So-called Palestinians have no history in Israel – except as terrorists

Until it is acknowledged by the UN and other bodies that the Jewish people and not the Arabs are the indigenous inhabitants of Eretz Israel, it is going to be difficult to break the impasse of anti-Jewish prejudice that is the real obstacle to peace.

In 1714, Hadriani Relandi, a mapmaker from Utrecht, published Palestina ex monumentis veteribus illustrata. The book was a record of Relandi’s trip to Eretz Israel in 1695-96. On his travels he surveyed around 2,500 places that were mentioned in the Tanakh and Mishnah, and he carried out a census of the people who resided in such places. He made some very interesting discoveries. For a start, he discovered that not a single settlement in Eretz Israel had a name that was of Arabic origin. Instead the names derived from Hebrew, Roman and Greek languages.

Another interesting discovery was the conspicuous absence of a sizeable Muslim population. Instead, he found that most of the inhabitants were Jews, along with some Christians and a few Bedouins. Nazareth was home to less than a thousand Christians, while Jerusalem held 5,000 people, mostly Jews. Gaza was home to around 250 Jews and about the same number of Christians.  The only exception was Nablus where around 120 Muslims lived, along with a handful of Samaritans, whose ancestors belonged to the northern tribes of Israel.

Relandi was not alone in discovering the lack of Muslims in the Land of Israel. Drawing on work by statistician and demographer Roberto Bachi, it is estimated that there were only 151,000 non-Jewish inhabitants of Palestine in 1540. (Some sources indicate that many of these were descendants of Jews who had remained in Palestine following the failed Bar Kokhba revolt in 136 CE but had been forced to convert to Islam). By 1800, the non-Jewish population had grown to around 268,000, rising to 489,000 by 1890, 589,000 in 1922 and just over 1.3 million in 1948. The vast majority of these non-Jewish migrants were Muslims. All of which suggests that most of the Muslim (and Christian) inhabitants of Palestine were recent immigrants and had not been living there for generations as is sometimes suggested. Moreover, the figures show that Arab immigration was a fast-growing trend, propelled by external circumstances. But what?

Firstly, several thousand peasant farmers had come to Palestine in the first half of the 19th century to escape Egypt’s military draft, forced labor and taxes. Secondly, the Ottoman authorities transferred a great many people from Morocco, Algeria and Egypt to Palestine in the early part of the 20th century, partly in an effort to outflank Jewish immigration. Thirdly, the Zionist project was very attractive to Arabs who were drawn to Palestine by the good wages, healthcare and sanitation offered by the Jews.  Indeed, the Muslim infant mortality rate in Palestine fell from 201 per 1,000 in 1925 to 94 per 1,000 in 1945. Meanwhile, life expectancy rose from 37 to 49 years.

Furthermore, the Arab population of Palestine increased the most in cities where there were large numbers of Jews, which is a strong indication that Arabs were drawn to Palestine because of the Zionists. Between 1922 and 1947, the Arab population grew by 290 per cent in Haifa, 158 per cent in Jaffa and 131 per cent in Jerusalem. Tellingly, the growth in Arab-majority towns was far less dramatic: 37 per cent in Bethlehem, 42 per cent in Nablus and 78 per cent in Jenin.

During the British civil administration in Palestine (1920 to 1948), restrictions were placed on Jewish immigration in order to appease Arab troublemakers. However, the situation regarding Arab settlement was much more lax. Historian and author Freddy Liebreich claims there was significant Arab immigration from the Hauran region of Syria during the Mandate era – and that the British authorities turned a blind eye.

However, some people were taking notice. The Hope Simpson Enquiry (1930) observed  there was significant illegal Arab immigration from Egypt, Transjordan and Syria, which was negatively affecting prospective Jewish immigrants and contributing to Arab violence against Jews. The British Governor of the Sinai between 1922 and 1936 substantiated the view that unchecked Arab immigration was taking place, with most of the immigrants coming from the Sinai, Transjordan and Syria. And the Peel Commission reported in 1937 that a “shortfall of land” was “due less to the amount of land acquired by Jews than to the increase in the Arab population.”

Immigration continued at a pace until the Jews declared independence in 1948. The fact that Arab (largely Muslim) immigration continued right up until Israeli independence is borne out by the United Nations stipulation that any Arab refugee who had lived in Palestine for a mere two years prior to Jewish independence was entitled to refugee status. According to the UN Relief and Works Agency, Palestine refugees are defined as “persons whose normal place of residence was Palestine during the period 1 June 1946 to 15 May 1948, and who lost both home and means of livelihood as a result of the 1948 conflict.”

What happened to the Arab invaders of 629 CE?

If there were very few non-Jewish inhabitants in Palestine in the 16th and 17th centuries, what happened to the Arab invaders who arrived in 629 CE? Well, for a start, very few of the invaders actually stayed in Palestine. Many became absentee landlords who used native tenants to cultivate their estates and to pay the dhimmi tax. This is why Palestine, along with Egypt and Syria, remained overwhelmingly Christian for several more centuries. It is possible, however, that following the Muslim reconquest in 1187, many Jewish and Christian inhabitants of Palestine were forced to convert to Islam, thereby pushing up the number of Muslim inhabitants. However, Palestine’s population went into decline from the mid-14th century – in large part due to the Black Death, which swept in from eastern Europe and north Africa, travelling to Gaza, and making its way to Palestine, Lebanon and Syria. With no one to care for the land, many areas became malarial, especially in northern Palestine, which became largely uninhabitable. Depopulation continued as a consequence of the invasion of Palestine in 1831 by Muhammad Ali of Egypt and the ensuing Peasants’ Revolt of 1834, which reduced the male population of Palestine by about twenty per cent, with large numbers of peasants either deported to Egypt or drafted into Egypt’s military. Many others abandoned their farms and villages to join the Bedouin.

Clearly it would be futile to argue that there were no Arabs living in Eretz Israel in the late 19th and the early 20th centuries, but the figures do show that the Arab population had been in state of flux for centuries and that the overwhelming majority were migrants from the rest of the Arab world and/or the Ottoman empire. This is important because it tells us that the popular notion of a deep-rooted Palestinian Arab history/culture is bogus. All the evidence points to the conspicuous absence of Arab culture in late 17th century Palestine; and even in the 18th and 19th centuries the Arab inhabitants were not indigenous but were latecomers. This explains why, historically, Arabs never talked about Palestinian identity – because there wasn’t one. They were Egyptian, Syrian, Moroccan, Iraqi and Ottoman Arabs, and many of them expressed allegiance to the concept of a Greater Syria.

It wasn’t until the mid-1960s – nearly two decades after Israel declared independence – that a semi-coherent (and terroristic) Palestinian Arab identity came into being. Until then, the Arabs had refused to call themselves Palestinians because it was a name reserved for the Jews. When people today talk of a Arabic Palestinian culture or history, they are being disingenuous: the only Palestinian culture or history of any note is Jewish. Arabic-speaking Palestinianism started as late as the 1960s and was couched in fervently anti-Zionist and Judeophobic terms. Despite their successful efforts in deceiving the world, many Arab Palestinian leaders know the truth about the origins of their people. Egyptian-born Yasser Arafat made this very clear when he said, “The Palestinian people have no national identity. I, Yasser Arafat, man of destiny, will give them that identity through conflict with Israel.”

Even as late as the 1970s, the notion of a Palestinian people was still nothing more than a terrorist construct designed to undermine Jewish claims to the land of Israel. In a conversation with Dutch newspaper Trouw in March 1977, the leader of the pro-Syria as-Sa’iqa faction of the PLO, Zuheir Mohsen, remarked: “It is only for political reasons that we carefully underline our Palestinian identity […] yes, the existence of a separate Palestinian identity serves only tactical purposes. The founding of a Palestinian state is a new tool in the continuing battle against Israel.”

Why else do the people who claim to be Palestinians regularly turn down the possibility of an independent state alongside Israel? It is because the Arabs themselves don’t really believe in a State of Palestine. Their only interest is abolishing the Jewish presence between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River. Jewish self-determination is anathema to many Muslims who, since the time of Muhammed, have tried to keep the Jews in a state of subjugation and dhimmitude. When Arab and/or BDS protestors call for Palestine to be free “from the river to the sea,” what they are really calling for is the genocide of the Jews.

Many of the problems experienced by the State of Israel stem from something very simple but profound –  the change of name. While it is totally understandable that the leaders of the Yishuv chose the name Israel for their state (New Judea was another option), it has had unfortunate consequences. By rejecting the labels Palestine and Palestinian, the Jews circumvented their own local history and identity, and bequeathed both the name and heritage of Palestine to the Arabs. What’s worse is the fact that the latter now claim to have been the indigenous people of Palestine all along – and the world (which has always been a sucker for anti-Jewish conspiracy theories) believes it.

It is surely time to remind the Arabs and the international community that Jews are the true Palestinians. Why else would there be a Palestinian Talmud or a Jewish newspaper called The Palestine Post. Why, until the creation of Israel, were the Jews known as Palestinians? Why did philosopher Immanuel Kant refer to Jews in Europe as “the Palestinians among us”? Why did Jewish campaigners in the early 20th century produce posters calling for Jews of America to register as members of the Zionist Organisation of America “for the freedom of Palestine”? Why does the 1939 flag of Palestine have a Star of David on it?

Now some critics might say, “Well, all this may be true, but the people who claim to be Palestinians are indeed Palestinians because they say  they are and they deserve our sympathy.” The trouble is, the so-called Palestinians make no attempt to explain who they really are but continue to perpetuate the antisemitic conspiracy theory that they are the primitive and indigenous people of Palestine who were/are cruelly oppressed by the wicked Zionists. The world believes this because they are told the lie often enough and because the Israeli state has done a poor job of communicating the truth.

And because of the big Palestinian lie, Jew-hatred is now at its highest level since the end of the Second World War and the United Nations has just passed Resolution 2334, one of the most antisemitic rulings in recent years. Until it is acknowledged by the UN and other major organizations that the Jewish people are the indigenous inhabitants of Eretz Israel – from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea – it is going to be difficult to break the impasse of stubborn anti-Jewish prejudice that is the real obstacle to peace.

Originally Published in Israel News Online.


World leaders speak out on biased UNSC resolution; New Zealand waits

While the passing of the controversial UNSC Resolution 2334 on the eve of Christmas and Hanukkah went under the radar of many, a number of world leaders have spoken out. Even members of Obama’s own party are appalled at the stance taken by the United States; UK Prime Minister Theresa May has rebuked John Kerry for focussing on Israeli settlements; and Australia, a country without a seat at the Security Council, has called the resolution “one-sided” and “deeply unsettling”. However, New Zealand Prime Minister Bill English is yet to comment, despite repeated calls for him to do so.

Fifteen countries sit on the United Nations Security Council. On 24 December 2016 (NZT), when resolution 2334 was adopted, half of the ten non-permanent members were considered “Free” democracies by the UK based Economist Intelligence Unit.

New Zealand had the highest Democracy Index of all fifteen nations, yet joined Venezuela (a “Hybrid regime”), Senegal, and Malaysia (both “Flawed democracies”) to co-sponsor the text prepared by Egypt (“Authoritarian”).

Regardless of how democratic a country is, the votes at the UNSC are cast by individual representatives who may not be fully supported by the citizens they represent. There are suggestions that New Zealand Foreign Minister, Murray McCully, did not seek cabinet approval before sponsoring or voting for the text. There is also evidence to suggest the United States colluded with the Palestinians and Egypt to formulate the text of the resolution, despite US denial.

United States President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry abandoned a longstanding practice of using the US veto power against biased resolutions when they abstained from the vote, prompting bipartisan outrage from congress. The US also allegedly helped develop the text, which would include abandonment of longstanding US policies, including land-for-peace, opposing the discriminatory BDS movement, and insisting that the parties to the conflict must resolve their differences.

Despite UK Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson casting the UK vote for the resolution, Prime Minister Theresa May has spoken out against the aggressive and biased rhetoric of Obama and John Kerry in their “lame duck” period. She said:

We do not believe that the way to negotiate peace is by focusing on only one issue, in this case the construction of settlements, when clearly the conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians is so deeply complex… The [UK] Government believes that negotiations will only succeed when they are conducted between the two parties, supported by the international community”Theresa May

Russia was another country that voted for the resolution but, after the vote, issued a statement criticizing the way it was brought to the Security Council, in a surprise move just a day after Egypt pulled its own proposal on the matter. The Russian statement said

Our experience shows convincingly that a two-state solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is only possible through direct talks between Palestinians and Israelis without any preconditions.”Russian government

Not all nations have waded into commentary on the anti-Israel resolution. However, Australia – a country that does not have a seat at the Security Council – has condemned the resolution. Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull affirmed his country’s support for a peace deal between Israelis and Palestinians, which he said could only come about through direct negotiations between the parties, a stance Israel has repeatedly put forward. This follows Australian Foreign Minister Julie Bishop saying Canberra “has consistently not supported one-sided resolutions targeting Israel” and would have voted against resolution 2234. This is consistent with an interview Bishop gave in 2014, in which she said West Bank settlements should not be referred to as “illegal” and

I don’t think it’s helpful to prejudge the settlement issue if you’re trying to get a negotiated solution. And by deeming the activity as a war crime, it’s unlikely to engender a negotiated solution.”Julie Bishop

The only democratic country to be more fiercely opposed to the resolution is Israel. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu rejected the resolution in the symbolic act of lighting Hannukah candles at the Western Wall (which the resolution considers part of “occupied Palestinian territories”). He reportedly said “Israel is strong, and I won’t let us be spit on. We will respond forcefully.” Israel has also recalled ambassadors to Senegal and New Zealand.

The less-than-democratic world leaders have praised the resolution. Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar not only welcomed the resolution but also praised John Kerry for the proposal that Theresa May rebuked. Fatah has publicly thanked the Security Council for the resolution, using a cartoon of Israel being used as a knife and Hamas also praised the resolution, with a spokesperson saying

We expect further support for the Palestinians’ righteous cause of ending the occupation.”Fawzi Barhoum

While all these leaders have spoken out, Kiwis wait. Even though New Zealand co-sponsored the text and voted for the resolution, Kiwis wait for comment from their leaders. Despite protests, a letter to the Prime Minister and petitions, concerned New Zealanders wait for a response from their Prime Minister.

Originally published on Shalom Kiwi

Will Congress Officially Rebuke the United Nations Tomorrow?

Although surprisingly quiet after UNSC Resolution 2334 was passed, the Congress has been quietly planning its political attack against the UN and the Obama Administration after being sworn in tomorrow.

Sen. Jerry Moran, R-Kan., plans to introduce a “sense of the Senate” which will issue a rebuke of the United Nations. The formal condemnation resolution could one of countless measures the Congress is planning against the U.N. by in response to the Security Council resolution

“I am committed to working with both Republicans and Democrats to make sure we stand with Israel and that the United Nations cannot be used as a forum to create policies that hurt our nation and its allies,” Moran said Friday.

Other possible moves may include Senator Lindsay Grahm’s push to defund the United Nations. Although supported by a number of senators, Senate Republican Leadership has yet to support it openly.


John Kerry is Dead Wrong about Israeli Settlements

United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334, which describes Israel’s settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem as illegal, should never have passed last week. But the U.S. refused to use its veto power, in part because, as Secretary of State John F. Kerry explained in a speech on Wednesday, the Obama administration believes settlements are an obstacle to peace in the Middle East. In the outgoing administration’s view, extreme criticism is, conversely, necessary to advance the peace process.

This argument is dead wrong. Still, let’s examine it.

Although administration officials have been reluctant to explain the precise reasoning behind their last-minute series of attacks on Israel, as near as I can tell it rests on three assumptions.

The first, as Kerry outlined in his speech, is that a freeze on Israeli settlement growth makes it easier for Palestinian negotiators to make painful compromises at the negotiating table. It supposedly does this by easing Palestinian suspicions that Israel either won’t make major territorial concessions at the negotiating table, or won’t implement these concessions once made.

The main impediment to compromise is Palestinian unwillingness to accept the existence of a Jewish state.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu put this assumption to the test in November 2009 when he imposed a 10-month moratorium on new housing construction (East Jerusalem excepted) at the urging of the Obama administration.

What happened? Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas refused to return to talks until the very end of the moratorium and remained every bit as intransigent as before.

The main impediment to Palestinian compromise is not Palestinian suspicion; it is the fundamental unwillingness of Palestinian leaders across the spectrum to accept the existence of a Jewish state alongside their own.

Some settlement growth makes it easier for Palestinian moderates to build public support for compromise.

What’s more, a strong case can be made that some settlement growth actually makes it easier for Palestinian moderates to build public support for compromise by underscoring that a continuation of the status quo is untenable and injurious to Palestinian national aspirations in the long run.

The Obama administration’s second assumption is that pressure from the international community or from the United States will bring about this supposedly desirable settlement freeze.

However, by collapsing the distinction between East Jerusalem and bustling Israeli towns just inside the West Bank — which no major Israeli political party will contemplate abandoning — and the remaining settlements, most of which Israelis are willing to give up, this policy does the opposite.

“It is a gift to Bibi Netanyahu, who can now more easily argue to Israelis that the bad relationship with America these last eight years wasn’t his fault,” notes the writer Jonah Goldberg.

Finally, even if it were true that a settlement freeze would make it easier for Palestinian negotiators to trust Israel and that international pressure would increase the willingness of Israeli leaders to accept such a freeze, these effects would be far overshadowed by the problems created by branding Israeli claims outside the 1949 armistice line illegal and invalid.

Palestinian leaders will have double the trouble compromising now that the UN has endorsed their maximalist demands.

Since Palestinian leaders already have trouble justifying to their people the abandonment of territorial claims to Ma’ale Adumim, the Jewish quarter in Jerusalem, and so forth, they will have double the trouble now that the United States has endorsed these demands. What Palestinian leader can sign away territory to which Washington and the Security Council have declared Israelis have no legitimate claim?

Kerry stated plainly that Israel is to blame for the demise of the two-state process, and that — unless its leaders listen to counsel — Israel will not survive as both a Jewish and a democratic state. Now that the administration’s views are crystal clear, pundits should spare us the back and forth on whether its eleventh-hour obsessions are good for peace – no one as smart as Obama or Kerry can possibly believe that it is.

The more interesting question, sure to be the focus of congressional hearings next year, is why the administration used its last few weeks to damage relations with Israel.

Originally Posted in the Los Angeles Times.


New Zealanders Fight Back Over Their PM’s Support for Resolution 2334

In the wake of New Zealand taking a leading role in pushing through United Nations Security Council resolution 2334, which effectively makes it illegal for Jews to pray at their holiest site and blames only Israel for a lack of peace, 858 Jewish and non-Jewish New Zealanders and 27 kiwi organisations have signed the following letter to Rt. Hon. Bill English, Prime Minister of New Zealand.


29 December 2016

The Rt Hon Bill English
New Zealand Prime Minister
Parliament Buildings

Dear Prime Minister,

Re New Zealand’s vote on UNSC resolution 2334

  1. We, the undersigned are New Zealand citizens and residents, Jewish and non- Jewish, with a spectrum of political views, who write to express our condemnation of United Nations Security Council resolution 2334 (“Resolution”), and particularly the New Zealand Government’s involvement in it.
  1. We note at the outset that our dismay at the Resolution does not express a view on the matter of all such Jewish settlements outside of the 1949 armistice lines.
  1. Our concern is that the Resolution is one-sided and continues the UN’s woeful record of rewriting history and delegitimising the Jewish state. It is also counter-productive; undermining, rather than enhancing, the chances of peace in this complex and long-standing conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. It widens the chasm between both sides, instead of building a bridge.
  1. The UN is a deeply flawed institution whose inherent bias against Israel has been acknowledged by Secretary General Ban-Ki Moon, and indeed Minister McCully. The UN has no credibility as regards the question of Israel and the Palestinians. The UN has excoriated Israel at every opportunity, while ignoring the failings of the Palestinians. The Security Council, riven with incompetence and political agendas and has failed to address the greatest atrocity of our time in Syria. It is not the forum to resolve or provide a mechanism for resolution of a long-standing dispute between two parties, especially when one is Israel. Only those parties themselves can arrive at a resolution, through direct negotiations.
  1. However, there is now no incentive for the Palestinians to negotiate, because the outcome of any negotiations has been pre-determined. The Resolution has granted the Palestinians more than they have themselves sought, so that they cannot now accept less through negotiations without losing face. The Resolution has declared what is “occupied Palestinian territory”, being all land beyond the arbitrary 1949 armistice lines that resulted from a war initiated by the Arab states to eliminate the nascent Jewish state. This is land that Palestinians have never had sovereignty over, and that between 1949 and 1967 was occupied by Jordan. The Security Council has apparently enshrined a new principle of international law, that land acquired in a defensive war from an occupying power belongs to a third party who at the time of the war claimed no sovereignty over that land nor sought autonomy. It declares Jewish presence in these lands, a continual presence of thousands of years (except for the ethnic cleansing that occurred under Jordanian occupation) a ”flagrant violation of international law”. It therefore requires that these lands become Jew-free, while Arab Palestinians constitute 20% of Israel’s population and enjoy the full benefits of citizenship.
  1. The Resolution does not differentiate between the “blocs” and other settlements, although all previous negotiations and the Palestinians themselves have done so. It has decreed that East Jerusalem, which includes the Old City, is under “occupation” and consequently that some 200,000 Jewish East Jerusalem residents are illegal settlers. It is extremely disturbing and devastating that it makes it illegal for Jews to attend Hebrew University or to pray at their most holy site, the Western Wall, the heart of Judaism, to which Jews have physically and spiritually directed their prayers for thousands of years. By doing so, the Resolution imperils the shared and very special foundation of Judaism and Christianity. The Church of the Holy Sepulchre is now also in “occupied Palestinian territory”.
  1. The Resolution rewards Palestinian intransigence, and incitement and glorification of terrorism. It does not hold the Palestinians to account for their corruption, human rights abuses and failures in developing the machinery of a democratic state and civic society. It ignores Israel’s previous settlement offers. It empowers boycott, divestment and sanction against Israel, a country that contributes so much to the world in terms of science, innovation, medicine, technology, humanitarianism, the arts, and counter-terrorism. It does not acknowledge the right of Jewish self- determination—indeed, its very premise violates that right. Settlements are blamed as the root cause of the failure to achieve a lasting resolution, rather than the continued Palestinian denial of sovereignty of the Jewish people over their indigenous homeland.
  1. We are ashamed of the role of New Zealand in this travesty and feel betrayed by our Government. New Zealand partnered with Malaysia, Senegal and Venezuela to sponsor the Resolution, countries which do not share our liberal Western values. The Resolution has been praised by Islamic Jihad and Hamas. This is nothing to be proud of. We believe Minister McCully has acted with questionable mandate and has for some time listened only to, and indeed gone so far as advocating for, one side. He has overturned long-standing New Zealand policy and ignored expert advice. He has yet again brought mockery and scorn upon this country and the Government. He has desperately, under urgency (on the eve of Christmas and Chanukah) and without transparency, sought to secure a legacy on the last day of the Security Council’s meeting during New Zealand’s term.
  1. He has indeed secured a legacy. However, it is one that has made the prospect of peace ever more distant for the reasons discussed above, and brought ignominy on New Zealand. It has caused opprobrium among international commentators, calls for boycotts of our goods by supporters of Israel around the world, and demands for an end to our burgeoning relationship with Israel, from which New Zealand has more to gain economically. This is even more distressing given the impending commemoration next year of 100 years since the ANZAC campaign in Beersheva, in which New Zealand played such a proud part in turning the tide of the war against the Ottoman Empire, and therefore a pivotal role in the establishment of Israel.
  1. Minister McCully has also disenfranchised many—until now—loyal National party supporters.
  1. As Prime Minister, we believe it is incumbent upon you to make a public statement on the Resolution and its implications.
 We also request that you meet urgently with representatives of this group.

Yours sincerely,
A group of 858 Jewish and non-Jewish New Zealanders, names withheld from this version. The following organisations also signed the letter:

  • New Zealand Jewish Council
  • International Christian Embassy Jerusalem New Zealand
  • Auckland Hebrew Congregation
  • Australasian Union of Jewish Students
  • B’nai B’rith New Zealand
  • Beth Shalom Synagogue Auckland
  • Bridges for Peace
  • Calvary Chapel New Zealand
  • Celebrate Messiah New Zealand
  • ChangePoint Church Tauranga
  • Christian Friends of Israel New Zealand
  • Christians 4 Israel
  • City Glory Church
  • Ebenezer Emergency Fund Trust New Zealand
  • Ezekiel 33 Trust New Zealand
  • Faithpointe Church – Auckland
  • Hawkes Bay Friends Of Israel Association
  • Jesus First Church
  • Jewish Federation of New Zealand
  • Pacific Pearls
  • Praying for Israel Groups Tauranga
  • South Wind Fellowship
  • Te Hau Wairua
  • The Church of the Rock International
  • The Oasis Church – Napier
  • Trumpet of Salvation to Israel
  • Zionist Federation of New Zealand

To add your name to the letter, sign the petition here.

Originally posted on Shalom.Kiwi

[watch] Ambassador Danny Danon: Kerry Not Telling Truth

Israel’s Ambassador Danny Danon swung back at John Kerry yesterday for fabricating details of the US involvement in crafting the UNSC Resolution which made it illegal for Jews to live in the Old City of Jerusalem and Judea and Samaria, the cradle of Jewish civilization.

MSNBC ANCHOR: Ambassador, do you accept what Secretary Kerry has to say?

DANNY DANON: No. Absolutely not. When you —

MSNBC: So he’s lying in your view? You don’t believe what he’s saying?

DANON: Let’s review the facts. In 2011 there was a very similar resolution. The U.S. vetoed it. In 2014, another similar resolution to the one passed on Friday, the U.S. blocked the vote without using the veto power. Recently in the last resolution we know the U.S. unfortunately was involved with the resolution.

At the security council the U.S. is a pen holder on every resolution regarding Israel and the Middle East. You can ask other ambassadors who sit at the security council. No one would have supported such a resolution without the support of the United States.

Even ambassadors approached me before the vote and told me we wanted to abstain but the minute we saw what the U.S. was doing and got the signal, we would support the resolution.

MSNBC: To be clear and I’m going off what you are saying, do you believe secretary Kerry is lying to your government and lying to the American people?

DANON: I don’t know what to tell you about that. I can only tell you the facts. If the U.S. was not supporting this resolution it wouldn’t have passed. That’s a fact.

We have seen it in the security council in the past. How many times in the U.N. people are trying to gang up against Israel and pass resolutions against Israel?

I have seen in the last year for dozens of times. The U.S. stood by us, but now think about the timing. Three weeks before the change of guard in the white house, all of the sudden it’s happening? It’s not a coincidence.


[watch] Netanyahu to Obama: “Friends Don’t Take Friends To The Security Council”

During his weekly cabinet meeting on Sunday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu gave a stinging reprimand of the anti-settlement vote at UN Security Council. He asserted that “the Western Wall isn’t occupied territory,” and said he looked forward to working with the Trump administration when they take office next month.

“I share ministers’ feelings, anger and frustration vis-à-vis the unbalanced resolution that is very hostile to the State of Israel, and which the [UN] Security Council passed in an unworthy manner. From the information that we have, we have no doubt that the Obama administration initiated it, stood behind it, coordinated on the wording and demanded that it be passed. This is, of course, in complete contradiction of the traditional American policy that was committed to not trying to dictate terms for a permanent agreement, like any issue related to them in the Security Council, and, of course, the explicit commitment of President Obama himself, in 2011, to refrain from such steps. We will do whatever is necessary so that Israel will not be damaged by this shameful resolution and I also tell the ministers here, we must act prudently, responsibly and calmly, in both actions and words. I ask ministers to act responsibly as per the directives that will be given today at the Security Cabinet meeting immediately following this meeting. I have also asked the Foreign Ministry to prepare an action plan regarding the UN and other international elements, which will be submitted to the Security Cabinet within one month. Until then, of course, we will consider our steps.”



[watch] OBAMA TO DECLARE PALESTINE? Ambassador Ron Dermer: “We Have Evidence Obama Orchestrated the UN Vote”

On Fox News Israeli Ambassodor to the USA explicitely said that Israel has evidence that the Obama administration was behind the vote from the beginning.

“We have that evidence … we’re going to present it to the new administration, and if they choose to share it with the American people, that’ll be their choice,” Israeli Ambassador to the U.S. Ron Dermer told Fox News’ “Special Report.” “It’s very clear that the U.S. orchestrated that.”

Will Obama Attack Again?

Israel is preparing for yet another collision with the ourgoing Obama administration, as Secretary of State John Kerry prepares to follow up UN Resolution 2334  with a major address on the “U.S. vision for resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. ”

The State Department has now confirmed that Kerry plans on discussing the Middle East peace process on Wednesday.

Israeli news outlets are reporting that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is very concerned that the Obama Administration will have the Security Council endorse principles for a Palestinian state.


UN RESOLUTION FALLOUT: Donald Trump Tweets, “The UN is just a club for people to get together”

Donald Trump continues to attack the UNSC resolution 2334.

With the UNSC declaring and affirming in international law that it is lillegal for Jews to live in the Old City of Jerusalem and Judea and Smaria, Trump and Senate Republicans are preparing to use the issue to finally take on the UN directly.

Seen by much of America as globalist institution, resolution 2334 and Obama’s backing of it may have finally forced those UN antagonists to put their words to action.

Senators Cruz, Cotton, and Grahm have already inferred they will support defunding the UN until it reverses its decision.


UN RESOLUTION FALLOUT: PM Netanyahu Cancels Ukrainian PM’s Visit, Ukraine Responds

PM Netanyahu cancels the visit of the Ukrainian Prime Minister to Israel.  Kiev’s response; “The crisis in the Middle East is the deepest it has been throughout its history.”

Following the cancellation of the visit of Ukrainian Prime Minister, Volodymyr Groysman, to Israel, the Ukrainian delegation to the United Nations responded to their support of the United Nations resolution against settlements in the Security Council.

“Unprecedented settlement activities by Israel in the palestinian territories does not help to deal with violence.”

After Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu canceled on Saturday the visit of his Ukrainian counterpart following the state support for the UN resolution against settlements, a delegation of Ukraine to the United Nations issued a message explaining Kiev’s support for the resolution. “The search for a solution is now in the deepest crisis in history,” the statement read. “The lack of prospects for reviving the peace process between Israel and the palestinians has led to an escalation of the security situation in Israel and the West Bank on a daily basis. As a result, the unprecedented settlement activities of Israel in the palestinian territories does not help deal with the violence”, said the diplomats.

In their statement, the delegation noted that the decision that was finally approved was more lenient with Israel than the original resolution and included references to palestinian terror.

“The call to Israel to stop settlement activity as a prerequisite for resolving the conflict as part of a two-state solution is not new,” the statement said. “All parties call out for efforts to achieve peace and security in the Middle East.”

The delegation made a connection between the Russian occupation of Crimea and the Israeli occupation. For Ukraine, abstention or objection to the resolution calling for a cease of illegal actions in the territories that under international law are considered occupied territory, would be contrary to the struggle on the diplomatic front against the occupation of the Crimea and the Donetsk and Luhansk regions by Russia.

“These are political issues, about which positions cannot vary according to the political situation. There are national interests that do not often match the interests of our partners, especially Israel. Because of these interests, we cannot abstain or object,” it said.

On Saturday, Prime Minister Netanyahu issued a statement cancelling the visit of Prime Minister of Ukraine, Volodymyr Groysman to Israel, in protest against his country’s support for the draft resolution against settlements received on Friday by the UN Security Council. Groysman, who is the first Jewish Prime Minister of Ukraine elected last April, was to arrive in Israel on Wednesday.

Cancellation of the visit was one of a series of steps taken by the government following the adoption of resolution 2334 on Friday by the UN Security Council, with the support of all Council members. The United States abstained in the vote instead of vetoing the resolution.  The abstention by the Obama administration has set off a furor of reactions by Israel against all those who voted in favor of the resolution and the US.