Category Archives: Opinion

The International Criminal Court for Palestinians and Israelis

Posted on by
3

The International Criminal Court defines itself as “an independent, permanent court that tries persons accused of the most serious crimes of international concern, namely genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. The ICC is based on a treaty, joined by 122 countries.”

The ICC uses the following definition for genocide: “According to the Rome Statute, “genocide” means any of the following acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group:

  • killing members of the group;
  • causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
  • deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
  • imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
  • forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.”

Regarding “Crimes Against Humanity” the ICC uses the following categories:

  • murder;
  • extermination;
  • enslavement;
  • deportation or forcible transfer of population;
  • imprisonment;
  • torture;
  • rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity;
  • persecution against an identifiable group on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious or gender grounds;
  • enforced disappearance of persons;
  • the crime of apartheid;
  • other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering or serious bodily or mental injury.

Lastly, for “war crimes”, the ICC states that it “include grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions and other serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in international armed conflict and in conflicts “not of an international character” listed in the Rome Statute, when they are committed as part of a plan or policy or on a large scale. These prohibited acts include:

  • murder;
  • mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
  • taking of hostages;
  • intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population;
  • intentionally directing attacks against buildings dedicated to religion, education, art, science or charitable purposes, historical monuments or hospitals;
  • pillaging;
  • rape, sexual slavery, forced pregnancy or any other form of sexual violence;
  • conscripting or enlisting children under the age of 15 years into armed forces or groups or using them to participate actively in hostilities.”

Many of these definitions cover the actions of many countries in modern times. The ICC has taken on a handful of cases thus far including in: Uganda; Congo; Sudan; Central African Republic and Kenya. Crimes committed by Syria, Boko Haram, the Taliban, Iran and Islamic State have not been prosecuted at this time.

Palestinians at the ICC

Genocide: As the Palestinian Authority takes moves to join the ICC, it will place itself in the crosshairs of many of the actions of the court. Within the definition of genocide, the Hamas charter and its leadership call for the killing of Jews and the destruction of Israel clearly put in in violation.

Crimes Against Humanity: Within the definition of crimes against humanity, Hamas murders and kidnaps Israelis. The kidnapped people do not get proper treatment (such as visitation) according to the Geneva Convention. Hamas tortures people suspected of collaborating with Israel and cause mental injury to Palestinians by public executions and torture and dragging bodies through the streets. Acting Palestinian Authority president Abbas actively practices apartheid: he has called for a Jew-free state; Palestinian law bans the sale of any land to Jews (punishable by death); the universities prohibit Jews from stepping foot on campuses. Abbas and Hamas both cause mental injury towards Jews continuously: naming squares and tournaments after murderers of Jewish civilians; airing television programs which call for the murder of all Jews.

War Crimes: Regarding war crimes, Hamas openly attacks civilians and civilian targets. It enlists children to fight Israel and takes hostages.

Israel at the ICC

Genocide: Regarding genocide, the population growth of the Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank exceed almost every country in the world. The regions have the highest birth rates and lowest death rates. The blockade around Gaza has been deemed legal by the United Nations. No case could be advanced against Israel for such charges.

Crimes Against Humanity: Israel does imprison Arabs in its territories and its practice could come under scrutiny. However, the arrests are likely not viewed as widespread and are often done while investigating crimes. Trying to apply the charge of apartheid would be a stretch as Israel’s practice of using military law for the West Bank which has different criteria for those residents with Israeli citizenship and those that do not. Israel’s treatment of non-Jewish citizens would likely further counter any argument that Israel’s actions in the territories are based on ethnicity.

War Crimes: The Palestinians will likely try to get the most leverage out of the charge of war crimes. It will use the latest Operation Protective Edge over the summer of 2014 to try to blame Israel for intentionally attacking the civilian population and mosques and schools. While Israel may concede that some of their firepower was intentional, it will argue that the targets were legitimate as they were sources of fire. The debate about proportionality of the use of Israel’s firepower and resulting collateral damage versus the firepower aimed at Israeli civilians may be too nuanced for the court to take on.

Palestinian attempts to use the ICC to pursue actions against Israel related to settlement activity in the West Bank would be a stretch. Firstly, it does not fit neatly into the categories which are the focus areas for the ICC. Secondly, international laws like the Geneva Convention and Hague Regulation do not actually consider Jews living in the West Bank to be illegal (see the First One Through article below). Further, “grave violations of the Geneva Conventions” would be a stretch as only one clause (Article 49) deals with treatment of occupied territory, and 95% of that article deals with the treatment of the local population, while only 5% addresses new residents moving into the land.

The international calls that the settlements are illegal are posted by various United Nations and governmental bodies and do not constitute international law from which the ICC would rule. If it were, the ICC could consider the “Zionism is racism” edict by the UN and convict Israel for crimes on that basis. (Note that Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan called Zionism a “crime against humanity” in September 2013.  World opinion on the topic is angry and absurd, but it should not have any bearing on legality).

 

The Palestinians clearly are much more vulnerable to charges of the ICC. Does Palestinian Authority acting –President Mahmoud Abbas feel that Hamas would bear the brunt of any fallout which would just strengthen his personal position and that of Fatah? Does he think that because his term for president expired six years ago, he can claim no responsibility for Palestinian war crimes?

Sources:

http://www.icc-cpi.int/en_menus/icc/about%20the%20court/frequently%20asked%20questions/Pages/12.aspx

Related FirstOneThrough articles:

The Palestinian call for genocide of the Jews: https://firstonethrough.wordpress.com/2014/11/19/the-palestinians-arent-resorting-to-violence-they-are-murdering-and-waging-war/

Abbas Actively Practices Racism: https://firstonethrough.wordpress.com/2014/10/27/abbas-knows-racism/

The Legal Israeli Settlements: https://firstonethrough.wordpress.com/2014/12/11/the-legal-israeli-settlements/

Quality of life of Arabs in West Bank and Gaza: https://firstonethrough.wordpress.com/2015/01/04/mad-world-of-palestinian-quality-of-life-statistics/

Abbas’s presidential term expired long ago: https://firstonethrough.wordpress.com/2014/09/30/the-disappointing-46-anniversary/

 

abbas UN

Failing Negotiation 102: Europe

Posted on by
10

“Or What?”

While the United States clearly failed in Negotiation 101 by advancing a peace process that had no chance of success, it is Europe that is failing Negotiation 102.

A basic question in any negotiation is “or what?” If talks break down, where does one stand? Can a party achieve more by having negotiations fail? If so, there would be no motivation to negotiate earnestly.

Those are the questions that acting Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas is weighing now. Can he get more from the world than he can from negotiating directly with Israel? Based on his assessment of the United Nations and countries willing to prematurely recognize a Palestinian State, he believes that he will achieve greater concessions through a globally mandated solution.

Abbas has been developing this backup (primary?) campaign for several years. The two principal components are recognition (of Palestine) and marginalization (of Israel).   The recognition of Palestine as a state started with UNESCO in 2011. Abbas has continued to work other United Nations agencies and countries around the world to recognize the PA as a sovereign state. In the fall of 2014, Sweden and other European countries began to give Abbas what he desired.

The tool that Abbas hopes will be used to pressure Israel into accepting a globally imposed solution is the BDS (boycott, divest and sanction) movement. If Abbas can convince the world to cease doing business and trade with Israel, he feels that the world can dictate a solution upon Israel which is very reliant on exports for its economy.

As/if European countries move forward with recognizing a state of Palestine and penalizing Israel economically, they effectively will halt any chance for direct peace negotiations. Abbas will not return to the negotiating table while he believes that the world will award him a country with greater borders and controls than he could win in negotiations with Israel.

Even if Abbas doesn’t secure everything he desires from world bodies over the near-term, he would still continue down the unilateral course, as he believes it would position him better in negotiations with Israel at a future point in time, securing whatever advantages he can now. He would further bolsters his credibility with Palestinian Arabs by not giving any concessions while winning Israeli concessions from the world.

And what does Israel gain in a failed peace process? What is its “or what?”

The only “advantage” Israel gains in stalled talks is continuing to permit Jews to move to Judea and Samaria, which may solidify territories under Israeli control in a final settlement. But it loses significantly at the same time from the lack of peace. For eight years it has had Palestinians attacking its citizens from Gaza. It watches Hezbollah in Lebanon gather more weaponry and ready for war. Iran moves forward towards nuclear weapons while calling for Israel’s destruction. As such, the failure of reaching a peace agreement continues to threaten the country. What other country in the world has bomb shelters in every house and every hotel? What other country over the past twenty years has needed to distribute gas masks to its citizens? What other country in the world has countries that refuse to acknowledge its existence? To threaten the country with extermination?

 

Currently, European and the United Nations’ actions are actively encouraging the Palestinians to avoid direct negotiations with Israel. How far will they continue to move in this direction?

Sources:

UNESCO recognizes Palestine: http://world.time.com/2011/10/31/palestinian-statehood-gets-recognized-unesco-whats-next/

Sweden recognizing Palestine: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/03/sweden-recognise-state-palestine

Saeb Erekat calling for BDS: http://www.jpost.com/Diplomacy-and-Politics/Erekat-Israel-preparing-major-settlement-expansion-annexation-355397

Related FirstOneThrough article:

Failing Negotiations 101: the United States https://firstonethrough.wordpress.com/2015/01/01/failing-negotiation-101-the-united-states/

 

abbas UN

 

 

Failing Negotiation 101: The United States

Posted on by
5

One Party that can deliver

US Secretary of State John Kerry invested heavily in Israel-Palestinian Authority peace talks from July 2013 to March 2014. In the wake of the failure, many people looked to blame one of the two parties for the talks’ failure. A recent New York Times article quoted Israeli left-wing politician Tzipi Livni as blaming the Palestinians for the collapsed negotiations (a surprising statement, as in Israeli election season she only criticizes her political opponent Benjamin Netanyahu.)

In reality, it was the US that was to blame.

The US did not fail for lack of effort. It did not fail in trying to find creative solutions. It failed because the entire basis of having negotiations in the current format was a fool’s errand.

The process was doomed from the outset because Secretary Kerry deliberately ignored Negotiation Rule 101: negotiations between parties that can deliver. A negotiation between parties without authority is meaningless. A person without authority or control could theoretically promise anything – but deliver nothing. That was precisely what Secretary Kerry insisted upon when he pushed Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to negotiate with a straw man named Mahmoud Abbas.

Abbas has no mandate. Mahmoud Abbas was elected to a four year term as president of the Palestinian Authority in January 2005. After his term expired in January 2009, no new elections were held. He no longer has a mandate.

Abbas has no backing. The reason that no new elections for the PA have been held is that everyone knows that Abbas and his Fatah party would lose. One year after Abbas won the presidency, his Fatah party was trounced in legislative elections. Hamas won 58% of the parliament. Every poll taken since then has shown that Abbas would lose in a presidential election.

Abbas has no control. Gaza, with its population of 1.7 million people, is under complete control of Hamas. Hamas routed all PA forces in 2007 and Abbas has no ability to control any activities from the region. Hamas controls thousands of missiles which it fires at Israeli population centers with or without Abbas approval. Therefore, what “peace” can Abbas deliver?

Despite these enormous glaring flaws, the US pushed forward a peace process that was doomed from the start because of the very essence of one of the negotiating parties. Netanyahu was forced to sit across from a counter-party who could not deliver any compromise that he may have offered. As Netanyahu’s authority was clear, any negotiating point that he made was secure; Abbas could “bank” every concession. However, any compromise that Abbas would theoretically offer, could be negated by the Palestinians. Just as the Palestinians complained that they were never asked about the British Mandate in 1922, they could once again complain that the public was never consulted about the peace process, as a mothballed politician without backing negotiated the agreement.

Further, Abbas’ lack of control meant that he had no means of enforcing the agreement. Israel would be left (at best) with making peace with those parties that accepted the peace agreement, but still be at war with those that rejected the agreement. With Abbas unable to enforce the compromises and the peace, it would continue to fall on Israel to confront those Palestinians that were still at war with the country. Noting how the world reacted to Israel’s defensive operation against Gaza in 2014, could Israel have any sense of security that it could effectively counter-act Palestinian aggression post a mock peace deal?

Secretary Kerry compounded the mistake of the bogus negotiation by building up expectations. His earnest and persistent involvement aggravated the talk’s failure. By investing so heavily in the process, Kerry made the failure that much more pronounced. While there was no direct line linking the talk’s collapse to the July-August battles with Hamas, the environment was poisoned.

 

Abbas gets no R-E-S-P-E-C-T music video (music by Aretha Franklin): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LipAKFsUNq8

 

Sources:

NY Times on Tzipi Livni impression on talks failure: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/24/opinion/roger-cohen-why-israeli-palestinian-peace-failed.html?_r=0

Related First One Through articles:

Abbas 10-year anniversary for a 4 year term: https://firstonethrough.wordpress.com/2014/09/30/the-disappointing-46-anniversary/

 

 

Names and Narrative: The West Bank / Judea and Samaria

Posted on by
44

The New York Times has taken more concerted efforts to balance the narrative between Muslims and Jews regarding the holy city and sites in Jerusalem. It has not taken such efforts elsewhere where it only uses an Arab narrative.

JERUSALEM

The holiest site in Judaism is “The Temple Mount” in Jerusalem, due to the fact that it was the location of Judaism’s two temples which existed from roughly 954BCE to 70CE. The Jewish King Herod built the Temple Mount platform specifically for Jewish use to ease access and flow to the Second Temple. To this day, it continues to be the direction of all Jewish prayer.

In Islam, that holy site is called the “Noble Sanctuary”, or “Bayt al-Maqdes” or “Al-Haram al-Sharif”. It is Islam’s third holiest site after Mecca and Medina, both located in Saudi Arabia. The Noble Sanctuary holds the Al Aqsa Mosque and the shrine known as the Dome of the Rock.

Historically, the New York Times would reference the names that both religions ascribed to the holy site, typically with the Jewish name first (the Temple Mount), and later in the article, it would use the Islamic name (Noble Sanctuary). More recently, the Times would use both names in the same sentence, and occasionally use the Islamic name first, followed by the Jewish name.

JUDEA AND SAMARIA

However, when it comes to other sites in the region with different names from the two peoples, the Times excludes the Israeli terminology: specifically, “Judea and Samaria”. For such region, the Times will only use the term “West Bank”, except if an Israeli is quoted using the name Judea and Samaria.

Interestingly, the West Bank never existed as an entity until 1949, and was never even referred to by the United Nations Security Council until 1953. In comparison, Judea and Samaria, which cover more area than just the West Bank, have existed for thousands of years.

The “West Bank” came into existence after five Arab armies attacked Israel in 1948. The armistice lines established in 1949 at the end of the war with Jordan became known as the “Green Line” as the line was drawn in green on the maps. The haphazard demarcation did not follow any historic, political or geographic contours, but was simply where the warring parties stopped fighting. The area east of the green line eventually became known as the West Bank.

In the years following the 1948 Arab attack on Israel, every United Nations Security Council (UNSC) Resolution regarding the “Palestine Question”, never mentioned Palestinians as a discrete people or the “West Bank” and Gaza as entities. Each resolution referred to the various parties in the conflict being Israel, Syria, Jordan and Egypt. The term “west bank (in lower case) of the Jordan” only showed up for the first time in 1953.

The term “West Bank” is an Arab artifice and highlights the short, violent and illegal Arab rule of the area:

  • It was achieved in an offensive war to destroy Israel
  • The duration of Arab rule only lasted for 18 years 1949-1967
  • Arab rule of the West Bank was never internationally approved (the UNSC never voted on the April 1950 Jordanian annexation of the area)
  • Was administered counter to the Fourth Geneva Convention (the Jordanians and Palestinians deported all of the Jews out of the territory)

The exclusive use of the term “West Bank” gives a false impression that the territory has a long history of Palestinian Arab rule. Further, in never using the term “Judea and Samaria” for the region, the UN, the New York Times and others, distance Jews and Israelis from lands that they lived in for thousands of years.

As the New York Times and other publications now give equal weight to “the Temple Mount” and “Noble Sanctuary”, they should do the same for “West Bank” and “Judea and Samaria”. Alternatively, it could use neutral nomenclature such as EGL- East of the Green Line.

judeasamaria

Source:

2014 NYTimes Noble Sanctuary first, then Temple Mount (11/19/14): http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/19/opinion/horror-in-israel.html

2014 NY Times mentioning Temple Mount and Noble Sanctuary at the same time (10/31/14): http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/31/world/middleeast/israel-palestinians-jerusalem-temple-mount-al-aksa.html

(11/7/14): http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/07/world/middleeast/israel-jordan-jerusalem-al-aqsa-temple-mount.html

(11/23/14): http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/23/world/middleeast/mistrust-threatens-delicate-balance-at-a-sacred-site-in-jerusalem-.html

Only calling it the “Al Aqsa compound” and not the “Temple Mount” (9/17/14): http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/18/world/middleeast/unrest-by-palestinians-surges-in-a-jerusalem-neighborhood.html?_r=0

2013 NYTimes mentions Temple Mount and only later Noble Sanctuary (10/15/13): http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/15/world/middleeast/ten-jewish-men-arrested-at-temple-mount.html

(9/22/13): http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/22/world/middleeast/jews-challenge-rules-to-claim-heart-of-jerusalem.html?pagewanted=all

2009 NY Times only mentions Temple Mount (10/26/09): http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/26/world/middleeast/26mideast.html

UN mentioning “west bank of Jordan” for the first time in 1953: http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/RES/101%281953%29

Related FirstOneThrough articles:

The Green Line

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

Nicholas Kristof’s “Arab Land”

Alternatives for Punishing Dead Terrorists

Posted on by
9

Some media pundits and politicians have questioned the logic of destroying homes of terrorists after those terrorists have been killed. The question as to whether it deters terrorists is impossible to answer as no one knows how many violent actions did not occur because of the home demolition policy that Israel enforced in 2014 against Arab murderers.

As Palestinian Arabs often talk about the importance of “dignity and pride”, perhaps there are some alternative punishments that Israel could administer to the dead murderers. As there is no dignity in intentionally murdering innocent civilians, these evil monsters’ memories should forever be cursed and their names erased. Perhaps attacking their memory broadly and publicly would dissuade others from taking such action.

Here are a few ideas from FirstOneThrough:

  • Place their image on scented pucks that sit at the bottom of urinals, making for excellent target practice (for men at least)
  • Make a small sticker with their name that could be put on the bottom of people’s shoes to trample (the bottoms of shoes are considered very degrading and insulting in Arab society)
  • Name the street where the murderer lives after the victims
  • The families of the murderers would forever forgo any type of compensation for homes lost/ abandoned in 1948
  • If a Palestinian official calls a murderer a “shahid” which means “martyr” in Arabic, all official Israeli publications should anoint such person the title of “Shatty” as in “we denounce the actions of Shatty Abdelrahman Shaludi”. Other variations like “Sharmoota baby” are acceptable (Sharmotta means whore).
  • Any photos used of the suicide killer should have a superimposed camel’s anus for his mouth
  • A bonfire should be made each year at the Dead Sea, the lowest place on earth, where people can write their curses on pieces of paper with the murderers likeness on it, and then toss the picture and curse into the fire

The expense for these items can be taken from a special surtax on the murderer’s families.  The amount of the charge will exactly equal the amount of money that terrorist sympathizers hand the families as “reward” for the disgraceful sick murder of innocents.

I’m sure the Facebook generation can come up with additional ideas.  Please share them. Here are some suggestions thus far:

  • Print the faces of the murderers on toilet paper
  • Do not return the bodies of the murderers to the families. Instead bury them near garbage dumps or at sea OR do not tell them what was done with the bodies at all
  • Every murder should be met with a huge fund-raiser for the Friends of the IDF
  • Every murder is met with a new construction project
  • All new buildings that are put up in Jerusalem or settlements will be named after victims.  Some suggest naming them after the attacker
  • Deport the murderer’s family to Gaza, Jordan or Syria
  • Revoke all working papers for the family
  • Demolish the homes- the family is complicit in the murder. Some suggest demolishing surrounding homes too
  • Celebrations on behalf of the murderer should be treated as incitement to terror and a jail-able offense for all participants
  • Every act of terror should be met with the distribution of guns to all Jews in the neighborhood where the crime took place
  • All Israeli ammunition should be coated in pigs blood to dissuade Arabs from seeking a path to Paradise
  • Take world funds destined to rebuild Gaza to support the victims’ families

camelarab

Sources:

Home demolition: http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/israel-demolishes-jerusalem-home-of-palestinian-car-killer.aspx?pageID=517&nID=74523&NewsCatID=352

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2014/11/israeli-forces-destroy-home-palestinian-2014111955011479517.html

Arabic curse words: http://www.youswear.com/index.asp?language=Arabic#.VG1VF_8tCUk

Article 17 of the Palestinian Charter: “The liberation of Palestine, from a human point of view, will restore to the Palestinian individual his dignity, pride, and freedom. Accordingly the Palestinian Arab people look forward to the support of all those who believe in the dignity of man and his freedom in the world.” http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/plocov.asp

Salaries for suicide bombers: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/salaries-for-suicide-bombers/

FirstOneThrough article on Collective Guilt/ Collective Punishment: https://firstonethrough.wordpress.com/2014/10/13/collective-guilt-collective-punishment/

“Mainstream” and Abbas’ Jihad

Posted on by
18

Abbas’ call to Jihad is to put Fatah into the mainstream.

According to the Webster dictionary, “mainstream” means “a prevailing current or direction of activity or influence”. Dictionary.com defines it as “belonging to or characteristic of a principal, dominant, or widely accepted group, movement, style”.

It is perhaps telling (or sad?) that mainstream media does not understand what “mainstream” actually means. Consider the New York Times usage regarding acting-Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas’s Fatah party. Time and again it refers to Fatah as “mainstream”:

  • November 6, 2014: “…the attacks on Fatah, the mainstream Palestinian party led by President Mahmoud Abbas…”
  • August 18, 2014: “Hamas and its main rival, the mainstream Fatah faction..”
  • June 2, 2014: “…which is dominated by the mainstream Fatah faction, and its rival Hamas…”
  • May 29, 2014: “…which is dominated by the mainstream Fatah faction, and its rival, …”

However, polls show that both a majority of Palestinians support Hamas and the direction of support is increasing. Consider the quote from the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research on October 10, 2014:

“the public still favors Hamas’ “way” over negotiations, and Hamas and Haniyeh
are still more popular than Fatah and Mahmud Abbas”

Further, the trend of the polls shows Fatah continuing to lose support. In legislative elections, Fatah support declined from 43% (March) to 40% (June) to 36% (September). It is Hamas, not Fatah that represents the “current direction or influence” of the Palestinians.

September 25, 2014 poll:

  • “Hamas and Haniyeh remain more popular than Fatah and Abbas”
  • “satisfaction with Abbas remains low”
  • “presidential elections if held today: Ismail Haniyeh would win a majority of 55% and Abbas 38%”
  • “If new legislative elections were held today with the participation of all factions… 39% say they would vote for Hamas and 36% say they would vote for Fatah, 5% would vote for all other third parties combined, and 21% are undecided.”

June 5, 2014 poll:

  • “If new presidential elections are held today and only two were nominated, Abbas would receive 53 % and Haniyeh 41%”
  • “If new legislative elections are held today, 32% say they would vote for Hamas and 40% say they would vote for Fatah, 9% would vote for all other third parties combined, and 19% are undecided”

March 20, 2014 poll:

  • “If presidential elections were between three: Mahmud Abbas, Marwan Barghouti and Ismail Haniyeh, Barghouti would receive the largest percentage (36%) followed by Abbas (30%), and Haniyeh (29%)”
  • “If new legislative elections are held today…28% say they would vote for Hamas and 43% say they would vote for Fatah, 12% would vote for all other third parties combined, and 17% are undecided.”

The Palestinians still want a war against Israel. Post Operation Protective Edge, over 79% of Palestinians want rocket fire to continue from Gaza into Israeli cities. Over 25% of Palestinians – in every Palestinian poll taken throughout 2014 – want a complete destruction of Israel.

Abbas knows this, and has used his soapbox afforded by his phony presidential credentials to incite more anger and violence as the Palestinian masses desire. Abbas and Fatah may eventually find their way to the “mainstream” of the Arab public by waving the banner of Jihad, just as its rival Hamas proclaims in its charter.

Quotes of Abbas, October and November 2014:

  • “Keep the settlers and the extremists away from Al-Aqsa and our holy places. We will not allow our holy places to be contaminated. Keep them away from us and we will stay away from them, but if they enter Al-Aqsa, [we] will protect Al-Aqsa and the church and the entire country.”
  • Israel is “leading the region and the world to a destructive religious war,”
  • “It is not enough to say the settlers came, but they must be barred from entering the compound by any means. This is our Aqsa… and they have no right to enter it and desecrate it,”
  • “It is important for the Palestinians to be united in order to protect Jerusalem,”
  • “We have to prevent them, in any way whatsoever, from entering the Sanctuary. This is our Sanctuary, our Al-Aqsa and our Church [of the Holy Sepulchre]. They have no right to enter it. They have no right to defile it. We must prevent them. Let us stand before them with chests bared to protect our holy places.” “

Sources:

FirstOneThrough on Extreme becoming Mainstream: https://firstonethrough.wordpress.com/2014/10/25/extreme-and-mainstream-germany-1933-west-bank-gaza-2014/

Palestinian Survey: http://www.pcpsr.org/

Pick your Jihad, Choose your infidel: https://firstonethrough.wordpress.com/2014/09/28/pick-your-jihad-pick-your-infidel/

The banners of Jihad: https://firstonethrough.wordpress.com/2014/09/29/the-banners-of-jihad/

Abbas’ new Jihad: http://rt.com/news/204583-palestine-abbas-al-aqsa-hamas/

http://news.yahoo.com/abbas-urges-palestinians-protect-al-aqsa-means-191742798.html

Fatah call to kill sellers of land to Jews: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YfVsLzfuVu0

http://www.palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=157&doc_id=12915

“Extremist” or “Courageous”

Posted on by
7

Popularity versus Position, Pervasiveness and Power

The word “extremist” appears like a loaded word. That partially stems from the fact that it conveys two different meanings. The first is that it describes a person who has an extreme position. The second is that it portrays a person at the edges of society.

A person who holds a position at the far fringe of society is pretty straightforward. If someone believes that the moon is purple and 99.9% of the rest of society does not, that person could be called an extremist. The label could be viewed as appropriate simply because the opinion is not popularly held.

The pervasiveness of a position, as opposed to its popularity, is a more subjective criterion. Someone believing that the moon is purple is one thing. However, painting their entire house purple, dying their hair purple and changing their name to Professor Purple Plum, would be viewed as “eccentric” and “obsessive” at a minimum, and possibly even “extreme”.

The “extremist” label sticks best when the person’s actions impact other people. For example, an individual may believe that life starts at conception, but if that is simply a personally held viewpoint, most people would not describe that person as an extremist. However, if a person used that position to justify destroying abortion clinics and harming the people inside, the violent actions would lead people to use the “extremist” label.

Violent extremists are typically painted in two camps: “right-wing” extremists use power to protect religion and capitalism; “left-wing” extremists use violence to flatten social hierarchies, and are often viewed as anti-religion and anti-capitalism.

Religion: Popularity and Power

Popularity is a matter of simple statistics. As an example, if one looks at the distribution of world religions, one can see a few widely held beliefs and some unpopular belief systems:

  • Christians: 31.5%
  • Muslims: 23.2%
  • Unaffiliated: 16.3%
  • Hindus 15.0%
  • Buddhists 7.1%
  • Folk Religionists 5.9%
  • Jews 0.2%

By the measure of popularity, all Jews could be viewed as “extremists” because they have a belief system that is not held by 99% of the world. However, as Jews do not enforce their belief system on others, the “extremist” label would largely be considered inappropriate. Conversely, Islam is a very popular religion, but the various Muslim groups that seek to enforce sharia law and forced conversion of people are often called “extremists”, especially if people that refuse to succumb to their religious edicts are killed. Popularity is not considered the gauge; it is violent actions and/or actions that harm others that define extremists.

 Arab “Residents” and Israeli “Settlers”

Using such distinction between popularity and power, review how mainstream media uses the extreme label in regard to Israel.

On October 23, 2014, the New York Times reported on the story of an Arab that rammed his car into a crowd of Jews killing two people including an infant. Ignoring the Times’ generally terrible coverage overall, the nature of inverted reality and anti-Israel bias was typified in a particular paragraph in the story, where the non-aggressive party was labeled an extremist:

“Mr. Shaloudy was a resident of Silwan, a predominantly Palestinian neighborhood
in territory that Israel captured from Jordan in the 1967 war and later annexed,
a step that has not been recognized internationally. An influx of right-wing Jewish settlers who have acquired property in the area in recent years have made
the neighborhood a flash point in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.”

Mr. Shaloudy, the Arab man who killed two people, is described as a “resident of Silwan, a predominantly Palestinian neighborhood”. This description made him sound like a peaceful neighbor living among his people. He is tied to the majority and therefore, by implication, not an extremist if one were to use the popularity measure.

The paragraph continued that the neighborhood is in “territory that Israel captured…that has not been recognized internationally… right wing settlers…acquired property in the area.” The New York Times painted the Jews as “right wing” extremists. On what basis? That they moved into a “predominantly Palestinian neighborhood”? That they moved into houses that “has not been recognized internationally” to be part of Israel? That just made those Jews a minority in the neighborhood, and Israel’s claim on the territory a minority-held position. However, the actions taken by this group were peaceful: they purchased apartments; and moved into them legally. They harmed no one. As such, they took no actions that warrant being called “right wing”.

However, the Arab “residents” that the Times described, sought to kill Arabs that sell homes to any Jews, in accordance with Palestinian law. This particular Arab “resident” murdered innocent Israelis.  Yet, for some reason, these Palestinians that have laws calling for murdering Jews, who do ultimately commit murder, are not labeled extremists. This is both a perversion and inversion of reality where violent actions are considered the appropriate norm and unpopular positions are considered extreme.

A few paragraphs down, the Times called Israelis extremists again:

“Many of the recent clashes have centered on visits to the compound
by hard-right Israelis who have been increasingly demanding the right to pray there.
The mosque is on the Temple Mount, revered by Jews as the location
of ancient Jewish temples and the holiest site in Judaism.”

The juxtaposition of the sentences was unfair- the Jews had no interest of praying in the mosque, but were seeking to pray nearby on the holiest spot for Judaism. Were these “hard-right Israelis” seeking to hurt anyone? Were they seeking to destroy a mosque or convert anyone? Not at all. So how can their action be considered extreme?

It is true that Jews are a minority in the world. It is true that Israel is surrounded by dozens of Arab and Muslims states that either refuse to recognize Israel or call for its outright destruction. But simply being unpopular doesn’t make Jews or Israel “extreme”.

Jews seeking to buy and live in apartments like anyone else is neither illegal nor extreme. Jews seeking to pray at their holy sites is not extreme. It is exactly the opposite: those people that seek to murder Jews for doing basic activities should be labeled “extremists”. Pinning terminology that make the Jews look like unpopular invaders and therefore extreme, ignores history, decency and honesty.

Shame on the New York Times.  If these were blacks in the 1960s moving into predominantly white neighborhoods in the US, the Times would more likely call these people “courageous”.

20141023_075354

Sources:

World religions: http://www.pewforum.org/2014/04/04/global-religious-diversity/

NY Times “right wing settlers” http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/23/world/middleeast/2-israeli-soldiers-wounded-near-egypt.html?_r=0

First One Through articles on Silwan:

False facts on Jews in Silwan

Obama supporting Jew-free state

UN echoing Palestinian narrative

Abbas Knows Racism

Posted on by
27

Acting President of the Palestinian Authority (PA), Mahmoud Abbas took the podium at the United Nations General Assembly in September 2014. In the speech which covered many attacks on Israel, he repeatedly called the country “racist”:

  • “the third war waged by the racist occupying State in five years against Gaza,”
  • “[Palestinian] legitimate right to resist this colonial, racist Israeli occupation”
  • “racist and armed gangs of settlers persisted with their crimes against the Palestinian people”
  • “the subjugation of the racist settlers and army of occupation, and at worst will be a most abhorrent form of Apartheid.”
  • “terrorism by the racist occupying Power and its settlers”
  • “an attempt to give a religious nature to the conflict and with the rising and rampant racism in the Israeli political and media discourse”
  • “This culture of racism, incitement and hatred”

The video below gives a long review of Israel’s policies and compares them to the policies of not just the surrounding Arab countries, but to democracies around the world. The comparison does not just act as a rebuttal and defense to the charge, but highlights laws that many countries have against Muslims which do not exist in Israel.

But that video is really meant for western viewers who might think they come from non-racist countries and who thereby feel empowered to rebuke Israel. For Abbas to make the charge of racism against Israel can either be viewed as laughable, or as an insightful criticism as it comes from an expert.

Palestinian Racism

Abbas’s charge of racism spans the entirety of Israeli society: the State is racist; the “occupation” is racist; the settlers are racist; the military is racist; Israeli politics and media are racist; and the culture is racist. How does the Palestinian Authority do in these categories?

  • State is racist: Palestinian Authority has a law that condemns any Arab that sells land to a Jew to death.  Universities bar entry to Jews. Gaza forbids UNRWA schools from teaching about the Holocaust.
  • The occupation is racist: Abbas has demanded a new country free of Jews.
  • Military is racist: Hamas charter calls for the killing of all Jews and the destruction of the Jewish State. Hamas states that the essence of the conflict is that Israel is Jewish and that Islam must destroy it. For its part, the entire Palestinian Authority regularly applauds murderers of Jewish civilians and names tournaments and squares after them.
  • Media is racist: The list is too long to review, but turn to MEMRI.org or PalWatch.org to see the vile anti-Semitic rants that Palestinians post on their televisions on a regular basis.
  • Culture is racist: Palestinians are the most anti-Semitic group on the planet, with 93% holding anti-Semitic views according to a poll in May 2014.

Abbas in his own words

  • No Jews: “we would not see the presence of a single Israeli – civilian or soldier – on our lands,” (2013)
  • Holocaust Denial: Abbas spent several years and completed his phd on Holocaust denial. The denial of the Holocaust is considered illegal in: Austria; Belgium; Bosnia and Herzegovina; Czech Republic; France; Germany; Hungary; Israel; Liechtenstein; Lithuania; Luxembourg; Netherlands; Poland; Portugal; Romania; Spain; and Switzerland. He has continued to belittle the Holocaust with calling Israel “genocidal”, including in the UN speech in 2014.

·         Denial of Jewish history: “The occupation authorities are continuing their efforts to achieve their final goal of Judaizing Jerusalem…whose purpose is to serve delusional myths and the arrogance of power. They imagine that by brute force they can invent a history, establish claims and erase solid religious and historical facts” (2014)

  • Denial of Jewish State: “I’ll never recognize Israel as a Jewish state.” (2014); “We shall never agree to recognize the Jewish state.” (2013); “I will never recognize the Jewishness of the state, or a “Jewish state.” (2011)

Sources:

Abbas UN Speech 2014: http://www.timesofisrael.com/full-text-of-abbas-speech-to-un/

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

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

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

1939 British White Paper: http://www.historycentral.com/Israel/1939WhitePaper.html

1988 Hamas charter: “In face of the Jews’ usurpation of Palestine, it is compulsory that the banner of Jihad be raised“; “Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it,” http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hamas.asp

Abbas comparing Holocaust to Israeli “racism”: “The Palestinian people, who suffer from injustice, oppression and denied freedom and peace, are the first to demand to lift the injustice and racism that befell other peoples subjected to such crimes” http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/27/world/middleeast/palestinian-leader-shifts-on-holocaust.html?_r=0

“Judaization” of Jerusalem: http://www.palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=606

Not recognizing Jewish State (2014): http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/27/world/middleeast/palestinian-leader-shifts-on-holocaust.html?_r=1

Not recognizing Jewish State: http://www.memritv.org/clip_transcript/en/4179.htm

2011 refusal for Jewish State: http://www.memritv.org/clip_transcript/en/3163.htm

ADL poll: http://www.adl.org/press-center/press-releases/anti-semitism-international/adl-global-100-poll.html

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

Posted on by
70

Many books and studies have been written analyzing Nazi Germany during the 1930s and 1940s, including the famous “Hitler’s Willing Executioners” by Daniel Goldhagen. The premise of the book revolved around the question of how Hitler – a single madman – could possibly kill millions of people. The book advanced a theory that, putting it simplistically, a single extreme individual or idea could stop being viewed as extreme if many others harbored similar thoughts. Millions of people could be actively annihilated if an entire society believed in the extreme notion that Jews, gays, gypsies and other “undesirables” should be killed. Such a society was capable – and did – murder millions. It was not a lone extremist with a gun, but a country with an army.

The dynamics of the Palestinians in 2014 runs parallel to the Germans in the 1930s in many respects.

mufi Jlem Nazi
Mufti of Jerusalem visiting Nazi troops

Position

Popularity

  • Majority support: The Nazi party won 44% of the votes in 1933. Hamas won 58% of the seats in Parliament in 2006 with their radical platform.
  • Last election. The Nazis suspended elections after the 1933 vote. The Palestinians have held neither presidential elections nor parliamentary elections since their 2006 election.
  • Popularity of Nazis: There are no polls to show how the Nazis would have fared if additional elections were held. Perhaps the Nazis feared that they could have lost an election and therefore did not allow one.
    Popularity of Hamas: There are dozens of polls that show Hamas would win the presidential elections and the parliament with over 50% of the vote, no matter what year the poll was taken. The current acting PA President Mahmoud Abbas (of the Fatah party) and the world knows this, so has suspended any new elections which would clearly show the desires of the Palestinian Arabs for war.

Pal nazi
Palestinians in Nazi Salute

As seen above, the Hamas positions are more extreme than the Nazis at the time of the respective elections. The Palestinians voted much more overwhelmingly for Hamas than the Germans did for the Nazis. Palestinian anti-Semitism in 2014 is more extreme and mainstream than the Germans in the 1930s.

As further evidence, in May 2014, the Anti Defamation League conducted a global poll of anti-Semitism. By a substantial margin, the Palestinians held the most anti-Semitic views in the world, with almost every single Palestinian Arab (93%) in the West Bank and Gaza holding anti-Semitic views. In comparison, 26% of countries outside of the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region held anti-Semitic views.

Germany rose to power in the 1930s and the world did not hold the Nazi aspirations in check. As such, Nazi Germany went on to execute its plans killing millions of civilians until the world reacted.  Perhaps the world only stepped in, because Germany crossed into their backyards.

Fatah nazi
Fatah leader in Nazi Salute

Today, the Palestinians do not have significant fire power and have therefore only been able to kill hundreds, not millions of Jews.

  • Will the world encourage and embrace such a nation and leadership on the world stage?
  • Will the world enable Iran or other allies of the Palestinians to obtain nuclear weapons?
  • Does the world believe that “Never Again” only means in Europe?

Related First.One.Through articles:

Abbas’ Jihad is a move to the mainstream Palestinian opinion: https://firstonethrough.wordpress.com/2014/11/12/mainstream-and-abbas-jihad/

Why the media ignores Jihad in Israel: https://firstonethrough.wordpress.com/2015/01/26/radical-jihadists-in-europe-and-dislocated-and-alienated-palestinians-in-Israel/

Abbas’ racism: https://firstonethrough.wordpress.com/2014/10/27/abbas-knows-racism/

Antisemitism, Holocaust denial and terrorism in Palestinian society and leadership: https://firstonethrough.wordpress.com/2015/01/29/what-do-you-recognize-in-the-palestinians/

 Pal nazi2

Sources:

Nazi 1933 election: http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/march_1933_election.htm

Nazi platform: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/naziprog.html

Hamas terrorist label: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas

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

Palestinian courts handing death sentence for land sale to Jews: http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2009/04/2009429105147715724.html

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

Abbas no Israelis in Palestine: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/30/us-palestinians-israel-abbas-idUSBRE96T00920130730

Palestinian poll: http://www.pcpsr.org/

Anti-Semitism poll 2014: http://www.algemeiner.com/2014/05/13/adl-global-survey-finds-anti-semitic-attitudes-are-persistent-pervasive-around-the-world-west-bank-gaza-highest-scores/

European Narrative over Facts

Posted on by
9

Sweden and the United Kingdom took steps to recognize a Palestinian State in October 2014. The assumed reason stated by pundits was to pressure Israel to move forward with peace talks. The only issue is that facts and reason do not support pressuring Israel.

Palestinians were last polled at the end of September 2014 and Israelis in June.  Regarding a two state solution:

  • 53% of Palestinians support a two-state solution, 46% oppose it
  • 60% of Israelis support a two-state solution with only 32% opposed

That means that the Palestinians are much more against a two state solution than the Israelis (who favor it by almost a 2-to-1 margin).

What about using negotiations versus force?

  • For the Palestinians, 63% believe Hamas’ armed approach should be used in West Bank
  • 55% of Palestinians would vote for the anti-Semitic Hamas party which wants to destroy Israel, if presidential elections were held now
  • (The use force is not about attacking the Israeli army but all Israelis: the same percentage – 54% – were in favor of the kidnapping and murder of the three Israeli teenagers who were hitchhiking home from school)
  • Among Israelis, 60% would return to the negotiating table today

So the Palestinians clearly prefer the use of force while the Israelis prefer negotiations.

So who actually needs pressure to advance in peace talks, Israelis or Palestinians?

Sources:

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

Israeli poll: http://en.idi.org.il/tools-and-data/guttman-center-for-surveys/the-peace-index/

Israeli poll: http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/israel-peace-conference/1.601996

FirstOneThrough on UK’s blind spot: https://firstonethrough.wordpress.com/2014/08/29/no-disappearing-in-the-land-of-blind/