Israel Identifying the Enemy as the Enemy Is Not ‘Racism’

Originally Published in NewsMax.

One of the most mendacious and widely propagated myths regarding the Middle East conflict is that Israel’s defensive actions against hostile Arab initiatives, whose sole aim is to murder or maim Jews, simply because they are Jews, constitute “racism.”

The apparent reason for these grave accusations is rooted in the fact that some of the coercive measures, necessary for the effectiveness of these defensive Israeli actions, are carried out differentially (and therefore, allegedly, discriminately) against Palestinian Arabs, on the one hand, and Israeli Jews, on the other. 

Even Democracies Have Enemies

Of course, in principle, the claims that counter-offensive actions by a given collective, against hostile initiatives of an adversarial collective, are tainted by some sort of improper, indiscriminate group prejudice against that collective, are clearly unfounded — conceptually, morally, and practically.

In the particular case of the Israeli-Palestinian clash, such claims are even more baseless.

After all, to call on any collective entity to treat a rival entity, with which it is engaged in violent conflict, in precisely the same way that it treats its own members, is not only patently irrational, but also patently immoral. For, in effect, it includes the inherent demand to forgo — or at least, to gravely curtail — the right of self-defense, i.e. the right to protect both the collective and its members from the aggression of the rival entity.

To the best of my knowledge, there is nothing in the theory of democratic governance that precludes the possibility of a democracy — even one totally devoid of racial prejudices — from having enemies. Likewise, there is nothing to preclude the possibility that the ethnic identity of the enemy entity will differ from that of the majority of the citizens of the democracy.

No Ethical Flaw in Identifying the Enemy as the Enemy

So, does this mean that measures intended to thwart, deter, or punish aggressive acts against a democracy — and/or its citizens — violate some hallowed rule of proper democratic conduct? Moreover, how is it possible to claim any ethical flaw in the behavioral code of a democracy when it identifies its enemy as an enemy, and treats it as such?

When couched in these terms, the answers to these questions seem simple and straightforward — indeed, almost self-evident.

Sadly, however, this is not true with regard to Israel — especially when it comes to the conflict with the Palestinians.

In this conflict, democratic Israel is confronted with a bitter and irreconcilable adversary that harbors a profound desire to inflict harm on the Jewish state and its citizens — a desire, which is, for all intents and purposes, its very raison d’ etre.

Certainly, by the declarations of its leaders, the text of its foundational documents, and the deeds of its militant activists, the Palestinian collective has unequivocally defined itself as Israel’s enemy.

Accordingly, it would be wildly unreasonable to expect Israel to restrict the measures it employs to counter Palestinian enmity, to measures it employs against its own citizens — who harbor no such enmity!

Arab Enmity Not Arab Ethnicity

This, then, is the context, in which the various countermeasures that Israel undertakes against the members of the Palestinian enemy collective — but not against its own citizens — should be perceived — such as: travel restrictions on certain roads; intrusive security inspections at roadblocks and checkpoints; preemptive administrative detentions; demolition of convicted terrorists’ homes; dawn raids on households suspected of harboring members of terror organizations; and so on.

However, the enforcement of these coercive counter measures is not motivated by any doctrine of racial superiority, but by well-founded security concerns for the safety and security of Israel’s citizens — concerns that are neither the product of mere arbitrary malice, nor of some hate-filled delusional prejudice. To the contrary, they are the result of years of bitter experience, of death and destruction, wrought on the Jews by Arab hatred.

Of course, one might dispute the wisdom, the efficacy and/or the necessity of any — or even all — of these measures; but not the reason behind their use. This is, without a doubt, due to Arab enmity — not Arab ethnicity.

Accordingly, Israel would do well to clarify, forcefully and resolutely, this simple truth, which has been either unintentionally forgotten or intentionally obscured: Identifying one’s enemy as the enemy is not “racism” — it is merely an imperative dictated by common sense and by a healthy instinct for survival.


Identifying the enemy as…the enemy

The entire issue of “Palestinian national identity” is a giant hoax, intended to be no more than a temporary ruse, until the Jewish hold on sovereignty in the Holy Land—any part of the Holy Land—is prised loose.

We do not have a “dispute,” but a war—and confronting us is an enemy – Elyakim Haetzni, Arutz 7, January 23, 2018.

Enemy: [a person or group] that is antagonistic to another; especially: one seeking to injure, overthrow, or confound an opponentMerriam-Webster Dictionary.

D-Day is approaching. The Arabs have waited 19 years for this and will not flinch from the war of liberationThis is a fight for the homeland – it is either us or the Israelis. There is no middle road. The Jews of Palestine will have to leave. We will facilitate their departure to their former homes. Any of the old Palestine Jewish population who survive may stay, but it is my impression that none of them will survive…. We shall destroy Israel and its inhabitants and as for the survivors — if there are any — the boats are ready to deport themAhmed Shukeiry, Yasser Arafat’s predecessor, in a premature flush of triumph, just days prior to the Arabs’ crushing defeat in June 1967, before Israel held a square inch of “occupied territory”.

The war between Arab and Jew for control over the Holy Land has dragged on for well over 100 years. For the last seven decades, the Arab effort has focused on an attempt to first thwart the establishment of a sovereign Jewish-nation state, and then, when that failed, to destroy it.

“…we shall enter Palestine with its soil saturated in blood”

Up until the early 1970s, the Arab war effort principally comprised an endeavor to obliterate the Jewish presence by means of conventional military might, involving frontal assault and invasion by regular armies of sovereign state-actors.

Indeed, this brutal credo is perhaps best illustrated by the late Gamal Abdel Nasser’s pre-war bravado, when he threatened the gory obliteration of Israel—within its 1948 frontiers: “We shall not enter Palestine with its soil covered in sand, we shall enter it with its soil saturated in blood” (March 8, 1965). 

With their Judeocidal efforts repeatedly frustrated and after the failure of the coordinated surprise attack against the Jewish state in October 1973, it seems that the Arabs began to despair of this unvarnished and unabashed use of conventional martial force.

Gradually, a more multi-faceted strategy of aggression emerged, which no longer portrayed Israel as easy prey to be crushed by overwhelming Arab might. This time, the major emphasis was on the role of non-state actors (i.e. terror organizations) and offensive diplomacy, designed to isolate Israel in the international arena and portray her as an ogre-like oppressor, whose every action of self-defense to protect its civilian population is excoriated as an unjustified and disproportionate use of force.

Attrition not invasion
Thus, although the overriding objective remained the same, i.e. the eradication of the Jewish state, the method by which this was to be achieved shifted from cataclysmic destruction by Arab armies to a process of ongoing attrition by means of political, diplomatic and economic beleaguerment; and asymmetrical warfare launched by non-state-actors.

The former was aimed at discrediting and delegitimizing Israel internationally so as to curtail, even cripple, its ability to effectively employ it military prowess to confront the latter, which was aimed at weakening national resolve and undermining national morale.

The clear goal of this was to erode Israel’s national resolve and coerce her into accepting perilous concessions that would make her eventual demise easier to achieve in the future.

(For anyone tempted to believe that the Sunni Arabs have been significantly swayed from this long-term objective because of their fear of ascendant Shia power, I would suggest the astute analysis by the prominent scholar of Islam, Dr. Mordechai Kedar, who cautions against falling prey to this seductive illusion.)

In this ongoing endeavor of attrition, and in which Keidar warns that “For both religious and nationalist reasons, the Arabs…are incapable of accepting Israel as the Jewish State that it is”, a leading role has been assigned to the Palestinian-Arabs.

“Palestinian identity” as a temporary ruse

The notion of a distinct collective identity for the Arabs, whose origins trace (or allegedly trace) to mandatory Palestine (herein under “Palestinian-Arabs”) began to emerge in the mid-1960s. This, according to some senior East European intelligence sources, was the brain child of the now defunct Soviet spy agency, the KGB, with the express purpose of damaging US and Israeli interests. (For some reports on collaboration between the KGB and the PLO—Palestinian Liberation Organization—in Judeocidal terror operations, including the involvement of the previous and present PLO heads, Arafat and Abbas—see for example here, here, and here.)

But, of course, one does not necessarily have to lend credence to allegations of the KGB generated origins of the PLO to grasp that the whole issue of “Palestinian national identity” is a giant hoax, intended to be no more than a temporary ruse, until the Jewish hold on sovereignty in the Holy Land—any part of the Holy Land—is prised loose.

For that, all one needs to do is to examine the deeds, declarations and documents of the Palestinian-Arabs themselves.  

Perhaps the most explicit – but certainly by no means, the only – articulation of Arab design was that of the oft-quoted, but ne’er-repudiated, Zuheir Muhsein, former head of the PLO’s Military Department and a member of its Executive Council.

Spearhead against Jewish sovereignty

Muhsein underscores, quite unequivocally and unabashedly, that the contrived collective identity of the Palestinian-Arabs as a “national entity” is little more than a flimsy and openly admitted pretext to advance the wider Arab cause of eradicating the “Zionist entity”. He openly confesses: “The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel…. It is only for political and tactical reasons that we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct ‘Palestinian people’ to oppose Zionism.”

He then starkly elucidated the rationale for a staged Arab strategy, and the crucial role the fictitious construct of a “Palestinian identity” had to play in implementing it: “For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beersheba and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan.”

It is thus clear, that as a collective, the Palestinian-Arabs comprise the spearhead in the Arab struggle against Jewish sovereignty.

It would be a grave error to dismiss this as merely the opinion of a single, long-forgotten Palestinian leader. Indeed, it is a view that, over the years, has been expressed by many Arabs, Palestinian or otherwise, from  Farouk Kaddoumi to King Hussein.
More recently, it was baldly and brazenly articulated by Mahmoud Abbas himself, in his January 14 tirade before the PLO’s Central Council, where he spewed: “Israel is a colonial project that has nothing to do with Jews”.

Palestinian identity as a temporary anti-Israel ruse
But more important, it is a sentiment that permeates the entire Palestinian National Charter. For example, in Article 22, we read: “Zionism is a political movement organically associated with international imperialism and antagonistic to all action for liberation and to progressive movements in the world. It is racist and fanatic in its nature, aggressive, expansionist, and colonial in its aims, and fascist in its methods.” And of course: “Israel is the instrument of the Zionist movement”.

Moreover, this primal enmity is immutable and immune to the passage of time and predates the 1967 “occupation”. Thus, in Article 19 we read: “The partition of Palestine in 1947 and the establishment of the state of Israel are entirely illegal, regardless of the passage of time…”

But no less significant—and revealing—is the proviso, expressed in Article 12, regarding the transient nature of Palestinian-Arab collective identity: “The Palestinian people believe in Arab unity. In order to contribute their share toward the attainment of that objective, however, they must, at the present stage of their struggle, safeguard their Palestinian identity and develop their consciousness of that identity...”

What could be more revealing than that?

After all, what other nation declares that its national identity is merely a temporary ploy to be “safeguarded” and “developed” for the “present stage” alone? Does any other nation view their national identity as so ephemeral and instrumental? The Italians? The Brazilians? The Turks? The Greeks? The Japanese? Of course, none of them do.


Correctly conceptualizing the conflict

It was eminent social psychologist, Kurt Leven, who wisely observed that: There is nothing so practical as a good theory.” After all, action without comprehension is a little like swinging a hammer without knowing where the nails are—and just as hazardous and harmful. In this regard, good theory creates understanding of cause and effect and hence facilitates effective policy.

Accordingly, to devise effective policy to contend with abiding Arab enmity, Israel must correctly conceptualize the conflict over the issue Jewish sovereignty in Holy Land.

In this regard, it should painfully clear that the conflict is one between two irreconcilable collectives: A Jewish collective and an Arab collective—for which, today, the Palestinian-Arab collective is its operational spearhead.

They are irreconcilable because the raison d’etre of the one is the preservation of Jewish political sovereignty in the Holy Land, while the raison d’etre of the other is to annul Jewish political sovereignty in the Holy Land. Therefore, for one to prevail, the other must be prevailed upon. With antithetical and mutually exclusive core objectives, only one can emerge victorious, with the other vanquished.

As a clash of collectives, whose outcome will be determined by collective victory or defeat, it cannot be personalized. The fate of individual members of one collective cannot be a deciding determinant of the policy of the rival collective—and certainly not a consideration that impacts the probability of collective victory or defeat.

An implacable enemy, not a prospective peace partner
To underscore the crucial importance of this seemingly harsh assessment, I would invite any Israeli to consider the consequences of Jewish defeat and Arab victory. A cursory survey of the gory regional realities should suffice to drive home the significance of what would accompany such an outcome. Accordingly, only once a decisive Jewish collective victory has been achieved, can the issue of individual injustice and suffering in the Arab collective be addressed as a policy consideration.

Indeed, had the imperative of collective victory not been the overriding factor of the Allies’ strategy in WWII, despite horrendous civilian causalities that it inflicted on the opposing collective, the world might well have be living in slavery today.

In weighing the question of the fate of individual members of the opposing collective, it is imperative to keep in mind that, while there are doubtless many Palestinian-Arabs with fine personal qualities and who wish no-one any harm, the Palestinian-Arab collective is not the hapless victim of radical terror groups. Quite the opposite. It is, in fact, the societal crucible in which they were forged, and from which they emerged. Its leadership is a reflection of, not an imposition on, Palestinian-Arab society.

The conclusion is thus unavoidable: The Palestinian-Arab collective must be considered an implacable enemy—not a prospective peace partner…and it must treated as such.

Accordingly, the provision of all goods and services that sustain it must be phased out over a clearly defined period of time. After all, what is the morality of sustaining your enemy if that only sustains its ability to wage war against you—prolonging the suffering on both sides!

Recognizing enmity is realism, not racism

These are, of course, harsh policy prescriptions, but at the end of the day, they will be unavoidable. Elsewhere, I have set out the principles for extricating the non-belligerent Palestinian-Arabs from the severe humanitarian predicament they are likely to precipitate—chiefly by means of generous grants for relocation/rehabilitation in third party countries, out of the “circle of violence”.

Of course, the crucial point to realize here is that even the most moral and democratic societies can have enemies.

Recognizing such enmity—and the policies required to repel it—is not racism. It is merely realism.

“Palestinians” Lie and Count on Your Ignorance

In the Arab-Israel conflict the one issue which rises above every other is the accuracy of what is presented. The Palestinians are relying on people not knowing history in order to advance their narrative.  Israel on the other hand is relying on people knowing history.  From where I sit, over the past 2 – 3 decades it appears most people do not know history very well. Thus, the Palestinian narrative has gained popularity and has shaped much of public opinion.

What’s especially troubling is mainstream media has adopted most of the Palestinian propaganda, or sympathizes with it. Sadly, the days of objective news reporting appear to be gone. Today’s news reporting has pretty much turned into op-eds, rather than simple straight forward  news.

Regarding the Arab-Israeli conflict, we hear noble words such as “just solution,” “dignity,” “peace,” etc.  on a regular basis. Who has fault with these?

Yet, if this conflict ever stands a chance of being resolved isn’t it incumbent upon the world to know the actual facts and to stand for the truth, so these noble goals actually apply to its resolution?

If so, we need to understand whose narrative reflects the truth and whose are false. For this we need to unpack what we frequently hear and apply a litmus test.

For example:

  • CLAIM: Palestinians are  an ethnically unique people or nationality

The Facts:

The Palestinians are Arabs They are a mix of Jordanians, Egyptians, Lebanese, Syrian, etc. Several hundred thousand of them were displaced, many be choice, as result of the 1948 and 1967 wars. In both wars the goal of the Arab nations was to destroy the Jewish state.  They failed.  After this their tactics changed. Not that destroying Israel militarily was dropped, it remains their goal. However, in 1964 the  Palestine Liberation  Organization (PLO), was formed for the specific purpose of destroying the Jewish state of Israel.

After the devastating defeat in the Six Day War, and the refusal of the surrounding Arab nations to absorb the displaced Arabs,  PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat embarked on a campaign to bring their plight to the world stage. Part of his effort included calling them “Palestinians.” This took root and the world has bought into calling them Palestinians to this day.

Answer to the claim: FALSE

Ironically, what many people forget, or are unaware of is that prior to 1948 the Jews were called Palestinians!

  • CLAIM:  Israel is illegally occupying ‘Palestinian’ land and violating international law

The Facts:
After the British Empiredefeated the Ottoman Empire during  WW1 they controlled a large swath of the Middle East. By virtue of the Balfour Declaration written in 1917 the British committed to set aside 43,000 sq. miles of land as a national homeland for the Jewish people, which included the area where ancient Israel was located. Since they had militarily defeated the Ottomans, under international law they had the right to determine the future of the area they controlled. In 1922 the British gave away 75% of the ‘promised land’ to become Transjordan, today’s Jordan.

After many years of upheaval, which included WWll and the Holocaust, the British decided they wanted to pull their troops out of the region. They turned the matter over to the United Nations.

In November 1947 the UN voted 33 to 13 with 10 abstentions to partition the remaining 25% of the land into two states, one Arab, the other Jewish. Jerusalem was not contiguously connected to the Jewish state of Israel. This infuriated the Jews. However, they accepted the UN vote.

The Arab nations did not.

Ignoring the UN vote, one day after the Jewish state of Israel declared independence in May 1948 the surrounding Arab nations attacked it.

In my view it is the refusal of the Arabs to accept the vote of the UN which bears the most responsibility for what we are dealing with today. This cannot be overstated.

The war lasted until July 1949 at which time an armistice was signed. The original partition called for the Jewish state to have roughly 5,000 sq. miles. As a result of the defensive war Israel was forced into, they gained control of additional land, including Jerusalem. However, Jordan remained in control of the Old City.

In 1967 Israel gained control over all of Jerusalem.

Under international law when a defensive war in fought, any territory gained by the victor belongs to them. In plain language whatever territory Israel gained is theirs to keep.

Many people consider the ‘rebirth’ of modern Israel, along with the Jewish people gaining control over all of Jerusalem in 1967 as prophetic.

Whether prophetic or procedural through a legally designated organization (UN) there is no illegal occupation, and Israel is not violating international law.

Answer to claim: FALSE


  • CLAIM:  Jews have no connection to Jerusalem


The Facts:
King David made Jerusalem the capital of Israel over 3,000 years ago. Jerusalem is mentioned in the Bible over 600 times. It is not mentioned once in the Quran. To go on would give too much undeserved attention to this claim.

Answer to claim: FALSE

  • CLAIM: Temple Mount never housed a Jewish Temple, it is an exclusively Muslim site

The Facts:
Temple Mount is the location of the First Temple built by King Solomon 3,000 years ago. It was destroyed in 586 BC. The Second Temple was completed roughly 70 years later and was destroyed in 70 AD. This is confirmed in the Bible as well as countless historical and archaeological records. The current Muslim Dome of the Rock and Al Aqsa was completed in 692 AD. Jewish temples predate any Muslim presence on Temple Mount by at least 1,700 years.

Answer to Claim: FALSE

More Claims

If you are shaking your head at the aforementioned  claims you may be even more surprised to find out some others.

For example:

It seems the ‘Palestinian’ narrative has no limits as to how absurd their claims are.

Resolving the Arab-Israeli conflict is unquestionably a daunting task. There are political, geographical, economic, historical, theological, and cultural issues which are entwined. However, one element which must not be overlooked is the importance of knowing the facts. Without facts one cannot come to appropriate conclusions.

This piece has provided proof that the so-called ‘Palestinians’ have been  manufactured and marketed for a specific purpose. That purpose includes promoting a false narrative based on rewriting history in order to delegitimize Israel and the Jewish people. They are counting on people’s ignorance, and frankly some degree of anti-Semitism to be their ally. In short they are intentionally lying to the entire world.

Are we going to allow this to triumph? Aren’t we better than that?

Dan Calic is a writer, history student and speaker.
For more of his material visit his Facebook page.

‘Palestinian’ Agenda Based on Fabrication and Destruction

While talk of a comprehensive Arab, Israeli peace agreement seems never ending, newly elected President Trump has described securing such an agreement as the “ultimate deal.” However there is ample reason why no deal has been struck, and why it will likely remain beyond reach.  An honest assessment reveals why.

The most important factor in reaching an agreement is both sides must want peace. However, in this conflict indisputable evidence shows only one side actually wants genuine peace and co-existence.  A sober look at the facts reveals the Arab Palestinians have no interest in peace. In order to draw reasoned conclusions it’s also essential to separate fact from fiction.  

Who’s Who?

The Arab ‘Palestinians’ are in a different category than the rest of the Arab world, which consists of 22 sovereign Middle Eastern nations. They do not have the distinction of being a sovereign nation, which they feel they are entitled to. However, shouldn’t we first understand who they are, as well as their motives?

They are a mix of Jordanians, Egyptians, Lebanese, Syrian, Sudanese etc. who settled within the area known as the British Mandate of Palestine. This land encompassed 43,000 square miles and was promised to the Jews as a national homeland in the 1917 Balfour Declaration. Yet, in 1922 the British turned over 75% of it to create the nation of Transjordan, (today’s Jordan). This left roughly 25% or 11,000 square miles of land to be dealt with.

In 1947 the British decided to leave the area and turned the issue over to the United Nations, which by a 72% majority voted  to partition two separate states, one Jewish and one Arab.  However, the surrounding Arab nations rejected the vote and attacked the new Jewish state one day after its independence intending to destroy it. This is all indisputable fact.

The coming storm

Regional leadership directed local Arabs living in the area to relocate temporarily, while the armies of the surrounding countries carried out their plan to destroy the UN partitioned Jewish state. Thinking they would soon be able to return and grab a huge windfall the majority of Arabs chose to leave.

However, their destructive aspirations failed, and the tiny nation of Israel not only was reborn, it remains…. and flourishes.

One can only lament how different history might have been if the Arab nations chose to accept the UN partition vote. Yet, they chose war and have never taken responsibility for their action. What’s worse is the nations of the world have never required it of them.

So what happened to those Arabs who left hoping the Jews would be wiped out allowing them to reclaim their homes, plus those of the defeated Jews? Many ended up in “no man’s land,” which gave birth to the so called “Palestinian“ refugees.” Yet are they truly refugees? They did not leave with the intention of relocating elsewhere to start a new life as refugees typically do. They left because they were hoping the Jewish state would be destroyed and they could return to claim what was theirs, plus what wasn’t theirs. An honest assessment disqualifies them from being classified as “refugees.”  It was nothing less than bloodthirsty greed.

Since then they have portrayed themselves as victims deserving of compensation; Not from the Arab nations who directed them to leave in order to launch their attack, but from Israel or Britain.  If anyone is to blame for their plight it surely rests with Arabs, not the Jews. Unquestionably their fate was driven by hatred, greed and destructive intentions.

Have they ever admitted this? No. Instead they went on the offensive and to this day the Arab nations and the ‘Palestinians’ lay blame elsewhere. This is precisely what Yasser Arafat did when he founded the first ‘Palestinian’ terror group in 1964- the PLO. He blamed the Jews, and took no responsibility for the intent of the Arabs to destroy the Jewish state. He also rejected the United Nations partitioning of a sovereign Arab state, because it meant the existence of a Jewish state, which he refused to accept. His PLO charter defined the “Balfour Declaration, the British Mandate for Palestine, and everything that has been based upon them null and void.” (PLO Charter Article 20)

Moreover, his organization’s charter specifically calls for the “Palestinian people to assert their absolute determination and firm resolution….to work for an armed popular revolution for the liberation of their country and the right to return to it.” (PLO Charter Article 9)

So much for peaceful co-existence.

“Their Country”?

Moreover, what country is he talking about? The so-called ‘Palestinians’ did not have their own country. The area he is referring to was under the British Mandate and was turned over to the UN who voted to partition an Arab and Jewish state, which was rejected by the Arab nations. The fact is the ‘Palestinians’ never had “their own country,” to return to and “liberate.” They could have had a country if the UN partition was accepted. However, hatred of the Jews and refusal to accept the existence of a neighboring Jewish state outweighed the gift of having their own state.  This abhorrent fact renders Arafat’s statement about the existence of “their country” as a lie.

It should also be noted the Jews have had a constant presence here dating back over 3,000 years. Plus, since they were victorious in defending themselves in the Six Day War of 1967 international law allows them to claim the disputed land, which gave them the legal right to build communities.

It’s time to call a spade a spade. The entire premise on which the PLO was founded is a fabrication. There was never a ‘Palestinian’ country and no ‘Palestinian’ people. What is correct is there were Arabs of various ethnic origins living together with Jews in an area which was under the control of the British. Arafat himself for example, was a transplanted Arab Egyptian, not a ‘Palestinian.’

Part of the challenge of this unending conflict is separating fact from fiction. Suggesting the ‘Palestinians’ have the right to “liberate their country,” assumes they have or had one. They don’t and never did. This cannot be overstated. Any reference otherwise is pure fabrication. However, this has not stopped them from spreading outright lies and others from buying into it. This includes defining the land they claim as “occupied Palestinian territory,” while blaming Israel as the cause for a lack of peace.

The charters of all the ‘Palestinian’ terror groups, including Fatah, (which means ‘conquest’) the party of Mahmoud Abbas  don’t merely speak of self-determination within the area commonly referred to as the” West Bank.” Each charter places equal weight on the destruction of the Jewish state of Israel through armed struggle, and replacing it with one ‘Palestinian’ state.  It makes clear their goal is to eliminate the world’s only Jewish country, and replace it with another Muslim dominated country. This would bring the total to 23 in the Middle East, while the Jews would have none, and be subjected to live under Muslim rule in what used to be their own country.

If the community of nations decides to reward those who seek Israel’s destruction with nationhood, without requiring them to alter their charters, renounce terror and recognize the Jewish state of Israel, it will be a black mark on humanity.

Then again the community of nations has ample history of treating the Jews unfairly. Evidence today’s United Nations for starters….

More of Dan Calic’s articles are on his Facebook Page

Do the “Palestinian” Arabs Have a Mental Health Crisis?

With the news Wednesday morning  that a 13-year-old Arab girl was shot and lightly wounded after she ran at the security guards near a Jewish village, it has become clear that the “Palestinian” Arabs have a serious mental health crisis on their hands. Afterall what brings young people to not only attempt to attack innocent bystanders but do so in a way that is highly ineffective and in most cases gets them killed or wounded.

Yesterday, one Arab youth ran at a group of soldiers with a knife and was shot dead. As far as a location to inflict maximum injury, the army outpost is the last place to attack since the soldiers can see any attacker coming from far enough way to effectively neutralize the enemy.

Just before Shabbat two other incidents occurred with similar endings.  An engaged Arab couple tried ramming a group of people at the entrance to Kiryat Arba, which resulted in his death and her critical injury.  On the same day an Arab attacker tried to run at border police by the old city of Jerusalem and was promptly killed.

Below you can see the aftermath and the location.  The attacker certainly had a death wish.

فيديو من باب العامود الان

Posted by ‎مركز إعلام القدس‎ on Friday, September 16, 2016

When these incidents are threaded together one has to wonder why these young Arabs are doing what they are doing? At first glance they just aren’t too bright in their terrorist methodology and approach.  However, this pattern seems to suggest something else.

The girl today said the following: “I came to die.” This is often the approach of the young women who are trying to avoid honor killings, which often time occur because the girl is found dating someone before marriage or is pregnant.

The couple who attempted to plow over a group of Jews were dating against their parents’ wishes and would have been subject to death in Arab society.

This is not to say that all Arab attackers have a motive that is essentially determined by their societal needs, but when one looks at a vast majority of these ineffective cases they can almost always be traced to a fear of being punished within Arab society for something not connected to the Israeli “occupation.”  This implies that these youth are using the IDF rid themselves of the guilt they have after growing up in Arab society.

This explains the choice of the location of the attack and usually the inability to go through with it to its end.  This can be juxtaposed to the effective terror attacks where the attacker is clearly professionally trained and often times goes after innocent residents directly.

So do the “Palestinian” Arabs have a mental health crisis?  It certainly seems so.

ON THE FRONTLINES: After 70 Years, Jews Have Returned to the Old City Shuk

In what is considered the “Arab” Shuk, which runs from the Jaffa Gate down to the Western Wall, a new Jewish store has opened.  In most cities this would go unnoticed, but in Jerusalem where thousands of Jews were expelled in 1948 by the Jordanian Legions, reclaiming stolen Jewish property especially in areas perceived to be Arab is extremely important.

The new store is owned by a Texas man who bought it from the Moriah School by way of City Council Member Arieh King. The school had reclaimed the store along with it’s current location, but without a use for the students it decided to sell. Despite the purchase, the owner couldn’t find a dedicated manager, willing to sit in the middle of thousands of hostile Arabs.  That changed after Rabbi Ben Packer of the Heritage House introduced the owner to Shaul Gheblikian an Armenian Jew.

“The store is located on the way to the Western Wall.  Where is it more important to strengthen than the Jewish presence on the way to the Western Wall,” Rabbi Packer says.

Shaul Gheblikian has spent the last month cleaning up the small store front and making a presence there on a daily basis while he awaits proper permits to sell food.  Asked if the neighbors have been antagonistic he responds on the affirmative. “Most repeated phrase in the Torah is do not be afraid.” The animosity has not deterred Shaul.  He is fearless and stands guard over the property.  Very often tourists and Yeshiva students join him to learn and schmooze.

In the near future the store will be used to attract tourists in hopes they will  buy Israeli food products like wine, honey, and cold pressed juice.  For now Shaul and others are making sure the Arab squatters in the area do not vandalize and harm the store or those managing it.

Shaul Gheblikian standing in the newly reclaimed store
Shaul Gheblikian standing in the newly reclaimed store
Shaul will spend hours learning Torah with visitors
Shaul will spend hours learning Torah at this table with visitors
New Mezuzah covering the same spot where it was once fastened
New Mezuzah covering the same spot where it was once fastened


Pro-Israel Muslims Get Attacked

It may come as a surprise that many Arabs and Muslims support Israel. However, many refuse to voice their support for Israel and anger for the Palestinian Authority due to fear for their lives.

Khaled as a child with Israeli flag (credit: Facebook)
Khaled as a child with Israeli flag (credit: Facebook)

This was the case last week when Khaled Abu Much, who works in a Jerusalem hotel, was attacked by a fellow Arab worker who found, via Khaled’s Facebook page, that Khaled is a long-time supporter of the State of Israel. Khaled posts pictures of himself with the Israeli flag and posts about his disgust for MK Haneen Zoabi.

Finding this out, his fellow worker threw a rock at his head and Khaled was rushed to a hospital to receive stitches while suffering with dizziness.

During an interview on Israel’s Channel 20, Khaled stated that he is not afraid to voice his support for Israel. “These responses, it’s normal, wherever there are such extremist Arabs, but they won’t break me,” he exclaimed. “I walk the true path. This is the truth. I was born here, I opened my eyes here and saw the national flag. There was no Palestinian flag where I was born. The Star of David, that’s me, that’s how my mother raised me.”

Khaled is not the only one being attacked for voicing his opinion about Israel. Mahdi Satri, 17, a young Palestinian Arab from the village of Jadeidi-Makr in northern Israel, says he receives “regular threats from both Arab Israelis and Palestinians, via social media and by phone” because of his outspoken support for Israel. In an interview with The Algemeiner, Satri stated that he is in constant fear for his life from people in his community and that he feels like he is being targeted by all Arabs in Israel, including Hamas.”

Mahdi Satri
Mahdi Satri

In a touching letter he wrote, Satri explains his fear and says “If I died and if they succeeded to kill me, know that I died a Zionist defending my country. And know that I was smiling while dying because I’ll die for my country.”

In the past, Arabs showing support for Israel even fled the country due to fear for their lives. In 2014, Muhammad Zoabi, a loyal Arab Muslim citizen of Israel, fled the country after receiving multiple death threats. Today, Zoabi is back in Israel and is one of the countries leading voices supporting Israel and speaking out against Muslim terror. His Facebook page exudes love for Israel.

Muslim support for Israel has no borders. Even Muslims from Pakistan publicly show their support for Israel. Noor Dhari, whom we interviewed a few months ago, is a Pakistani Muslim who went as far is becoming an honorary member of the Zionist federation in the UK. He claims there are many pro-Israel Muslims just like him, but most are afraid to speak up.

It is an outrage that one cannot voice their support without being attacked or fearing for their lives. Are Muslims so insecure about their beliefs that they need to attack other Muslims for voicing an opinion? Is it such a crime to want peace in the country in which one lives?

I Don’t Hate Arabs…

Source: Dry Bones
Source: Dry Bones

In the words of Rabbi Meir Kahane, “I don’t hate Arabs. I love Jews. And I wish the Arabs well, elsewhere.”

I feel as though Israelis collectively suffer from the ‘national amnesia’, Kahane warned us about many years ago. Some of us appear to have forgotten why this glorious State was founded. For far too long, these same people have listened to the Liberals among us and those other voices that are often loudest from outside our great country and they seem to have chosen a path of least resistance, one of pacification, one of acceptance bordering on resignation, which from any perspective has cost each of us dearly both in lives lost and some would say, our self-esteem as Jews.

Need I remind these same people that we are literally surrounded on three sides by a self-declared enemy of our people, who has sworn to destroy us?

The examples of terror against our people grows each day, but when children can be murdered in their beds at night and when lovers, couples, business men and women, each a member of our family can be executed while they enjoy a meal and while those on the Left offer apologies for the terrorists, attempting to justify these despicable actions on the basis on alleged personal hardship, I feel that we’ve lost our way, somehow.

I feel that a re-boot is needed.

I believe that we should step back and re-evaluate our integration policies as a nation.

We should remind ourselves that Israel is a Jewish state – the only safe harbor for Jews anywhere in the world – a home where each of us can return and flourish with our friends and family.

But one thing is for certain, continuing down the current political path will see Jews outnumbered by those who wish to harm us sooner rather than later. Granting non-Jews the right to vote, while progressive on paper is suicide in practice and akin to two wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for dinner.

Kahane’s methods were dramatic. He delighted in tapping the rage of poor Israelis-especially Jews from Middle Eastern backgrounds-against Arabs, but that’s no longer an effective plan.

Today we see anti-Semitic attacks on the rise. It isn’t only the poor that will understand that while Kahane’s methods were too radical then, something must be done now. Together we must encourage our leaders to rethink the current policies. In one voice we must demand the promise of a safe Jewish state.

Let the conversation begin here.