UN Comments on the Murder of Innocents: Henkins

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

On October 1, 2015, terrorists shot and killed two Israeli civilians who were driving in their car with their children. As in the past, the United Nations comments about the murders stood in sharp contrast to crimes that may have been committed by Israeli Jews (such as the arson attack which killed three Arabs in Duma):

The UN release was all of 181 words (compared to 422 words in Duma)
The UN never referred to the event as terrorism (compared to 3 times in Duma)
No blame placed on Arabs or Muslims (compared to blaming Jews in Duma)
This attack is “condemned” (versus “strongly condemned” in Duma)
No blame placed on Palestinian incitement (compared to blaming Jewish settlements in Duma)
The UN made a passing reference to Hamas incitement when it stated that “there is nothing heroic about the killing of civilians“, deciding not to specifically and directly call out Palestinians who praised these murders as “heroic”.
Similarly, this attack on Israelis is not described as politically motivated (as it was in Duma)
No description that the attack came from “hate” (as it was in Duma)
The Israeli victims are not described as “innocents” (as they were in Duma)
No comment on Abbas’s condemnation of the attack- because Abbas didn’t (compared to no mention of Netanyahu condemning attack in Duma)

#JewishLivesMatter

In Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s address to the United Nations General Assembly on the same day, he rebuked almost all of the countries present for their total silence regarding the threats that the Islamic Republic of Iran made to destroy Israel. This fleeting note of concern by the UN about murdered Israeli civilians remains disappointing.

The UN release about murder of Henkins October 2015:

The United Nations Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process has condemned a shooting attack that took place today on an Israeli civilian vehicle in the West Bank which resulted in the death of two people and injuries to their four children.

“There is nothing heroic about the killing of civilians. The perpetrators of this violent act must be brought to justice,” Nickolay Mladenov said in a statement issued in Jerusalem.

“In order to avoid escalation all must refrain from inflammatory statements and retaliatory action that can only further exacerbate an already tense environment.”

Recent weeks have witnessed increasing tensions both in the West Bank and in East Jerusalem, prompting UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, the Security Council and the High Commissioner for Human Rights to urge Israelis and Palestinians to defuse tensions and prevent any escalation of the current situation on the ground.

Mr. Mladenov noted that today’s tragic incident again highlights “the need for significant steps to help stabilize the situation, reverse the current negative trends and restore hope that a just and lasting negotiated two-State solution is possible.”

UN release of arson attack in Duma July 2015:

“31 July 2015 – United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and the UN special envoy on the Middle East have strongly condemned today’s arson attack in the West Bank that killed a Palestinian child and left the child’s parents severely injured.

“The Secretary-General strongly condemns today’s murder of a Palestinian child in the West Bank and calls for the perpetrators of this terrorist act to be promptly brought to justice,” reads a statement issued by his spokesperson in New York.

Continued failures to effectively address impunity for repeated acts of settler violence have led to another horrific incident involving the death of an innocent life, adds the statement. “This must end.”

The absence of a political process and Israel’s illegal settlement policy, as well as the harsh and unnecessary practice of demolishing Palestinian houses, have given rise to violent extremism on both sides, the statement continues.

“This [situation] presents a further threat to the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinian people for statehood, as well as to the security of the people of Israel. The Secretary-General urges both sides to take bold steps to return to the path of peace.”

Mr. Ban reiterates his call on all parties to ensure that tensions do not escalate further, leading to more loss of life, the statement concludes.

Earlier today, the United Nations special envoy on the Middle East today expressed his outrage over what he called a “heinous murder” and a “terrorist crime.”

“I am outraged by today’s vicious arson attack by suspected Jewish extremists in the Occupied West Bank village of Duma, near Nablus, which killed Palestinian toddler Ali, critically injured his mother and father, and injured his four-year old sibling,” the Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process, Nickolay Mladenov, said.

Joining in the “strong condemnations” issued by Israeli and Palestinian Governments and political leaders, the Special Coordinator also called for a “full and prompt investigation” to bring the perpetrators to justice.

“This heinous murder was carried out for a political objective. We must not permit such acts to allow hate and violence to bring more personal tragedies and to bury any prospect of peace. This reinforces the need for an immediate resolution of the conflict and an end to the occupation.”

Later today, the Security Council issued a statement to the press, condemning “in the strongest terms” the “vicious terrorist attack,” and underlining the need to bring the perpetrators of this “deplorable act” to justice.

Council members encouraged all sides to work to lower tension, reject violence, avoid all provocations, and seek a path toward peace.”

Jordan’s Deceit and Hunger for Control of Jerusalem

Posted on October 1, 2015 by First.One.Through

Jordan’s King Abdullah gave a flowery speech to the United Nations General Assembly in September 2015. To the casual listener, his words sounded progressive in his call for “loving our neighbour, showing respect to those different from us,” and to “amplify the voice of moderation,” especially from a region so caught up in violent Islamic extremism.

Jordanian King Abdullah addressed the 70th session of the United Nations
General Assembly on September 28, 2015. (Photo: Richard Drew/AP)

To a listener who was more familiar with Jordan’s history in the region, some of the king’s comments appeared as a welcome change from the actions of his late father. Others could question whether Abdullah harkens to his own voice. Consider Abdullah’s call:

“let us recognise deceit. When we examine the motives of these outlaws, the khawarej – and indeed, the motives of extremists on all sides – we find hunger for power and control: of people, of money, of land. They use religion as a mask. Is there a worse crime than twisting God’s word to promote your own interests?”

“nothing can be more important and can have more impact in framing this respect and coexistence than Jerusalem. The Hashemite Custodianship of Jerusalem’s Islamic and Christian Holy Sites is a sacred duty, and we join Muslims and Christians everywhere in rejecting threats to the Holy Places
and the Arab character of this Holy City.”

When it comes to “respect and coexistence in Jerusalem,” let’s remind the Jordanian king of some plain facts:

Jordan attacked Israel in 1948, together with four Arab armies in an attempt to completely destroy the new Jewish State, and then Jordan illegally seized the eastern half of Jerusalem.
Jordan evicted all Jews from the Old City of Jerusalem and Judea and Samaria in 1949, counter to the Fourth Geneva Convention.
Jordan explicitly denied Jews citizenship when it granted Arabs in its conquered territory citizenship in 1954.
Jordan barred any Jews from even visiting their holy sites when they controlled Jerusalem from 1949-1967.
Jordan attacked Israel again in 1967 and lost the area it had illegally annexed.
Jordan condemned the 2010 rebuilding of a prominent synagogue in Jerusalem that Jordan itself had destroyed in 1949.

Despite Jordan’s complete lack of religious tolerance for Jews and hostility towards Israel, Israel has always sought to maintain religious freedom and coexistence in the holy city:

Israel granted the Jordanian Islamic Waqf custodian rights to the Temple Mount when it reunified Jerusalem in 1967.
Israel enshrined the religious protections of all religions in its laws and safeguarded access to holy sites for all religions.
Israel reiterated the special role that Jordan plays on the Temple Mount in the Israel-Jordan Peace Treaty in 1994.
Today, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu repeatedly reiterates that Israel will maintain the “status quo” of the Jordanian Waqf’s anti-Semitic edict of barring Jewish prayer at the Temple Mount.

When the Jordanian king spoke of “rejecting threats to the Holy Places and the Arab character of this Holy City [Jerusalem]” in a speech that was theoretically about tolerance, did he once mention Judaism? Did he make a passing reference to the Jerusalem being the holiest city to only one religion – Judaism? Did he mention that Jerusalem has had a Jewish majority since the 1860s? A passing comment about the Jewish Temples or Western Wall? Or did he define the holy city as solely having an “Arab character”?

In his choice of the phrase “threats to the Holy Places,” was Abdullah suggesting that Jews should no longer be permitted to visit the Temple Mount, or that Israeli police should be prevented from protecting Jewish visitors from Arab harassment and stone throwers, even though the Jordanian peace treaty with Israel specifically gave Jews and Israel both of those rights?

To Abdullah’s comment of gathering “Muslims and Christians everywhere,” was he suggesting gathering 2 billion people against Israel on a trumped up non-existent threat to Islamic holy places? Was Abdullah calling for a global jihad in “twisting” facts to create a religious battle to promote a greater role for himself? Was that his idea of “amplify[ing] the voice of moderation”?

It is Abdullah that must “recognize his own deceit” and “hunger for power and control” of Judaism’s holiest spot in the capital of Israel. His opening line taken from the Jewish bible of “love thy neighbor as thyself” and “showing respect to those different” was a red herring in his call to cast himself as a loving moderate while calling for a global jihad against Israel on a non-existent cause.

The “progressive” voices attacking Jews and the Jewish State are becoming more numerous and growing louder. Beware of the velvet tongue as much as the iron fist.

Related First One Through articles:

The Arguments over Jerusalem

The Waqf and the Temple Mount

The UN’s Disinterest in Jewish Rights at Jewish Holy Places

The United Nations “Provocation”

Nicholas Kristof’s “Arab Land”

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through Israel Analysis

The UN’s Disinterest in Jewish Rights at Jewish Holy Places

Posted on September 19, 2015 by First.One.Through

On September 17, 2015, acting-President of the Palestinian Authority Mahmoud Abbas called out to Arabs who were fighting against Jews visiting the Temple Mount, the holiest place for Judaism, on Rosh Hashanah, one of the holiest days in the Jewish calendar:

“We bless you, we bless the Murabitin (those who carry out religious war for land declared to be Islamic), we bless every drop of blood that has been spilled for Jerusalem, which is clean and pure blood, blood spilled for Allah. Allah willing, every martyr will reach paradise, and everyone wounded will be rewarded by Allah.

The Al Aqsa is ours, the Church of the Holy Sepulchre is ours, and they have no right to defile them with their filthy feet. We will not allow them to, and we will do everything in our power to protect Jerusalem.”

Acting PA President Abbas called for Arabs to defend Jerusalem
September 17, 2015

These Arabs that Abbas was referring to, had brought stones to protest Jews visiting the Temple Mount and the ban on religious extremist who taunted and prevented Jews from visiting their holy sites.

The United Nations Response

The UN Security Council (UNSC) issued the following statement about the situation:

“The members of the Security Council expressed their grave concern regarding escalating tensions in Jerusalem, especially surrounding the Haram al-Sharif compound, including recent clashes in and around the site.

The members of the Security Council called for the exercise of restraint, refraining from provocative actions and rhetoric and upholding unchanged the historic status quo at the Haram al-Sharif — in word and in practice. The members of the Security Council called for full respect for international law, including international human rights law and international humanitarian law, as may be applicable in Jerusalem.

The members of the Security Council urged all sides to work cooperatively together to lower tensions and discourage violence at holy sites in Jerusalem.

The members of the Security Council appealed for the restoration of calm and called for full respect for the sanctity of the Haram al-Sharif, noting the importance of the special role of Jordan, as confirmed in the 1994 peace treaty between Jordan and Israel, and encouraged increased coordination between Israel and Jordan’s Awqaf department. The members of the Security Council underscored that Muslim worshippers at the Haram al-Sharif must be allowed to worship in peace, free from violence, threats and provocations. The members of the Security Council further underscored that visitors and worshippers must demonstrate restraint and respect for the sanctity of the area and for maintaining the historic status quo at the holy sites. The members of the Security Council urged that the status quo of the Haram al-Sharif should be maintained and visitors should be without fear of violence or intimidation.

The members of the Security Council called for the immediate cessation of violence and for all appropriate steps to be taken to ensure that violence ceases, that provocative actions are avoided and that the situation returns to normality in a way which promotes the prospects for Middle East peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians.”

The response is outrageous and emblematic of Israel’s treatment at the United Nations:

“Haram al-Sharif”, not Temple Mount. The UNSC claims that it cares about the sanctity of the “holy sites in Jerusalem”, but it does not even mention the name of the platform, built 2000 years ago to ease access to Jews at the Temple. The platform is the “Temple Mount”- not mentioned once – while the Muslim name for the location is mentioned four times.
Ignoring Arab incitement and Israel’s calls for peace. As noted above, PA’s Abbas called for Arabs to fight for Al Aqsa, while Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called for maintained the status quo of banning Jewish prayer on the Mount. Yet no specific UNSC rebuke of Abbas’s rhetoric was made in their call for calm, nor appreciation for Netanyahu’s call for calm.
“Special role of Jordan” mentioned, but what of the role of Israel? The 1994 Peace Treaty between Israel and Jordan called for the Jordanian Waqf to be the trustee of the Temple Mount, but security remained with Israel. Why did the UNSC deliberately omit that Israel is in control of the security of the site and was deploying troops to stop Muslim extremists from attacking visiting Jews?
“Muslim worshippers”, but not Jews. In case any of the language was not clear, the UNSC is solely concerned with Muslims on the Temple Mount. The constant attack on Jewish visitors gets no mention at all, even after mentioning the Jordanian-Israel 1994 Peace Treaty which specifically states that “Each party (Jordan and Israel) will provide freedom of access to places of religious and historical significance.”

The UNSC voice of concern for: only Muslims and not Jews; using the Islamic name for the holy site, not Jewish; and referring to Jordan’s role at the site and not Israel’s, was clearly and specifically meant as a rebuke and warning to Israel and Jews. The most powerful global body told Israel on the Jewish New Year: do not mess with this Islamic site. Judaism is foreign. Jews are intruders.

Jews may protest that: the Temple Mount is its holiest site; that international law and treaties state that Jews have complete access to the site; and that Israel controls security on the site. Those facts are irrelevant to the UNSC.

The inversion of history past and present; provocation and reaction; rights and absence of rights has always been rife at the United Nations when it comes to Israel. These days, as the world watches extremist Islam rampage throughout the Middle East, the UN will seemingly further prioritize placating Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia and other Islamic extremists over the fundamental rights of Jews in Israel.

One can expect to see much more in the coming weeks when the UN circus comes to town.

Related First One Through articles:

The United Nations “Provocation”

The United Nations and Holy Sites in the Holy Land

Names and Narrative: CNN’s Temple Mount/ Al Aqsa Complex Inversion

The Waqf and the Temple Mount

Joint Prayer: The Cave of the Patriarchs and the Temple Mount

The Arguments over Jerusalem

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through Israel Analysis

The US State Department’s Selective Preference of “Status Quos”

Posted on September 17, 2015 by First.One.Through

On September 14, 2015, State Department Spokesperson John Kirby gave a daily press briefing in which he said: “The United States is deeply concerned by the recent violence and escalating tensions surrounding the Haram Al-Sharif/Temple Mount. We strongly condemn all acts of violence. It is absolutely critical that all sides exercise restraint, refrain from provocative actions and rhetoric, and preserve unchanged the historic status quo on the Haram Al-Sharif/Temple Mount in word and in practice.”

The comment came after a clash between Arab rock throwers and Israeli police on Rosh Hashanah, the Jewish New Year, as Arabs sought to prevent Jews from visiting the site.

State Department Spokesperson John Kirby

State Department Status Quo it Favors

The “status quo” that the State Department presumably sought to maintain was the ban on Jewish prayer on the entire 35 acre Temple Mount platform, the Jews’ holiest place on earth. That ban was put in place by Muslims in the middle of the 16th century, and Israel has allowed the Islamic Waqf to maintain the ban, even after it captured the Old City from Jordan and reunified the city in 1967.

State Department Status Quo it Seeks to Change

Later in this same briefing, Kirby responded to a question as to whether the Oslo Agreement between the Israelis and Palestinians should be scrapped since no Palestinian state was on the horizon: “Secretary Kerry is committed to pursuing a two-state solution, and I think you’re going to see him continue to do that throughout his tenure here at the department. I don’t think anybody’s – certainly not here – willing to give up on that ultimate goal.”

Kerry is “committed” to changing current reality and creating an Arab-led sovereign state in the holy land for the first time in history.

What makes one status quo worth keeping while the other is not? Does the State Department only endorse a status quo which Muslims desire (banning Jews from the Temple Mount) even though it is clearly anti-Semitic? Is it less a matter of favoring Muslim demands over American integrity and principle, but rather a function of seeking the support of 57 Arab countries versus a single Jewish State?

A more proper – and consistent – response would have been that Israel and the Jordanians and Palestinian Arabs will determine any changes to the status of Jerusalem and the holy sites as part of a final peace agreement. Those changes to the status quo will include matters of sovereignty and rights of access and prayer.

Related First One Through articles:

Joint Prayer: The Cave of the Patriarchs and the Temple Mount

The United Nations and Holy Sites in the Holy Land

The Battle for Jerusalem

A “Viable” Palestinian State

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through Israel Analysis

Names and Narrative: CNN’s Temple Mount/ Al Aqsa Complex Inversion

Posted on September 16, 2015 by First.One.Through

(Muslim and Israeli police confront each other at The Temple Mount,
September 13, 2015. Source: AFP Photo/Ahmad Gharabli)

On September 13, 2015, CNN reported on a confrontation between “Arab youths and Israeli police” in the Old City of Jerusalem using language that inverted the facts. The news discussed:

“Palestinian protestors,” but of what? Jews visiting the Temple Mount which they had every legal and moral right to do? Perhaps they were protesting new Israeli laws meant to keep Muslim groups from attacking Jewish visitors to the Temple Mount. The report made it appear that the “protestors” were just seeking a right to pray.
The “Al Aqsa Complex” that CNN mentioned gives an Islamic name to the entire 35 acre compound, even though the Al Aqsa Mosque is located on just the southern tip of the platform. This entire platform was built for the Second Jewish Temple and is therefore historically known as the Temple Mount. Using an Islamic name as the official name and only stating that “Jews… call it the Temple Mount” divorces history, reality and Jews from the site. It is more accurate to use the default name “The Temple Mount” to the entire location and state that ‘Muslims call it the Al Aqsa Complex”.
“…Is one of the holiest sites in the world for Muslims” The mosque itself is the third holiest site, not the entire Temple Mount platform. The story does not clarify that Jews had no interest in visiting the mosque itself, but the other parts of the platform.
Stating that “the clashes ended when Muslim worshippers were allowed in the complex for prayers” makes the entire event seem like all the Arab protestors sought was a right to pray (which they had already completed doing), as oppose to stopping Jews from visiting the Temple Mount on their Jewish New Year. This was another inversion of the narrative.
CNN’s report that “Jordan, which is in charge of the complex” is incomplete. Jordan’s Islamic Waqf has religious oversight of the Temple Mount, but it is Israel that is in charge of security on the Mount. Article 9 of the 1994 Jordan-Israel Peace Treaty clearly states that “Each party will provide freedom of access to places of religious and historical significance.” That is why the Israeli police legally deployed personnel to prevent Arab rock-throwers from attacking visiting Jews on the Mount.

Overall, CNN failed to report that Israel was legally trying to protect Jews visiting the Temple Mount, their holiest spot on one of their holiest days of the year. Instead they painted a picture of Israeli police blocking Arab youths from praying at the Al Aqsa Complex, one of their holiest places.

Al Aqsa Mosque at the very southern tip of the Temple Mount Platform
(Source: First One Through)

Related First One Through articles:

The Waqf and the Temple Mount

The Cave of the Patriarchs and the Temple Mount

The Arguments over Jerusalem

Tolerance at the Temple Mount

“Extremist” or “Courageous”

Names and Narrative: The West Bank / Judea and Samaria

Nicholas Kristof’s “Arab Land”

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through Israel Analysis

The Obama Administration Lays Foundation of Blame at Israel for a Potential War with Iran

Posted on August 6, 2015 by First.One.Through

President Obama has not only begun to lobby aggressively to win support for the P5+1 deal on the Iranian nuclear program, he has begun to lay the foundation of blame for a potential war squarely on Israel.

epa04873202 US President Barack Obama delivers a speech on the nuclear deal with Iran, at American University's School of International Service, in Washington DC, USA, 05 August 2015. Obama urged Americans to accept a controversial nuclear deal with Iran in spite of criticism from Republican lawmakers. The speech evoked late US President John F. Kennedy's 1963 USSR speech at American University during the height of the Cold War. EPA/PETE MAROVICH / POOL ORG XMIT: MHR02

US President Barack Obama delivers a speech on the nuclear deal with Iran, at American University’s School of International Service, in Washington DC, USA, 05 August 2015. (photo: EPA/PETE MAROVICH / POOL ORG XMIT: MHR02)

Diplomacy or War?

US President Barack Obama: “Let’s not mince words: The choice we face is ultimately between diplomacy and some sort of war — maybe not tomorrow, maybe not three months from now, but soon… How can we in good conscience justify war before we’ve tested a diplomatic agreement that achieves our objectives?” August 5, 2015

What does the world want?

US President Barack Obama: “this deal is not just the best choice among alternatives, this is the strongest nonproliferation agreement ever negotiated, and because this is such a strong deal, every nation in the world that has commented publicly, with the exception of the Israeli government, has expressed support.” August 5, 2015

If war happened, who is to blame?

US Secretary of State John Kerry: “I fear that what could happen is if Congress were to overturn it, our friends in Israel could actually wind up being more isolated and more blamed, and we would lose Europe and China and Russia with respect to whatever military action we might have to take because we will have turned our backs on a very legitimate program that allows us to put their program to the test over these next years.” July 24, 2015

Is there anyone in the United States – including the Obama administration – that believes this is a great deal? Does anyone deny that Iran’s nuclear infrastructure will remain largely intact with this signing? Honest people can arrive at different conclusions about whether to endorse or reject this agreement. So why state that a negative outcome of the vote would be the fault of Israel, “money” and “lobbyists“?

Obama has framed his opponents in a familiar anti-Semitic canard that Jews are responsible for wars around the world. Here is a section of Article 22 from the anti-Semitic terrorist group Hamas in its foundation Hamas Charter:

“The enemies have been scheming for a long time, and they have consolidated their schemes, in order to achieve what they have achieved. They took advantage of key elements in unfolding events, and accumulated a huge and influential material wealth which they put to the service of implementing their dream. This wealth [permitted them to] take over control of the world media such as news agencies, the press, publication houses, broadcasting and the like. [They also used this] wealth to stir revolutions in various parts of the globe in order to fulfill their interests and pick the fruits. They stood behind the French and the Communist Revolutions and behind most of the revolutions we hear about here and there. They also used the money to establish clandestine organizations which are spreading around the world, in order to destroy societies and carry out Zionist interests. Such organizations are: the Freemasons, Rotary Clubs, Lions Clubs, B’nai B’rith and the like. All of them are destructive spying organizations. They also used the money to take over control of the Imperialist states and made them colonize many countries in order to exploit the wealth of those countries and spread their corruption therein. As regards local and world wars, it has come to pass and no one objects, that they stood behind World War I, so as to wipe out the Islamic Caliphate. They collected material gains and took control of many sources of wealth. They obtained the Balfour Declaration and established the League of Nations in order to rule the world by means of that organization. They also stood behind World War II, where they collected immense benefits from trading with war materials and prepared for the establishment of their state. They inspired the establishment of the United Nations and the Security Council to replace the League of Nations, in order to rule the world by their intermediary. There was no war that broke out anywhere without their fingerprints on it”

Obama and Kerry have dismissed anyone who disagrees with the agreement they helped craft. They have announced that members of Congress must fall into one of two camps: agree with Obama OR be a pawn in the Israeli scheme of lobbyists.

Now, if the US goes to war, any casualties and ramifications would be the fault of Israel and its lobbyists. Not Iran. Not the poorly negotiated deal. But Israel.

There is a long history of anti-Semites blaming Israel for wars in the world. It is shocking to see the administration of the Unites States – which purports to be a strong ally of Israel – use a blood libel to lay blame for another Middle East war on Israel.

The EU’s Choice of Labels: “Made in West Bank” and “Anti-Semite”

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

The European Union has taken upon itself to challenge the labelling of products that are made east of the Green Line as “Made in Israel”. They should consider international norms and the Oslo Accords between Israel and the Palestinians before doing so.

“Made in USA” in US Territories

It is common practice for countries that have territories that are not incorporated into the country, to label products produced in those locations as being made in the country. For example, products produced in American Samoa (say for Sears Department stores) sport the “Made in USA” label even though the products were produced thousands of miles away from US shores on an island that was never part of the country by non-US citizens.

“Made in Israel” in Israeli Territory

Similarly, Israeli law allows products made in Israeli territory to carry the “Made in Israel” label. The differences between the US and Israeli polices are that the products made in Area C of the West Bank are made by Israeli citizens, and many countries consider the Israeli territory to not be Israeli at all.

The claim that Area C is not Israeli is peculiar, since the land is specifically designated as Israeli territory by the 1993 Oslo II Accords that were agreed to and signed by Israel and the Palestinian Authority. That agreement laid out that Israel continues to have both civil and security control of Area C. The final determination of control of the area will be decided in a final status agreement, which has not yet occurred. Until that time, the area remains Israeli territory (as opposed to Area A which is Palestinian Authority Territory).

Reasons behind Labelling

The labeling of products is meant to do two main things: inform a consumer about the origins of a product; and distinguish items as they relate to taxes and tariffs.

In the United States, labelling a product from American Samoa as being “Made in USA” may be misleading to consumers about the true origin of the item, but it is consistent as it relates to tariffs. The same holds true for Israeli policy towards items from Area C.

From the EU’s perspective, not only does it seek to inform European consumers about the precise location of origin of foreign products, it wishes to uniquely harm Israel as it disputes the Israeli claim over Area C (despite the Israel-Palestinian Authority agreement noted above). It is therefore requiring a change of labels from “Made in Israel” to “Made in the West Bank” for items produced east of the Green Line.

Dates in London, England labelled “West Bank”
(photo: Friends of Al Aqsa London)

Israel has attempted to stop the European Union from embarking on this policy. It fears that the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement will hurt its economy by not only not purchasing Israeli products, but by trying to ban the items from store shelves. Some argue that providing a distinct label for products from the settlements would actually help Israel as there are people in Europe who only seek to avoid products from the settlements, but would gladly purchase items from within Israel’s 1949 Armistice Lines. The reality is that many organizations that are promoting the EU policy for distinct labelling of Israel vs. “West Bank” seek to boycott and harm all of Israel. For example, Friends of Al Aqsa (FOA) prints advertisements that call for boycotting all products from anywhere in Israel and its territory.

Ad by FOA calling for Boycott of products from “Israel, West Bank (Settlements) & Jordan Valley”

As it relates to taxes and tariffs, the European Union established a framework of trading with Israel in the EU-Israel Association Agreement (1995) which took effect in June 2000. The language in the agreement repeatedly refers to “countries and territories” which can be interpreted broadly to include territories of both European member states as well as Israel.

EU Action Only for Israel

The European Union distinction of strictly labelling products to exclude Israeli territory is unique for Israel. The EU makes no distinctions for countries where it does not challenge the legal authority (like the US with American Samoa), AND for other countries where it disagrees with the claim on disputed land. Some examples:

In 1974, Turkey illegally seized one-third of the Cyprus and declared the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, an entity which is not recognized by any country in the world other than Turkey. Yet the EU avoids heated discussions with Turkey over the labelling of products from TRNC such as its famous halloumi cheese.
When it comes to China, the EU trips over itself to facilitate trade. As stated on the EU website on trade: “China is the EU’s biggest source of imports by far, and has also become one of the EU’s fastest growing export markets. The EU has also become China’s biggest source of imports. China and Europe now trade well over €1 billion a day.” Trade includes items made in Tibet, and the EU has not addressed any specific “Made in Tibet” labelling. This is despite China occupying Tibet and transferring 7.5 million Chinese into the territory, counter to the Fourth Geneva Convention.
India has a long running dispute with Pakistan over Kashmir. The EU stated that it is “committed to further increase their trade flows in both goods and services as well as bilateral investment and access to public procurement through the Free Trade Agreement negotiations that were launched in 2007.” No specific labelling program has been discussed for items coming from Kashmir.

The European Union has shown a unique fascination with Israeli territories.

It makes no labelling distinction for other disputed territories such as Tibet and Kashmir to assist consumers
It does not dispute the tariff system that countries use for its territories like the United States with American Samoa
The EU ignores the Oslo II agreements between Israel and the Palestinian Authority which specifically segment the Israeli settlements in Area C as Israeli territory
It ignores its own trade agreement with Israel

And the EU does all of these things knowing full well of the intention of the BDS movement to leverage their actions to harm the Jewish State.

Double standards and unique critical attention for Israel is considered anti-Semitism, even by US President Barack Obama who said “[if] you acknowledge the active presence of anti-Semitism—that it’s not just something in the past, but it is current—if you acknowledge that there are people and nations that, if convenient, would do the Jewish people harm because of a warped ideology… you should be able to align yourself with Israel when it comes to making sure that it is not held to a double standard in international fora, you should align yourself with Israel when it comes to making sure that it is not isolated.”

It would appear that many Europeans would choose to wear the “Anti-Semitism” label with honor.

UN Comments on the Murder of Innocents: Itamar and Duma

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

The Middle East is unfortunately no stranger to attacks on innocent people. In July 2015, an arson attack on the home of Palestinian Arabs in the town of Duma killed an 18-month old baby. Just 15 miles away, in the town of Itamar, two Palestinian Arabs stabbed to death five members of a Jewish family in their beds in March 2011.

The taking of innocent lives is a terrible thing. It is also sad to watch completely different reactions from world bodies to the two events. Here is the UN news release of the 2011 deliberate murders of five Israeli Jews and the news release of July 2015 on the arson attack that claimed one Palestinian Arab. A short comparison:

	Deliberate Murder of 5 Israeli Jews	Arson Attack which Claimed Life of 1 Palestinian Arab
Words in article	220	422
Attack called “terrorism”	None	Three times
Blame placed	Not placed on Arabs or Muslims	Placed on “Jewish extremists”
Other Attacks Mentioned	No mention of repeated attacks by Palestinians on Israelis	Discussed “repeated acts of settler violence”
Comment on leadership	“Welcomes the strong condemnation… by President Abbas”	No welcome of condemnation by Netanyahu. Blamed Netanyahu for variety of items including demolishing Palestinian homes and settlement policy.
Cause for Attack	Not discussed	Blamed on “Israel’s illegal settlement policy”

#JewishLivesMatter

The continued disproportionate attacks by the United Nations on only one party in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will marginalize the UN as a factor in arriving at a long-term solution in the region.

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon
(photo: AP/Gary Cameron)

Sources:

Text of UN March 2011: “12 March 2011 – Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and the United Nations diplomatic partners in the search for peace in the Middle East today condemned the shocking murder of an Israeli family of five, including three children, in a West Bank settlement overnight and called for the prosecution of the perpetrators of the crime.

Mr. Ban also urged all concerned to act with restraint.

The diplomatic Quartet of the UN, European Union, Russia and United States, which seeks a two-State solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, condemned the killings “in the strongest possible terms.”

“The Quartet offers their condolences to the loved ones of the victims and to the Israeli people. Attacks on any civilians are completely unacceptable in any circumstance,” the Quartet said in a statement.

“The Quartet calls on those responsible to be brought to justice and welcomes the strong condemnation of this attack by [Palestinian] President [Mahmoud] Abbas and the Palestinian leadership.”

It stressed the need to expedite efforts to achieve Israeli-Palestinian and comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace.

Media reports said the killings occurred in the settlement of Itamar, near the city of near Nablus. The victims were reportedly stabbed to death by an intruder who broke into their home.

The Israeli army radio said the killer had spared two other children, and that the murder was discovered by another one when she came home.”

Text of UN July 2015: “31 July 2015 – United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and the UN special envoy on the Middle East have strongly condemned today’s arson attack in the West Bank that killed a Palestinian child and left the child’s parents severely injured.

Mr. Ban reiterates his call on all parties to ensure that tensions do not escalate further, leading to more loss of life, the statement concludes.

Earlier today, the United Nations special envoy on the Middle East today expressed his outrage over what he called a “heinous murder” and a “terrorist crime.”

Council members encouraged all sides to work to lower tension, reject violence, avoid all provocations, and seek a path toward peace.”

John Kerry’s Hypocrisy: “Can You Deliver?”

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

Listening to US Secretary of State John Kerry try to explain and defend the P5+1 Iranian nuclear deal to various audiences is a spectacle to behold, regardless of one’s position on the best course of action. One of the people who might want to watch the sessions and learn something from John Kerry is John Kerry.

John Kerry speaking at the Council of Foreign Relations
July 2015

Secretary Kerry argued at the Council for Foreign Relations (CFR) that Congress must support the deal or it would undermine his ability to negotiate any treaty with any government in the future. At 29:55 of the CFR talk, Kerry said: “Other people in the world are going to sit there and say ‘hey, let’s negotiate with the United States, they have 535 Secretaries of State. I mean, please! I would be embarrassed to try to go out… I mean, what am I going to say to people after this as Secretary of State? ‘Come negotiate with us?’ ‘Can you deliver?’ Please!“

Kerry made the point that when two parties sit down to negotiate, it is critical for the sides to know that the negotiating parties are both authorized to negotiate and have the ability to fulfill their sides of the deal. If no such authority or ability exists, the discussions are an irrelevant waste of time.

Despite Kerry being quite clear about his logic, he has nevertheless insisted that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu sit down and negotiate with Acting-President of the Palestinian Authority Mahmoud Abbas, even though it is clearly understood that Abbas can deliver nothing.

No Mandate: Abbas’s four-year term as president ran out in 2009. No presidential elections have been held since then.
No Authority: Abbas’s Fatah party lost legislative elections in 2006, winning only 33% of the parliament. No legislative elections have been held since then.
No Support: Abbas lags in every Palestinian poll held since 2006.
No Control: Abbas has no control of Gaza since his Fatah party was kicked out in 2007.
No Track Record: Abbas has shown zero credibility in being able to strike compromises to govern his own people, let alone deliver compromises with Israel.

Despite the glaringly obvious impotence of Abbas, the Obama administration continued to pressure Israel to negotiate with this straw man.

The Obama administration publicly acknowledged that the Palestinian Authority has absolutely no ability to deliver peace a few years ago. During the Gaza war on Israel in 2012, then US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton tried to broker a cease-fire. She made a dozen calls to various world leaders to halt the war- but not ONCE called the Abbas and the Palestinian Authority.

Compounding the inherent flaws in Abbas and the Palestinian Authority is Abbas’s insistence on bringing terms of any deal with Israel to a referendum. Abbas stated that he cannot decide on the “Right of Return” for all Palestinians, but that each of the 5 million Palestinian Arab “refugees” must make a decision for themselves. Hey Kerry- 535 “second-guessers” looks pretty good compared to 5 million! In terms of the rest of the components of a final agreement, Abbas stated that he “would go to a referendum everywhere because the agreement represents Palestinians everywhere.” That’s impressive – he seeks the approval of 11 million “Palestinian” Arabs from all around the world!

Kerry’s comments regarding Iran are both on- and off-the-mark. Iran and all of the parties in the negotiations know that the United States is a democracy and the political process must run its course. Once the American people’s representatives in Congress make a decision, the government will deliver on its commitments.

However, Abbas – a complete straw man if ever there was one – with no authority or control whatsoever, openly states that millions of individuals will ultimately not only decide the fate of an Israeli-PA deal overall, but even on certain components on an individual basis.

Kerry fully appreciates that before negotiators start a process that they want to know the answer to the fundamental question: “Can you deliver“? However, he doesn’t care when he forces Israel to do exactly that with Abbas and the Palestinian Authority.

Related FirstOneThrough video and articles:

Abbas demands R-E-S-P-E-C-T

The Disappointing 4+6 Abbas Anniversary

Palestinian “Refugees” or “SAPs”?

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through Israel Analysis

The Fault in Our Tent: The Limit of Acceptable Speech

Posted on July 26, 2015 by First.One.Through

Some passionate and eloquent liberals have bemoaned the state of inclusiveness among Jews today. Leon Wieseltier, editor of the New Republic, penned an angry piece “J Street’s Rejection Is a Scandal” about the exclusion in 2014 of J Street from the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations. Angry voices are again being heard about J Street due to their position in favor of the Iranian nuclear deal promoted by the Obama administration. Is Wieseltier correct in that we only seek to hear our own voices and that “the orthodoxies and the bubbles and the closed loops and the echo chambers are everywhere?” Is there a “red line” that J Street and others have crossed and therefore deserve to be excluded from the broad tent of acceptable conversation?

Individual Hate Speech

Many countries have laws that ban hate speech. Sometimes the exact language is clearly spelled out about what cannot be said publicly and sometimes it is more general in nature.

For example, several European countries, including Germany, have laws that prohibit Holocaust denial. Those countries took such steps not simply because such expressions offend Jews, but because of the continent’s failure to step in and protect Jews which led to their slaughter. Silence became complicity which must never be allowed to happen again.

For its part, the United Nations Human Rights Council adopted Resolution 16/18 whose goal is “Combating Intolerance, Negative Stereotyping and Stigmatization of, and Discrimination, Incitement to Violence and Violence Against, Persons Based on Religion or Belief.” The resolution was drafted principally at the behest of Islamic countries who were worried about the spread of “Islamophobia.”

The various laws against hate speech all seek to curtail an incitement to violence and harm. The banned speech relates to a specific group of people (ie. Muslims) and not a concept (for example, a religion like Islam). While a person can legally say disparaging remarks about a concept (“Communism is evil”), one risks breaking the law by attacking a group of people (“All Communists should be beaten up”).

Banned Groups

Hate Speech laws are typically drafted against individuals. However, laws are also drafted against groups that incite violence. Israel banned two political parties, Kach and Kahane Chai in 1994 as they were defined as terrorist organizations. The groups’ ideology was based on the teachings of Rabbi Meir Kahane who called for expelling Arabs from Israel, thereby running afoul of the premise of calling for negative actions against people. Israel has also banned some Arab parties from running in elections which supported terrorism.

BDS, Hamas and Iran

Liberals and J Street supporters feel that BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions), Hamas and the Iranian nuclear deal should be rightly within civil discourse. However, do these topics and groups support violence against people, or are they just broad discussions about policies and ideas?

BDS: Reasonable people can arrive at different conclusions about Jewish settlements in Judea and Samaria. Some feel that all the settlements are completely legal as called for in international law in 1922, while others feel that Jews living east of the Green Line is against international law as recently stated by the UN Secretary General. Those competing viewpoints would fall within legal and acceptable conversation, both in public society and in an open-minded pro-Israel community.

However, inciting hatred against settlers is inciting violence. Calling on the economic strangulation of Jews who legally purchased homes and businesses is akin to hate speech. As such, new laws are being passed which specifically outlaw supporting BDS.

Hamas: Hamas is a rabidly anti-Semitic organization that calls for the complete destruction of Israel. It has fired well over 10,000 rockets into Israel, killed thousands of people in hundreds of attacks. Since completely taking over Gaza in 2007, Hamas has engaged in three wars against Israel.

Supporting Hamas in any way is supporting terror. It should be banned completely in public society and in the pro-Israel tent.

Iranian nuclear deal: The Iranian nuclear agreement took various turns over the past several years. As Iran openly calls for the destruction of Israel, any group supporting Iran or helping Iran obtain weaponry would be supporting violence against Israel.

While the Iranian deal may arguably slow down Iran’s pathway to nuclear weapons, it certainly gives Iran tremendous financing and weaponry. As such, 78% of Israelis oppose the Iran deal in its current format.

J Street Views

J Street has taken provocative stances on these three issues.

On BDS, the group technically states that it opposes the BDS movement, while it supports efforts that do call for BDS, particularly of communities east of the Green Line.
On Hamas, the group’s own website states that “Hamas is a political movement with an important and significant base of support within Palestinian society… and we support efforts by third parties to achieve reconciliation [between Fatah and Hamas which Israel opposes] and a unity government.” One could similarly say that the Nazi party was a political party.
On Iran, the group launched a major campaign to support the deal, in direct opposition to pro-Israel groups such as AIPAC and the government of Israel itself. J Street was even against Iranian sanctions in 2009.

20150724_072448
Full page J Street Advertisement supporting Iran Deal
New York Times July 25, 2015

On these issues which directly harm Israelis and the state of Israel, J Street has sided against the stated desires of the government of Israel. Each time, they have taken stances which closely align with Israel’s enemies which seek to harm the country and its citizens.

Further, and most alarmingly, J Street has urged the Obama administration to vote against Israel at the United Nations Security Council, which is the sole voice of support in many instances. That action was so reprehensible, that even devout liberal politician Gary Ackerman (D-NY) said “I’ve come to the conclusion that J-Street is not an organization with which I wish to be associated….America really does need a smart, credible, politically active organization that is as aggressively pro-peace as it is pro-Israel. Unfortunately, J-Street ain’t it.”

PLO negotiator Saeb Erekat at J Street Conference
March 2015 (photo: J Street)

A Related View from Tisha b’Av

The Talmud relates a story about the reason the Second Temple in Jerusalem was destroyed:

In Gittin 56ab the Talmud tells the story of zealots who wanted to fight the Romans as they got ready to attack Jerusalem. These zealots burned decades worth of food that had been stored in Jerusalem in order to force the residents of the city to confront the Romans.

These zealots undoubtedly considered themselves pro-Jewish. They thought that by destroying all safeguards and alternative options, they could force the rest of the Jewish people to adopt their position in the battle against Rome.

J Street, like the zealots 2000 years ago, view themselves as pro-Israel. While some parts of the Arab and Muslim world (f/k/a Romans) may seek to attack and destroy Israel, J Street views their approach to the conflict as the only logical course of action. As such, they have engaged in co-opting the US government to take positions against those sought by the government of Israel. Like the zealots who burned all of Jerusalem’s food supplies (now known as US support), they feel that Israel stripped of all of the territories won in 1967, without a Gaza blockade, and with a nuclear pact in place with Iran will secure Israel’s future. J Street is pursuing global and US pressure to make that happen, rather than seeking to convince the Israeli government.

Bookmark designed for J Street Conference
(Photo: Lisa Goldman)

In the minds of many, the J Street positions have made them the a modern-looking version of Neturei Karta, the anti-Zionist Chasidic sect, similar to the clean-shaven Jewish outreach people who market a more modern version of Chabad outreach.

Debating the merits of different approaches for how Israel deals with hostile neighbors is within constructive debate. Consistently arguing in favor of Israel’s enemies that seek to destroy the country and kill its people is akin to inciting violence.

Review the statements and positions of J Street here and consider whether such voices deserve to be heard in your community.

Related First One Through articles:

New York Times Confusion on Free Speech

Selective Speech

A Disservice to Jewish Community

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through Israel Analysis

First One Through

Israel Analysis. We primaried Bowman!

Category Archives: Israel

UN Comments on the Murder of Innocents: Henkins

Jordan’s Deceit and Hunger for Control of Jerusalem

The UN’s Disinterest in Jewish Rights at Jewish Holy Places

The US State Department’s Selective Preference of “Status Quos”

Names and Narrative: CNN’s Temple Mount/ Al Aqsa Complex Inversion

The Obama Administration Lays Foundation of Blame at Israel for a Potential War with Iran

The EU’s Choice of Labels: “Made in West Bank” and “Anti-Semite”

UN Comments on the Murder of Innocents: Itamar and Duma

John Kerry’s Hypocrisy: “Can You Deliver?”

The Fault in Our Tent: The Limit of Acceptable Speech

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: