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

By MARTIN SHERMAN

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.

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

STR/AFP/Getty

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.”