A group of ragtag ultra-Orthodox Jews who love the State of Israel, the United States, its constitution and the values they stand for...

Monday, May 29, 2017

Trump furious with Abbas: You lied to me - INN

President Trump reportedly outraged with Palestinian Authority leader. ‘The Israelis showed me that you are involved in incitement.’

Abbas and Trump
President Donald Trump lambasted Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas, after the president claims the PA leader deceived him regarding his party’s involvement in anti-Israel incitement.
Trump met with Abbas in the PA-controlled city of Bethlehem last week during his two-day visit to Israel. The two held a joint press conference, at which time the president praised Abbas’ commitment to restarting negotiations with Israel for a final status agreement.
But according to a report by Channel 2 Sunday evening, the closed-door meeting between the president and the PA chairman was anything but cordial.
A US official present during the meeting claims the president expressed outrage with Abbas, yelling at him regarding Abbas’ claims that his Fatah faction was not involved in anti-Israel and anti-Semitic incitement.
“You tricked me in Washington,” the president is said to have yelled at Abbas, referencing the PA leader’s March trip to the US capital.
During his March get-together with the president, Abbas claimed he was dedicated to advancing peaceful relations with Israel, and that the PA was not engaged in incitement against the Jewish state.
Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu publicly called out Abbas’ claim, noting the PA’s continued material support for jailed terrorists and promotion of hateful propaganda encouraging young Arabs to take up arms against Israel.
“I heard President Abbas yesterday say that the Palestinians teach their children peace,” said Netanyahu. “Unfortunately, that’s not true. They name their schools after mass murderers of Israelis and they pay terrorists,” he said at the opening of a meeting with the Romanian prime minister in Jerusalem.
According to the American official who spoke with Channel 2, beyond the PM’s statement, Israel also provided the White House with proof of the PA’s support for and promotion of terrorism.
“You talked to me about peace, but the Israelis showed me that you are personally supporting incitement,” Trump reportedly told Abbas last week.
During their joint presser last Tuesday, President Trump alluded to the PA’s funding for jailed terrorists, calling it an obstacle to peace.
“Peace can never take root in a place where violence is tolerated, funded and even rewarded,” said President Trump.
“We must be resolute in condemning such acts in a single, unified voice. Peace is a choice we must make each day, and the United States is here to help make that dream possible for young Jewish, Christian, and Muslim children all across the region.”
In another article INN reported,
Abbas, who also participated in the meeting, said he continued to initiate peace and opposed anything which would endanger the PA’s goal of achieving independence and ending the Israeli “occupation.”
According to Hebrew newspaper Israel Hayom, Abbas rejected Trump’s offer of a regional plan which would first entail normalizing relations with Israel’s neighbors and only afterwards discussing a Palestinian state.
Last week, a PA official told Israel Hayom: “Until now, what hindered progress in the advance of the Arab Peace Initiative was the failure of negotiations with Israel. President Trump is interested in advancing a different thought process within the framework of the deal between Israel and the Palestinians that he’s talking about.”

‘Netanyahu no longer supports two-state solution’

Binyamin Netanyahu and Tzachi Hanegbi
Senior Likud official and Netanyahu ally says Prime Minister no longer believes in two-state solution laid out in 2009 Bar Ilan address.
Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu no longer supports the two-state solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict, a senior Likud minister and ally to the Prime Minister said Monday morning.
Regional Cooperation Minister Tzachi Hanegbi, who formerly served as the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Office under Netanyahu, said that neither he nor Netanyahu support the two-state solution and establishment of a Palestinian state west of the Jordan River.
“I never backed the two-state solution, [I] only [supported] the Bar Ilan speech,” Hanegbi told Army Radio Monday morning, referencing Netanyahu’s 2009 address at Bar Ilan University, in which the Prime Minister embraced the idea of a demilitarized Palestinian state alongside Israel.
Hanegbi added that Netanyahu himself had dropped his support for Palestinian statehood since the 2009 speech.
“The Prime Minister as well no longer supports the two-state [solution],” said Hanegbi.
In 2015, Netanyahu said that while he had not abandoned his positions laid out in the Bar Ilan address, “the Palestinians have emptied it of content. Under the conditions they want at present, it is simply not something we can consider. There is no partner for an agreement.”

de Blasio Incites CUNY Violence - Jihad Watch

Pamela Geller: How Mayor de Blasio Tried to Incite Violence and Wreck AFDI’s CUNY Rally

The AFDI demo against CUNY’s obscene invitation was a smashing success, with over a thousand people who came out in a downpour of pelting rain on East 42nd Street outside CUNY’s headquarters on Thursday afternoon to oppose the mainstreaming of evil — CUNY’s obscene invitation to a pro-terror Jew-hater to keynote their commencement address. It was an amazing event, a turning point, despite Mayor de Blasio’s nefarious attempts to undermine and destroy the rally.
Background: Linda Sarsour is a leader of the illegal and inhumane  Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel. Sarsour has publicly argued that Jews who support Israel can’t be feminists. She does not recognize Israel or its right to exist, and has made several tweets indicating she supports armed resistance to Israel. NY State Assemblyman Dov Hikind considers Sarsour’s views on Israel to be condoning terrorism, and he, along with a large number of mainstream Jews, believe Sarsour is strongly anti-Semitic.
“Linda Sarsour’s record of advocating for terrorists speaks for itself. If she had only called Arabs who hurl rocks at moving cars ‘the definition of courage,’ that would have been enough,” said Hikind. “But there’s so much more. Sarsour publicly called for violence against Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a feminist Muslim author who opposes violence. She recently shared a stage with and praised Rasmea Yousef Odeh, a member of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine convicted by an Israeli court for her role in the murder of two students, Leon Kanner and Eddie Joffe, in a Jerusalem supermarket bombing.
Mayor De Blasio is a longtime supporter of jihad and Muslim supremacists, and most especially terror-supporter Linda Sarsour. Mayor De Blasio gifted Sarsour’s “organization” with more than $500,000. She was instrumental in getting de Blasio to partly dismantle the New York Police Department’s program of spying on the city’s Muslims, and has worked with officials in City Hall to close public schools for the observance of Muslim holy days, Eid al-Fitr and Eid al-Adha. From her base at the Arab American Association of New York, the group whose focus is the sharia device, “Islamophobia,” Sarsour is working to do the same on immigration policy, voter registration, mass incarceration, Islamophobia and the Police Department’s stop-and-frisk tactic.
When Sarsour faked a “hate crime” against herself, New York City mayor Bill de Blasio tweeted a reminder that the City “will never condone such glaring acts of bigotry and intolerance.”
In fact, Sarsour’s attacker was Brian Boshell, a mentally ill homeless man well-known in the Bay Ridge area for public outbursts. As National Review reported at the time, Boshell, a regular presence in the neighborhood for more than two decades, had been arrested nearly 60 times before accosting Sarsour, and even Muslim residents of Bay Ridge expressed skepticism that she didn’t know who he was. (National Review)
De Blasio issued no mea culpa.
And of course, the Mayor’s office has refused to answer whether the de Blasio Administration exerted any pressure on CUNY to invite Sarsour as the keynote speaker.
All that being said, Mayor de Blasio went to extraordinary lengths to undermine our rally and silence our voices. New York City is no stranger to protests. Protest is a thriving tradition, and with the election of President Trump, is a weekly, sometimes daily, exercise for leftists. So, at this point, the NYPD has it down to a science. Protest organizers apply for a permit, and if there is to be a counter protest, their area is set up across the street, or catacorner to the main event. This is standard operating procedure. During our Ground Zero Mosque protests, the opposition was penned one block over. Every rally and demo is set up in this same way. Which is why what happened at our event was so very extraordinary.
The vicious, vocal and violent protesters were placed right next to the stage, not three feet away from the stage and our crowd. And they screamed, blew deafening whistles, and screamed abusive chants tweets (“Grab that pussy!,” to which I chanted back, “No clit cutting!”). There was no letup (which is why I am shouting the whole of the rally)  and at the end of the demo, the leftists attacked our people and were arrested.
That said, despite de Blasio’s attempt to undermine our rally, it didn’t work. It was huge. And the happy warriors took a stand.
In this photo, you can see how close the two pens were. As a rule, the opposition is always across the street. Always. I have been holding protests and going to them for almost twenty years.
The enemedia did not report on this at all. They drummed up the narrative that the event was violent, with the New York Daily News going so far as to say “WILD BRAWL” in their headline. That’s what de Blasio wanted. He wanted our people attacked and hurt. And the enemedia eagerly advanced the big lie. De Blasio must be defeated in the incoming mayoral election. Bo Dietl for Mayor.
Here is how one attendee described his experience at our rally:
“AFDI: Today’s protest on E. 42nd Street Protesters were given front row standing space to disrupt the speakers,” by Robin Ticker, May 25, 2017:
I wanted to be close to the Podium of this Protest against Linda Sarsour.
Oops. I maybe accidentally went to a Protesters section of the Protest..or very close by   Next to me were loud protesters yelling Shut the F— Up and other insults to the Speakers at the Podium behind their barricade.
I asked the police that they should move the protest to the protest so that we can hear the speakers. The policeman told me he couldn’t hear what I was saying.
These protesters who were screaming “Go Home Fascists” and “Shut the F- Up” had the best standing room of the entire protest.  Everyone else was further back.
I was told that the Police’s Legal team said that they couldn’t move the protesters.  Apparently it didn’t matter that they were drowning out the speakers. Legally they were protected!
Couldn’t they go across the street to where the Neturei Karta were protesting.  It was very annoying and extremely provocative having them right up front to the point that they were clearly disrupting and distracting the ones on the Podium from speaking. For whatever reason, the loudspeaker was not loud enough to hear the speakers clearly from where I was standing which was very close to the podium. People way in the back apparently did hear better. There was too much loud disruptive and obscene protesting drowning out the speakers from my position. This was their intention and they succeeded.  Ok I didn’t see them get actually physically violent but it was very stupid to allow them there. Verbally they were extremely abusive and physically potentially so.
>Why is it that unrestrained freedom to Protest is legally given only to those that disrupt those that Protest for Israel?  Pro Sarsour, anti Israel, anti America, anti AFDI, anti Trump  who are a scary bunch gets legal protection to stand in close proximity….
I suppose that if the Police would have moved them they would have caused a riot.  Clearly a security threat!.
No other explanation….The anti Sarsour protester were on the street itself. At least part of it.
Why in heaven’s name did the police give these Pro Sarsour space on the sidewalk in very close proximity to the podium? They also needed a large police force on the sidewalk to contain them? Couldn’t the Police tell the protesters of the protest that the sidewalk is only for pedestrians?
The police were busy rushing the pedestrians who were walking down the street.  They wanted to make sure that the sidewalk remained passable, as it was now one third of its normal space.
After all, there was plenty of room across the Street adjacent to Neturei Karta protest.
My conclusion:
They have no problem putting Neturei Karta protesters,  across the street far away. Neturei Karta are docile and respectful to the police. They don’t get violent. In fact, when Neturei Karta protesters were annoyed at a Jewish female wearing an IDF sweatshirt who was in their face they got the Police to protect them and she was almost arrested.That clearly shows that the Police can get really tough when needed especially when this women was holding an Israeli flag and and wearing an IDF sweatshirt and clearly provoking the Neturei Karta. I wonder if she was singing. That really would have been a provocation and could easily cause a confrontation.
PRO Sarsour  foul mouthed whistle blowers (they literally blow loud whistles to drown out the speaker)  are protected to do so, because according to the Police’s legal advice they weren’t doing anything wrong legally. We can’t disrupt their freedom of speech to protest the protest.
Get this.  The police allowed a bunch of very foul mouthed pro Sarsour, anti Islamaphobic, anti Trump, and anti America protesters,  right next to the podium and in very close proximity to  Pamela Geller. The Police knew fully well that Pamela Geller and her speakers would talk negatively of Mohammad and Sharia.
This protest could potentially have gotten violent.
But probably the police were afraid. My guess is that they were intimidated.  Look carefully at the signs of the counter protest.
Signs at the counter protest of the anti Sarsour protest
Google peoplespower.net and you get http://peoplespowerassemblies.org/. Check out their website.  Also Google http://www.workers.org/
The signs read
“Smash Fascism and White Supremacy  PeoplesPowerAssemblies Peoplespower.net”
“Smash Racism and Islamaphobia”
They also chanted “From the River to the Sea Palestine Will be Free”….
“No KKK no Fascist USA”
Now it make sense. The Police didn’t want to be accused of being Islamaphobic and in so doing engage in Police Terror according to this crowd of protesters.  Police were intimidated to openly say that  this group of seasoned police protesters actually might be a physical threat to Pamela Geller  and her team.
Surely, the incident at the AFDI Mohammad cartoon contest and recent terror attacks across the globe in Manchester etc.  should have been sufficient reason to place them across the street.
Policed didn’t even need any excuses as they commonly put protesters like Neturei Karta  across the street far away and keep the sidewalks free for pedestrians.
Another question to the Police Legal team is Isn’t disrupting Freedom of Speech to Protest also illegal?
Thank G-d this time there was no Physical confrontation. We wouldn’t want a repeat of  the violent confrontation in DC when Police tried to separate protesters and anti protesters..
Do you really want to wait for a physical confrontation to prove our point?.
Sadly, Linda Sarsour, an anti Semite, anti women and anti women’s rights, pro Sharia and a Liar gets to speak at CUNY Commencement with probably lots of protection for her freedom of speech and Pamela Geller and Noni Darwish etc have no physical protection to speak of nor the freedom and protection to protest without serious disruption all because the other side are bullies and are legally protected!
And another person’s account:
I think there was something more sinister going on. I was one of the first people there. In fact, I offered to help set up. If anyone remembers, I was the guy with the short sleeve purple polo/golf shirt with my law firm name and had a backpack. I only got to talk with David Wood and Marie for few mins and Gavin (I think Pam may know who I am and David and Marie know Scott from Boston, Gavin has my card). When the radicals first showed up, you could see that this vile degenerate loser, Heather Morris, was their leader. She was talking with two others who asking if her group was with CPUSA, she responded that they were affiliated( all radical group’s r affiliated whether they know it or not)If you looked out from the stage, I was at the very front row,at the farthest left. Nearly right in front of a speaker that was covered from the rain.I was right against the front rail and left side rail with the ululating ninnies in my right ear. Originally, the Marxists were directed down the street toward the back. I observed Morris talking on a cell phone along with another man. Soon thereafter, some other men arrived, including a short, fat bald guy, there was some discussion with a policeman in charge and the Marxist were moved up to where they were originally, directly next to me. I saw 2 of the Marxist men huddle with Morris and they were all giggly and smiles, including the short, fat, bald guy, who quickly wiped his grin off his face when he saw me glowering at him intently. I stared at them nearly the whole time. They were vulgar to everyone, especially Heather Morris, swearing at everyone who passed by, thrusting out her middle finger in peoples faces, trying to grab peoples American flags and signs. There was a short policeman, with red hair that was next to me the whole time. He was a nice guy and clearly disgusted by there antics. I asked him why the Marxists were allowed back at the front, blocking and harassing foot traffic, he said he didn’t know but someone higher up changed the cops, who were there, original call. I was the one who first made the immediate request to the officers to have them moved back, to clear pedestrian traffic, not disrupt speakers,and more practical in keeping the peace and safety of all. As it was the obvious, logical thing to do, the police did just that. I believe these Marxists have a direct line into someone at “Red-Bill’s”office or Red Bill himself.The cops there did not seem happy.I read Morris lies about her arrest, if she was any whiter, she’d be translucent. And Nobody that I saw, with our group had any sticks, all our flags, both USA and Israel, had no sticks…I helped hold up both flags.The only people carrying sticks were the hyenas with there Soros made signs. I didn’t know anyone from our group that I was standing with, but there was a brotherhood/sisterhood, a real bond we quickly formed with each other. Lots of hugs and high-five’s. We also looked out after each other because Ms. morris, et al, were clearly trying to provoke and we would calm our fellow patriots down when it seemed like it was getting heated. Nobody tried to calm the radicals down. Morris had to be warned a few times as she assaulted and technically battered several people walking past who were not even paying attention to her. It may be a good idea in the future, if we can get 2 of our good people who will volunteer to just video the antifa/Marxists the whole time. It really was a great event, kudos to Pam, amazing given the lousy weather.

Ettinger Report: Shavou’ot (Pentecost) guide for the perplexed, 2017

Yoram will be in the US in August and October/November, 2017, available for speaking engagements.

Shavou’ot (Pentecost) guide for the perplexed, 2017
Ambassador (ret.) Yoram Ettinger, “Second Thought: a US-Israel Initiative”
More on Jewish holidays: http://bit.ly/137Er

1. Liberty. The Shavou’ot holiday reflects the 3,500 year old trilateral linkage between the
Land of Israel (pursued by Abraham), the Torah of Israel (transmitted through Moses) and the People of Israel (united by David) – a unique territorial/national/spiritual platform. Shavou'ot is a spiritual liberation holiday, following Passover, which is a national liberation holiday (the Exodus), in preparation for the territorial liberation: the return to the Land of Israel.

2. Humility. Shavou'ot commemorates the receipt of the Torah (the Five Books of Moses)and its 613 statutes - an annual reminder of essential values. The Torah was received in the desert, on Mount Sinai, which is not a very tall mountain, highlighting humility, a most critical value of human behavior and leadership. Moses, the exceptional law-giver and leader, was accorded only one compliment: "the humblest of all human beings." Abraham (אברהם), King David (דוד) and Moses (משה) are role-models of humility. Their Hebrew acronym (pronounced Adam - אדמ) means “human-being,” the root of "soil" in Hebrew (אדמה).

3. Human behavior. It is customary to study - from Passover to Shavou'ot/Pentecost – the six brief chapters of The Ethics of the Fathers (Pirkey Avot in Hebrew), one of the 63 tractates of the Mishnah (the Oral Torah) - a compilation of common sense principles, ethical and moral teachings, which underline inter-personal relationships. For example:
*"Who is respected? He who respects other persons!"
*"Who is a wise person? He who learns from all other persons!"
*"Who is wealthy? He who is satisfied with his own share!"
*"Who is a hero? He who controls his urge!"
*"Talk sparsely and walk plenty;"
*"If I am not for myself, who will be for me? If I am only for myself, what am I? If not now, when?"
*"Don't be consumed with the flask, but with its content."
*Conditional love is tenuous; unconditional love is eternal."
*"Treat every person politely."
*"Jealousy, lust and the obsession with fame warp one's mind."

4. Jubilee/Constitution. Shavou'ot is celebrated on the 50th day following Passover and has seven names (Pentecost is celebrated on the 7th Sunday after Easter): The holiday of the Jubilee/fiftieth (חמישים); the holiday of the harvest (קציר); the holiday of the giving of the Torah (מתן תורה); Shavou’ot (שבועות); the holiday of the offerings (ביכורים); the rally (עצרת) and the assembly (הקהל). The Hebrew acronym of the seven names is חקת שבעה, which means “The Constitution of the Seven.”    

5. The US-Israel covenant. Shavou’ot sheds light on the Judeo-Christian values – the foundation of the unique covenant between the Jewish State and the American people. These values shaped the worldview of the Pilgrims, the Founding Fathers and impacted the US Constitution, the Bill of Rights, Separation of Powers, Checks & Balances and the abolitionist movement. The British philosopher, John Locke, who was involved in the early days of the Carolinas, wanted the 613 Laws of Moses to become the legal foundation of the Carolinas. Lincoln’s famous 1863 quote - "government of the people, by the people, for the people" - paraphrased a statement made by the 14th century British philosopher and translator of the Bible, John Wycliffe: “The Bible is a book of the people, by the people, for the people.” The Jubilee – the cornerstone of Biblical/Mosaic liberty – inspired the US Founding Fathers. Its Biblical essence is inscribed on the Liberty Bell (Leviticus 25:10), which was installed in 1752, the 50th anniversary of William Penn’s Charter of Privileges:“Proclaim liberty throughout all the land and unto all the inhabitants thereof.” Moreover, according to ancient Jewish Sages, the globe was created through 50 gates of wisdom, and the 50th gate was the gate of jubilee/liberty/deliverance. The USA is composed of 50 states.

6. Agriculture. Originally, Shavou’ot was an agricultural holiday, celebrating the first harvest/yield by bringing offerings (Bikkurim-ביכורים) to the Temple in Jerusalem. However, following the destruction of the 2nd Temple and the exile in 70 AD, the focus shifted to Torah awareness, in order to sustain the connection to the Land of Israel and avoid spiritual and physical oblivion. 

7. Seven. Shavou’ot reflects the centrality of 7 in Judaism. The Hebrew root of Shavou’ot (שבועות) is Seven (שבע - Sheva), which is also the root of “vow” (שבועה – Shvoua’), “satiation” (שובע – Sova) and “week” (שבוע – Shavoua’). Shavou’ot is celebrated 7 weeks following Passover. The Sabbath is the 7th day of the Creation in a 7 day week. The first Hebrew verse of Genesis consists of 7 words. According to Genesis, there are 7 beneficiaries of the Sabbath. God created 7 universes – the 7th hosts the pure souls, hence “Seventh Heaven.” There were 7 monumental Jewish leaders – Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Aharon, Joseph and David - representing 7 human qualities – 7 Jewish Prophetesses (Sarah, Miriam, Devorah, Chana, Abigail, Choulda and Esther), 7 major Jewish holidays (Rosh Hashanah, Yom Kippur, Tabernacles, Chanukah, Purim, Passover and Shavou’ot) and 7 species of the Land of Israel (barley, wheat, grape, fig, pomegranate, olive and date/honey). The Jubilee follows 7 seven-year cycles, etc.

More on Shavou’ot and additional Jewish holidays: http://bit.ly/137Er6J

The Trump Doctrine - Dry Bones

Dry Bones cartoon,America,Trump, ISIS, Al Qaeda, radical Islam, Islamism, Saudi Arabia,Islamic States, Islamist Terrorism,
We seem to be witnessing the birth of the Trump doctrine.

Tuesday, May 23, 2017

Trump: 'I stand in awe of the Jewish people'

President Trump visits the Israel Museum in Jerusalem.
President Donald Trump spoke at a joint press conference with Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu at the Israel Museum in Jerusalem Tuesday afternoon, shortly after having spoken at the Yad Vashem Holocaust museum.
In his address at the Israel Museum, President Trump described his visit to the Israeli capital as “a privilege”, referencing Jerusalem’s Jewish history going back to the reign of King David.

"It is a privilege to stand in this national museum in the ancient city of Jerusalem, to address the Israeli people and all people in the Middle East who yearn for security, prosperity, and peace.

"Jerusalem is a sacred city. Its beauty, splendor, and heritage are like no other place on earth. What a heritage, what a heritage. The ties of the Jewish people to this holy land are ancient and eternal. They date back thousands of years, including the reign of King David, whose star now flies proudly on Israel's white and blue flag."

The President also described his visit on Monday to the Western Wall – the first such visit by a sitting US President – saying he was “humbled” to pray there.

"Yesterday I visited the Western Wall and marveled at the monument to God's presence and man's perseverance. I was humbled to place my hand on the wall and to pray in that holy space for wisdom from God."

"I also prayed at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, the site revered by Christians around the world. I laid a wreath at Yad Vashem, honoring, remembering, and mourning the Six Million Jews who were murdered in the Holocaust. I pledged right then and there what I pledge again today, the words 'Never Again'."

"Israel is a testament to the unbreakable spirit of the Jewish people. From all parts of this country, one message resounds. And that is the message of hope. Down through the ages, the Jewish people have suffered persecution, oppression, and even those who have sought their destruction. But through it all they have endured, and in fact, they have survived."

"I stand in awe of the accomplishments of the Jewish people, and I make this promise to you: my administration will always stand with Israel."

Turning to foreign policy, President Trump pledged that his administration would prevent the Iranian regime from developing nuclear weapons.

"The United States is firmly committed to keep Iran from developing a nuclear weapon and halting their support of terrorists and militias. We are telling you right now that Iran will not have nuclear weapons."

Watch: Huckabee prays at Joseph's Tomb - INN

Former Arkansas governor joins group of 5,000 worshipers at Joseph's Tomb, says Jews shouldn't be forced to pray in the dead of night.

Hours before U.S. President Donald Trump arrives in Israel, his close associate, former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, visited Joseph’s Tomb in Shechem on Sunday night.

Huckabee was part of a group of 5,000 worshipers who came to pray at the site, led by the Shomron Regional Council together with the director of Joseph's Tomb and the holy sites.

Among those in attendance were Yossi Dagan, head of the Shomron Regional Council, his deputy Davidi Ben Zion, MK Bezalel Smotrich (Jewish Home), Major-General Roni Numa who heads the IDF’s Central Command, IDF Shomron Division Commander Gilad Amit, and thousands of worshipers from Israel and around the world.

“I wish to recognize, even on this week in which the President will come to Israel, that it’s still very difficult for many people to come to the holy sites, and it’s my prayer, as I come here with you, that the holy sites that you and that I embrace will be accessible, and that we will not have to come in the dead of night in order to pray and seek the Lord’s face,” said Huckabee.

“It should not be that way, and I hope the day comes when the freedom for God’s people to come and to pray is uninhibited and unhindered by any violence by those who seek to prevent you from being able to say this prayer. That you could do it in the daylight, in the sunshine, and not in the darkness of night,” he added.

Dagan, who met earlier on Sunday evening with U.S. Ambassador to Israel David Friedman, said, “We had the fortune of entering Joseph’s Tomb tonight with a Zionist who is a true friend of Israel, Mike Huckabee, who can teach many of us about the love for this country. People from all over the country and the world came here to realize their natural right to worship.”

“We regret the fact that we are forced to enter this compound at night. I hope that the State of Israel will succeed in acting in such a way that respects the Jewish people and the State of Israel and will exercise sovereignty. Hours before the arrival of the most sympathetic American President that the State of Israel has ever had, it is important that we remember that no one will defend our interests for us. Our future depends on us,” added Dagan, who thanked the IDF’s Samaria Brigade for their assistance in entering the compound and for their continuing activities for the security of the residents of Samaria and the entire State of Israel.

צילום: אלירן אהרון

Donald Trump Says Those Who Committed Manchester Attack Are ‘Evil Losers’ - Gateway Pundit

Donald Trump denounced the perpetrators behind the Manchester bombing as “evil losers” who preyed on “innocent children” and “must be driven out of our society forever.”

At least 22 people are dead and dozens more are injured after Manchester police say an apparent lone suicide bomber detonated an explosive device at the end of an Ariana Grande concert Monday night. In a West Bank meeting with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas Tuesday, Trump opened his remarks by condemning the attack.

"As President of the United States, and on behalf of the people of the United States, I would like to begin by offering my prayers to the people of Manchester in the United Kingdom,” Trump said. “I extend my deepest condolences to those so terribly injured in this terrorist attack, and to the many killed and the families — so many families — of the victims. We stand in absolute solidarity with the people of the United Kingdom.”

“So many young, beautiful innocent people living and enjoying their lives murdered by evil losers in life,” he continued. “I won’t call them monsters because they would like that term. They would think that’s a great name. I will call them from now on losers, because that’s what they are. They’re losers. And we’ll have more of them. But they’re losers. Just remember that.”

“This is what I’ve spent these last few days talking about during my trip overseas,” he added. “Our society can have no tolerance for this continuation of bloodshed. We cannot stand a moment longer for the slaughter of innocent people. And in today’s attack, it was mostly innocent children. The terrorists and extremists, and those who give them aid and comffort, must be driven out of our society forever. This wicked ideology must be obliterated, and I mean completely obliterated. Life must be protected.”

“All civilized nations must join to protect human life and the sacred right of our citizens.”

(Photo: MANDEL NGAN/AFP/Getty Images)

Abbas also criticized the “ugly terrorist attack.” He said: “I do offer my warm condolences to the Prime Minister of Britain, families of victims, and the British people.”

(Photo: Christopher Furlong/Getty Images)

(Photo: Dave Thompson/Getty Images)

Press Secretary Sean Spicer confirmed that Trump called British Prime Minister Theresa May “to offer condolences and support.”

At least 22 people have died, including children, and 59 more are injured after an explosion went off minutes after Grande had finished her performance Monday night. Police say they are treating it “as a terrorist incident.”

Grande later expressed her sorry on Twitter.

Trump’s Approach of Enhanced Relations With Arab States as Key to Peace Appeals to Israelis, Experts Say

Trump’s Approach of Enhanced Relations With Arab States as Key to Peace Appeals to Israelis, Experts Say

by Ben Cohen

President Trump and PM Netanyahu at a news conference in Jerusalem. Photo: Netanyahu’s Twitter account.

Donald Trump’s vision of a Middle East peace process driven by an enhanced relationship between Israel and the Sunni Arab states took another step forward on the first day of the US president’s official visit to the Jewish state, Israeli strategic analysts told The Algemeiner on Monday.

“I sense that behind the scenes, things are moving,” Professor Jonathan Rynhold — a senior researcher at the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies at Bar-Ilan University in Ramat Gan — said. “I think we will see the renewal of the peace process with the involvement of the Arab states.”

Sitting next to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu earlier on Monday in Jerusalem, Trump sounded buoyant about the prospects for ties between Israel and Saudi Arabia — which has steadfastly refused to recognize the Jewish state since its founding in 1948.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Tuesday strongly condemned the previous night's suicide bombing outside pop concert in the English...

“We had an amazing two days and their feeling towards Israel is really very positive,” Trump said of his talks with Saudi and other Arab leaders. “Tremendous progress has been made. I think a lot of that progress has been made because of the aggression of Iran and it’s forcing people together in a very positive way. And if you look at King Salman and Saudi Arabia and others that I was with — the UAE and Bahrain and Kuwait and so many others, it was something.”

Toby Greene — a fellow at the Leonard Davis Institute for International Relations at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem — noted that the opportunity for deepened ties with the Arab states was “first identified under President Obama, but not really seized upon.”

“Insofar as there is any optimism here, it’s because the Trump administration sees that,” Greene said. “Whereas Obama’s relationship with the Sunnis, and the Saudis in particular, was very tense, because Obama believed the Saudis should share the Middle East with Iran, Trump’s approach is overtly hostile to Iran. That creates a clear basis for an alliance with the Saudis.”

Dore Gold — a long-standing confidante of Netanyahu and a former Israeli Ambassador the UN — told Fox News on Monday he was convinced that the Saudis had undergone a significant shift in their attitude towards Israel.

“In the past, Saudi Arabia was a big funder of Hamas,” the Muslim Brotherhood-linked terrorist organization that rules the Gaza Strip, Gold noted. “But today they don’t give Hamas a nickel.”

“If there is a new kind of inter-religious tolerance, then those who have been inciting young people to become suicide bombers can be sidelined,” Gold declared.

At the same time, the excitement generated by Trump’s visit is balanced by the realization that the goal of reaching a final peace deal between Israel and the Palestinian Authority (PA) remains as daunting as ever.

“What Trump said is that he hears things from his Arab interlocutors that make him feel like there’s an opportunity,” Greene commented. “The Israelis too have spoken about the potential for the Sunni Arab states to play a constructive role in the peace process.”

However, Greene asserted, “the Sunni Arab states remain very cautious. Whether the change in administration in the US can make the Sunni states more ready to engage publicly with Israel remains to be seen.”

Also unclear, Greene continued, was the degree to which Arab nations were willing to apply a mixture of pressure upon and diplomatic support for the PA in any negotiations with the Israelis. Another key factor, he said, concerned the “domestic political room for maneuver” available to Israeli and Palestinian leaders alike in terms of moving the peace process forward.

Yet both sides will be wary of being identified by the Trump administration as playing a spoiling role.

“Trump is personally committed to doing the ‘ultimate deal’ and neither Israel nor the Palestinians want to be the one he holds responsible for failure,” Rynhold said. “This will make both sides more flexible about returning to talks, and the Arab states are willing to be a part of things in an unprecedented way.”

Trump is scheduled to meet in Bethlehem on Tuesday with PA President Mahmoud Abbas. Outstanding — and until now, unbridgeable — differences between Israel and the PA on such matters as the so-called “right of return” for the descendants of Palestinian refugees remain as intractable as ever. Continued PA payments to imprisoned terrorists and their families, despite Israeli protests that this policy “incentivizes terrorism,” represent another serious block to progress.

INTO THE FRAY: Why Palestinian Statehood obviates Israeli Victory – Responding to Daniel Pipes

INTO THE FRAY: Why Palestinian Statehood obviates Israeli Victory – Responding to Daniel Pipes


For fruits of Israeli victory to endure, any post-victory reality must preclude a self-governing Palestinian entity, which would always be subjected to external incitement to fight the Jewish “intruders”

Of all the nations at the UN the Palestinian state would be the only one which has limits imposed on its sovereignty, the only one without an army or air force. It would be the only one in the world that would be classified as second-class state; it would resemble the black protectorates in South Africa. Such inferiority…would mean a deepening of Palestinian humiliation, an intensification of the enmity towards Israel and the perpetuation of the Arab-Jewish conflict. This is the real pitfall in the proposal to establish a separate Palestinian state between us and the desert. – Prof. Amnon Rubinstein “The Pitfall of a Third State” (Hebrew), Ha’aretz, August 8, 1976.

This was not really the topic I originally intended to write on this week.

Indeed, having devoted my last three columns ( see here, here and here) to the newly launched Congressional Israel Victory Caucus (CIVC), I thought the time had come to turn to other issues—like, for instance, an analysis of the rambling 5000-word rant in Haaretz by Ehud Barak, trying to prove that the “Right” (and reality) got it wrong, while the “Left”, despite being proven continuously and catastrophically wrong, got it right.

Eagerly accepted invitation

However, following this week’s response by Daniel Pipes, the driving force behind CIVC, to my tripartite analysis of his initiative, a good number of readers urged me to address the points he raised—particularly the few on which our views appear to diverge.

Accordingly, I will forgo the tempting opportunity to lampoon the presumptuous gall of the man, who, as prime minister abandoned South Lebanon to Hezbollah and under whom the Second Intifada erupted, and who as defense minister oversaw two inconclusive (to be charitable) campaigns against Hamas in Gaza, purporting to have the definitive prescription for the nation’s security. Instead, I shall turn my attention once again to the issue of Israeli victory and Pipes’s comments on the positions I articulated thereon.

I do this because I feel the CIVC is an initiative of critical importance with genuine paradigmatic game-changing potential for the discourse—and hence, policy formulation – regarding both the Israel-Palestinian conflict and the wider Arab-Israel one.

I begin this week’s discussion with an expression of thanks to Pipes for his thoughtful–and thought-provoking—reply, which, revealed wide areas of agreement between us, leaving me greatly heartened. Indeed, he sums up: “I’m encouraged that we agree on so much and look forward to working together to promote a goal whose time has come: Israel victory.”

Similarly encouraged, I eagerly accept his kind invitation to work together to promote the notion of—and the need for—Israel to be victorious.

Revolutionizing the rhetoric?

Arguably one of the most significant contributions the promotion of the CIVC initiative has made to the discourse on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is in the realm of the rhetoric in which it is conducted.

For the first time in several decades, certainly within the post-Oslo period, has a prominent center of intellectual endeavor, the Middle East Forum, headed by Pipes, himself a scholar of international repute, adopted language invoking harsh coercive measures, specifically designed to break the will of the Palestinian-Arabs to sustain their struggle against Israel.

Thus, with commendable daring, Pipes has opened up the mainstream discourse for the use of terms, previously beyond the pale in “polite company”.

Thus, he unabashedly calls for subjecting the Palestinians to “the bitter crucible of defeat, with all its deprivation, destruction, and despair” and does not shy away from prescribing that Israel “dismantle the PA’s security infrastructure…reduce and then shut off the water and electricity that Israel supplies…occupy and control the areas from which…gunfire, mortar shelling, and rockets…originate.”

This is both refreshing and beneficial, for it will contribute greatly to breaking up the semantic “logjam” that the tyranny of political correctness has imposed on the discussion of Israeli policy options. By dispelling sematic taboos that restrict open debate, the CIVC rhetoric can contribute greatly to a more robust and unfettered appraisal of such options.

Debating disagreement

Pipes concisely sums up the principal point of disagreement between us: “Sherman and I directly disagree on only one point – Israel accepting the possibility of a Palestinian state”. He goes on to speculate that “… the allure of a state after the conflict ends offers benefits to both sides. Israelis will be free of ruling unwanted subjects. Palestinians have a reason to behave.”

He elaborates on his rationale for the benefits he envisions emerging from the establishment of a Palestinian state, pursuant to an Israeli victory: “…when Palestinians do finally give up the fight against Israel, their centrality to the conflict will enfeeble anti-Zionism from Morocco to Indonesia….” He admits: “That shift won’t happen instantly, to be sure”, but somewhat optimistically suggests that “sustaining a more-Catholic-than-the-pope position gets harder over time. A Palestinian defeat marks the beginning of the end of the wider Arab and Muslim war on Israel.”

I confess to a certain amount of surprise at encountering this view from someone as knowledgeable and well-informed as Pipes. For he appears to be embracing the unfounded thesis that Arab/Muslim enmity towards the Jewish state centers solely—or at least , almost so—on the issue of self-determination for the Palestinian-Arabs.

Sadly, this is demonstrably untrue—or at least, only very partially true.

Indeed, it is a matter of historical record that rejection of a Jewish state pre-dates the dispute over the establishment of a Palestinian-Arab one in Judea-Samaria—and there are manifold reasons for believing that it will definitely post-date any such event.

“Root cause” or “red herring”?

The crucial question is therefore whether the demand for Palestinian statehood is indeed a genuine grievance, which, once addressed, will remove any further pretext for rejection of Jewish statehood? Or whether it is not? There is little to substantiate the former and much to corroborate the latter.

After all, the entire area of Judea-Samaria, now claimed as the Palestinian-Arabs’ ancient homeland, was under Arab control for two decades after Israel’s founding (1948-1967). without even the feeblest of effort being made to set up an independent state for them. Moreover, in their original National Covenant – formulated in 1964(!) the Palestinian Arabs themselves eschew any sovereign claim to that territory—see Article 24. It was thus not a desire to liberate Nablus, Hebron or Ramallah that prompted the murderous pan-Arab attempt to obliterate the Jewish state in June 1967, accompanied by bloodcurdling declarations of genocidal intent by leaders across the Arab world—before Israel held a square inch of the “West Bank” or laid a single brick in the construction of any “settlement” – see Reassessing ‘Root Causes’ And ‘Red Herrings’ .

Indeed, it would take a giant leap of (largely unfounded) faith to believe that the establishment of a micro-mini statelet (presumably demilitarized), established as the result of a humiliating defeat, would defuse the ample Judeophobic frenzy rampant across the Arab/Muslim world today.

As Professor Amnon Rubinstein, Israel Prize Laureate and long serving Left-wing Knesset member, of the far-left dovish Meretz faction, once pointed out (see opening excerpt), this is even liable to induce “a deepening of Palestinian humiliation and an intensification of the enmity towards Israel and the perpetuation of the Arab-Jewish conflict.”

Inevitable symbiosis with hostile environment

The surrender of the Palestinian-Arabs in Judea-Samaria (and presumably Gaza as well) to the hated Zionists is unlikely to placate hatemongers of the ilk of the hugely influential Qatar-based Shaykh Yusuf Al-Qardawi, the head of Hezbollah, Hasan Nassrallah , the theocratic tyrants in Tehran, or the countless Salafist/Wahhabi firebrands across the Arabian peninsula and beyond.

As I suggested in earlier columns, unless there is some formula for decoupling the defeated Palestinian-Arabs in Judea-Samaria-Gaza from the wider Arab/Muslim world (to which they see themselves belonging and vice versa) any self-governing Palestinian entity would by easy prey to the deluge of incitement that would almost inevitably follow its inception.

Even Shimon Peres, seems to have been alive to this danger, when in his book, The New Middle East he asked how any future Palestinian state (even if initially demilitarized) could “guarantee that a Palestinian army would not be mustered later to encamp at the gates of Jerusalem and the approaches to the lowlands?” Perhaps even more pointedly, he pressed: “And if the Palestinian state would be unarmed, how would it block terrorist acts perpetrated by extremists, fundamentalists or irredentists?”

It is this almost inevitable symbiosis with the surrounding hostile Arab/Muslim world, unaffected by Palestinian surrender within Judea-Samaria-Gaza, that sets the Palestinian conflict apart from other historical precedents such as the surrender of Germany and Japan in WWII.

Who is doing the surrendering?

Israel has repeatedly—and rightly—raised—the question of who, among the Palestinian-Arabs, is authorized to sign a binding peace agreement with it. But an equally valid question is which Palestinians would be authorized to sign a binding document of surrender?

Thus, could Mahmoud Abbas, widely perceived as an illegitimate president, surrender in the name of the Palestinian Authority? Or Fatah? Would a Fatah surrender be binding on Hamas? If not what would be the consequences? Would Hamas’s acquiescence to surrender commit the Islamic Jihad or the host of Salafist Jihadis in adjacent Sinai?

Given the critical strategic importance of the territory designated for any prospective Palestinian state (see here and here), these are questions that cannot be left long unaddressed – for they impinge directly and dramatically on the validity of the CIVC as a policy-relevant enterprise.

It is the foregoing analysis that has led me to what, in my mind, is an unavoidable conclusion: For the fruits of an Israeli victory to be lasting, any post-victory reality must preclude the establishment of some self-governing Palestinian entity, which would always be subjected to external sources of incitement designed to reignite the Palestinian will to fight the Jewish “intruders” on land they consider Arab.

The only way to ensure that such resurgent irredentist forces do not emerge is to remove the potentially recalcitrant population from the disputed areas—for good.

In order to avoid the need to effect that removal by inflicting large-scale casualties on the Palestinian population I have advocated a less kinetic approach, involving generously funded emigration for individual non-belligerent Palestinian-Arabs.

Unwarranted skepticism

I have proposed achieving this by setting up a comprehensive system of ample material incentives for leaving, and daunting disincentives for staying. The former would include highly attractive grants for relocation and rehabilitation in third party countries, while the later would include the coercive dismantling of the Palestinian Authority and the phased withdrawal of services currently provided by Israel to the Palestinian collective—measures Pipes himself has endorsed (see above).

Pipes, however, has expressed reservations as to the practical efficacy of funded emigration. He writes: “Due to intense nationalism, even stronger social pressure, and likely threats of violence, I highly doubt this scheme will find significant numbers of takers” although he does concede that “it’s certainly worth a try”.

It is not precisely clear on what the skepticism regarding the effectiveness of funded emigration, is based. Indeed, much of it would appear unwarranted. After all, not only is its conceptual logic far sounder than other alternatives but it also rests on far more empirical support than they do –particularly the two-state proposal.

There is, in fact, ample evidence—both statistical and anecdotal—indicating a wide- spread desire among the Arab residents of the “West Bank” and Gaza to seek their future elsewhere—even without an effective system of incentives/disincentives being put in place.

Unwarranted skepticism (cont.)

Thus several years ago, the New York Times wrote of the growing desire to emigrate: “Where young Palestinians once dreamed of staying to build a new state, now many are giving up and scheming to get out”, reporting that “According to…polls for Birzeit University, 35 percent of Palestinians over the age of 18 want to emigrate. Nearly 50 percent of those between 18 and 30 would leave if they could”. When a prospective emigrant was asked by the NYT “What about those who would accuse you of giving up your rights in your land?” he replied “I don’t care…I want to live happily”.

A similar picture was reflected in a Jerusalem Post account of sentiment among the Palestinian-Arabs: “Alarmed by the growing number of Palestinians who are emigrating from the Palestinian territories, the Palestinian Authority’s mufti has issued a fatwa [religious decree] forbidding Muslims to leave.”

Recent polls conducted by leading Palestinian institutes consistently show between 45-55% of Gazans wish to emigrate permanently, while 25-35 % in Judea-Samaria express such wishes. Clearly, if Israel were to reduce and eventually cease provision of goods and services, while offering significant financial incentives to leave, the numbers could be expected to rise considerably…

This is a very truncated presentation of the evidence indicating that large-scale economically incentivized emigration of the Palestinian-Arabs is eminently feasible.

My appeal to the CIVC

Accordingly, since the CIVC cannot remain a politically viable enterprise if it restricts itself to generic calls for victory—especially if it plans to partner with a sister victory caucus in the Knesset—I urge its authors to adopt the funded emigration paradigm as its preferred path to victory.

I therefore issue a reciprocal invitation to its enterprising initiator, Pipes, to jointly explore ways to advance it and overcome/circumvent obstacles to its implementation by demonstrating its political acceptability, economic affordability, practical applicability, legal compatibility and above all, its moral superiority.

Martin Sherman is the founder and executive director of the Israel Institute for Strategic Studies.

Friday, May 19, 2017

EttingerReport: Secretary Tillerson's political correctness

Yoram will be in the US in August and October/November, 2017 available for speaking engagements.

Ambassador (ret.) Yoram Ettinger, "Second Thought: a US-Israel Initiative"
"Israel Hayom," May 19, 2017, http://bit.ly/2q3fzIr

While the election of President Trump represented a setback to political-correctness, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson's interview on May 14, 2017 NBC's Meet the Pressreflected the State Department's political correctness on US-Israel and US-Arab relations, the Palestinian issue and the relocation of the US Embassy to Jerusalem.

The interview may have sent a message of US procrastination on the relocation of the US Embassy to Jerusalem, the ancient core of Judaism and Jewish history, which inspired the early US Pilgrims and Founding Fathers. Procrastination would be interpreted by Arabs as US retreat in the face of Arab pressure and threats, eroding the US posture of deterrence, triggering further pressure and emboldening anti-US Islamic terrorism.

Secretary Tillerson embraced the State Department's zero-sum-game philosophy. He assumes that enhanced US-Israel relations undermine US-Arab relations. However, since 1948, and especially in recent years, US-Israel geo-strategic cooperation has surged dramatically, simultaneously with expanded US-Arab security cooperation, and unprecedented counter-terrorism cooperation between Israel and Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States, Jordan and Egypt, despite the lack of progress on the Palestinian front.

Contrary to conventional Western wisdom, the pro-US Arab regimes distinguish between challenges which are primary (e.g., the Iranian threat) and secondary/tertiary (e.g., the Palestinian issue). Therefore, when the machetes of Iran's Ayatollahs and other Islamic terrorists are at their throats, the pro-US Arab regimes recognize that Israel is the only reliable "life insurance agent" in the Middle East, regardless of the Palestinian issue.

Secretary Tillerson insinuated that the relocation of the US Embassy to western Jerusalem - which is within the boundaries of pre-1967 Israel – could undermine the peace process between Israel and the Palestinians. Thus, he provided tailwind to the 69-year-old Department of State's view – which contradicts the position of the American people and their representatives in the House and Senate - that there is no legitimacy to Israel's sovereignty over any part of Jerusalem. It radicalizes the Arabs, forcing them to outflank the US from the maximalist side, deluding themselves that they have nothing to lose and time is, supposedly, on their side.

Tillerson also seems to subscribe to Foggy Bottom's view that the Palestinian issue is a core cause of the Arab-Israeli conflict and Middle East turbulence, and a top priority for Arab policy-makers. Therefore, he assumes that the relocation of the US Embassy to Jerusalem could fuel anti-US terrorism and undermine US cooperation with pro-US Arab countries, such as Saudi Arabia, against the mutual threats of the Ayatollahs of Iran and additional sources of Islamic terrorism.

However, anti-US Islamic terrorism has been totally divorced from the Palestinian issueand Israel, as demonstrated by the blowing up of the US Embassy and Marines barracks in Lebanon in 1983 (300 US Marines murdered), at a time when the US brutalized Israel over its hot pursuit of the PLO. In fact, the 1998 suicide car-bombing of the US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania (300 persons murdered), and the October 2000 suicide attack on the USS Cole in Aden, Yemen (17 US Marines murdered), occurred while President Clinton refrained from relocating the US Embassy to Jerusalem, as prescribed by 1995 legislation, and while Israeli Prime Minister Barak offered the Palestinians a full Israeli withdrawal, including Jerusalem's Temple Mount.

Moreover, since 1948, contrary to the Department of State's conventional wisdom, Middle East reality has documented top-heavy pro-Palestinian Arab talk, but anti-Palestinian, or indifferent, Arab walk.

For example, no Arab-Israeli war was ever ignited by the Palestinian issue. It was highlighted by the conclusion of the 1948-49 war, when Egypt, Jordan, Iraq and Syria occupied Gaza, Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) and Al-Hama, but never contemplated transferring these areas to the Palestinians, strictly constraining Palestinian activities.

In addition, none of the recent Arab tectonic eruptions from Tunisia, in Northeastern Africa, through Egypt, Syria, Yemen, Iraq and Bahrain in the Persian Gulf are related, directly or indirectly, to the Palestinian issue or Israel.

The assumption that the relocation of the US Embassy to Jerusalem would undermine US-Saudi cooperation in the face of the Ayatollahs and additional sources of Islamic terrorism, ignores the Saudi – and all other Arab regimes - view of the Palestinians.

They have always considered the Palestinians a role model of intra-Arab treachery and subversion. Hence, the severe constraints of Palestinian maneuverability in their countries, and the meager financial assistance to the Palestinians (compared with the US foreign aid to the Palestinian Authority), and the absence of military support. For instance, no Arab regime ever got involved in any of the Palestinian-Israeli wars in Lebanon, Judea and Samaria and Gaza.

In contrast to the recent Arab talk and State Department political correctness, the Arab countries have never considered Jerusalem to be their top holy city – status reserved for Mecca and Medina - capital or cultural center. Jerusalem was largely neglected during Islamic rule, serving – at most – as a political platform in their conflicts with "the infidel."

Reality-based political incorrectness motivated Israel and Egypt, in 1977, in defiance of US President Carter, to negotiate and conclude a bilateral peace accord with no Palestinian, regional or international involvement. It also motivated Israel and Jordan, in 1994, to conclude another bilateral peace accord. The US played a critical deal-closing role in both
cases, but only after the two parties reached the framework of bilateral agreement.

Moreover, a litany of peace initiatives, launched by the US, failed when attempting to subordinate reality to the US own benevolent political correctness, which stipulated a multilateral peace process, focusing on the Palestinian issue.

Will President Trump and Secretary Tillerson embrace Middle East reality, and reject political correctness, by avoiding procrastination on the relocation of the US Embassy to Jerusalem, thus sparing the US further erosion of its posture of deterrence in the Middle East and beyond?

Jerusalem Mayor to Trump: Don’t be Intimidated By Palestinian Threats Of Violence, Move Embassy - Breitbart

nir barkat


by DEBORAH DANAN 18 May 2017

TEL AVIV – President Donald Trump should pay no heed to the Palestinian threat of violence and move the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, the capital’s mayor said on Wednesday.

“For violence to occur there could be any reason or no reason and if we – God forbid – because of fear of violence wouldn’t do the right things there would never be Israel, there would never be a reunited city,” Mayor Nir Barkat said at a meeting with journalists at Jerusalem City Hall.

“So I don’t think any one of us should be concerned about the potential threat of violence,” Barkat continued.

Barkat added that he believed Trump would come through on his pledge, but admitted that the matter was still very much up in the air.

“It is a little bit challenging to predict, but I can say though that speaking to the people that he appointed [to senior posts] there is no change in the vision,” Barkat said, adding, “It is legitimate for him to hear everyone before he makes a final decision.”
There has been much speculation that Trump will announce an embassy transfer while on a visit to Israel next week. Trump’s two-day visit will coincide with Jerusalem Day, marking the 50th anniversary of the reunification of Jerusalem since the 1967 defensive war.

However, on Wednesday White House officials indicated Trump would defer moving the embassy at this moment in time.

A senior administration official told The Times of Israel that the decision “wouldn’t be immediate” and that “a final decision hadn’t been made.”

Earlier in the day, a White House official told Bloomberg that considering the upcoming attempts to restart the peace talks, moving the embassy would be ill-timed.

“We don’t think it would be wise to do it at this time,” he said. “We’ve been very clear what our position is and what we would like to see done, but we’re not looking to provoke anyone when everyone’s playing really nice.”

A waiver for the congressional mandate on an embassy transfer has been signed every six months by consecutive U.S. presidents since 1995. The next date for that waiver is June 1.

“If you’re asking me, I do believe that he will move the embassy or not sign the waiver,” said Barkat, later adding, “If there is a road for peace it goes through recognition of Jerusalem as the capital.”

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas said in January that if Trump moves the embassy, it will “destroy the peace process.”

His senior aide and the PA’s supreme Sharia judge Mahmoud Al-Habbash said an embassy transfer would be a “declaration of war.”