The Israeli-Arab conflict has long been viewed as an intractable problem. The gap between what one side is willing to accept and another willing to give is both wide and deep. Even with such reality, governments around the world verbally encourage direct communication between the parties and state their support of an outcome which both Israelis and Palestinians would endorse.
But those parties then do everything to undermine that very concept.
The United Nations and many Arab countries stated that the basis for a peace agreement was two states along the 1949 Armistice Lines with “East Jerusalem” as the capital, echoing the stated position of one side, the Palestinians. The UN and Arab countries pushed laws that made it illegal for Israeli Jews to live in those lands and promoted a boycott movement of any business that operated east of the Green Line. These were not activities designed to promote Palestinian-Israeli dialogue but to hand the Palestinians everything they sought WITHOUT dialogue.
Further, the Palestinian Authority and Israel had signed agreements specifically stating that Israel controlled most of the “West Bank,” an area known as “Area C” in the Oslo Accords. So not only did the global community hinder dialogue between the parties, it ignored and undermined the agreements already signed by them!
The United States under President Donald Trump moved to reorient the two parties and the global community back to the basic principles of having two parties desirous of peace sit and negotiate treaties which would THEN be accepted by the entire world.
Rather than parrot the Arab Peace Initiative of 2002 which gave the Palestinians everything they desired, Trump put forward a plan which Israelis desired. Finally there were two plans made public by third parties which could serve as the starting points for negotiation.
More directly, Trump advanced the Taylor Force Act which precluded handing the Palestinian Authority U.S. money while the PA financed terrorism. Trump also endorsed the Oslo Accords which stated that Area C is Israeli Territory. U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo visited some of those Israeli Territories this week and stated clearly that any product made in those areas should carry the label “Made in Israel,” much the way products made in Puerto Rico and American Samoa are labeled “Made in U.S.A.”
US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo at Israeli winery of Psagot stated on Twitter: “Enjoyed lunch at the scenic Psagot Winery today. Unfortunately, Psagot and other businesses have been targeted by pernicious EU labeling efforts that facilitate the boycott of Israeli companies. The U.S. stands with Israel and will not tolerate any form of delegitimization.”
For too long the world gave Palestinians a pass for terrorism and the impression that they will get everything they desire now without negotiating and signing agreements with Israel. The Trump Administration has taken several important actions to refocus the parties towards a roadmap for an enduring peace.
Israel has a long history battling armies and terrorists since the Jewish State declared its independence in 1948. Since September 2000, a total of 1,383 people have been killed by terrorists and many times that number have been wounded.
Yasser Arafat launched the Second Intifada in September 2000 after he was disappointed with only getting 98% of his stated desires from the peace process with Israel. Terrorist attacks became daily occurrences and the death toll and carnage was horrific. In just the last few months of 2000, some 43 people were killed in Palestinian attacks. The toll increased in the following years with 208, 464, 210 and 143 murdered during the years 2001 through 2004, respectively. The reduced number of deaths in the latter years was a direct result of Israel constructing a security barrier to stem the flow of Palestinian killers from areas which Israel had handed to Palestinian Authority rule between 1995 and 2000. The barrier proved critical in saving Israeli lives in the following years.
Palestinian terrorists kill 15 civilians including 7 children and a pregnant woman at a Sbarro pizza store in Jerusalem on August 9, 2001
From 2005 through 2008, a total of 134 people were killed in terrorist attacks, a four year total which was less than 2004 alone. The numbers would continue to improve during the two Obama terms, with 55 fatalities in the 2009 to 2013 period, but escalating to 79 deaths in the second term, with a spike from the stabbing and car ramming intifadas after the peace process under U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry completely failed.
The last four years have been the safest ever.
U.S. President Donald Trump’s strong support for Israel translated into the lowest Israeli death toll from Palestinian terrorism (47 murdered), despite the various dire warnings of the region going up in flames because of the U.S.’s recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, the move of its embassy to the city and various other pro-Israel initiatives. Year-to-date, two people have been killed by Palestinian terrorists, the lowest one year total ever. The two-year and three-year totals (14 and 28, 2019-2020 and 2018-2020, respectively) are also records for the fewest Israeli deaths from terrorism.
Four-Year Period
Fatalities from Terrorism
2001-2004
1,025 (Second Intifada)
2005-2008
134 (Security Wall built)
2009-2012
55 (Palestinians hopeful in Obama’s squeeze of Israel)
2013-2016
79 (Failure of Obama peace initiative; Stabbing Intifada)
2017-2020
47 (Trump Administration’s pro-Israel agenda)
Trump administration yields most peaceful period for Israel in decades
President Trump helped make Israel strong which helped make Israel safe. It is a formula worthy of repeating.
The notion that international actors are attempting to interfere in the U.S. elections has been written about extensively. Whether Iran, China or Russia are planting fake news stories, leaking classified documents or even hacking the voting system itself has passionately engaged politicians, the security industry and the media. Yet other forms of international interference get either scant attention or are readily dismissed.
Here are a few.
Foreign Funding of American Universities
Many of America’s leading universities have taken in billions of dollars from foreign governments, corporations and individuals, which has altered course curricula as well as the student bodies.
Qatar, which openly funds Hamas, a U.S.-designated foreign terrorist organization, has contributed over $1 billion to American universities since 2011, with the vast majority going to Georgetown, Northwestern, and Texas A&M. All three universities set up satellite campuses in Qatar. There are reports that the dean of Georgetown University’s Qatar campus Ahmad Dallal is a proud promoter of another terrorist organization, Hizbollah.
According to a Financial Times analysis of the US education department’s Foreign Gifts and Contracts Report, Persian Gulf countries gave $2.2 billion to U.S. universities. Saudi Arabia paid hundreds of millions of dollars to fund an estimated 110,000 scholarships for Saudis to attend American universities. The number of Saudi students peaked under the Obama administration and have come down during the Trump administration.
A Department of Education investigation concluded that in excess of $6.6 billion of funding since 1990 went unreported from Qatar, China, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates into American universities. The investigation led to ten schools, including Cornell University, Yale University, the University of Colorado Boulder, the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the University of Chicago, the University of Pennsylvania, Boston University, Texas A&M University, and Carnegie Mellon University reporting approximately $3.6 billion in previously unreported foreign gifts.
This foreign funding is often used to promote extremism and anti-Semitism, by funding particular anti-Israel programming and groups as well as placing tens of thousands of students with illiberal backgrounds onto campuses.
Consider that in July 2000, the president of the United Arab Emirates, Sheik Zayed bin Sultan al-Nahyan, donated $2.5 million to the Harvard Divinity School to endow the Sheik Zayed Al Nahyan Professorship in Islamic Religious Studies. Within a short period of time, the Zayed Center became a noxious fountain of anti-Semitic screed complete with Holocaust denials and blood libels.
The Institute for the Study of Global Anti-Semitism and Policy (ISGAP) has tracked a direct correlation between universities which accept donations from Gulf countries, and the presence of Students for Justice in Palestine, an extremist anti-Israel group. Anti-Semitism is much more pronounced on those campuses.
The Media
Al Jazeera is owned by the government of Qatar. It entered the United States market by buying former Vice President Al Gore’s CurrentTV for about $500 million in 2013. It has since rebranded that channel Al Jazeera America. It is available in many US households while its hip AJ+ channel can be found on Facebook, YouTube, Instagram and Twitter.
In 2014, the Al Jazeera gave special airtime to various members of the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas. The main media channel, Al Jazeera Arabic, routinely posts anti-US and anti-Semitic pieces. But those posts are beyond the capabilities and reach of most Americans, so they believe that watching Al Jazeera America is simply watching a news channel that represents an Arab point of view. In truth, they are supporting a media company that broadcasts propaganda for terrorists, which is owned by a government that funds those same terrorists.
NGOs
Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) are designed to be civil organizations which alleviate humanitarian needs. They might help communities fighting poverty, people addressing disabilities or supporting global stability. USAID states that NGOs “are critical change agents in promoting economic growth, human rights and social progress. USAID partners with NGOs to deliver assistance across all regions and sectors in which we work and to promote inclusive economic growth, strengthen health and education at the community level, support civil society in democratic reforms and assist countries recovering from disasters.“
International NGOs are suppose to be non-profit groups, and have operating budgets of billions of dollars. Groups like CARE, Doctors Without Borders, Oxfam, Save the Children and World Vision International are major examples. The names and goals are seemingly charitable.
The reality paints a much grimmer picture.
NGO Monitor tracks many of these non-profit organizations. Many stray far from their mission of alleviating poverty and hunger and insert themselves directly into conflicts such as between Israel and the Palestinian Authority.
Boycotts of products, culture, and academics – BDS activists lobby stores not to carry Israeli products and encourage others not to purchase them. They send letters to artists, musicians, authors, and academics, imploring them not to perform and appear in Israel or cooperate with Israeli institutions and pro-Israel individuals.
Divestment from companies that do business with Israel – Distorting the concept of ethical investing, NGOs accuse companies that conduct business in Israel of involvement in war crimes and violations of international law.
Sanctions against self-defense measures – Anti-Israel activists demand that the international community enact comprehensive sanctions against Israel – treating Israel as a pariah state. Other forms of sanctions include arms embargoes, which are premised on baseless charges of war crimes.
The NGOs also engage in “lawfare” which include lawsuits and campaigns in foreign, domestic, and international courts, against Israeli officials and companies, and governments that have relations with Israel. They also organize provocations such as flotillas and violent demonstrations under the guise of humanitarian operations and international law.
The vast majority of the funding for these activities come from European governments including Norway, Spain and the United Kingdom. In many instances, this is in direct contradiction to the foreign policies of these countries, which explicitly oppose boycott efforts and support a two-state solution.
In December 2015, the Israeli government passed a bill which would provide transparency regarding those NGOs which receive a majority of their funding from foreign governments. The left-wing Pro-Palestinian group J Street came out strongly against the bill it claimed was “aimed at restricting the work of progressive non-governmental organizations which monitor human rights and oppose the occupation,” because most of the BDS NGOs are funded by governments while other NGOs operating in the region are supported by foreign companies and individuals.
The United Nations
The UN was founded on the principle of promoting world peace and stability but has strayed far from its mission. As the global body became more populated over the decades with dozens of non-Democracies, the UN and its various bodies became hotbeds of intolerance. The organizations have used considerable efforts to undermine Israel, the sole Jewish State.
UN Watch noted that “its absurd & morally obscene” that groups like the UN Human Rights Council elected some of the worst human rights offenders onto the committee including China, Cuba, Pakistan and Russia, especially as China “herded 1 million Uighurs into camps.“
This UNHCR assembled a “BDS Blacklist” listing 112 Israeli and foreign companies with the false charge of human rights violations because they operate in the West Bank. As noted by NGO Monitor, “the UN has repeatedly claimed that Israel is an occupier and responsible for carrying out economic and social obligations, yet at the same time seeks to punish Israel and companies doing business with Israel for carrying out the very duties specified under the law of occupation.” Further, these companies act in concert with the Oslo Accords signed by Israel and the Palestinian Authority, making the UN an enemy of the only agreement between the Israelis and Palestinians.
The UN also created a unique agency, UNRWA, to help Palestinian refugees from Israel’s War of Independence in 1948. That organization continues to exist today to not only deal with children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren of internally-displaced people, but tens of thousands of others who might need care. These “refugees” in Gaza and the West Bank live next door to cousins who are not considered refugees as their grandparents were born in Gaza and the West Bank. UNRWA keeps these wards distinct from actual global refugees fleeing wars served by UNHCR, so as to compel Israel to absorb the Palestinian Arabs and cease to be a Jewish democracy.
US Actions to Change Governments
To return to the original complaint that Iran, China and Russia may be meddling in American politics is a bit too rich in hypocrisy. The Obama administration gave funds to a group trying to defeat Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in 2015. More forcefully, the Obama administration backed the killing of Muammar al-Qaddafi of Libya which completely destabilized the country as it has descended into a haven for terrorists.
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton poses for a photo during a visit a hospital in Tripoli, the capital of Libya on October 18, 2011. AFP PHOTO/KEVIN LAMARQUE/POOL (Photo credit should read KEVIN LAMARQUE/AFP/Getty Images)
Foreign governments – particularly from the Persian Gulf – have infiltrated American universities and the media and advanced narratives and organizations which promote anti-Semitism. Those same governments and many from the European Union are actively assisting groups with ties to terrorists and those engaged in economic warfare against Israel.
And the momentum continues, as those countries are pushing all member states of the United Nations to join in their efforts against the Jewish State.
Some winners and losers in the 2020 election have already been determined.
Rep. Elliot Engel (NY-16) was defeated in the Democratic primary by a far left progressive Jamaal Bowman during the summer. As such, Engel’s chairmanship of the House Foreign Affairs Committee was lost in that primary as well, and three Democrats are now vying for that role.
The two most pro-Palestinian voices looking to head this important committee as it relates to foreign affairs are Joaquín Castro (D-TX) and Gregory Meeks (D-NY). Both Castro and Meeks boycotted Israeli Prime Minister’s address to a joint session of Congress in 2015 and both voted for the Obama administration’s JCPOA which gave the leading state sponsor of terrorism a legal pathway to nuclear weapons and access to roughly $150 billion.
The third contender, Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA) voted against the JCPOA and did not boycott Netanyahu, but has begun to make comments to appeal to the anti-Zionist leanings of a vocal and growing segment of the Democratic Party. That has excited far left groups like Jewish Voice for Peace and J Street.
J Street said that it “welcomes statements from all three candidates to become the next Chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.” It highlighted a quote from Castro in-line with J Street’s thinking:
“Israeli settlements violate international lawand their expansion is a serious impediment to peace. The Trump administration’s decision to fund investments there breaks decades of bipartisan consensus, undermining America’s ability to be a fair arbiter for a two-state solution.”
The anti-Zionist website Mondoweiss came after Sherman stating “Sherman also called out progressive groups like Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) and IfNotNow for supporting Castro’s candidacy, claiming that anti-occupation organizations were building a movement to block him from acquiring the chair.” The site noted that JVP prefers Castro among the three contenders.
J Street, an influential anti-“settlement” organization, lobbied hard for the Obama administration to support the Iranian nuclear deal as well as allowing the passage of UN Resolution 2334, which made it an international crime for Israelis to live east of the invisible 1949 Armistice Lines. The Democratic Party has only lurched further left and anti-Israel since that passage in 2016.
Should Joe Biden win the presidency and Joaquín Castro become chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, the next two years promise to be the most anti-Israel in American history, much to the joy and lobbying of far left groups like IfNotNow, JVP and J Street.
Joaquin Castro (D-TX) running to head the House Foreign Affairs Committee, doxed his local constituents after the 2016 election
In the excitement stemming from the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain forging a path towards peace with Israel, people have speculated which Arab countries would be next. Sudan has been mentioned and the media has speculated that the United States might remove the country from states sponsoring terrorism to help make such normalization happen.
This is all a terrible idea. Sudan needs Israel, not the reverse.
Geography. The UAE and Bahrain both sit opposite the Persian Gulf from Israel’s nemesis, Iran. The proximity to that country may prove vital in dealing with such leading state sponsor of terrorism which has called for Israel’s destruction. Conversely, Sudan is over one thousand miles in the opposite direction.
Military. Both the UAE and Bahrain have over 5,000 U.S. military personnel stationed in the countries. Neighboring Kuwait and Qatar have a combined 25,000 U.S. military personnel. Coordinating forces against Iran with established U.S. military bases is an obvious advantage in stabilizing the region. Sudan has no such U.S. military presence.
Wealth. The UAE and Bahrain are very wealthy countries, with the GDP per capita of $43,000 (slightly ahead of Israel at $42,000) and $24,000, respectively. This compares to a Sudanese GDP per capita of roughly $977. The investment and trade possibilities with the Gulf states are significant while Sudan will be seeking aid from Israel, not trade with Israel.
Culture. The UAE and Bahrain are far from beacons of democracy with liberal policies, however, they are light years ahead of Sudan. Consider that each gulf kingdom still has the death penalty which Bahrain uses for premeditated murder and treason, and the UAE uses for rape, drug trafficking and armed robbery. Meanwhile Sudan kills people for homosexuality, prostitution and apostasy (converting from Islam) – “offenses” which harm no one.
Since its founding, Sudan has been through a series of civil wars, genocides and crimes against humanity. In total, over 2 million people have been killed in Sudan during some of the most heinous actions since World War II. The country remains an unstable haven for terrorists. Today’s U.S. policy vis-a-vis Sudan is “focused on ensuring that Sudan does not provide support to or a safe haven for international terrorists.“ If that’s the basis for U.S. policy, there is no reason for any party to go out of its way to advance normalization with this failed state.
Should Sudan want to join civilization, it can pay the hundreds of millions owed to the victims of terror, remove the penalty of capital punishment for apostasy and homosexuality, and end its systemic anti-Semitism by recognizing the Jewish State. If not, the U.S., Israel and the world will do quite well without this particular trading partner and vote at the United Nations.
Aftermath of violent clashes in Darfur on 30 December 2019
It must be especially galling to the left-wing media that an outlandish person like Donald Trump could forge peace deals in the Middle East while its patron saints in the Obama administration could not.
Consider the deliberate twisting of facts in The New York Times on September 24, 2020 about U.S. arm sales to Saudi Arabia. In a “News Analysis” section called “A Fraying Rationale for U.S. Aid to the Saudis in Yemen,” the Times wrote that
“Mr. Trump decided in early 2017 to restart arms sales to the Gulf Arab nations that President Barack Obama had halted in late 2016.”
The sheer audacity of this line in the Times is outrageous.
Obama’s term ENDED in “late 2016.” From 2009 to 2015, the Obama administration sold more weapons to foreign countries than any administration in U.S. history – particularly to Saudi Arabia. Obama’s penchant for arms sales was so egregious that even liberal media firms like Vice were appalled, writing an article as Obama left office in January 2017, “Obama’s Administration Sold More Weapons Than Any Other Since World War II.” The sub-header to the article was “Many were sold to the Middle East, especially Saudi Arabia.” The article noted that “Under Obama the overall sales, pending delivery of equipment and specialised training for troops, to Saudi Arabia alone has ballooned to $115 billion.” At the time of the article, the war Saudis were participating in in Yemen was well under way with “over 10,000 killed, 2.2 million displaced and nearly half a million children on the brink of famine from the ensuing crisis.”
While the Times was factually accurate that in Obama’s final month of his presidency he halted the sale of precision-guided munitions, it was only of that particular weaponry and only after eight years of selling the Saudis over $100 billion in arms!
New York Times article written to paint Obama and Biden as pacifists and Trump as a mercenary on September 24, 2020, coupling a picture of destruction in Yemen with one of Trump with the Saudis sitting comfortably in the White House striking deals.
The Times article stated that “current and former administration officials, as well as former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., the Democratic presidential nominee, say American involvement [in selling Saudi’s weapons] must end.” That’s quite a bit of “malarkey” as Biden would say, having been second in command in an administration that sold $115 billion in arms to the Saudis.
The Times added that “the State Department, starting in the Obama administration, sent a senior level official, Larry Lewis, on frequent trips to Saudi Arabia to advise on civilian harm,” making the Democrats appear worried about the death to civilians, but “the next year Trump administration officials pushed him [Lewis] out of the agency,” making Team Trump appear callous.
The attack on Trump continued to cast him as a simple arms merchant and uncaring of the damage done by the weapons: “Mr. Trump has offered a more transactional rationale [for selling arms to the Saudis]: that the United States should continue to sell weapons for the money. “They have nothing but money. Nothing but cash, and they pay us now.“”
The foreign policy failures of the Obama administration in the Middle East were plentiful, ranging from giving Iran, the world’s leading state sponsor of terror, a legal pathway to nuclear weapons; selling more weapons to Arab countries that any administration in history as a counter-balance the blessing of a nuclear-emboldened Iran; watching the arms sales be used to pound Yemen, the poorest country in the world, into sand; watching the plane-loads of cash sent to Iran get funneled into terrorist groups; failing miserably in negotiating between Israel and the Palestinians leading to Gaza wars in 2012 and 2014 and the stabbing intifada of 2015, to name but a few.
While U.S. voters don’t rank foreign affairs high on their priority list, The Times doesn’t want to take a chance.
During this particularly contentious election, The Times is actively recasting Obama and Biden as pacifists and Trump as a cold mercenary when in fact it was the Obama administration which enabled death and destruction in the Middle East and Trump who forged peace agreements in the region.
Roman Abramovich is a Russian billionaire who owns the Chelsea premier league soccer team. His dealings often make it onto the UK papers which love to gossip about the ultra-wealthy, especially those entangled with their favorite sport.
The British media went after Abramovich this week as he completed the trifecta of British obsession: his support of the Jewish State.
The BBC posted a video on September 21, 2020 called “FinCEN Files: The Israeli settlers Chelsea boss Arbramovich helped fund.” The inverted English title was a pretty good indication of the inversion of facts presented in the ten minute video including never stating that it was Yemenite Jews who founded the Jerusalem neighborhood of Silwan in the 19th century (not Arabs the way BBC presented) and that the archaeological findings in the City of David are historical treasures for the entire world, not booty for the Jewish people.
“four companies he [Abramovich] either owns or controls in the British Virgin Islands have contributed more than $100m (£74m) to Elad, a group that supports settlements in the Palestinian neighbourhood of occupied East Jerusalem called Silwan, BBC News Arabic reported.”
This “Palestinian neighborhood” was never contemplated to be part of a Palestinian state, and the Oslo Accords which the Palestinian Authority signed in 1995 acknowledge that Israel rules Jerusalem.
The article continued:
“The group, which also receives backing from the Israeli government, has sought to strengthen the Jewish presence in the neighbourhood of Silwan at the expense of its Arab residents.
The statement is ridiculous on many fronts. Arabs dwarf the number of Jews in the neighborhood today. Before the Yemenite Jews settled this area outside the Old City of Jerusalem’s walls in the 1880’s, no one lived in that land for centuries; the Arab history on the site is only 100 years old.
Outside of the British press, the biased story was repeated almost verbatim by Arab media outlets:
“Elad also purchases homes in the surrounding Arab village of Silwan — sometimes via Muslim middlemen — and rents them to Jews, a move that has led to charges that it is fueling tensions in the city.”
The use of “Muslim middlemen” to procure property stems from the fact that the Palestinian Authority considers selling land to Jews a capital crime. Rather than denounce the sick anti-Semitic Palestinian law which kills Arabs for a natural human right of selling property to another person in the spirit of coexistence and commerce, the article inverted the charge against the group, Elad, claiming that it caused the tensions.
It is a sad commentary on the world today that a non-profit group which helps uncover the beauty of Jewish history and facilitates Jews buying homes in their holiest city in an area founded by Jews is controversial. That the British and Arab press held common cause in vilifying support for such “settler group” while the Israeli news called out the “right-wing group” says quite a bit about the racial and nationalistic lens shared by the UK and Arab world, as well as the partisan political orientation in Israel today.
There are many parallel and conflicting narratives in the Middle East. The impossibility that items can be both parallel and perpendicular at the same time in geometry is de rigueur in matters revolving Israel. Anti-Israel lies are crafted by the liberal media while anti-Arab facts cannot be uttered.
The New York Times ran a lead editorial on September 17, 2020 about the Israeli-Arab Abraham Accords titled “A Welcome Middle East Development.” However, the contents of the article would have better deserved the title “You’re Not Worthy, You’re Not Worthy” stating that neither Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu nor U.S. President Donald Trump deserve a Nobel Peace Prize for the remarkable milestone.
The New York Times lead editorial September 17, 2020
A common lie repeated in the Times opinion piece was captured as it attempted to summarize its thoughts belittling the agreements:
“But a true Middle East peace deal will require an accommodation with the 4.75 million Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza, a people who have been denied a homeland for more than seven decades.”
The lies and inversion in the phrase “a people who have been denied a homeland” are so noxious, I imagine the entire Times editorial board has it as screen savers on their computers and phones.
The Palestinians have homes; they don’t have a country. The notion that Palestinians are refugees running from country to country similar to Syrians fleeing their country set on fire by a genocidal maniac, or like the Rohingya Muslims tossed and unwanted in Southeast Asia is outrageous. The Arabs in Jericho have lived there for decades. Even those Palestinians whose grandparents were from Jaffa who now live in Jericho – considered “refugees” by the United Nations – are in their “homeland” living among their cousins.
The Palestinians haven’t been denied, they have refused. The Arabs in Palestine were welcomed to live as equal citizens by Israel in 1948. The Jordanians annexed the West Bank and offered the local Arabs Jordanian citizenship in 1954. The Arabs in eastern Jerusalem have been offered Israeli citizenship since 1980. But it is the Palestinian Arabs themselves who have refused both citizenship in another country and every peace agreement offered by Israel for the past seven decades.
It is the Jews who have been denied. For centuries, Jews were denied their homeland in Israel, living as unwanted and abused guests who suffered from pogroms, libels, expulsions and a Holocaust. They finally were able to return, only to be denied any rights or welcome by the Arabs who fought to expel them. The Palestinian and surrounding Arabs fought wars and intifadas for seven decades in efforts to rid the land of Jews, while the Arabs simultaneously used the United Nations and global media – like The New York Times – to deny Jews their history and rights in their homeland.
The time for denial is over.
The Jews have reclaimed their homeland.
The U.A.E., Bahrain and hopefully many more Arab states will no longer deny Jews their history and rights in that homeland nor will they deny the Jewish State’s existence as they normalize relations.
And the world will no longer swallow the lies that Palestinians are homeless, living in foreign unknown lands and denied the ability to become citizens. The Palestinians’ refusal to make peace with Israel is of their own making, not as portrayed by The New York Times, as passive victims who are being “denied a homeland.”
The Abraham Accords are a time to celebrate the termination of the hateful and stale thinking that denied peace in the region.
After 26 years of seeking a normal place in the Middle East, Israel struck two normalization agreements in a single day with the help of the United States. The Wall Street Journal broadcast the news while The New York Times hid it in the shadows.
Cover page of The Wall Street Journal, September 16, 2020
Featured prominently on the WSJ cover page in a large color photo were leaders of three foreign countries surrounding U.S. President Donald Trump standing on the balcony of the White House. With smiles and waves, the four gentlemen conveyed the new warm feelings they had for each other, with the imprint of the presidential seal.
The caption was just as positive: “SEALED: Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, President Trump, Bahrain’s Foreign Minister Abdullatif bin Rashid al-Zayani and the United Arab Emirate’s Foreign Minister Abdullah bin Zayed al Nahyan wave from the White House balcony after the signing ceremony Tuesday. The pact is seen as the foundation for a broader alignment against Iran in the region.” The top of the picture had a bold header “Israel, Two Gulf States Sign Peace Deal at White House”
A moment for celebration with each other and the whole world.
The New York Times had a very different view of the two pacts.
Cover of the New York Times, September 16, 2020
The Times also gave the story a large photo – but it was impossible to make out any of the individuals or even if the photo was in color, as it showed the backs of the four men in a dark room.
In contrast to the WSJ picture of people standing together, the Times showed a disjointed group. The Journal showed global leaders happily standing before the world while the Times made it appear that the four men were reluctantly engaged in a farce.
The caption of the NYT picture was a short single line: “President Trump hosted the Prime Minister of Israel and the foreign ministers of Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates on Tuesday.” None of the foreign leaders had their names mentioned – perhaps not a surprise as their faces were not shown either. The caption did not even mention that Trump hosted these world leaders TO SIGN A NORMALIZATION AGREEMENT, the first Israel signed with an Arab country in 26 years!
The New York Times could not give the historic agreements – nor the leaders it despises in Trump and Netanyahu – the limelight. It belittled the milestone and the men.
But in reality, the pictures laid bare the disgraceful anti-Trump, anti-Israel and anti-peace bias of The New York Times.
The template for forging peace between Israelis and Arabs for the last many years was based on the notion of trading one item for another. The idea was for Israel to give land to Arabs and would get peace or normalization in return. The formula worked in the 1979 peace treaty between Israel and Egypt and to a lesser extent in the 1994 treaty between Israel and Jordan. During the period of the Oslo Accords, the same idea was advanced between Israel and the Palestinian Authority.
After signing of the Oslo II Accords in September 1995, the Palestinian Authority received several towns and cities from Israel. This was the first time that local Palestinian Arabs got to rule themselves in their history. It was orchestrated as a test to see if the PA could build a functional government and establish controls to enable and enforce a peace agreement with Israel. The five year period ending September 2000 was designed to test the thesis and then hand considerable more territory to the PA.
The Oslo effort proved a complete failure.
The five year period between 1995 and 2000 was marked by intense violence and terrorism. It was capped when Yasser Arafat launched the Second Intifada in September 2000 when the negotiations did not yield 100% of his stated demands. Years of bloodshed began to slow to a trickle when Israel constructed a security barrier separating many of the towns in the “West Bank” from which the Palestinian terrorists emerged.
As the violence ebbed, Israel sought to implement a long-term solution, even without a peace partner. Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon opted to unilaterally withdraw all Israeli troops and civilians from Gaza in 2005, with the assurances from U.S. President George Bush in 2004 that Israel’s borders would not follow the 1949 Armistice Lines and account for current realities. Israel took the action and asked for nothing from the Palestinians.
This first naked trade in the Arab-Israeli conflict was a failure. Within two years of withdrawing from Gaza, the terrorist group Hamas seized control and used the area as a launching pad for terrorism against Israel including three full wars in 2008, 2012 and 2014.
Israel pulled civilians from their homes in Gaza in 2005. It asked for nothing from the Palestinians in return.
It took many years for another one-way trade to take place.
In 2017, U.S. President Donald Trump announced that the United States officially recognized Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and would relocated its embassy to the city. While the U.S. Congress had approved such measure in 1995, every president deferred such recognition and move, hoping to couple such actions with something for the Palestinians. However, in light of the acting-President of the PA’s refusal to engage with the U.S. administration, Trump moved forward with the one-party deal.
The politicians and pundits who worked the region for years derided the move. Former U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said the move was “ill-advised” and former Secretary of State John Kerry said that Trump wouldn’t survive a year in office. Yousef Munayyer, executive director of the U.S. Campaign for Palestinian Rights said that the move would fuel the “narrative of extremists who want to paint the Western world in terms of a religious war.”
Those predictions proved incorrect. There was no outbreak of violence throughout the Muslim world in reaction to the announcement or the relocation of the embassy. The naked trade rectified a historic wrong and did not lead to mayhem. It led to additional positive actions like Guatemala, Serbia and Kosovo recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.
The success of the 2017 Trump action has enabled the quick adoption of additional one-way trades: the 2020 normalization of relationships of both the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain with the Jewish State, to be signed in Washington, D.C. on September 15.
Palestinians were apoplectic that fellow Arab countries would recognize Israel before a peace agreement with the PA was signed. While the Palestinians were angered by the Israeli peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan, each Arab country at least got tangible benefits from their respective agreements. Such treaties were therefore viewed as not only understandable, but clever. Egypt and Jordan essentially gave away nothing – just a “hudna,” a ceasefire which could be over-turned at any time – while they obtained real immediate benefits. Palestinians were therefore able to convince themselves that they were still a priority for the broader Arab nation.
But these naked trades by the UAE and Bahrain have laid that lie bare. The two gulf emirates are receiving nothing in the near-term but the prospects of gaining access to Israeli and American technology and military capabilities. The trade was for a long-term situational benefit, much like Israel had assumed leaving Gaza in 2005 would yield.
It would appear that we have entered a new stage of diplomacy in the Middle East which is not based on near-term raw cost-benefit analyses but rather on long-term situational positioning. Goodbye land-for-peace. Hello aspirations for the future.
Let’s all hope that this evolution to naked trades will produce an enduring peace for the region.
First One Through 