com/heartlandofthehomeland).

 

Posted on

A CREDIBLE PEACE PLAN, AT LAST

But will the Palestinians agree to it?

Monday, The New York Times published the Palestinian response to an alleged Saudi peace plan. Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman reportedly presented it to PLO chief and Palestinian Authority chairman Mahmoud Abbas last month.
According to the Times’ report, Mohammed told Abbas he has two months to either accept the Saudi proposal or leave office to make way for a new Palestinian leader who will accept it.
The Palestinians and their European supporters are up in arms about the content of Mohammed’s plan. It reportedly proposes the establishment of limited Palestinian sovereignty over small portions of Judea and Samaria. The Gaza Strip, over which the Palestinians have had full sovereignty since Israel pulled its military forces and civilians out in 2005, would be expanded into the northern Sinai, thus providing economic and territorial viability to the envisioned Palestinian state. While the Palestinians would not receive sovereignty over Jerusalem, they would be able to establish their capital in the Jerusalem suburb of Abu Dis.
There are several aspects of the alleged Saudi peace plan that are notable. First, the Palestinians and their many allies insist that it is a nonstarter. No Palestinian leader could ever accept the offer and survive in power, they told the Times. The same Palestinian leaders from Hamas and Fatah, and their allies, also noted that the Saudi plan as reported strongly resembles past Israeli proposals.
Another aspect of the report that is notable is that the Saudis did not acknowledge that Mohammed presented the plan to Abbas.
Unlike the situation in 2002 when Times columnist Thomas Friedman presented what he claimed was then Saudi king Abdullah’s peace plan, the Saudi regime has not admitted that the characterization of their peace plan by the Times reflects their thinking.
It makes sense that the Palestinians and their Lebanese and European allies are upset at the alleged contents of the new Saudi plan. It is also reasonable that the Saudis are not willing today to publicly present the plan laid out in the Times.
The fact is that the alleged Saudi peace plan represents a radical break with the all the peace plans presented by the Arabs, the Europeans and the US for the past 40 years.
Unlike all of the previous plans, the contours of the plan reported by the  Times guarantee that Israel will remain a strong, viable state in an era of peace with the Palestinians. All the previous plans required Israel to accept indefensible borders that would have invited aggression both from the Palestinians and from its Arab neighbors east of the Jordan River.
The purported Saudi plan is the first peace plan that foresees two viable states living in peace. All the other plans were based on transforming Israel into a non-viable state with a non-viable Palestinian state in its heartland.
While the Times report cites Western sources claiming that Egypt has rejected the prospect of merging Gaza with the northern Sinai under Palestinian sovereignty, there is no reason to assume that the option is dead. To the contrary, in the aftermath of last week’s massacre of 305 Muslim worshipers in a mosque in the northern Sinai, it is arguably more relevant now than at any previous time.
The mosque massacre makes clear that the Egyptian regime is incapable of defeating the Islamic State (ISIS) insurgency in Sinai on its own. Egypt’s incapacity is as much a function of economic priorities as military capabilities. With Egypt constantly on the brink of economic collapse and in need of constant support from the World Bank, the US and the Gulf States, it is hard to make the argument for preferring economic investment in Sinai to economic investment west of the Suez Canal. And in the absence of significant economic support for developing the Sinai, it is hard to see an end to the ISIS insurgency.
If the Europeans, Americans and Arab League member states chose to develop the northern Sinai for a Palestinian state with half the enthusiasm they have devoted to building a non-viable Palestinian state in Jerusalem and Judea and Samaria that would render Israel indefensible and enfeebled, the Palestinians would have a viable, developed state in short order.
And the Egyptians in turn would have the international support they need both economically and militarily to defeat ISIS completely and to rebuild their national economy. Indeed, as advocates of the plan note, by yielding control over the northern Sinai to the Palestinians, and so enabling a viable Palestinian state to form, Egypt would become again the indisputable leader of the Arab world. With the good will of the Europeans and Americans, Sisi would secure Egypt’s position indefinitely.
This then brings us to the third notable aspect of the purported Saudi plan. The backlash against the plan, like the backlash against Mohammed, has been furious. Abbas has reportedly been calling every international leader he can think of to oppose the deal. The Europeans reportedly also oppose it. French President Emmanuel Macron’s adviser reportedly contacted the Americans to make clear that the French are not on board with the proposal.
And whereas the opposition to Mohammed’s purported proposal has been largely behind the scenes, since Mohammed did not make it public, the Palestinians and their international supporters have been grabbing every available microphone to condemn US President Donald Trump’s reported plan to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and perhaps begin taking concrete steps to move the US embassy to Jerusalem.
With or without a public announcement of his alleged peace plan, Mohammed has become a hated figure in wide circles of the foreign policy establishment in the West due to his trenchant opposition to Iran’s rise as a hegemonic power in the region. The Times portrayed him as a serial bungler in its article about his alleged peace plan.
As Lee Smith revealed in a recent article in Tablet magazine, the voices leading the charge against Mohammed are the same ones that developed the media echo chamber in pursuit of then president Barack Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran.
As Smith explained, the onslaught against Mohammed is “an information campaign designed to protect the pro-Iran policies of the Obama administration.”
As these operatives see it, Smith argues, Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran is the foundation of Obama’s foreign policy legacy in the Middle East. “If Trump pulls the plug, then Obama’s ‘legacy’ in the Middle East collapses.”
Trump’s visits to Israel and Saudi Arabia in May made clear that renewing US alliances with Saudi Arabia and Israel, and using them as a means to scale back Iranian power in the region, is in fact the central plank of his Middle East policy. Trump’s subsequent moves in support of Mohammed and Israel have reinforced this conclusion.
And so the backlash against Mohammed by the likes of former US ambassador to Israel Dan Shapiro and Robert Malley, Obama’s former adviser for the Middle East on his national security council makes sense. If they can discredit him, and pretend that an Iranian-controlled Lebanon and Syria are better than the alternatives, then they can force Trump to maintain faith with Obama’s policies.
It’s a hard sell though. Mohammed’s peace plan is the first peace plan that has ever offered the Palestinians a chance at a real state. It’s the first plan that ever envisioned a situation where the Palestinians have a state that doesn’t imperil Israel. People who actually care about the Palestinians and Israel should welcome and support his position.
People who oppose it have to explain why they insist on remaining faithful to a peace paradigm that has brought only war and instability. Why do they prefer to retain Abbas’s authoritarian regime over a non-sovereign kleptocracy in Judea and Samaria with a Hamas terrorist state in Gaza to an alternative without either? Why doesn’t Abbas support it if his chief aspiration is the establishment of a viable Palestinian state and actually wants peace with Israel?
The New York Times article may or may not be an accurate portrayal of a real plan presented by the actual crown prince of Saudi Arabia. But if it isn’t his plan, it should be. Or it should be Trump’s plan.
Because it is the first peace plan anyone has ever put forward that makes sense. Not only does it secure the future of both Israel and the Palestinians, it enables Arab states like Saudi Arabia to work openly with Israel to defeat their joint Iranian enemy, while ensuring that Israel can survive and remain a credible ally to its Arab neighbors for decades to come.
Originally published by the Jerusalem Post.