Netanyahu’s View of Obama: Trust and Consequences

Posted on March 12, 2015 by First.One.Through

Summary: Obama has asked Netanyahu to trust him on an issue (Iranian nuclear power) that is an existential threat to his country, even though Obama hasn’t earned that trust on more basic issues. Obama then compounds Netanyahu’s fear by stating Obama will act completely alone in controlling the outcome. Netanyahu’s nightmare is not just becoming “1938 Czechoslovakia”, but “2014 Ukraine”.

Netanyahu and Obama

TRUST

Trust is the bedrock of a functional relationship. It enables one party to rely on the other. A trust that includes both intention and capability permits a sharing of responsibility and workload.

The relationship between US President Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu started off badly and further deteriorated over the years. Personalities aside, the lack of a shared vision about the path to peace and security in the violent Middle East damaged relations. However, it was a series of bad decisions which destroyed the trust between the two leaders.

Negotiation with Palestinians. Obama’s actions early in his presidency, hurt his credibility with Netanyahu. Obama insisted on an Israeli settlement freeze as a pre-condition to negotiations with the Palestinians- a pre-condition that was never introduced before, even by the Palestinians. Despite Netanyahu’s serious reservations, he instituted a ten-month freeze on building new homes in the west bank of the Jordan River. In exchange, Obama could not get acting-Palestinian President Abbas to even show up to talk for the first nine months, and when he did, all Abbas offered was extending the freeze even longer.

When US Secretary of State John Kerry tried another round of negotiations with Abbas in the fall of 2013, the US again asked Israel to give up something to start talks while it made no demand of the Palestinians. Israel released dozens of terrorists that were convicted of murder from its prisons. In exchange, Kerry could not even get Abbas to recognize Israel as a Jewish State, let alone any compromises for a Palestinian state. The negotiations failed again.

In both situations the US pressured Israel to give up something just to initiate negotiations and asked nothing of the Palestinians. In the end, the Palestinians continued to give exactly the same: nothing.

Giving it away upfront. The Obama administration has used the tactic of giving away bargaining points upfront in the hope of gaining something in the negotiations down the road. In Cuba, Obama has pulled back sanctions, in the hope that the country reforms. In Iran, the US eased sanctions to get Iran to consider allowing monitors to watch it build nuclear power.

Netanyahu does not believe in such negotiating tactics and it has not worked out well for Israel.

Giving up on Allies. The disagreement on negotiating style is only part of Netanyahu’s issue. Israel and the Middle East watched the Obama administration turn its back on its allies. Egyptian President Mubarak was once a close ally of the United States. One day, the Obama administration decided it would no longer stand by its ally and called for Mubarak’s ouster. He was rushed off to jail.

The US’s Middle Eastern allies were dumb-founded by Obama’s action. A senior Arab government official stated “[The Saudis] are at odds with the U.S. position, publicly pushing Mubarak out. And frankly so are we—this isn’t how you handle issues in region.”

Failure to Understand Regional Dynamics. Obama’s turn on Egypt’s Mubarak was followed by an embrace of the democratically-elected Muslim Brotherhood. Obama’s infatuation with the “Turkish model” of democratic Islam made him welcome the new Egyptian ruler Mohammed Morsi. Morsi reopened Egypt’s ties with Hamas (the Muslim Brotherhood in Gaza) , much to the chagrin of Israel’s Netanyahu. Those actions also undermined the more moderate (on a relative basis) acting PA President Abbas.

Obama back-tracked from his support of democracy in Egypt by not objecting to the replacement of Morsi via a takeover by Abdul Fattah el-Sisi. El-Sisi clamped down on Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood which won praise in Israel. From Israel’s perspective, a mistake was rectified to some degree, but the damage done by Obama of not standing by an ally and not appreciating the regional dynamics was etched in memory.

Obama not standing by Treaties or Comments. In addition to not standing by allied leaders, Obama has not stood by his own word or by US treaties with governments. For example, Obama’s declared “red line” on Syria’s use of chemical weapons came and went without ramifications for Syrian President Assad. While Obama claimed credit for negotiating a solution to get rid of Syria’s known chemical weapons, there was no personal penalty for Assad. Assad continues to remain in power and murder his countrymen.

Saudi Arabia was incredulous and stated ““We’ve seen several red lines put forward by the president, which went along and became pinkish as time grew, and eventually ended up completely white…When that kind of assurance comes from a leader of a country like the United States, we expect him to stand by it.”

Obama asserting a “red line” on Syrian chemical weapons

The Ukrainian situation is even more telling. In 1994, Ukraine signed onto the Budapest Memorandum which was to guarantee its territorial integrity in exchange for giving up its nuclear weapons. While it adhered to its upfront part of the bargain by giving up its weapons, the Obama administration refused to enforce its end of the agreement by coming to the aid of Ukraine when Russia invaded and annexed Crimea in 2014. Russian leader Putin correctly assessed the temperament of Obama that he would fail to honor his obligation, just as he failed to take action in Syria. Putin has continued to move past Crimea to other parts of Ukraine while the US not only fails to come to the defense of Ukraine, but drags its feet in sending weapons to defend itself.

The situation is not lost on Netanyahu (while it is on the knee-jerk liberal New York Times which stated in its lead editorial on March 12, 2015 that “Republicans are perfectly willing to diminish America’s standing as a global power capable of crafting international commitments and adhering to them.” As detailed above, Obama has made very clear that HE has diminished America’s commitments, not the Republicans).

Obfuscation. The last loose thread in the unraveling fabric of trust is the lack of transparency.

While Obama touted his goal of transparency when he ran for office, his administration has been one of the least transparent. Witness Obamacare, where House Speaker Nancy Pelosi famously said “We have to pass the bill to that you can find out what is in it.” Secretary of State Hillary Clinton ran her own email server outside of the State Department and deleted emails at her own whim. Now, Obama refuses to provide details of the Iranian negotiations with Israel.

The trust between Obama and Netanyahu is broken.

ACTING ALONE

Compounding the Israeli frustration with the lack of trust in the Obama administration’s dealing with Iran, is the unilateral course that Obama has taken. Obama has effectively barred Israel from attacking Iran and is attempting to seal negotiations without legislative approval.

Blocking an Israeli attack. As soon as Obama began to negotiate with Iran, it became impossible for Israel to attack Iran. How could Israel attack the facilities while the US was pursuing a diplomatic initiative? The start of Obama’s talks signaled the end of Israel’s ability to destroy their nuclear program.

Skipping Congress. Obama repeatedly stated that he does not believe that he needs congressional approval to sign a deal with Iran. As such, he has asserted that he has complete authority to negotiate and finalize a deal. The Republicans, which now have majority control of both the House and Senate, strongly disagree and have taken steps to make their position known to both the Obama administration and Iran itself.

COMPETENCIES and CONSEQUENCES

Israel’s Netanyahu is left in a precarious situation. As his country is under threat of annihilation by Iran, its close ally has put itself in the lead seat in negotiations. However, Netanyahu is looking at the current US president as:

Lacking an understanding of regional dynamics;
Incapable of negotiating;
Refusing to be transparent about the negotiations;
Unwilling to stand by statements and treaties in support of allies;
Determined to act alone without the legislative branch of government

The Trust in Competencies and Fear of Consequences leaves Israel in a vulnerable and lonely spot. While Israel fears it will be sacrificed at the alter of larger players like Czechoslovakia in 1938, it sees how the lead negotiator will not enforce any security agreements that may be struck, as in the embattled Ukraine today.

Related First.One.Through articles:

Arab states agree with Netanyahu in speech to Congress: https://firstonethrough.wordpress.com/2015/03/08/missing-netanyahus-speech-those-not-listening-and-those-not-speaking/

Conservative focus on safety: https://firstonethrough.wordpress.com/2015/03/01/the-gap-between-fairness-and-ramifications-wmds-in-iraq-and-iran/

Obama’s Iranian red line: https://firstonethrough.wordpress.com/2014/11/24/obamas-iranian-red-line/

The need for a global public reaction to Iran’s nuclear aspiration: https://firstonethrough.wordpress.com/2015/03/03/hidden-reactor-silent-reaction/

Missing Netanyahu’s Speech: Those not Listening and Those Not Speaking

Posted on March 8, 2015 by First.One.Through

Summary: The media highlighted the Democrats that snubbed the Israeli Prime Minister’s address to Congress. They failed to mention the coalition of countries that Bibi represented. Will the world’s safety rest with those that party-with-their-party or those that bomb-the-bomb?

US President Obama made a deliberate attempt to marginalize Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his address to Congress in March 2015. Obama aired a number of complaints about the nature of the invitation and later said that Netanyahu didn’t offer any new ideas in dealing with Iran. His efforts to turn public attention away from the incredibly important topic to a sideshow of partisanship was sad on many levels.

Obama and Biden skipped Netanyahu’s Address to Congress,
March 2015

There were many people who were not at Congress on March 3rd: Democrats that didn’t listen, and Arab States that echoed Netanyahu’s message.

Those not Listening: Democrats Partying with their Party

The Obama administration managed to convince 58 members of Congress to skip Netanyahu’s speech. All were his fellow Democrats. They were:

SENATE – 8 members

Sen. Al Franken (Minn.)
Sen. Martin Heinrich (N.M.)
Sen. Tim Kaine (Va.)
Sen. Patrick Leahy (Vt.)
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.)
Sen. Brian Schatz (Hawaii)
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (Mass.)
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (R.I.)

HOUSE – 50 members

Rep. Karen Bass (Calif.)
Rep. Earl Blumenauer (Ore.)
Rep. Corrine Brown (Fla.)
Rep. G.K. Butterfield (N.C.)
Rep. Lois Capps (Calif.)
Rep. Andre Carson (Ind.)
Rep. Joaquin Castro (Texas)
Rep. Katherine Clark (Mass.)
Rep. William Lacy Clay (Mo.)
Rep. James Clyburn (S.C.)
Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (Mo.)
Rep. Steve Cohen (Tenn.)
Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman (N.J.)
Rep. John Conyers (Mich.)
Rep. Elijah Cummings (Md.)
Rep. Danny Davis (Ill.)
Rep. Peter DeFazio (Ore.)
Rep. Diana DeGette (Colo.)
Rep. Lloyd Doggett (Texas)
Rep. Rosa DeLauro (Conn.)
Rep. Donna Edwards (Md.)
Rep. Chaka Fattah (Pa.)
Rep. Keith Ellison (Minn.)
Rep. Marcia Fudge (Ohio)
Rep. Raúl Grijalva (Ariz.)
Rep. Luis Gutiérrez (Ill.)
Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D.C.)
Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (Texas)
Rep. Marcy Kaptur (Ohio)
Rep. Rick Larsen (Wash.)
Rep. Barbara Lee (Calif.)
Rep. John Lewis (Ga.)
Rep. Dave Loebsack (Iowa)
Rep. Zoe Lofgren (Calif.)
Rep. Betty McCollum (Minn.)
Rep. Jim McDermott (Wash.)
Rep. Jim McGovern (Mass.)
Rep. Jerry McNerney (Calif.)
Rep. Gregory Meeks (N.Y.)
Rep. Gwen Moore (Wis.)
Rep. Beto O’Rourke (Texas)
Rep. Donald Payne (N.J.)
Rep. Chellie Pingree (Maine)
Rep. David Price (N.C.)
Rep. Cedric Richmond (La.)
Rep. Jan Schakowsky (Ill.)
Rep. Adam Smith (Wash.)
Rep. Bennie Thompson (Miss.)
Rep. Mike Thompson (Calif.)
Rep. John Yarmuth (Ky.)

Eleanor Holmes Norton (D, DC)

It is wrong to say that these Democratic Congressmen are anti-Semites for skipping Netanyahu’s speech. They are just small-minded, petty, partisan politicians.

Those who were seen not Speaking: Arab States agree with Netanyahu

While Israel is in the crosshairs of the Iranian regime which has singled out the country for annihilation, several Arab countries are also very against Iran obtaining nuclear weapons. They supported Netanyahu’s position and address.

Saudi Arabia. KSA has made its objections to the P5+1 negotiations very clear: it feels that the US lied and deceived Saudi Arabia about the negotiations; and it is extremely concerned about Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon. The Saudis stated that they would both attack Iran and obtain their own nuclear weapon as soon as Iran would get one. Saudi journalists openly praised Netanyahu’s speech.
Egypt. Egyptian leader El-Sisi has been openly critical of Obama’s policies throughout the Middle East, including the US’s soft approach on ISIS and its desire to pursue a political process on militant Islam in Libya, rather than fight the extremists with force.
United Arab Emirates. UAE has stated “We cannot live with a nuclear Iran” and has voiced its support of an attack on Iranian facilities.

Egyptian President Fatah El-Sisi calling to reform Islam,
January 2015

The difference between the absent deaf audience (Democrats) and the silent approving chorus (Arab states) is a contrast between politics and policy. The difference between Obama and Netanyahu regarding Iran is between hope and action.

Those Talking and Hoping: Obama and Kerry

Obama has essentially articulated that US intelligence is flawed, so the best solution for managing the Iranian nuclear program would be to rely on the Iranians’ openness. His negotiation tack will conclude with faith that the Iranians:

will disclose the entirety of their nuclear program;
will provide full access to all of the facilities; and
will not covertly move towards nuclear weapons.

It can best be called a policy of “hope”.

US Secretary of State John Kerry negotiating with Iran,
March 2015

Those Acting: Israel Bombing the Bomb

If Israel is convinced that the Iranians are good on their word, than they have reason to be concerned as Iran has threatened to destroy Israel.

Israel has long taken the approach that hope is not a policy. It sits in too volatile a region to believe in the good faith of its neighbors that have declared war on the country. Peace is something that is fought for and defended.

Decisive action has led to extended windows of peace for Israel. In 1981, Israel destroyed the Iraqi nuclear reactor that was due to go live. In 2007, Israel bombed the Syrian nuclear reactor that was being constructed with the help of North Korea. In 1967, Israel acted preemptively to thwart the attacks of Egypt and Syria which enabled a very quick victory. When Israel decided to remain passive, such as the Yom Kippur War of 1973, the country was almost overrun.

Netanyahu has pleaded for very tough sanctions against Iran. It has used malware and cyber-attacks against Iran. Israel has reportedly assassinated Iranian nuclear scientists (to the chagrin of the United States). It has advocated for putting all options on the table, including military force as it used against the facilities in Syria and Iraq.

The way forward with Iran has two very different paths:

Obama has advocated a policy of hope and has enlisted a quorum of party loyalists who will not listen to alternatives.
Israel has deployed policies of actions and has an eclectic group of Arab neighbors that support its position.

Will the future safety of the world belong to those that party-with-their-party or those willing to bomb-the-bomb?

Related First.One.Through articles:

Fairness versus Safety: https://firstonethrough.wordpress.com/2015/03/01/the-gap-between-fairness-and-ramifications-wmds-in-iraq-and-iran/

Obama’s Iranian Red Line: https://firstonethrough.wordpress.com/2014/11/24/obamas-iranian-red-line/

Red Herrings on the Red Line

Posted on March 4, 2015 by First.One.Through

Summary: Obama’s anger at Israel’s Netanyahu was about Netanyahu’s anger at White House policy on Iran. All of the other excuses that Obama threw out proved inaccurate. However, Obama’s actions have introduced a partisan split over Israel into DC politics.

Netanyahu and Obama

US President Obama took umbrage with Republican House Speaker John Boehner’s invitation to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to speak to a joint session of Congress. Obama aired a number of reasons, which all proved to be red herrings:

Break in Protocol: Obama initially criticized the break in protocol of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu accepting an invitation without consulting the White House. A report later came out that the White House was informed about the invitation before Netanyahu accepted. The White House anger should have been directed at Boehner, not Netanyahu, even if this reason held any truth.
Israeli elections: Obama offered another excuse to skip Netanyahu’s address: Obama said that it was US policy to not invite a foreign leader to address Congress in an election season as it would be seen as influencing the elections of another country. In fact, US President Bill Clinton invited then Israeli Prime Minister Shimon Peres to speak to Congress one month before the Israeli election. Further, the timing was a function of Secretary of State John Kerry’s announced Iranian deal deadline on March 24, not the timing of Israeli elections.
Bi-partisan Support: The Obama administration then offered another reason why he and members of his cabinet would leave town during Netanyahu’s visit to D.C.: that Netanyahu was playing partisan politics. The reality is detailed below.

President Clinton and Israeli PM Shimon Peres,
Before Israeli elections in 1996

Israel and the United States have been strong allies regardless of the party in the White House. Israel’s relationship with Bill Clinton (D) was much better than with George HW Bush (R); and better with George W Bush (R) than with Barack Obama (D). There is no benefit or desire for an Israeli leader to choose one party over the other as Netanyahu reiterated in his remarks in the US in March 2015. The dynamics of particular leadership personalities play a role in the tone, but not the substance of the overall relationship between all of the elected US parties in government and the Jewish State. Netanyahu and Obama have dealt with each other for six years where at times they’ve agreed or disagreed on a variety of issues; in each case, the parties in Congress maintained their support of Israel.

At this moment, Netanyahu strongly disagrees with Obama’s position in the Iranian nuclear negotiations. It happens to be that Republican leadership also disagrees with the Obama administration. It was solely on that topic that Netanyahu spoke to a joint session of Congress – a major “existential” issue of direct significant impact on Israel.

The difference in opinion about a particular policy does not mean that Netanyahu or Israel now prefer Republicans to Democrats, nor should it mean that elected Democrats or Republicans should treat Netanyahu or Israel any differently. However, the Obama administration made the claim that this was partisan politics, and kept members of the administration from meeting with Netanyahu and asked Democratic party members to stay away from the address, thereby creating a partisan issue.

That may very well have been the goal of Boehner. But the Democrats seemed all too willing to take the bait and insult Israel and Netanyahu by snubbing him. Democrats decided that a distorted idea of party loyalty was more important than hearing the concerns of an ally that has been threatened with annihilation by the very country with which the administration is creating a pathway for nuclear weapons.

Netanyahu addressing Congress about Iranian nuclear weapons,
March 2015

The gulf in the support of Israel between the right and left of the American public is not new. Republicans support Israel by almost a 2-to-1 ratio compared to liberals around the country. Liberals support opening warmer relations with Muslim countries by over a 2-to-1 ratio over conservatives. But those statistics are in the general population of the United States. Obama has now brought that partisanship into the legislative branch of government in D.C. itself. At the administration’s urging, 58 Democrats boycotted Netanyahu’s speech to Congress. No Republicans missed the address.

Perhaps Obama used Netanyahu’s speech to pivot the party into a closer position with his loyal base of liberal Americans. If so, the implications for Israel will be very negative.

The only silver lining to the shattered red lines of Iran’s nuclear program will likely be that the Palestinian Arabs might return for peace talks with Israel as they will never have such an advocate in the White House as President Obama. What price will Obama make Israel pay? How much will it matter in the coming nuclear tinderbox of the Middle East?

Related First.One.Through articles:

On accepting invitations: https://firstonethrough.wordpress.com/2015/02/09/on-accepting-invitations/

Liberal preference for fairness and conservatives preference for safety: https://firstonethrough.wordpress.com/2015/03/01/the-gap-between-fairness-and-ramifications-wmds-in-iraq-and-iran/

Obama’s Iranian red line: https://firstonethrough.wordpress.com/2014/11/24/obamas-iranian-red-line/

Hidden Reactor, Silent Reaction

Posted on March 3, 2015 by First.One.Through

Summary: As the world negotiates with Iran about their nuclear program, it is worth remembering lessons from Syria’s nuclear plant in 2007.

In September 2007, something significant happened in the Middle East. While the details were very murky as the news reports were cryptic, it was clear that a major event came-and-went. Over the following months and years, more information emerged about Syria’s nascent nuclear program and Israel’s attack that destroyed it.

Syrian nuclear reactor, 2007

Failure to Detect

Syria began to investigate the feasibility of a nuclear program in the 1990s and by the mid-2000s it was building a nuclear facility with the help of North Korea. The facility was being constructed roughly 100 miles from the Iraqi border. During its construction, hundreds of thousands of American troops were busy a few miles from the construction site during the Iraq War. Many reconnaissance missions repeatedly flew over the Syrian site, but US intelligence failed to detect that Syria had embarked on plans to build a weapon of mass destruction. For years.

The New York Times stated that “the Americans were somewhat blindsided…. By their own account, they…only identified the plant at Al Kibar, named for the nearest town, after they received photos of the interior of the plant last spring from Israel… But even this victory [of destroying the plant], some experts note, raises questions about the [CIA]’s focus. The reactor was built within 100 miles of the Iraqi border yet never identified even though the administration was searching for any form of such arms programs in Iraq…. Graham Allison, a Harvard professor and author of “Nuclear Terrorism,” who was in Washington on Thursday to testify about Iran’s nuclear program [said] ‘if you can build a reactor in Syria without being detected for eight years, how hard can it be to sell a little plutonium to Osama bin Laden?’”

Location of Syria’s nuclear plant

The Power of Pride

The incident of the secret nuclear facility remained quiet considering the enormity of both its construction and destruction. Not surprisingly, the Syrians wanted to keep the plant hidden as they saw what Israel did to Iraq’s nuclear reactor in 1981. Israel’s silence on its actions against Syria was a calculated move on the part of Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert.

Israel refused to broadcast its strike out of fear that doing so would provoke Syrian President Assad to respond with an attack on Israel. By maintaining silence, Olmert hoped he could allow Assad an escape from reacting to his bruised pride from the crushing setback of Israel’s destroying his plan to become the first Arab nuclear power.

Indeed, the news reports that emerged from Syria about the event were inconsistent. Some reports stated that Israeli planes entered Syrian airspace and were forced to flee due to Syrian fire. Later, the Syrian government said that Israeli planes did enter its airspace, but the warplanes only hit an empty military building. As such, there was no need for an immediate large-scale confrontation with Israel. War averted.

Lessons for the Iranian Nuclear Program

DETECTION: The United States administration is actively negotiating with Iran about the extent to which Iran could build nuclear power. Early reports on the negotiations indicate that the terms would necessitate an examination of the Iranian facilities to make sure that they would not migrate an energy program towards nuclear weapons. However, as the Syrian reactor incident makes clear, inspections are flawed. The US’s track record about bad intelligence of Iraq developing a nuclear weapon must also be considered.

Further, consider that the Iranian facilities (that are known) are spread all over the country. This agreement may enable Iran to operate those current facilities freely. If the US failed to identify the building of large facilities over many years, can the world really be sure it can make a thorough accounting of the thousands of centrifuges and the fissile materials warehoused inside many buildings spread around the country? The Obama Administration essentially has conceded that it cannot, so it will rely on Iran to show them what they have: “Without an agreement we don’t have any of this insight into Iran’s nuclear program.”

In other words, the current working agreement is to let the fox guard the chicken coop.

Iranian nuclear research facility

PRIDE: The second lesson from Operation Orchid, as the Israeli bombing mission was known, was the significance of Arab pride. Israel understood that Syrian pride would have demanded a large response to the Israeli attack. By its keeping its role and the target silent, Israel avoided a large scale war.

The secrecy surrounding Israel’s own nuclear program is for the same purpose. If Israel’s Arab neighbors would publicly acknowledge the existence of their enemy having nuclear weapons, they would demand WMDs as well. By maintaining an undeclared nuclear program, the arms race in the Middle East never occurred.

That will now change.

Iran’s development of nuclear power, and the world’s tacit approval of it will force other players in the region such as Saudi Arabia to seek nuclear weapons. The very public nature of these discussions do not permit the Saudi Kingdom to swallow their pride. People will assume that a quiet side deal was made to allow Iran to get nuclear weapons, or Iran will obtain them against the terms of the agreement. Regardless, approving a nuclear program for Iran will commence an arms race in the most volatile region in the world.

Iraq’s sole nuclear plant was known and Israel’s attack was public.
Syria’s nuclear facility was hidden and Israel’s attack was kept silent.
Iran’s program is large and public and will demand a large and public response to halt the program from the global community.

Related First.One.Through articles:

The gap between fairness and safety: https://firstonethrough.wordpress.com/2015/03/01/the-gap-between-fairness-and-ramifications-wmds-in-iraq-and-iran/

Obama’s Iranian red line: https://firstonethrough.wordpress.com/2014/11/24/obamas-iranian-red-line/

Murderous governments of the Middle East: https://firstonethrough.wordpress.com/2014/08/01/murderous-governments-of-the-middle-east/

Obama dancing with the Asteroids: https://firstonethrough.wordpress.com/2014/11/14/dancing-with-the-asteroids/

Nicholas Kristof’s “Arab Land”

Posted on February 27, 2015 by First.One.Through

On February 26, 2015, Nicholas Kristof wrote an op-ed in the New York Times called “The Human Stain” that was more than flawed- it was wrong; it was more than anti-Israel, it was anti-Semitic.

Among the many incorrect and racist statements were his claims that the “West Bank” and “East Jerusalem” were Arab. Here are some quick thoughts about his statement that “nibbling of Arab land is just plain wrong.”

Judean Desert down to the Jordan Valley

Geography

The west bank of the Jordan and eastern Jerusalem are not part of the Arabian Peninsula. That landmass is located east of Israel. The borders of the region are surrounded by water on three sides (the peninsula) and the northwestern edge of Saudi Arabia is the land border.

The countries that constitute the Arab land in addition to Saudi Arabia are: Oman; Kuwait; UAE; Bahrain; Qatar; and Yemen. The Arabian Plate on which the peninsula rests includes parts of southern Jordan and southern Iraq.

Neither the Arabian Peninsula nor the Arabian plate cross the Jordan River, hence there is no geographical basis for referring to any land west of the Jordan as “Arab Land.”

Population

The “Arab Nation” spread beyond the Arabian Peninsula in the 7^th and 8^th centuries when Muslim invasion of neighboring lands brought Islam and Arabs to those areas. Those Muslim conquests brought Arabs to southern Spain called Andalusia. No one refers to Spain as Arab land today.

Politics

The Arab countries formed a “League of Arab States” which includes 22 countries. That group is political in nature and does not speak to the actual people and culture of the countries. For example, Syria was suspended from the League in 2011 due to its civil war. Palestine was admitted as a member in 1945 (the entire British Mandate of Palestine which includes Israel today) even though it was not an independent country.

To refer to the west bank of the Jordan as “Arab” because Palestine is a member state would also mean that Israel is an Arab state. Is that part of Kristof’s real message? Does he feel that Israel is not a valid entity and is occupying “Arab land”?

Binyamin Region

Government Sovereignty

A “Land” is distinguishable from lowercase “land” in that one conveys sovereignty and ownership. The land on the west bank of the Jordan River is disputed land without independent sovereignty. Israel administers the land after Jordan attacked Israel in 1967 and subsequently lost the territory. Jordan gave up all claims to the land in 1988, including “East Jerusalem”. “Arab East Jerusalem” in capital letters makes no sense in any interpretation as sovereignty and administration belongs to Israel (albeit not recognized in much of the world) but the eastern part of the city is also not recognized, nor under sovereignty of Arabs, nor part of the Arab peninsula, and is 40% Jewish.

While many Palestinian Arabs claim the west bank of the Jordan as part of a future state and “East Jerusalem” as such state’s capital, the rule of the land is still in negotiations. As of this date, the land is much more Israeli than it is Palestinian.

Exclusivity

Liberals and progressives typically argue that no land should be the exclusive right of a single racial or religious group. No one refers to “White Selma” where only whites can live or “Black Harlem” where only blacks should be permitted to live.

While people refer to the Islamic State of Iran, Iran claims that it welcomes people of all faiths. Israel, the Jewish State, is 25% non-Jewish. Turkey, which is a secular Islamic state, is mostly non-Arab but has many Arabs living in the country.

Not only is the west bank of the Jordan not “Arab”, but the suggestion that it should be limited only to Arabs is racist and anti-Semitic. That policy was put into place under the Jordanian Arabs that attacked Israel in 1948 and expelled all of the Jews from the area including the eastern part of Jerusalem, counter the Fourth Geneva Convention.

South of Bethlehem

Private Property

Land ultimately falls into two categories: private land and public land. Private land changes hands with the owner and is not considered to belong forever to a particular religion or people. One day it may be owned by an Arab, the next day by a Jew and the next by a WASP.

Public lands are administered by the government. As discussed above, the west bank of the Jordan is administered by Israel. The eastern part of Jerusalem was annexed by Israel decades ago.

Therefore neither the west bank of the Jordan River nor “East Jerusalem” can be considered “Arab land.”

History

For 400 years the Ottomans ruled Palestine and allowed Jews to live everywhere without restriction. They lived in Jericho and Jerusalem and throughout the region. The Ottomans welcomed the Yemenite Jews who founded Silwan in the eastern part of Jerusalem just outside the city walls in 1881 – in what Kristof terms “Arab East Jerusalem.”

The international community gave the British the Mandate to govern Palestine in 1922, in which it specifically stated that the entire mandate – including Kristof’s “Arab West Bank” – “shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes” (Article 6). The mandate further stated in Article 15 “No discrimination of any kind shall be made between the inhabitants of Palestine on the ground of race, religion or language. No person shall be excluded from Palestine on the sole ground of his religious belief”.

Silwan, in the eastern part of Jerusalem, founded by Yemenite Jews in 1881

Countering the Bible

As detailed above, there is no basis for naming places “Arab West Bank” or “Arab East Jerusalem”. To claim that any land inherently belongs to a single group is a direct lift from the Old Testament in which God gives the land of Canaan to the Jews. Jews have always considered the entire land holy for that reason. Modern claims that part of that land is inherently Arab (and not Jewish) is done to specifically counter the Bible and any Jewish claim to the land.

Of course, the Jewish faith that asserts that the land is holy has nothing to do with sovereignty or private ownership. Jews have always considered the land holy, even in 1400 when they had no sovereignty, and Jews today who do not own land in Israel. The land is holy to Jews, which motivates many Jews to move there.

Kristof’s claim that this specific land (the “West Bank” which didn’t even exist as an entity or term until recently) is Arab is meant to directly confront the Jewish belief that the land was given to Jews by God. Just as the Times never uses the Jewish terminology of “Judea and Samaria” to remove Jewish connection to this land, Kristof attempts to sever the Jewish connection by stating it is inherently “Arab”. It is wrong in fact and intention.

Jews have always and will always consider Judea and Samaria/ the west Bank of the Jordan as holy regardless of its sovereignty, or the religion and ethnicity of a person living in a house on the land. Such sentiments do not preclude any type of peace deal.

Kristof wrote that “The 350,000 Israeli settlers in the West Bank — not even counting those in Arab East Jerusalem — impede any Middle East peace and stain Israel’s image,” can only be viewed as an obstacle to peace for racists that want a Jew-free state.

Attacking the Jewish faith is not a path to peace. Antisemitic calls for banning Jews from anywhere – let alone places they consider holy and lived in for thousands of years – is disgraceful. The “Human Stain” is Kristof’s and those that share such sentiments.

On Accepting Invitations

Posted on February 9, 2015 by First.One.Through

Summary: While Obama can pretend to be insulted by Netanyahu’s failure to follow protocol in accepting an invitation to speak to a joint session of Congress, Obama did much worse to Netanyahu in 2013. It shows that if you are a friend, you forgive, and if you want to be angry, you can always find a cause to validate your anger.

Israeli PM Netanyahu addressing US Congress May 2011

There is a brouhaha over Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu accepting an invitation from US Speaker of the House John Boehner to address a joint session of Congress in March 2015 about Iran’s march towards nuclear weapons. The complaint, according to the White House, is about a failure to follow protocol – one would imagine, a forgivable error. However, the comments from an unnamed senior source at the White House fumes that accepting the invitation was a direct insult to the president, and that Netanyahu “spat in our face publicly and that’s no way to behave. Netanyahu ought to remember that President Obama has a year and a half left to his presidency, and that there will be a price.”

Netanyahu’s acceptance of an invitation specifically addressed to him, to discuss a topic that he considers an existential threat to his country, to speak to an incredible audience that also cares deeply about the subject of Iran doesn’t seem to be a snub to Obama at face value. However, if one considers that the audience does not agree with the president’s current course of action, and that Netanyahu’s opinion does not fit squarely with the president’s approach, well, that’s a different story- that could theoretically have been a snub and attempt to bypass the president that is…what’s the word? Familiar.

Obama Declined Invitation to Speak to the Israeli Knesset

In March 2013, Israel invited US President Barack Obama to visit Israel and speak to the Knesset, the Israeli parliament. Both of the two previous US presidents, Bill Clinton (1994) and George W Bush (2008) addressed the Knesset while they were in office. Obama declined the invitation.

Present Bill Clinton Addressing Israeli Knesset 1994

This US administration wanted to bypass the Israeli government and address the Israeli citizens directly, saying that Obama had a speech for “the Israeli public and that really was our priority.” The White House arranged to have an audience of students from Israeli universities (except he did not allow students from schools on the West Bank of the Jordan) to hear his remarks.

Was declining an invitation to speak to the Knesset a nice thing to do? It is not something Israel extends to most world leaders.
Was it appropriate to use that same time slot to speak to “the Israeli public” instead? Did Obama not realize that Israel is the democracy and the politicians are elected by the people and represent the people? (As opposed to his “New Beginnings” address to the Egyptian government in 2009.
Obama cherry-picked his “Israeli public” to be those young people who may have been more receptive to his remarks than an audience that truly represented the broad opinions of the citizens of the country and the Knesset.

How did Netanyahu react to these insulting actions of the White House? Did he take umbrage? Did he refuse to see Obama and did Bibi direct members of his political party to ignore Obama on his visit? Not at all. He acted like a perfect host.

Note that these various 2013 actions of Obama were not a single failure to coordinate as it was for the 2015 Netanyahu invitation. Obama carefully scripted the entire Knesset-snub, direct-to-some of-the-people message.

In Obama’s opening remarks to the student body he said: “any drama between me and my friend, Bibi over the years was just a plot to create material for Eretz Nehederet (an Israeli comedy show)”. I wonder how Obama will react if Bibi opts to make a similar joke about his buddy “Barack” in his address to Congress in March.

obama israel US President Obama speaking to Israeli STUDENTS 2013

And what was the crux of Obama’s speech in March 2013? Why did he feel the need to give a cold-shoulder to the Knesset and Netanyahu?

On the Iranian nuclear threat, Obama argued that a “strong and principled diplomacy is the best way to ensure that the Iranian government forsakes nuclear weapons….But Iran must know this time is not unlimited. And I’ve made the position of the United States of America clear: Iran must not get a nuclear weapon.“ Words that sounded nice to a generation that believed “hope” was a policy.

Obama knew that the Israeli Knesset and Prime Minister Netanyahu were very skeptical about Obama’s push to curtail sanctions on Iran. Obama therefore opted to bypass them and speak to a select audience that would applaud his vision.

Netanyahu Accepts Invitation to Speak to US Congress

Now, two years have passed and Iran is closer to nuclear weapons. Obama scaled back Iranian sanctions and has continued to delay the timetable he laid out to stop their nuclear program. The majority of Congress doesn’t like the situation and they don’t agree with Obama’s process.

As such, the House Speaker asked a close ally which is in the crosshairs of the Iranian regime to call out the president for the failed process. Netanyahu’s response: “As Prime Minister of Israel, I am obligated to make every effort in order to prevent Iran from achieving nuclear weapons that would be aimed at the State of Israel. This effort is worldwide and I will go anywhere I am invited in order to enunciate the State of Israel’s position and in order to defend its future and its existence.”

Does Obama really lack complete sensitivity to Israel’s fears about a nuclear Iran that he would inflate a matter of protocol over an invitation to such a degree? Or is it just a ploy for Obama to influence Israel’s elections by trying to put down “his friend Bibi”?

Emily Post Five Points on Accepting an Invitation

There are a good number of people who have suggested that Netanyahu should cancel his March speech. Of course, they include his political opponents in Israel, but they also include some Democrats in the US Congress and leaders of Jewish organizations.

Emily Post, the expert of etiquette, suggests five key steps to responding to an invitation:

“RSVP: reply promptly”: done
“Reply in the Manner Indicated”: done, but partially outside of normal protocol
“Is that Your Final Answer?” SEE BELOW
“May I bring…?”: not relevant
Say “Thank you”: done

According to invitation etiquette, there are very few instances to change a response:

“Changing a ‘yes’ to a ‘no’ is only acceptable on account of: illness or injury, a death in the family or an unavoidable professional or business conflict. Call your hosts immediately.” Vice President Joe Biden and some Democrats seem to be manufacturing this excuse for not attending now.
“Canceling because you have a “better” offer is a sure fire way to get dropped from ALL the guest lists.
Being a “no show” is unacceptable.
Changing a ‘no’ to a ‘yes’ is OK only if it will not upset the hosts’ arrangements.”

In short, it is inappropriate for Netanyahu to turn down the invitation at this time. It would be up to Speaker Boehner to consider changing the date of the invitation, should he choose to smooth this inflated side-issue to get everyone focused on the main issue.

The Churlish Turkish Leadership

Posted on February 8, 2015 by First.One.Through

Under the leadership of Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, Turkey has continued to slide further and further into the extreme right towards militant Islam. It has (coincidentally?) also pushed the country closer to US President Obama and further from Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu.

Turkish leader Erdogan on magazine cover

In terms, of the continued suppression of freedom and liberty in Turkey:

Turkey jailed the most journalists in the world in both 2012 and 2013;
Erdogan blocked kissing in public and sale of alcohol at night (May 2013);
Erdogan banned Twitter (March 2014);
Erdogan outlawed YouTube (March 2014);
Turkey blocked Facebook pages deemed insulting to Muslim prophet Mohammed (January 2015)

The Turkish leader has also led his country into repeated confrontations with Israel due to his adamant support for the terrorist group Hamas, a group sworn to the destruction of Israel:

Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu withdraws from a global conference on security because Israel was in attendance (February 2015)
Erdogan took to anti-Semitic rants comparing Israel to Nazi Germany (July 2014)
Erdogan called Zionism a “Crime against humanity” (February 2013)
Erdogan threatens to send more and more military vessels off the coast of Israel in a direct challenge to the legal Israeli blockade of Gaza (September 2011)
Turkey enables a flotilla to leave its shores to attempt to break the Israeli blockade of Gaza. Eight Turks are killed after they refuse to dock at an Israeli port and attack Israeli soldiers (May 2010)
At the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, Erdogan called Israeli President Shimon Peres a killer and marched off the stage (January 2009)

The strong rightward shift has not changed the relationship between Erdogan and Obama.

Obama considered Erdogan in his top five friends among international heads of state (January 2012)
Obama used his relationship to coerce an apology from Netanyahu to Erdogan for the assailants killed on the flotilla (March 2013)
US continued to contort itself to make Turkey happy as the US tried to help Kurdish fighters against ISIS, while Turkey did almost nothing in the fight, as it despised the Kurds (October 2014)

As described above, the Netanyahu apology to Erdogan did nothing to repair relations between Israel and Turkey and nothing slowed Erdogan’s crackdown on freedom in Turkey. The Obama administration twisted itself every-which-way to excuse terrible Turkish policies (whether its treatment of the Kurds, failure to support war on ISIS, suppression of freedoms at home…) while it picks on Israel for matters of protocol.

To listen to liberal media and democrats these days, you would think that it was Israel that was acting “churlish” for matters of protocol as opposed to specific attacks on Israel.

Here is the satirical music video by First.One.Through about the sad state of the world, where victims must apologize to the aggressors (music by Joe Cocker):

Related First.One.Through articles:

NY Times support of Erdogan over Netanyahu: https://firstonethrough.wordpress.com/2014/08/11/new-york-times-talking-turkey/

Israel, Mother Nature’s Son

Posted on February 3, 2015 by First.One.Through

Judaism is celebrating its New Year’s tonight – for trees.

Almond trees blooming in the Galilee

You will not find Jews sticking candles into tree bark, or trees pounding piñatas held aloft by tall people. But the holiday exists as a milestone, typically with people eating various fruits which were grown in Israel.

Rabbi Adin Even-Israel Steinsaltz wrote an article about how the New Year for Trees – Tu b’Shvat – evolved over the centuries. It began as a note on the calendar and became more significant as Jews were evicted from the holy land. People made a deliberate effort to connect with the land of Israel, so the holiday grew into a minor festival.

Today, we have a have a more environmentally-aware conception of the day. Rabbi Steinsaltz writes that we acknowledge “that all living creatures — plants included — have a connection with the human spirit, a common bond of life. It means that all the forms of life around us are not only meant to furnish us with materials for our subsistence. They actually share a definition of life with us, of growth, or bearing fruit.”

The modern country of Israel has been deeply connected to the land since the early pioneers tilled the land and fought off malaria in the swamps in the north. Today the country stands as a leader in environmentally-friendly projects:

Israel was one of only two countries to enter the 21^st century with more trees than it had entering the 20^th century, thanks to the planting of 240 million trees
Israel developed drip irrigation in the 1960s, which it introduced into Africa to help the people develop crops in desert conditions
Israel developed the first commercial wind farm in the Middle East in 1992
Israel developed the first permanent bike-sharing program in the Middle East in 2011
In 2012, Israel surpassed the European Union as the biggest recycler of plastic
The country has also helped the entire world reduce its consumption of plastic bottles through its business SodaStream

Here is the celebratory First-One-Through music video with music by the Beatles:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7-HFK5KTDQ

It is remarkable to consider that this same land went through so many cycles in its history. The bible often referred to the land as “flowing with milk and honey”. The biblical commentator Ramban taught that that expression referred to the nectar in the fruit that was so rich and over-flowing, due to an extremely fertile land.

However, just 150 years ago, the land was in serious neglect under the Ottomans. In 1867, Mark Twain remarked while he visited that the holy land was “A desolate country whose soil is rich enough, but is given over wholly to weeds… a silent mournful expanse…. a desolation…. we never saw a human being on the whole route…. hardly a tree or shrub anywhere. Even the olive tree and the cactus, those fast friends of a worthless soil, had almost deserted the country.”

The modern state of Israel can be proud and reflect on its accomplishments during the New Year for Trees.

Enjoy the holiday.

Bibi’s Paris Speech in Context

Posted on February 2, 2015 by First.One.Through

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin (Bibi) Netanyahu came to Paris, France in January 2015 to show his support for free speech and to confront anti-Semitism in the wake of terror attacks at the Charlie Hebdo magazine and a kosher supermarket. He addressed a large Jewish audience at the Grand Synagogue where he invited the Jews to make aliyah – to move to Israel. netanyahu paris shul

“Any Jew who chooses to come to Israel will be greeted with open arms and an open heart, it is not a foreign nation, and hopefully they and you will one day come to Israel.”

Many people criticized his statement including, not surprisingly, his Israeli political opponents during an election season. The French were also unhappy with the call to move to Israel. French Prime Minister Manuel Valls said that “if 100,000 Jews leave, France will no longer be France. The French Republic will be judged a failure.”
French President Francois Hollande made a similar statement a few days later: “French people of the Jewish faith, your place is here, in your home. France is your country.“

It is right and proper that the leaders of France seek to assure the country’s Jewish citizens that France is their home and they should not flee the country from fear. But to berate Netanyahu for his remarks does not take into account the climate in which the invitation to move to the Jewish State was made.

Consider that Netanyahu did not come to France and invite the French Jews after attacks targeting their community in 2012 or 2006. But he felt that the situation for Jews in Europe had deteriorated significantly throughout 2014 which compelled him to invite the largest Jewish population in Europe, with an estimated 500,000 people, to move to Israel:

January 2014: The European Union made clear it will blame Israel for a failure in the US-led 2013-4 peace talks
April 2014: The ADL published a report on anti-Semitism in the world. It found that Palestinians were by far the most anti-Semitic people in the world, with almost everyone (93%) being classified as an anti-Semite. Eastern and Western Europe were the next most anti-Semitic regions, after the Middle East/North Africa.
April 2014: Fatah announces a unity move with terrorist party Hamas which the USA only described as “disappointing” and Europe issued no comment at all
May 2014: A Muslim man opened fire at the Jewish Museum in Brussels killing four.
May 2014: EU bans poultry and eggs from the Israeli-administered West Bank of the Jordan River.
June 2014: Several European countries and the European Union criticized Israel over settlements claiming that they were “illegal” and threatened potential economic measures against entities in those areas.
June 2014: Three Israeli teenagers were abducted and murdered by Palestinians. European Union took five days to issue statement.
June 2014: riots in France called for “death to the Jews“
July 2014: riots in Germany included firebombing a synagogue and imam calling “destroy the Zionist Jews … Count them and kill them, to the very last one.”
July 2014: Store in Belgium posted sign “No Jews Allowed“
August 2014: George Galloway, a member of the British parliament called his hometown of Bradford “an Israel-free zone“
August 2014: The large Spanish department store, Zara, with branches throughout Europe, designed and began to sell “Holocaust dresses” complete with prison uniform stripes and a yellow Jewish star
October 2014: Sweden decided to recognize Palestine as a state, despite the PA acting President being a Holocaust denier, and the leading party in parliament being Hamas whose charter explicitly calls for killing Jews
October 2014: The United Kingdom passed a non-binding resolution to recognize Palestine as a state
October 2014 Sears Department store decided to sell rings with swastikas
December 2014 The European Union voted to declassify Hamas as terrorist organization. Hamas’s charter is a combination of Hitler’s Mein Kamf, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion and a jihad manifesto (which mentions “jihad” 11 times in the charter).
December 2014: Ireland recognized Palestine
December 2014: France and Luxembourg are among 8 countries that vote in favor of a Palestinian resolution at the United Nations to force a timeline for a Palestinian state, regardless of actions by the Palestinians (motion fails).
January 2015: UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon said PA to join International Criminal Court

In summary, the year before the Paris shootings was a cascade of anti-Israel and anti-Jewish activities in Europe. The year 2014 began with Netanyahu releasing terrorists to push forward a peace initiative (of which he was very skeptical) at the urging of the USA and Europe. It proved meaningless to the peace process and world opinion; Israel and Jews in Europe were attacked throughout the year, first by Palestinians and then by Europeans.

For Netanyahu, the prior twelve months had:

Israel release prisoners, including Palestinian murderers of Israeli civilians, at the direct urging of allies
Their Palestinian counter-party break peace talks by joining with Hamas and international organizations
A summer in which: three teenagers were abducted and murdered; Israel located an extensive Hamas tunnel network from Gaza into Israel to launch attacks; Israel combated thousands of incoming missiles from Gaza. Yet Israel was still criticized by Europe and the global community for defensive actions
European cities launch multiple riots against Jews
European countries reward the Palestinians with admission to more world bodies and votes of endorsement
The European Union remove Hamas from its terrorist list

For Netanyahu – and many Jews – the year in Europe echoed back 75 years to a period in which the continent nearly annihilated its Jewish citizens. It was bad enough that Israelis contend with Palestinian Arabs that are more extreme than the Nazis of the 1930s. But that Europeans embraced this ideaology was truly frightening, particularly as it stood in contrast to values they claimed to support.

In 1939, at the early stages of the Holocaust, Britain drafted the White Paper at the behest of Arabs in the Middle East, which limited Jewish immigration to Palestine at the outset of the Holocaust – a move which likely killed over 100,000 Jews – despite the specific mandate to facilitate the immigration of Jews to their homeland.

In 2015, the Prime Minister of Israel heard the calls to kill Jews, and made clear that a world with an established Jewish State will not allow a repeat of the European Holocaust.

What do you Recognize in the Palestinians?

Posted on January 29, 2015 by First.One.Through

Summary: In their eagerness to give Palestinian Arabs self-determination, Europeans have begun to symbolically recognize Palestine as a country. However, the Europeans have failed to recognize that Palestinian actions are against the law and vision for peace.

During the months of October and November 2014, a number of European countries took symbolic steps to recognize Palestine as a distinct independent country. What do they really recognize and how does it fit with their world vision and laws?

Holocaust Denial

Holocaust denial and its trivialization is part of the Palestinian culture, starting with its acting president, Mahmoud Abbas.

Abbas spent several years writing his doctorate research on Holocaust denial; that phd paper is taught at the Palestinian Authority.
In April 2014, Abbas continued his pattern of belittling the Holocaust by stating that the Palestinians can appreciate the Holocaust because they suffer from similar “ethnic discrimination and racism” from Israel.
In September 2014 Abbas said Israel was engaged in a “war of genocide” against the Palestinians,
The major political party for the Palestinians, Hamas, which runs Gaza, prohibits the teaching of Holocaust studies in its schools, even though it is a standard part of the UNRWA school program.

This denial of the Holocaust is considered illegal in many European countries including: Austria; Belgium; Bosnia and Herzegovina; Czech Republic; France; Germany; Hungary; Israel; Liechtenstein; Lithuania; Luxembourg; Netherlands; Poland; Portugal; Romania; Spain; and Switzerland.

Mahmoud Abbas’ Holocaust Denial book, available on Palestinian Authority website

Anti-Semitism

The Palestinians are the most anti-Semitic group on the planet.

A poll published by the Anti Defamation League in April 2014 found that almost every single Palestinian Arab- 93% – harbor anti-Semitic views.
The Hamas charter is the most anti-Semitic and racist charter on earth. It reads like a combination of Hitler’s Mein Kamf, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion and a Jihadist Manifesto. It openly calls for the killing of all Jews and the destruction of the Jewish State.
The Palestinians support Hamas with this charter, electing them to 58% of the parliament in 2006 and backing the party in every poll since that time.
Palestinian leadership and clergy often call Jews names (like “sons of pigs and apes”) on state run television.
Palestinian law prohibits Jews from stepping onto college campuses in the West Bank.
Palestinian law and Abbas have made it a crime to sell land to Jews.
Abbas has stated he will not permit a single Israeli to live in a new state of Palestine.

The United Nations ran its first ever discussion about the growing problem of anti-Semitism in January 2015. Several countries have laws specifically banning anti-Semitism (beyond general laws against hate speech) including: Austria; France; Mexico; Romania; Spain; Sweden and Switzerland.

Palestinians Hoist Nazi Swastika

Terrorism

Attacking Israeli civilians has been a fundamental charge of the Palestinians.

Hamas has launched over 10,000 rockets against Israeli civilians and population centers.
Various Palestinian groups including Hamas, Islamic Jihad and others have killed thousands in bombings and shootings on buses, hotels, pizza stores and elsewhere in Israel.
Palestinians have killed Jewish civilians all over the world in large scale terrorist acts including in Rome, Stockholm and Istanbul.
Palestinians strongly support the use of terrorism against civilians (over 80% as of September 2014).
Abbas names squares and tournaments after terrorists who kill Israeli civilians.

Many countries label Hamas a terrorist organization including: the US; Canada; Australia; Israel; Japan; the United Kingdom; Egypt and Jordan. The European Union also categorized Hamas as a terrorist organization until December 2014, when it decided to reconsider the designation. The United Nations has also created task forces to deal with terrorism that are intended to cut off all support.

Square named after Murderer

To summarize the state of the Palestinians in 2015: it is run by a Holocaust denier who has suspended elections while he instigates violence; the ruling party in parliament is more openly anti-Semitic and genocidal than the Nazis when they were elected in 1933, and has called for the complete destruction of a member state of the United Nations; and the populace is the most anti-Semitic in the world.

It is one thing to wish for a group of people to have self-determination. But does such a hateful, violent jihadist group which seeks the destruction of a member state of the United Nations deserve recognition?

If Europe and the world truly care about Holocaust denial, anti-Semitism and terrorism as current laws declare, they must confront the reality of the current state of Palestinian Arabs and demand fundamental changes before it can be given any recognition on the world stage.

Sources:

Abbas Holocaust denial paper: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/143752#.VMuN-ps5BTw

Holocaust denial criminal offense: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_against_Holocaust_denial

Abbas calling a “genocide” by Israel: http://www.aljazeera.com/news/americas/2014/09/abbas-israel-waging-war-genocide-gaza-201492616952287680.html

Palestinian law banning the sale of land to Jews:

http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/PA-affirms-death-penalty-for-land-sales-to-Israelis

Left-wing article on left-wing journalist barred from Bir Zeit University: http://jfjfp.com/?p=65375

Birzeit University bans Jews: http://www.timesofisrael.com/haaretz-writer-booted-from-palestinian-school-because-shes-israeli/

Calling Jews “sons of pigs and apes” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHhG1IyfqXg#t=13

Hamas charter: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hamas.asp

Palestinian poll September 2014: http://www.pcpsr.org/en/node/496