The Disproportionate Defenses of Israel and the Palestinian Authority

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

The United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) produced a report in the spring of 2015 about the war between Israel and the Palestinians in the summer of 2014. The UNHRC continued with a debate in June 2015 in which several “delegations strongly condemned Israel’s excessive and disproportionate military aggression against the Palestinians” including from: Egypt; Tunisia; Maldives; Iraq; South Africa; Indonesia; Ireland and Cuba.

This analysis does not directly review “disproportionate force” but disproportionate defense employed by the two sides.

Obligation to Defend

The foremost responsibility of any governmental leadership is to protect its population. Such defense can be implemented in a variety of ways: a police force or army to maintain order; infrastructure to ensure safety; and intelligence which can guide the appropriate use of manpower and equipment. The United Nations has been developing a framework for “The Responsibility to Protect” over the past several years.

In the conflict between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, only one side proactively protects its citizens, while the other side uses reactive defenses. One side assumes responsibility via using its own resources and capabilities, while the other side relies completely on outside agents.

ISRAEL – ACTIVE DEFENSE

Protecting Against Incoming Missiles and Armaments

Bunkers and Bomb Shelters: Israel is unique in the Middle East in establishing a policy of bomb shelters throughout the country. In response to being surrounded to hostile neighbors that have attacked and shelled its people and lands since its inception, houses, schools, hotels, hospitals and even playgrounds are built with bomb shelters.

The Palestinians have not built shelters. Instead, they used their cement to build tunnels with which to attack Israel.

Playground shelter in Israel
(photo: Kate Simmons)
Iron Dome. Israel developed a new missile defense system called the Iron Dome, and continues to build new air defense systems to protect the country from incoming missiles.

The Palestinians have neither developed nor imported defensive systems. They have only imported offensive weaponry.

Israeli developed “Iron Dome” Defense System
Blockade of Gaza. Israel imposed a naval blockade around Gaza after the terrorist group Hamas, which is sworn to the destruction of Israel, seized the land. The blockade has successfully kept out many missiles and other arms from reaching Hamas and ultimately causing death and destruction in Israel.

Protection Against Killers

Security Barrier. In September 2000, the Palestinians began multi-year riots which killed over a thousand Israelis through hundreds of attacks. In response, the Israeli government began to construct a security barrier in 2002 to keep out terrorists who mostly emanated from cities in Judea and Samaria/ east of the Green Line (EGL).

The Palestinians have not built any security barriers from the Israelis. There have been no suicide bombers going from Israel into Gaza or EGL blowing up civilians.

Stretch of Security Barrier along highway
(photo: FirstOneThrough)

Airport Security. Well before the world became attuned to airport security after the attacks on the United States on 9/11/01, Israel established an extensive airport security system. The screening of passengers, x-rays of baggage and other methods were in response to a series of airplane hijackings in the 1970s (a method of terrorism created by the Palestinian Arabs).

The Palestinians do not have an airport and therefore no such security concerns.

Palestinians blow up plane, 1970

Protection Against Lethal Plans

Intelligence. Israelis utilize a wide variety of information sources to uncover plans to attack its country. Whether through a network of Israeli spies, Palestinian informants, money tracking, wiretapping and other means, the Israelis gather information and make assessments on potential Palestinian Arab attacks. It is then able to take preventative action before such attacks occur.

PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY AND HAMAS – REACTIVE DEFENSE

Relying on Israeli Sensitivities and Sensibilities

Civilians. As detailed above, the Palestinian Authority and Hamas have not instituted proactive tangible means of defending its people. One of the ways it attempts to defend the population is by making it nearly impossible to distinguish between fighters and civilians.

The fighters do not typically wear uniforms and can therefore not be distinguished from civilians
Men, women and children are all enlisted in the war against Israel
Militants fire at Israel from mosques, schools and civilian neighborhoods

Palestinian Arabs hope that Israel will not indiscriminately fire upon everyone. By forcing Israel to take time and extra precautions to target the right attackers, it slows down Israeli defenses during battles.

Destroying its Own Infrastructure. Hamas built an extensive offensive network of tunnels into Israel which originated in many private homes. By relying on Israelis sensitivities to minimize destruction in civilian neighborhoods, Hamas was able to protect many tunnel openings.

Further, Hamas and other Palestinian Arab groups often booby-trapped homes from which they attacked Israel. While the Palestinian Arabs destroyed their own infrastructure, they slowed down and killed many Israelis who looked to root out the attackers.

Relying on Global Bodies like the United Nations

United Nations. One of the principal methods that the Palestinian Authority uses to defend its population is through global bodies AFTER a war. The United Nations includes 57 Islamic countries (in the OIC) and 22 Arab countries (in the Arab League) which align themselves with the Palestinian Arab cause. Many of those countries do not even recognize the State of Israel. They were instrumental in passing the “Zionism is Racism” resolution in 1975 and creating several committees devoted only to Palestinian causes.

The Palestinians turn to the UN to highlight the damage that Israel inflicts on its intentionally defenseless population. It uses deliberate attacks on Israel to provoke premeditated casualties to show the world.

This same UN has not condemned the Palestinian Authority for not properly defending its population. Instead, it recommended the incredulous idea that Israel must give the Arabs the defensive systems like Iron Dome that it developed.

The latest forum that the Palestinian Authority has pursued is the International Criminal Court, the ICC. While it is evident that the Palestinians Arabs definitely committed war crimes in the 2014 War against Israel, it would still sue Israel in the hopes that such action will hurt Israel, further its cause and protect the Palestinian Arabs.

As detailed above the two sides in the Israel-Palestinian Authority conflict have disproportionate defenses.

The Israelis use several proactive approaches; the Palestinians use reactive methods
The Israelis rely upon ingenuity and preparedness; the Palestinians rely on Israeli sensitivities and global sympathy
The Israelis principally depend on themselves; the Palestinians depend on the world

A discussion of “disproportionate force” cannot be made in a vacuum without discussing “disproportionate defenses”. The global community cannot continue to reward the acts of a leadership that deliberately deals in its own premeditated casualties.

Every Picture Tells a Story: The Invisible Murdered Israelis

Posted on July 7, 2015 by First.One.Through

In an Instagram and Twitter world, people expect their news in small tidbits. The major media sources have understood this and not only have taken to social media, but have their news stories include more pictures than they had previously. A review of their selection of pictures and captions provides an interesting snapshot of their views of the news.

Over a two week period in June/July 2015, seven major unprovoked attacks on Israeli Jews were committed by Palestinian Arabs. The Washington Post captured the anguish of the attacks with a picture of a grieving family which included a caption “Relatives of Malachi Moshe Rosenfeld, an Israeli settler who died in a car shooting attack on Tuesday near a Jewish settlement in the Israeli-occupied West Bank, cry during his funeral.”

The New York Times had no such pictures or description of Israelis suffering. Even while reporting on the region from many different journalists on June 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 and July 1 and 4

On June 27, the NYTimes made a small post without a picture in the World Briefing section in a blurb called “Man is Shot in West Bank After Opening Fire on Soldiers”. (journalist: Diaa Hadid)

On July 1, the NYTimes posted in the World Briefing section a blurb called “Man Died After West Bank Attack”. (Isabel Kershner)

These two attacks on Israeli Jews were completely invisible to a casual reader.

Another World Briefing report on June 24 without picture had a headline “Gazans Denied Access to Mosque.” (Diaa Hadid)

On June 30 Diaa Hadid had another World Briefing “Ship Halted in Blockade Protest”

On June 30, the NYTimes ran a larger article, also without a picture entitled “Worried that a Fasting Palestinian Prisoner Could Die, Israel Releases Him.” While there was no picture, the bold headline might have caught someone’s attention. The details in the article that the Palestinian prisoner was the spokesman for the terrorist group Islamic Jihad certainly would not have been recorded. (by Diaa Hadid)

Here are stories that the Times emphasized with pictures with their own terse storyline captions.

On June 29 the paper had an article which included a small map. The heading was “Israel plans Fence for part of Jordan Border.” (Diaa Hadid and Rick Gladstone)

On June 26, the Times included a small color photograph under an article called “Palestinians Deliver Accusations of Israeli War Crimes to International Criminal Court.” The picture of a group of people had a caption “Riad al-Malki, the Palestinian foreign minister, center, and delegation members on Thursday after submitting what they called evidence of Israeli war crimes to the court in The Hague.” (by Marlise Simmons)

On June 25, the Times posted two large black and white photographs as part of an article “Years after Massacre, a West Bank ‘Ghost Town’ Stirs.” The large picture was of Israeli soldiers walking past a store, while the smaller picture was of a man opening his store before four children. The single caption read “Israeli soldiers patrolling al-Sahla Street passed a reopened granary. Below, children watched as Mohammed Abu Halaweh briefly unlocked his butcher shop.” (by Jodi Roduren)

On July 4, The Times again posted two large black and white pictures alongside an article called “Palestinian, 17, is Killed by Forces from Israel.” The large photograph was of Palestinian women mourning with a caption “Relatives mourned the death on Friday of Muhammad Hani al-Kasba, a 17-year-old Palestinian. He was killed by Israeli forces in the occupied West Bank.” The smaller picture was of an Israeli soldier behind a barricade with two people walking before him. The caption read “Hours after Mr. Kasba was fatally shot, an Israeli soldier stood guard on Friday as Palestinians waited to cross to Jerusalem via the Qalandia checkpoint in the West Bank.” (Isabel Kershner)

There was one news story which had two color pictures, albeit smaller than the two stories above. On June 28, the paper ran an article “Youth Chorus Unites Israelis and Palestinians, at Least for a Few Hours.” The two pictures were of a group of young men and women clapping and laughing. The caption read “Members of the Jerusalem Youth Chorus, above, took a break from rehearsing this month for their first United States tour. Micah Hendler, right, a Maryland native, founded the group.” (by Isabel Kershner)

Contrast in Israeli Jews and Palestinian Arabs

The balance in the stories overall and in individual news reports was completely lacking in the New York Times.

First, consider the pictures and the stories they told: the Palestinians were dignitaries and everyday people going about life or mourning a death. They had names and professions. However, every Israeli that was pictured was a soldier and nameless. Even more, they were accused of war crimes.

Second, think of the seven attacks on Israelis Jews. They were treated as non-events and received no pictures or mention in the captions. The casual reader would not even know that such attacks occurred.

Third, review a specific story: The July 4 headline, pictures and caption would lead a reader to think that Israeli soldiers simply opened fire on a youth and that soldiers continue to patrol the intimidate the Arab population. The complete news report was that the Arab that was killed initiated an attack by hurling stones at Israeli vehicles, smashed the windows. It was in response to the Arab attack that soldiers got out of their vehicles and shot him. There were many pictures of the smashed car available that the Times could have posted as the second picture to show the complete story of the incident. Instead, it opted to convey a one-sided narrative of Palestinian Arabs as passive victims and Israelis as military oppressors.

The pictures and captions in the New York Times tell a specific narrative time after time after time: the Palestinian Arabs are passive victims under the oppression of the Israeli military. It is only these poor Arabs that suffer – unprovoked. Ordinary Israelis are not stoned, stabbed and murdered and are not subject to attacks by Palestinian Arabs. More, if there is any chance for peace in the region, it will come from Americans who will bring peace to the region.

Related First.One.Through articles

Every Picture Tells a Story, Don’t It?

Every Picture Tells a Story, the Bibi Monster

Every Picture Tells a Story- Whitewashing the World (except Israel)

The New York Times’ Buried Pictures

Flip-Flopping on the Felling of Terrorist Groups’ Founders

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

The New York Times reported on July 3, 2015 that “Tunisia’s most wanted jihadist” was killed in an American airstrike. The New York Times coverage stood in sharp contrast to the coverage that the paper used in covering Israel’s killing of a top jihadist in 2004.

New York Times July 3, 2015 page A6

Headline: The headline from the story in 2015 was “Jihadist From Tunisia Died in Strike in Libya, U.S. Official Says” which clearly labeled the target as a “jihadist”. The way he died was framed in the passive “died” and was attributed to a “U.S. Official” speaking about the incident. This was in sharp contrast to the NYT article “Leader of Hamas killed in Airstrike by Israeli Missile” which did not suggest that the target was a militant but a “leader.” The man was “killed” in an active way, rather than simply stating that he “died”, and the method of the assassination was clearly attributed to Israeli action, rather than news reported by “US Officials.”

Opening paragraphs: A comparison of the opening paragraphs of each article shows the pattern of the Times coaxing its readers to celebrate the assassination of bad jihadists, but questioning the tactics of Israelis.

“TUNIS — Tunisia’s most wanted jihadist, who masterminded a campaign of assassinations and terrorist attacks, including one against the United States Embassy in Tunis, was killed in an American airstrike in Libya in mid-June that had targeted another Al Qaeda leader, a senior United States official said on Thursday.

The jihadist, Seifallah Ben Hassine, also known as Abu Ayadh, was one of Osama bin Laden’s top lieutenants and the leader of the outlawed group Ansar al-Shariah in Tunisia. He had been based in Libya since 2013, according to reports, and ran training camps and a network of militant cells across the region.”

The article clearly spelled out that Ben Hassine was a very bad man from the very start of the article. He was the “most wanted jihadists” who led “assassination and terrorist attacks” including against American interests. If the US took out a man who launched many attacks including against Americans, it would make sense that such person got what he deserved. Heck, the article threw in two references to “Al Qaeda” and “Osama bin Laden” to convince the reader that this was a really, really bad guy.

Let’s compare the article about the targeted killing of the founder of Hamas by Israel in 2004:

“JERUSALEM, Monday, March 22— Sheik Ahmed Yassin, the spiritual leader and founder of the militant Palestinian group Hamas, was killed early Monday by an Israeli missile that struck him as he left a mosque in Gaza City, his family and Hamas officials said. They said at least two bodyguards had been killed with him.

Sheik Yassin, a symbol to Palestinians of resistance to Israel and to Israelis of Palestinian terrorism, was by far the most significant Palestinian militant killed by Israel in more than three years of conflict.“

The article led with the Sheik’s name. He was referred to as the “spiritual leader” who was killed while he “left a mosque.” His demise was reported by “his family.” Overall, he was regarded as much more of a religious human being than the “most wanted terrorist” in the article the attacker against the U.S.

The Times continued that the Sheik was “a symbol to Palestinians of resistance.” This phrase did many things: 1) using the term “symbol” made him appear as an uninvolved player; 2) “resistance” gave credence to a Palestinian narrative. No such equivalence was given to Tunisia’s most wanted terrorist.

While the Times stated that Yassin was the “founder of the militant Palestinian group Hamas”, it did not go on to state that the organization was considered a terrorist group by the US, EU, Israel and many other countries. Yet it did state that the Tunisian terrorist was “the leader of the outlawed group Ansar al-Shariah.”

Don’t worry. The contrasts get worse.

The NY Times then went on to praise the murder of the Tunisian terrorist:

“His death, if confirmed, would be an important victory for Tunisia in its struggle to contain a persistent insurgency in its western border region and a growing threat to its urban centers. Just last Friday, 38 people, most of them British, were massacred at a beach resort in the town of Sousse. In March, 21 people were killed when militants attacked the national museum.

The government has attributed many of the attacks to sleeper cells established by Mr. Ben Hassine when he founded Ansar al-Shariah after Tunisia’s revolution in 2011.”

The Times gave its readers the conclusion of the operation: it was “an important victory”. The people of Tunisia were struggling against a “persistent… and growing threat.” What about Israel?

“Black smoke curled over Gaza City as Palestinians began burning tires in the streets and demonstrators chanted for revenge. Mosque loudspeakers blared a message across Gaza of mourning for Sheik Yassin in the name of Hamas and another militant group, Al Aksa Martyrs Brigades.”

The Times reported that the assassination was not a step forward but a step backward. The killing of the founder of a terrorist movement in Tunisia was a step towards stability while the killing of founder of the Palestinian terrorist group was just a move to escalate a cycle of violence.

The Times emphasized the point by reporting on the recent attacks in Tunisia on tourists at a beach resort and a national museum (anyone in the world could have been one of those tourists, which elicits global sympathy). The Times failed to report on the multi-year Second Intifada which started in September 2000 in which Palestinians killed thousands of Israeli civilians. Just before the Israeli strike, Hamas took credit for two bombings at the Port of Ashdod which killed 10 people. No mention of the incident until much later in the article.

I leave the rest of the two articles for you to read. You will note that one article describes a military attack against a man with a long history of terrorist activities. The other article describes a Palestinian community in grief over the death of a “quadriplegic” without any mention of the hundreds of attacks and thousands of civilians murdered by Hamas.

It is not a coincidence that the article about Tunisia on July 3rd was next to another with a headline “Egypt fights back in Northern Sinai after Deadly Assault by Militants.” The Times has taken to reporting that much of the world responds to militants while Israel attacks civilians and “spiritual leaders”. The world’s responses will lead to victory and peace, while Israeli actions escalate violence.

Pretty amazing conclusions

from a country that has been waging wars for fourteen years, killing hundreds of thousands of people,
about a country that sits in the middle of region that is embroiled in civil wars and terrorist attacks that have also killed hundreds of thousands of people,
that is fighting against a group that has declared loudly and proudly its intentions of destroying its state

The Narrative that Prevents Peace in the Arab-Israeli Conflict

Posted on June 28, 2015 by First.One.Through

Everyone has a perspective.

Marcus Aurelius, the Roman emperor, was credited with saying “Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth.”

Our opinions and perspectives are shaped by many things including our backgrounds and biases. When two people look at the same incident at the same time, it is quite possible that they take away very different stories. When two people do not see things first-hand, but hear histories second and third-hand, the narratives of each could appear to describe two different events and worlds.

Yet, those strange worlds can coexist and the parties with alternative truths can get along. The reason is not solely because some events in question are not in direct conflict, but because those events do not define each party.

Many histories remain in the past and do not touch the present. Other narratives reach out from history and impact decisions and views of people in the present. The deepest – and potentially most dangerous – narratives are those that are embedded in a person’s psyche, which can distort history, make people act against their own interests and mar the future.

Arab-Israeli “Neutral” Narratives

There are many narratives that contradict each other in the Middle East. Some are conflicting perspectives and some have alternative facts. Here is just a small sample of events from pivotal moments in 1948, 1967 and 2000 from an Arab perspective, followed by an Israeli view:

The creation of Israel in 1948 was a “Nakba” (catastrophe) // the founding of the state was a celebration
During the “Nakba”, 711,000 Palestinian Arabs were expelled by Israeli forces from their homes // Palestinian Arabs were encouraged to leave where they lived by their leaders, as the armies of five neighboring Arab states invaded Israel
Five Arab armies came into Palestine to defend the Palestinians from Israeli attacks // five Arab armies invaded Israel in an effort to destroy the nascent state
In 1967, Israel attacked Egypt, Syria and Jordan // Israel preemptively attacked Egypt and Syria after the parties made clear their intentions to attack and destroy Israel; Jordan then attacked Israel and Israel responded in self-defense
The West Bank has always been Palestinian land and cannot be settled by Israelis // Judea and Samaria (the “West Bank”) were always home to Jews and mandated under international law to be a homeland for Jews in 1922; only under the Jordanian expulsion were Jews barred from the land. International laws related to taking land in a defensive war is not the same as taking land in an offensive war
In 2000, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon went to the Al Aqsa Mosque in an attempt to claim control over Islam’s third holiest site, which brought about the Second Intifada // Sharon visited the Temple Mount, Judaism’s holiest site during regular visiting hours; the Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat launched the Second Intifada because he was unhappy with the “near-final” peace agreement with Israel

Consider the opposing narratives. Some can reside comfortably in history books, while others actively influence each party’s actions today.

Acting-President of the Palestinian Authority Mahmoud Abbas
(photo: Reuters)

PAST: Some of these points may be found in either an Arab or Israeli history book. Palestinian textbooks may write about forced expulsions from Palestine during the “Nakba”, while Israeli textbooks may write about Palestinian Arabs being encouraged to leave their homes by their leadership while the armies from five supportive Arab countries attacked Israel in an effort to destroy the country and drive the Jews into the Mediterranean Sea. The arguments are not subtle differences of opinions, and each side holds onto their account of history with examples of stories of a family here, a village there, or quotes from Israeli and Palestinian leadership at that time to underscore their version of history.

Arguably, this is something for historians to debate and a thoughtful person would probably conclude that there are elements of truth to both sides. Whether it is 80/20% or 20/80% for the parties is beyond the point of this discussion. The thrust is that their narratives are stories of the past. While Arabs and Israelis will invariably bring up their point of view in a debate, it need not dictate the debates nor compromise the conversations of the future of the region. A “starting point” of the here-and-now can be established to find a solution for the future.

A second example is the conflict between Egypt and Israel. Each side’s view of who was the belligerent party in 1967 did not impede a path forward to a different future leading to a peace treaty.

PAST AND PRESENT: Some splits in narratives run throughout time. The past can consume the present and the versions of history touch daily dialogue.

Many Arabs argue that a state of Palestine has always existed, but has been occupied by various parties including Israelis, Jordanians, Egyptians and British. They carry placards to “Free Palestine” from current Israeli occupation. For their part, Israelis note that Palestine never existed as an independent country. It was never ruled by a local Palestinian Arab government. The parties are in negotiations to potentially “Create Palestine,” while dismissing the Arab narrative as factually incorrect. The competing narratives are in conflict, but needn’t prevent the parties from moving towards a future that is in alignment.

PRESENT: A last example of a “neutral” clash of each side’s take on history is current history. Israelis and Palestinian Arabs argue forcefully about who started the Gaza war in 2014 and which party is responsible for many civilian deaths. Politicians and people will argue their points forcefully and recommend actions to punish the other side and improve their own position. Ultimately, the war and responses will become part of the past. The parties could opt to move forward with plans for a future OR they could use the war as an excuse to undermine a future peace.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu
(photo credit: Ariel Jerozolimski)

Arab-Israeli “Toxic” Narratives

The term “Toxic Narrative” is meant to describe the inability of the two sides to ever establish a true peace; it is not intended to suggest that a narrative is inherently evil.

PAST, PRESENT and FUTURE: The best example of competing viewpoints of the past that stretch into the future, is the Balfour Declaration (1917) and its incorporation into the San Remo conference (1920) and then the international law established by the League of Nations in the British Mandate of Palestine (1922). The two sides’ competing opinions impact the ability of the parties to establish peace for the future.

International Law: The Palestinian Arabs argue that the League of Nations had no right to declare a homeland for the Jews in Palestine. They contend such international decision was made without the approval of the local Arab population in Palestine, and as such, the law itself should be null and void. They further argue that the imposition of such mandate was an effort to colonialize Palestine. The Palestinian Arabs took many steps to halt the implementation of that mandate for “the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people…and facilitate Jewish immigration…and close settlement by Jews on the land.” The most significant actions were the riots of 1936-9 which enabled the Arabs to get the British to issue the 1939 “White Paper” which would limit the Jewish population in Palestine to one-third of the country, leaving an Arab majority population and facilitate Arab rule.

The Israeli perspective is that the League of Nations (precursor to the United Nations) made a law specifically recognizing the Jewish right to a national homeland in Palestine. They do not believe that such international law was illegal in 1922, and when the United Nations voted in 1947 to only grant a small portion of the Mandated land as a Jewish State, the Jews were disappointed but voted in favor of the proposal anyway. The Arabs rejected the 1947 proposal, just as they rejected the 1922 Mandate.

Historical Connection: As part of the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine, the international community recognized the “historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine.” The history of the Jews in the land goes back 3700 years and the Jews were the only people to ever be self-governing in the land. They were also the only people to make Jerusalem its capital, which they did for the third time in 1950.

The history of the Jews has also been challenged by the Palestinian Arabs who continually deny Jewish history in the region and insist that Israelis are attempting to “Judaize” the country, and that Jewish presence in the region is a recent phenomenon. (They have even advanced that Jesus was a Palestinian, not a Jew, even though Arabs did not come to the holy land en masse until the Muslim invasions hundreds of years later).

In short, the two conflicting narratives relate to the RIGHTS of Jews to REestablish a Jewish majority in the land and be self-governing again.

The Palestinian contention is that the entire Zionist enterprise was illegal from the start: The call for Israel’s creation in 1922 was illegal; the declaration of the state in 1948 was illegal; and the assumption of additional land in 1967 was illegal. They view the entire region as “Arab land” and Jewish presence and rule is illegitimate and directly undermines the Arab rights in the land.

The Roadblock to Peace

The Future: Some argue that despite such widely held opinion by Palestinian Arabs, acting-President of the Palestinian Authority Mahmoud Abbas has stated that he would recognize a state of Israel as part of a peace agreement. As such, the debate of narratives and facts is not truly “toxic” as the Arabs are willing to look past their past.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu maintains that is not so.

Netanyahu claims that a de facto recognition of Israel as a country that exists today will not prevent a war tomorrow. A de facto peace treaty that does not recognize Israel’s RIGHT to exist is a flimsy veneer. Over time the veneer will come off, and the underlying Palestinian Arab contention that Jews have no rights to live and rule on Arab land will lead to further war and bloodshed. Without a break from the storyline that Jews have no history, no legal authority, nor basic rights to live and pray and be self-governing in Israel, there will never be peace. No amount of land-for-peace swap could resolve an illegal Jewish claim until the entire state of Israel is under Arab rule.

The Palestinians have not been able to accept such a break with their narrative of the rights of Jews in Palestine. They could not accept such vision of Jewish rights in 1922 and have been unable to accept it today, as Abbas has repeatedly stated he will never recognize Israel as a “Jewish State”.

As such, the seemingly innocuous request for Palestinians to recognize Israel as the Jewish State has potentially become a roadblock to final settlement talks. A statement that would have no practical impact (compared to tangible matters such as borders or “right of return”), has touched a key nerve in the Palestinian psyche. They would rather forgo a brighter future than negate their narrative as the sole rightful owners of the land.

People typically speak of the Arab-Israeli conflict and refer to events at important time periods like 1948, 1967 and 2000. While those events helped shape the present, they need not dictate the future. Each side can maintain many narratives without destroying the prospects for peace.

The toxic narrative that prevents peace revolves around the rights of Jews to their historic homeland established in international law in 1922. It is that narrative that must be addressed for the parties to arrive at a long-term peaceful future together. It has been almost a century, and well past time for Arabs to recognize the legal and legitimate rights of Jews to live in the holy land and to be self-governing.

Palestinians agree that Israel rules all of Jerusalem, but the World Treats the City as Divided

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

The Palestinian Arabs and Israelis last managed to negotiate an agreement in September 1995. That agreement, Oslo II, was intended to be an interim agreement after which a permanent resolution was to be reached in five years. However, five years later in September 2000, Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat walked away from the Israeli peace proposal and launched multi-year riots which claimed thousands of lives.

The terms of Oslo II still live on, decades later.

Rabin and Arafat sign maps prior to the Oslo II signing ceremony at the White House, as US president Bill Clinton, Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak and Jordan’s King Hussein look on, September 28, 1995 (photo credit: GPO)

Goals of Oslo II

Oslo II was meant to set in place an interim Palestinian Authority which would become the basis of a Palestinian political structure. Oslo II had NO calls for an independent Palestinian state, but stated the goal of the negotiations was to lead “to a permanent settlement based on Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338.”

Security Council Resolution 338 was declared after Egypt attacked Israel in the Yom Kippur War. The goal was to stop hostilities and commence peace negotiations. The thrust of SC 338 was to implement SC 242 to establish “a just and durable peace”
Security Council 242 was drafted after the Six Day War in 1967. In that war, Israel preemptively attacked Egypt and Syria that were readying an attack on Israel, and Israel defended itself from an attack from Jordan.

Without delving into the nuances of SC 242 here, the thrust of the resolution was to have Israeli armed forces pull back from some territories which it won in the 1967 War and that all states respect “the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area… free from threats or acts of force.” It also proposed “a just settlement of the refugee problem.”

Oslo II built on these UN Security Council goals with an interim roadmap. It began with Israel’s handing over certain territories to the Palestinian Authority (Gaza and Jericho) as well as other major Palestinian cities.

Status of Jerusalem in Oslo II

Jerusalem is mentioned eight times in the Oslo II Accords. In every instance, the entire city is referenced, not just the eastern half that Israel acquired from the Jordanians and Palestinian Arabs in 1967.

The first six times “Jerusalem” appeared in the Oslo II agreement relate to future Palestinian elections in which Palestinian Arabs located in Jerusalem would be able to participate. The remaining two times specifically state that Jerusalem is a point for final status negotiations:

ARTICLE XVII Jurisdiction
1. In accordance with the DOP, the jurisdiction of the Council will cover West Bank and Gaza Strip territory as a single territorial unit, except for:
2. issues that will be negotiated in the permanent status negotiations: Jerusalem, settlements, specified military locations, Palestinian refugees, borders, foreign relations and Israelis;
ARTICLE XXXI Final Clauses
5. Permanent status negotiations will commence as soon as possible, but not later than May 4, 1996, between the Parties. It is understood that these negotiations shall cover remaining issues, including: Jerusalem, refugees, settlements, security arrangements, borders, relations and cooperation with other neighbors, and other issues of common interest.

According to the agreements executed by the Palestinians and Israelis:

Jerusalem is not part of the West Bank, as it is broken out separately
Jerusalem is not a “settlement”, as the agreement stated later that “settlements” are entities in the West Bank and Gaza – “For the purpose of this Agreement, “the Settlements” means, in the West Bank the settlements in Area C; and in the Gaza Strip – the Gush Katif and Erez settlement areas, as well as the other settlements in the Gaza Strip, as shown on attached map No. 2“
Israel controls Jerusalem – “Israel shall continue to exercise powers and responsibilities not so transferred”

There is therefore no basis for any of the United Nations, the EU or the Unites States to claim that Jerusalem is a settlement and that Jews should have any restrictions from living anywhere in the city. Should there be any modifications to the Israeli rule of the city, it will be made by mutual consent in permanent status negotiations.

Yet, the world ignores the Oslo II foundation document of a peace agreement.

United Nations Ignores Oslo II on Jerusalem

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon made an address on the “International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People” in 2013:

On Jerusalem’s Jewish “settlements”: “All settlement activity in the West Bank and East Jerusalem must cease. Measures that prejudge final status issues are not to be recognized.”
“Announcements of thousands of new housing units cannot be reconciled with the goal of a two-state solution and risk the collapse of negotiations”

These statements ignore Oslo II in many respects: it broke apart “East Jerusalem” as a distinct entity; it claimed that Jews living in “East Jerusalem” were in “settlements”; it called for a two-state solution (while not in Oslo II, both the Israelis and Palestinians later agreed to such plan); it suggested that Jews living in “East Jerusalem” hurt a two-state solution.

On Palestinian homes in “East Jerusalem”: “Of particular concern are developments in East Jerusalem, where this year alone, some 100 [Arab] structures have been demolished, displacing 300 people. Hundreds more Palestinians are at risk because their homes were built without Israeli-issued building permits”

The UN leader voiced concern with more Jews moving into eastern Jerusalem and not enough Arabs being accommodated there.

On the Permanent Status Negotiations of Jerusalem: “Jerusalem is to emerge from negotiations as the capital of two States, with arrangements for the holy sites acceptable to all”

Ban Ki-Moon voiced a conclusion not made in Oslo II and “prejudged” an outcome that Jerusalem must be divided, even though Israel already divided the UN’s “Holy Basin” when it gave Bethlehem to the Palestinian Authority 20 years earlier. Amazing commentary from someone who is concerned with “prejudging final status issues.”

European Union Ignores Oslo II on Jerusalem

The EU has taken positions adopted by the Palestinian Authority which are outside of the agreements reached by Israel and the PA in Oslo II:

On Jerusalem’s Jewish “settlements”: “EU considers that settlement building anywhere in the occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, is illegal under international law, constitutes an obstacle to peace and threatens to make a two-state solution impossible.”

On Palestinians in “East Jerusalem”: “The EU supports [Arab] institution building work in East Jerusalem, notably in the areas of health, education and the judiciary.”

On the Permanent Status Negotiations of Jerusalem: “the EU has repeatedly confirmed its deep concern about accelerated settlement expansion in the West Bank including East Jerusalem. This expansion prejudges the outcome of final status negotiations and threatens the viability of an agreed two-state solution”
“The EU considers that the peace negotiations should include the resolution of all issues surrounding the status of Jerusalem as the future capital of two states. The EU will not recognise any changes to the pre-1967 borders including with regard to Jerusalem, other than those agreed by the parties.”

Like the United Nations, the EU ignored the mutual recognition of both Palestinians Arabs and Israel that only Israel administers all of Jerusalem, and any modification to such arrangement must be made by mutual agreement. Oslo II made no suggestion that the holy city be divided.

The United States Ignores Oslo II on Jerusalem

On Jerusalem’s Jewish “settlements”: Jen Psaki, Spokesperson for the US Department of State said on October 27, 2014: “we continue to make our position absolutely clear that we view settlement activity as illegitimate and unequivocally oppose unilateral steps that prejudge the future of Jerusalem. Israel’s leaders have said they would support a pathway to a two-state solution, but moving forward with this type of action would be incompatible with the pursuit of peace”

On the Palestinian Authority in Jerusalem: While the US does not recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel or any country (and therefor does not maintain on embassy in Jerusalem), it has nevertheless decided to establish an office for Palestinians in Jerusalem. The United States Security Coordinator for Israel and the Palestinian Authority (USSC) sounds like it services both Israel and the PA, but its mission is to serve and assist the PA in meeting its security needs. “The USSC directs all facets of U.S. security sector assistance to the Palestinian Authority and synchronizes international supporting efforts…The USSC assists the Palestinian Authority to transform and professionalize its security sector.”

The US decided to place such office to assist the PA in Jerusalem, rather than Bethlehem or Jericho. The address is home of the Consul General of the US in Jerusalem which serves US citizens from Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza.

On the Permanent Status Negotiations of Jerusalem: Back in 2009, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs made a point that recognized that Jerusalem is a matter for final status negotiations, but said he was opposed to construction in “East Jerusalem”. “The United States opposes new Israeli construction in East Jerusalem. The status of Jerusalem is a permanent status issue that must be resolved by the parties through negotiations and supported by the international community. Neither party should engage in efforts or take actions that could unilaterally pre-empt, or appear to pre-empt, negotiations. Rather, both parties should return to negotiations without preconditions as soon as possible. The United States recognizes that Jerusalem is a deeply important issue for Israelis and Palestinians, and for Jews, Muslims, and Christians. We believe that through good faith negotiations the parties can mutually agree on an outcome that realizes the aspirations of both parties for Jerusalem, and safeguards its status for people around the world.”

There have been very few agreements between the Palestinian Arabs and Israelis throughout history. When the parties last mutually agreed to move forward with a peace process, they agreed that all of Jerusalem was controlled by Israel. The agreement had no caveats about what Israel could or could not do anywhere in the city. It made no suggestion that the city was or would be divided.

Despite that reality, a new perception has taken hold in world bodies that Israel should prohibit Jews from living in parts of their capital and holiest city. It is being repeated more frequently and with greater force: at one point, world bodies opposed Israel building new neighborhoods in the eastern part of Jerusalem; now they decry Jews moving into existing homes that they legally purchased privately.

How can Israel expect to negotiate a final status agreement if the world rejects the agreements Israel makes with Palestinian Arabs as it did with Oslo II? How can Israel enter negotiations when the world advances a prejudged outcome to such negotiations to which Israel never agreed?

A Simple Question for Hillary Clinton on Israel

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

In June 2015, Hillary Clinton claimed to have been a strong ally for Israel. Without getting into the history of her tenure as Secretary of State, (when she could claim she was following the orders of US President Barack Obama), here is a simple question for Hillary on her presedential run: will she reintroduce the pro-Israel Democratic platform that was present in 2008, but abolished under Obama in 2012?

Hillary Clinton speaks at her first campaign rally in New York City
June 13th, 2015. Photograph: Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg

Specifically, will she reintroduce the pre-Obama Democratic platform that called for:

The isolation of Hamas until it renounced terrorism. As declared in the 2008 Democratic platform: “The United States and its Quartet partners should continue to isolate Hamas until it renounces terrorism, recognizes Israel’s right to exist, and abides by past agreements.”
The settlement of the descendants of Palestinian refugees in a new Palestinian State, not Israel. “The creation of a Palestinian state through final status negotiations, together with an international compensation mechanism, should resolve the issue of Palestinian refugees by allowing them to settle there, rather than in Israel.”
Dismissing the concept that borders should be based on the 1949 Armistice Lines. “All understand that it is unrealistic to expect the outcome of final status negotiations to be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949.”
Recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. “Jerusalem is and will remain the capital of Israel.” The party removed the statement, and then reinstated it after a bitter fight on the convention floor.

Obama made his pivot away from Israel very clear in his 2012 presidential run. What are Hillary Clinton’s intentions?

Related First.One.Through articles:

International-Domestic Abuse: Obama and Netanyahu

The Israeli Peace Process versus the Palestinian Divorce Proceedings

Posted on June 15, 2015 by First.One.Through

Summary: The gap in resolving the long running Israel-Palestinian Question has to do with the goals of each party: the Israelis believe they have been engaged in a peace process between peoples while the Palestinians are negotiating a divorce settlement between countries.

Politicians and the media – both well-meaning and otherwise – have blamed various parties for the failures to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. When they are not directly pointing accusing fingers, they still use language which conveys their biases. A person needn’t look past the language used in discussions about Jewish homes beyond the Green Line/ 1949 Armistice Lines – the “settlements”.

“Settlements”

“Viability”: As detailed in “A Viable Palestinian State”, various parties have described the “settlements” as a hindrance to a viable Palestinian state. The statement is meant as a direct attack on Israel, and is absurd. If a Palestinian state cannot exist with a 5% Jewish population, then surely Israel cannot exist with a 20% Muslim population. Are the people that make such a comment looking for Israel to expel a million Israeli Arabs?

Similarly, if a viable Palestine is compromised because such new country would be only 15km across at a single point, surely Israel cannot exist in its current configuration with a 15km narrow corridor for a dozen kilometers. Are these politicians and media pundits suggesting that Israel must annex the entire spine of the land?

“Complication” and “Provocation”: Another sentiment that is expressed is that settlements “complicate the peace process.” As conveyed in June 2015 by the New York Times in an article called “Israel’s work on a West Bank Site Gives Rise to New Suspicion,” even existing homes purchased by private individuals (as opposed to new communities established by the Israeli government) hurt the peace process. The article described a man who purchased an abandoned building and surrounding property: “Leftist Israeli politicians and advocacy groups have reacted with alarm, suspecting a new settlement in the occupied West Bank [a NYT term] that would further complicate the peace process.”

This statement is similar to the rebuke of the Obama administration to Jews buying and moving into homes they own in Silwan, in the eastern part of Jerusalem. As detailed in the FirstOneThrough article “Obama supports Anti-Semitic Palestinian Agenda of Jew-Free State,” the Obama administration condemned Jews for legally buying homes and becoming neighbors in an Arab neighborhood east of the Green Line, referring to such basic act of living as a provocation.

And therein lies the basic gap in understanding the actions, intentions and goals of the two sides.

New York Times article quoting “leftists” that claim that individual Jews owning land east of the Green Line “complicates peace”

Israeli Peace Process

The primary stated goals of the negotiations were to get to a peace based on two states:

“The peace agreements with Egypt and Jordan are vital. But they’re not enough. We must also find a way to forge a lasting peace with the Palestinians. Two years ago, I publicly committed to a solution of two states for two peoples: A Palestinian state alongside the Jewish state. I am willing to make painful compromises to achieve this historic peace. As the leader of Israel, it is my responsibility to lead my people to peace.” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu May 2011
“Our goal is two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security. The process is the one of direct negotiations to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and to resolve all the permanent status issues and end the occupation that began in 1967 under which Palestinians have suffered so much.” Prime Minister of the Palestinian National Authority Mahmoud Abbas June 2003

As part of making peace with Palestinian Arabs, Israel has stated it will enable a new state of Palestine to be created. For their part, the Palestinian Arabs are interested in their new state to be self-governing and to not deal with Israeli Jews. Israel has focused on peace with the people; Palestinians have focused on separation of the people. Two states living side-by-side in peace is not the same as two people living side-by-side in peace.

A peace process is best established with various personal, commercial and governmental relationships and dealings. Such interactions would enable the parties to navigate ongoing thorny issues like water rights and security. It would enable partnerships to develop tourism and the economy.

Israel understands the importance of establishing relationships with its Arab neighbors. As soon as the country was founded in 1948, the country granted 160,000 non-Jews citizenship and extended an offer and desire for peace with the neighboring Arab countries. When Israel annexed Jerusalem, it offered all of the people there citizenship. As of 2015, non-Jews account for 25% of Israel and have full rights in the most liberal country in the region, and one of the most liberal in the world. In the 2015 Israeli election, the Arab party placed third among the dozen parties seeking seats in the Knesset.

Over the decades, Israel forged peace agreements with neighboring Arab countries Egypt and Jordan. It has stated that it is ready to so with Palestinian Arabs and the other neighboring countries as well.

Palestinian Divorce Proceedings

When Israel captured the area east of the Green Line in 1967 after it was attacked by the Jordanian and Palestinian Arabs, it rescinded the Jordanian ban on Jews living in the area (from 1949-67). Israel allowed Jews to live and establish themselves in the region once again where they bought existing houses next to Arabs, built new houses, and created new companies.

All of which, made the Palestinian Arabs angry.

The Palestinians do not want Jewish neighbors in a new state. Acting President Abbas made very clear his intention when he declared “we will not see the presence of a single Israeli – soldier or civilian – on our lands.”

The Palestinians do not want any Jewish businesses in a new state. Despite the extraordinary efforts that some companies like Sodastream went through to hire Palestinian Arabs in its plant east of the Green Line (EGL) to work alongside Israeli Arabs and Jews, Palestinians put pressure on the company to abandon the area – which it did. Palestinians promote a BDS (boycott, divestment and sanctions) of all businesses established by Jews in the EGL.

Palestinians think Jews have no rights to buy or live anywhere in the land. They think the entire region – including Israel – is Arab land and that Jews have no history in the region. One can often hear Abbas and other Palestinians refer to the “Judaization” of the land, as if the holy land never had Jews.

The Palestinians reject the legitimacy of Israel itself. While the Palestinians will acknowledge the fact that Israel exists and will negotiate with it, they do not view the existence of the Jewish state as legitimate. They consider Jews colonialists and Israel a foreign colonial enterprise. As such, they will not recognize Israel as a Jewish State.

The Palestinians are not looking for peace with Israel, nor are they seeking peace with Jews. They view the presence of both in the entire holy land as illegitimate. Their goals are to completely separate themselves from Israel and Jews in their own state, and to reestablish a majority Arab presence inside of Israel. Within their new country, the Palestinians do not want a single Israeli person or business. Inside of Israel, they want millions of Arabs that are second and third generation removed from Arabs that once lived in the land, to specifically move to Israel because they feel that such land is also Arab land which Jews took illegally.

That is why Jewish “settlements” east of the Green Line are inaccurately called obstacles to a “peace process.” Jewish homes and businesses east of the Green Line do NOT “complicate the peace process”, they complicate the divorce proceedings that the Palestinians desire. A Jewish presence can only be called a “provocation” to a people that want to be rid of Jews.

It is not inaccurate to state that Jewish homes in EGL complicate permanent status negotiations, but it is an inversion of the truth to claim that they hurt the “peace process.”

Names and Narrative: Palestinian Territories/ Israeli Territories

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

Summary: Almost every major media outlet refers to the Gaza Strip and the west bank of the Jordan River as “Palestinian Territories”, when in fact, those areas are actually “Israeli territories” and “Palestinian Authority Territories.”

Most places in the world are part-and-parcel of a country. However, there are situations when a place is administered by a government which has not incorporated the land and assumed full sovereignty.

The United States of America historically had several large territories as the country expanded, including Alaska and Hawaii. Today, the USA continues to have several territories including:

Puerto Rico
US Virgin Islands
Guam
Northern Mariana Islands
American Samoa

These territories have some rights and protections of the US government, but not others such as the right to vote.

Israeli Territories and
Palestinian Authority Territories
1995 to Present

It is easy and obvious to understand that there are no “Palestinian Territories”, because there is no such thing as the State of Palestine (as of this writing, in any event). Most of the area east of the Green Line (EGL/ west bank of the Jordan River, WBJR), is controlled and administered by Israel.

Under the Oslo Accords, EGL was divided into three parts: Areas A, B and C. Area A was handed over to the Palestinian Authority (PA) and it has complete control of that land. Area C is “Israeli Territory” and is completely controlled by Israel. Area B is a hybrid, which is under the civil administration of the Palestinian Authority, but security control of Israel.

Breakdown of Areas A, B and C
on the west bank of the Jordan River

Gaza would ostensibly be called “Palestinian Authority Territory”, however, the PA has no control in the area. The governing party is Hamas, which won elections in 2006 and routed any PA personnel from the region in 2007. Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005.

Israeli Territories
1967 to 1995

The Oslo Accords between the State of Israel and the PLO started the process of breaking the Israeli territories into areas with local Palestinian Arab control. Before the Oslo Accords, all of Gaza and EGL/ west bank of the Jordan River (WBJR) were only Israeli territories.

Israel took control of Gaza from Egypt in June 1967 during the Six Day War. Egypt had amassed a large army and announced its intention of attacking Israel, so Israel preemptively attacked Egypt and seized Gaza. In response to Israel’s preemptive attack on Egypt, Jordan attacked Israel from the EGL/WBJR. Jordan lost the region and gave up all claims to the land in 1988.

Jordan and Egyptian Territory
1949 to 1967

In May 1948, the Palestinian Arabs and five Arabs armies attacked Israel as it declared independence from Great Britain. At the end of the war in 1949, Jordan assumed control of much of Judea and Samaria in an area which became known as the “west bank of the Jordan River (WBJR)” in the United Nations, ultimately shortened to the “West Bank”. Jordan annexed that area in 1950, gave all Arabs living there citizenship and expelled all of the Jews from the area, counter to the Fourth Geneva Convention.

Egypt assumed control of the Gaza Strip, but did not annex the area.

British Territory 1922 to 1948
Ottoman Territory 1517 to 1922

At the end of World War I, the defeated Ottoman Empire was carved up into several areas (including Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Jordan) which were administered by the French and British. The lands currently known as WBJR and Gaza were part-and-parcel of the British Mandate and had no unique laws or characteristics. Similarly under Ottoman rule for hundreds of years before the British, those areas were neither divided nor distinct.

As detailed above, there are not, nor have there ever been “Palestinian Territories”. Such terminology inherently upgrades the status of the Palestinian Authority and eliminates the legal role and status that Israel has in Areas B and C.

Related First.One.Through articles

Names and Narrative: The West Bank / Judea and Samaria

Nicholas Kristof’s “Arab Land”

The Subtle Discoloration of History: Shuafat

The Legal Israeli Settlements

Obama’s Friendly Pass to Turkey’s Erdogan

Posted on June 5, 2015 by First.One.Through

US President Barack Obama has made some interesting friends in office. Those friends get some special attention, and often more importantly, benign neglect.

Among the five world leaders that Obama highlighted as his best friends was the Turkish leader Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Over Obama’s tenure as president, Erdogan served as both the Turkish Prime Minister and President. This weekend, elections in Turkey could help cement his power as he attempts to remake the country’s constitution.

One would normally congratulate Obama on aligning himself with such a powerful leader, particularly one with a significant presence in the Muslim world. Such an ally could help the United States advance American interests in the volatile Middle East.

US President Barack Obama talks with Turkey’s Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan during a family photo at the G20 Summit in Cannes on Nov. 3, 2011. (Photo: AP)

Turkey’s “Help” in The Middle East

Turkey sits geographically as a bridge between the European and Asian continents. Turkey borders the volatile countries Syria and Iraq, both of which are consumed by war, where Obama has expressed a US interest.

Turkey’s geographic position and large army make it a potential important ally for the US in the fight against the Islamic State. However, despite the good terms between Obama and Erdogan, Turkey has not been a good partner in this regard. As relayed by The Guardian October 2014: “The US is especially angry with Turkey because it is a Nato ally and yet it has refused to provide even basic logistical assistance to the US-led coalition.” It took many months for Turkey to agree to even begin training Syrian forces in Turkey to fight ISIS. Turkey’s efforts continue to be minimal.

Erdogan’s Values

If Turkey hasn’t been so helpful to American interests, perhaps Obama’s friendship is based on shared values.

As reviewed in “The Churlish Turkish Leadership“, Erdogan has moved his country to the far right into the deep religious Islamic sphere. He has curbed the freedoms of press and expression dramatically over his tenure. Are those shared American values? Obama’s values?

A Friend With Benefits: Erdogan

Despite Erdogan’s lack of assistance to America and suppression of human rights, Obama has treated Erdogan rather nicely:

There were no ramifications to Turkey from withholding support in the fight against ISIS
There were no ramifications from Erdogan’s suppression of human rights
Obama has issued no statement about Turkey’s illegal occupation of northern Cyprus since 1974, which is deemed illegal by the United Nations and not recognized by any country other than Turkey.
When Erdogan said the “Zionism was a crime against humanity” in February 2013, the White House merely condemned the statement, but did not threaten any action against Turkey.
In May 2015, in the week before elections, Erdogan stated that he sought Turkish unity (with the Kurds) in liberating Jerusalem “just as our forefathers went together to liberate Jerusalem with Saladin, we will march together on the same path“, in a comment that did not even get a response from the Obama administration.

It would appear that Obama is fine with Erdogan despite the lack of Turkish support for American policies or values.

A Friend without Benefits: Netanyahu

Obama’s relationship with Erdogan is in sharp contrast to the way Obama treats the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Obama is obsessed with preventing Jews from living in the eastern part of Jerusalem and Judea and Samaria, because of the anti-Semitic desires of the Palestinian Authority and has repeatedly attacked Netanyahu for permitting Jews to live freely where they choose.
Obama forced Netanyahu to apologize to Erdogan, after Erdogan enabled a flotilla from Turkey to attempt to breach a legal Israeli blockade of Gaza in which nine people on the ship where killed in an act of self defense by Israeli soldiers
Obama boycotted Netanyahu’s speech to a joint session of Congress and convinced 58 Democratic party loyalists to protest the speech as well
Obama threatened to withhold support for Israel at the United Nations, after Netanyahu made an election night comment that seemed to suggest he was against Israeli Arabs and not in favor of a two-state solution with the Palestinian Arabs

While Obama claims that the US and Israel are strong allies, his policies appear to be based more on personal friendships. For Obama, friendship is showing he works for them and not what his friends do for the US. “I think that if you ask them — Angela Merkel, or Prime Minister Singh, or President Lee, or Prime Minister Erdoğan, or David Cameron would say, we have a lot of trust and confidence in the president. We believe what he says. We believe that he’ll follow through on his commitments. We think he’s paying attention to our concerns and our interests,”

Obama will likely continue to show benign neglect to the demagogic statesman from Turkey who makes vile attacks against allies and quells the rights of the people in Turkey. Conversely, Obama has demonstrated that he will berate and lecture the Israeli leader about “values” and take actions that threaten the country’s existence.

Troubling trends based on personal preferences.

Related First.One.Through articles:

Turkish Hypocrisy – Erdogan’s Line of Defense

New York Times Talking Turkey

Educating the New York Times: Hamas is the Muslim Brotherhood

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

On June 2, 2015 the New York Times once again decided to tell the world that the people of Gaza are suffering.

New York Times cover picture of Gaza,
June 2, 2015

With a large color picture on the front page, the Times included another picture and article inside regarding how the Gazan community has still suffered from a lack of money, jobs and rebuilding of the infrastructure one year after the war “between Hamas and Israel.” If a reader ever wanted to learn about the scores of people killed in Nigeria, they would have to hunt inside the paper for an article on page A4 (with no picture). If they wanted to hear about the dozens of Yemeni civilians killed by Saudi Arabia, they would have had to turn to page A12 the day before. This has been a continuing pattern for the NYT, as outlined in “Every Picture Tells a Story – Whitewashing the World” where the killing of civilians around the world went under-reported, while the suffering of Gazans remained over-reported.

Another trend of the liberal press has been to not label Hamas a terrorist organization, as reviewed in “CNN’s Embrace of Hamas.” The group simply is a political group dedicated to “resistance.”

The June 2 NYT article “Gazans’ Hopes for Rebuilding After War Give Way to Deeper Despair” has continued to add to the trend of distancing Palestinian Arabs from Hamas, and Hamas from terrorism, as if everything that happened to Gazans was poor luck and happenstance.

The article referred to the Palestinian Arabs’ “hope” and “Early optimism that global powers would intervene forcefully to rebuild the battered coastal enclave after the 50-day summer war between Gaza’s Hamas government and Israel “. The article never discussed their hope that Hamas would destroy Israel.

The article detailed the blight in Gaza, stating “Pulverized buildings are still scattered along Gaza’s border areas from the last war. In the rubble of Shejaiya, an eastern neighborhood of Gaza City, near the border with Israel,” but did not discuss that the Shejaya neighborhood was the locus of dozens of tunnels from people’s homes into Israel to commit acts of terror.

It would appear that the NYT further wanted its readers to believe that the people of Gaza made a momentary strategic blunder in aligning itself with the Muslim Brotherhood in a “decision that backfired“:

“The Egyptian government, a bitter enemy of its homegrown Islamist party,
the Muslim Brotherhood, has taken extraordinary steps to shut down the tunnels [connecting Egypt and Gaza] that were the lifeblood of the Gaza economy.

Egypt has opened its border only five times this year, part of a broader policy to punish Hamas, which aligned itself with the Brotherhood, Egypt’s former ruling party,
a decision that backfired when the military seized power in mid-2013.“

This is ridiculous. Hamas IS an integral part of the Muslim Brotherhood. It didn’t simply “align itself” in “a decision that backfired.” Here are quotes from the Hamas Charter (1988):

“Article 2: The Islamic Resistance Movement is one of the wings of Moslem Brotherhood in Palestine. Moslem Brotherhood Movement is a universal organization which constitutes the largest Islamic movement in modern times….

Article 7: The Islamic Resistance Movement is one of the links in the chain of the struggle against the Zionist invaders. It goes back to 1939, to the emergence of the martyr Izz al-Din al Kissam and his brethren the fighters, members of Moslem Brotherhood. It goes on to reach out and become one with another chain that includes the struggle of the Palestinians and Moslem Brotherhood in the 1948 war and the Jihad operations of the Moslem Brotherhood in 1968 and after.”

This is not subject to interpretation. Hamas is an integral part of the global Muslim Brotherhood movement, a group which has been actively banned and persecuted in Muslim countries such as Egypt and Syria for promoting terrorism.

However, such facts muddy a narrative of Palestinian Arabs as innocent victims. Therefore, the media seems to have concluded that the best way to advance the victimhood tale requires a multi-part effort:

Distance the people from the ruling government and negative reports. Minimize the fact that Palestinian Arabs voted for Hamas, which has led Fatah in every poll since 2006. Explain that the Arabs are frustrated by the Fatah corruption so had no practical choice other than voting for Hamas. Explain Palestinian Arabs being the most anti-Semitic people in the world by using terms like “not surprising” without delving into cause-and-effect.
Stop calling Hamas a terrorist organization. Use terms like “militant” sparingly, and ideally, just “Islamist”.
Refer to Hamas as a political entity. Which it is, like the Nazi party was a political entity elected by the Germans in the 1930s. Quote “political leaders” of Hamas often.
Never refer to the Hamas Charter, which calls for the complete destruction of Israel; murder of Jews and never accepting any negotiated settlement. Skip the long, evil Jewish and Zionist conspiracy theories- those statements are just noise that cloud the picture of Palestinian Arab suffering.
Localize Hamas to an Israeli resistant movement. In a world that fears the dangerous rise of the Islamic State / ISIS, do not let Hamas get painted as part of a broader Muslim terrorist group (as described above).

If you follow these steps, the Palestinian Arabs can appear as passive victims and not as active participants in a radical anti-Semitic, anti-Western regional movement to install a Muslim caliphate.

Read the press today. Which rules are they using?

Related First.One.Through articles:

Cause and Effect: Making Gaza

The Death of Civilians; the Three Shades of Sorrow

Honor Killings in Gaza

The Palestinians aren’t “Resorting to Violence”; They are Murdering and Waging War

What do you Recognize in the Palestinians?

Extreme and Mainstream. Germany 1933; West Bank & Gaza 2014