The global population was roughly 2.5 billion people in 1947. Less developed countries had a population of roughly 1.75 billion, and there were about 800 million in the developed world. Back then, the populations of China, India, the USA and Russia were about 570 million, 360 million, 150 million and 100 million, respectively.
Quite a different world then today.
The world was once much more regionalized. In 1947, there were fewer than 25 million international tourists; that figure was nearly 1.5 billion in 2019 before the pandemic, and has slightly rebounded to just under 1 billion in 2022. There were only about 10 million foreign-born people in the US in 1947, a number closer to 45 million in 2018. The figures are similar in Europe.
Computers were just starting to be used 75 years ago, with today’s pocket smartphones having more capabilities than those gigantic governmental ones. International calls cost a fortune as opposed to today’s free over-the-top calls made to people everywhere in an instant.
Technology and transportation have made the world smaller and people migrate much more than they did 75 years ago. Just since 1990, Europe went from having a foreign-born population accounting for roughly 5.5% of the population to nearly 10.5% in 2015. In the United States, it went from 7.9% to 13.9% over those same years.
Laws and regulations changed over the past 75 years which contributed to global migration patterns beyond technology and transportation. Many more immigrants from Latin American countries come to the United States now, whereas they used to come from Europe (75% in 1950s). Countries pass laws based on current realities and desires for the future. They tinker with immigration policy based on global demand as well as their own demographic needs for labor.
No country enacts policies to RECREATE A REALITY that existed in the past. They do not pretend that it’s 1947 and that laws passed back then have relevance to today’s reality.
Except for the United Nations as it relates in Palestinian Arabs.
The UN continues to bless the Palestinian desire for a “Right of Return” to homes that grandparents once lived in inside Israel based in a resolution passed in December 1948 when the Arab war to destroy the new State of Israel was still being waged. While the UN and Palestinians ignore most of Resolution 194 as it obviously has no bearing on today’s reality, they continue to prop up a single provision, article 11 which states:
“Resolves that refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible.“
Supporters of Hamas express their solidarity with the Jenin refugee camp, in Jabalia in the northern Gaza Strip on April 10, 2022. Days before, gunmen from Jenin went on a shooting rampage in Tel Aviv killing three Israelis and wounding more than a dozen others. (Photo by MOHAMMED ABED / AFP)
People correctly point out that almost all Palestinians today are not refugees and are unwilling to live at peace with Israel as demonstrated time and time again. More basically, today is not 1947, and the same way that UNGA Resolution 194 calling for the internationalization of Greater Jerusalem and Greater Bethlehem is no longer contemplated, so has the concept of a “right of return” long passed its expiration date.
The UN may advocate for Palestinian self-determination but cannot demand a right-of-return to Israel. All nations must make clear that they support terminating a concept which was captured in a single line in a resolution passed in 1948 in the middle of a war.
ACTION ITEM
Email White House “Make clear that our country opposes the idea that descendants of Palestinian refugees have a “right of return” to towns inside Israel which was contemplated as part of a broad end to the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. It continues to foment frustration, hatred and encourages war in the region.
South Africa put forward the charge of ‘genocidal conduct‘ against Israel for its actions in Gaza since October 8, 2023. The reported figure of over 23,000 deaths, over one percent of the population of Gaza, is claimed to show a deliberate intent to wipe out all Arabs in the region. The use of heavy 2,000-pound bombs in civilians neighborhoods is alleged to show a complete disregard for non-combatants as well as a disproportionate and indiscriminate use of force.
Lawyers prosecuting Israel at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) quoted members of the Israeli parliament after the October 7 attack in which they said they wanted to flatten Gaza, encourage a ‘voluntary emigration’ of Arabs from the region, and treat them like the biblical ‘Amalek’, a people for which Jews are commanded to wipe out completely. Counsel argued that comments from leaders shows the government’s official policy for the annihilation of the region’s Arabs.
The United Nations’ International Criminal Court has disallowed Israel from bringing any evidence of the Gazans’ October 7 massacre and brutalization of Israelis, mostly civilians. It contends that even if Hamas committed crimes against humanity, Israel must still adhere to basic rules of war.
The Case Against ‘Genocide’
Genocide involves the deliberate mass killing of an ethnic group or particular nation with the goal of annihilation or ethnically cleansing them.
It is bizarre to bring the charge against Israel based on the situation before even considering the prosecution of the war.
Israel’s attack on Gaza was both reactive and defensive. It had a ceasefire agreement with Hamas which rules Gaza, which Hamas broke with its invasion and sadistic slaughter.
Hamas leaders have pledged to commit the October 7 massacre “again and again.” Israel is compelled to not only bring the estimated 3,000 Gazan perpetrators of the October 7 massacre to justice, as well as the leaders who commanded and supported the operation, but to prevent the atrocities from happening again.
Hamas continues to fire at Israel. Hamas and various factions of this Gaza army continue to fire rockets and wage war against Israel. This is not a situation of a military aggressively hunting civilians but an active battlefield.
Hamas fires from civilian neighborhoods. The battlefield is the neighborhoods of Gaza from which Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and other factions of the Gazan army shoot rockets and attack Israel.
Civilian infrastructure is part of the Gazan war effort. The Gazan army and infrastructure is embedded in civilian homes, hospitals, mosques and schools. Arms are stored and tunnel-openings begin in these locations, and are therefore part-and-parcel of the Gazan war effort.
The core Gazan army infrastructure is beneath civilian neighborhoods. The Gazan army runs the majority of its operations below ground, underneath civilian neighborhoods.
The Gazan army doesn’t wear uniforms. Many Palestinian fighters do not wear uniforms to clearly distinguish themselves from civilians, blurring the battlefield between military and civilians.
Israel unilaterally left Gaza completely in 2005. Israel does not covet the land and wanted the region to be a peaceful neighbor where Arabs would have complete self-determination. Instead, Gaza became a terrorist-ruled strip which has waged repeated wars against Israel targeting civilians.
Israel is attempting to save hundreds of hostages. Hamas and other Gazans took 240 hostages, mostly civilians into Gaza, many of whom are children, elderly and infirm. Saving them requires quick action.
Those are just the basic facts which set the scene for which Israel has to prosecute a difficult war. Even with such impossible backdrop, Israel has attempted to avoid the loss of civilian lives.
Millions of text messages sent to Palestinian Arab civilians to get out of harm’s way
Leaflets dropped over neighborhoods to make sure civilians got the message to leave active battlefields.
‘Safe zones’ and escape corridors created for civilians to flee hot spots.
Israel telegraphed its intentions of where it was prosecuting the battle – starting in northern Gaza – to allow civilians to leave, putting its own Israeli soldiers at risk.
The world begged Israel to not launch a ground invasion of Gaza and so relied on air power to start the retaliation against known military targets. It is those aerial assaults that the world now criticizes.
While the world may appreciate the need to dismantle Hamas and the impossible task facing Israel of fighting an enemy which is deeply embedded with civilians, it doesn’t really care. It has no proposals or gameplans to prosecute the war any better, other than demand Israel do so.
A view of the rubble of buildings hit by an Israeli airstrike, in Gaza City, October 10, 2023. (Fatima Shbair/AP)
In regard to Israeli leaders’ commentary that Gazans are like Amalek, a metaphor is not a call to action. Amalek was called out because they attacked the weakest Jews as they left Egypt, just as Hamas and its horde brutally butchered women, children and elderly in 2023. Other Israeli comments that all Gazans are culpable have been made by Palestinian advocates, such as James Zogby, head of the Arab American Institute who told the United Nations on June 27, 2023 that there is “tragic deformity in Palestinian political culture,” as the majority of the people prefer violence.
Most importantly, Israel has said it will end the campaign immediately if Hamas surrenders and returns all of the hostages.
Israel is now going house-to-house to rescue its captives and destroy Hamas’s army and infrastructure amid a population which supports Hamas and terrorism. Hamas has 58% of the seats in the Palestinian Authority parliament from democratic elections held in 2006. The majority of Gazans support killing Jewish civilians in Israel and supported the October 7 massacre. They are family and friends of Hamas fighters, their teachers and students, donors and recipients of Hamas aid. When Israelis go through the Gazan neighborhoods in this tight battlefield, the civilians which surround them are the soft layer of the Hamas military which Hamas exploits, not uninvolved spectators.
It is likely that any other army would have killed five times as many Gazans as Israel at this point of the war. It is impossible to know because this war is like no other.
As to the charge of genocide, Palestinian Arabs are not confined to Gaza. Over half the population lives in the West Bank and Israel has not launched a massive campaign there, as Hamas doesn’t have a strong presence and there are no Israeli hostages in that region. On a macro level, 23,000 Gazans out of 1.8 billion Muslims is a 0.001% figure. By way of comparison, 63% of Europe’s Jews were killed in the Holocaust, and about 39% of global Jewry, an actual premeditated deliberate genocide of unarmed civilians.
There are therefore only two considerations to possibly judge Israel: the terrible loss of children’s lives, and the massive destruction of Gazan infrastructure.
Children are innocent by definition. They have no say in the war and not responsible for the terrible actions of adults. Close to 50% of Gazans are under the age of 18, so one would imagine indiscriminate bombing would cause close to 50% of the 23,000 dead to be children, or around 11,500 people. According to Gaza’s Health Ministry, the number of children killed is about 8,000, or 30% less than expected. While a tragic figure, it defends Israel’s prosecution of the war as being targeted against military targets.
There is no question there is widespread destruction of Gazan infrastructure. Neighborhoods have been leveled all around the Strip. That is a function that those neighborhoods are, and are above, the battlefield. It is actually surprising that a relatively low number of deaths have occurred with so many bombs dropped on the small territory, suggesting a targeted military campaign.
Hamas is sworn to the destruction of Israel and has ruled Gaza unilaterally since 2007 enabling it to embed itself throughout the region. Despite the hostile neighbor next door, Israel has limited its activities against the strip to a blockade to limit the flow of weapons, and to respond when attacked. It has never targeted the region or its residents for annihilation.
It is a tragedy for Palestinian Arabs, for Israel, and the world that so many children in Gaza have died. But the fault remains with the Arab rulers who teach their children death and martyrdom, while they attack Israel from those children’s homes. Israel is trying to minimize those casualties in an impossible battle, and the figures show that it is doing so.
The smoldering rubble of the Gazan battlefield is shocking but there is no genocide of buildings. However, the overall architecture of Gaza’s war mentality and machinery has been enabled by the United Nations, the entity which now sits as judge of Israel’s actions. It is a morbid farce, and must be confronted and rooted out for there to be a prayer of coexistence.
On January 3, two bombs went off in Iran during ceremonies marking the death of Qassem Soleimani. Soleimani was head of Iran’s Quds Force, and assassinated by the United States four years earlier because it claimed he was “directly and indirectly responsible for the deaths of millions of people.”
Despite the backdrop of Soleimani being a murderer, the fact remained that the bombing was an act of terrorism, so the United Nations felt compelled to issue a statement, despite the victims being supporters of that mass murderer. UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres official statement read “The Secretary-General strongly condemns the attack today on a memorial ceremony in Kerman city in Iran, which reportedly killed more than 100 people and injured many more. The Secretary-General calls for those responsible to be held accountable. The Secretary-General expresses his deep condolences to the bereaved families and the people and the Government of Iran. He wishes the injured a speedy recovery.”
Guterres reached out to the government of Iran despite its fomenting wars throughout the Middle East as it pursues nuclear weapons, and also demanded that the terrorists who killed 100 people celebrating a mass murderer be brought to justice. One would therefore imagine a much stronger statement from Guterres for Israel after October 7 when thousands of Palestinians killed 1,200 people and brutally raped and sadistically tortured civilians in their homes in Israel.
The October 7 statement from Guterres was appalling:
“The Secretary-General condemns in the strongest terms this morning’s attack by Hamas against Israeli towns near the Gaza Strip and central Israel, including the firing of thousands of rockets towards Israeli population centres. The attacks have so far claimed numerous Israeli civilian lives and injured many hundreds. The Secretary-General is appalled by reports that civilians have been attacked and abducted from their own homes. The Secretary-General is deeply concerned for the civilian population and urges maximum restraint. Civilians must be respected and protected in accordance with international humanitarian law at all times. The Secretary-General extends his deepest condolences to the families of the victims and calls for the immediate release of all abducted persons. The Secretary-General urges all diplomatic efforts to avoid a wider conflagration. He stresses that violence cannot provide a solution to the conflict, and that only through negotiation leading to a two-State solution can peace be achieved.”
Rather than demand that the terrorists “be held accountable,” as with Iranians, Guterres urged “maximum restraint” by Israel. Instead of offering condolences to victim families AND the state as he did for Iran, Guterres omitted any mention of feelings towards Israel.
In the aftermath of Jews suffering the worst single day killing since the Holocaust and most savage day of sexual assault ever, the head of the United Nations demanded no accountability for the terrorists and no sympathy for Israel. Guterres and the United Nations have demonstrated a failure of basic civility and humanity, and are enemies of justice, peace and the Jewish people.
Gaza is a crowded mess and there are two proposals for “voluntary emigration” which are getting vastly different reactions.
Situation In Gaza
The population of Gaza is roughly 2.1 million people, all Arabs, almost 99% of whom are Muslim. Roughly 39.8% of the population is under 14 years old, making it one of the youngest geographies in the world, with less than 3% of the Strip over 65 years old. The median age of 19.2 years old ranks it at #209 out of 227 areas scored by the World Fact Book. By way of comparison, the median age in Israel is 30.1, in USA 38.5, and 40.6 in the United Kingdom.
The US-designated foreign terrorist group Hamas exclusively governs Gaza since 2007. That means that roughly half of the Gaza Strip has only known the rule of a fanatical Islamist group committed to killing Jews and the destruction of the Jewish State next door. Fighters, typically aged 18-24, have known almost nothing other than Hamas and its mission.
As of 2022, UNRWA provided services to nearly 1.8 million people in Gaza, or about 83% of the population. It manages most of the schools in the Strip, many of which openly call for killing Jews and destroying Israel according to reports from IMPACT-SE. The report also covers that “13 UNRWA staff members have publicly praised, celebrated or expressed their support for the unprecedented deadly assaults on civilians [in Israel] on 7 October.”
Israeli Minister Bezalel Smotrich’s Proposal Condemned
Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich said “a small country like ours cannot afford a reality where four minutes away from our communities there is a hotbed of hatred and terrorism, where two million people wake up every morning with aspiration for the destruction of the State of Israel and with a desire to slaughter and rape and murder Jews wherever they are.” As such, he expressed his support for encouraging “voluntary emigration” of the Strip’s population to other countries as part of his postwar vision.
The reaction to Smotrich’s proposal was quick. US State Department spokesman Matthew Miller labeled the suggestion as “inflammatory and irresponsible.” The New York Times reported that France and Germany had similar reactions.
United Nations’ Proposal Embraced
The United Nations also has a plan for Gaza. It involves the voluntary emigration of roughly 1.8 million Gazans for whom UNRWA provides services to relocate to Israel. It makes this proposal – still to this very day – as part of UN Resolution 194 which was passed in December 1948, over 75 years ago while the Israeli War of Independence was still being waged.
The proposal has long since passed its expiry date but dozens of Islamic and Arab countries, as well as the United Nations itself, keep on trying to breathe life into an idea to massively move over 80% of the population of Gaza – the majority of whom want to kill Jews – into Israel to extinguish the Jewish State.
Several Western countries and members of the progressive media were appalled that two members of the Israeli parliament suggested a “voluntary emigration” of Gazans to various countries but simultaneously embrace such emigration to Israel. It’s a peculiar mix of anti-Zionism and hypocrisy which seems very prevalent in these dark days.
There is a fantastic idea that has been floated around the Middle East for many decades: two states for two peoples, one Jewish and the other Arab. Even though the notion continues to be bantered in political circles, few details are understood about what that plan means.
The pro-Palestinian camp talks about “THE” two state solution, meaning the Arab Peace Initiative proposed in 2002. The United States and other governments talk about “A” two state solution, which could mean a wide variety of negotiated outcomes. The United Nations has a third alternative, which is the most toxic and has directly led to permanent hostilities between Israel and its neighbors.
“THE” 2 State Solution: Arab Peace Initiative
There are three primary matters which stand between Israel and the Palestinian Authority: land/borders; capital city; and the future of Palestinian refugees.
Land: The API calls for Israel to withdraw from ALL territories taken in its defensive war of June 1967. This would include Gaza, the West Bank, the Sinai, Golan Heights, and areas of southern Lebanon still under dispute. Israel has already withdrawn from some of those lands including Sinai, Gaza and many areas of the West Bank. The API seeks the remainder.
Capital: The API calls for East Jerusalem to be the capital of a new Palestine. An early draft of the API called for “al-Quds al-Sharif as its capital,” seemingly softening the stance to something Israel could accept.
Refugees: The API states that Palestinian Arabs outside of Israel will seemingly not move to the Jewish State. The final language of “Assures the rejection of all forms of Palestinian patriation which conflict with the special circumstances of the Arab host countries,” may only be in reference to UNRWA Palestinians in Lebanon, Syria and Jordan whom the API thinks should not have to settle them. The API language was in sharp contrast to an earlier version which stated “To accept to find an agreed, just solution to the problem of Palestinian refugees in conformity with Resolution 194,” which would have given Palestinians wishing to live in peace with Israel the option of either moving there or getting compensation.
“A” Two State Solution
The United States and Israel see the end of the conflict differently. Through the Madrid Conference and Oslo Accords, as well as other efforts made by the Obama Administration in 2014 and the Trump Administration’s “Deal of the Century,” the three major matters had different contours.
Land: Israel believes that it has already given back some of the territory it took in June 1967. It returned the Sinai Peninsula to Egypt and handed Gaza and major population centers in the West Bank to the Palestinian Authority. UN Resolution 242 (1967) called for “withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict” which does not call for ALL territory to be abandoned.
The United States agrees. The Obama Administration tried to broker a series of land swaps which would have essentially given Palestinians a state on the same amount of land but in different locations than came about from the 1949 Armistice Lines (49AL). The Trump Administration started with the same concept that the 49AL were arbitrary and not conducive to long-term peace and that Israel has already complied with the land provision of Res. 242. Team Trump did not try to match a certain number of square kilometers with history, and instead sought to create borders which accounted for current reality on the ground and a dynamic to forge an enduring peace.
Capital: Israel annexed the section of Jerusalem that was divided for nineteen years between 1949 and 1967, and further extended the municipal boundaries. It considers the city its eternal capital, but has offered sections of the city to be part of a Palestinian State as part of the peace efforts, with American prodding.
Refugees: Israel has offered some limited number of Palestinian Arabs to move to Israel. The figures have ranged from 10,000 to 100,000 over time under different plans. The US position has long been that Palestinian Arabs should move to the new Arab State, as the basic principle of two states for two people.
The United Nations’ Two State Solution
The UN’s plan is the most aggressively pro-Palestinian of the three.
The UN agrees with the API regarding a new Palestinian State on all of the land in Gaza and the West Bank being part of Palestine, as well as East Jerusalem being the capital of the country. However, it continues to insist on the full “right of return” for six million “Palestine Refugees” who are registered with UNRWA in Gaza, the West Bank, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon.
The UN’s promise to Palestine Refugees has caused them to be frustrated by the failure to move to neighborhoods where grandparents used to live. It has led them to build terrorist tunnels to penetrate the land which the UN promises to them, rather than build an economy. It has kept them in a restive state for generations, not accepting the existence of the “Zionist entity” which they believe will soon cease to exist according to recent polls.
The United Nations’ adoption of Palestinians as their perennial wards has harmed peace in the region. It has a position on refugees which it knows Israel cannot accept, deliberately putting the Jewish State as the obstacle to peace rather than a counterparty with whom to find a solution. Permanently putting Israel on the defensive with one-sided resolutions makes Israel unwilling to seriously consider the UN on any matter.
It is destructive to any peace process for the United Nations to call for a “two-state solution” without clearly articulating that there is no “right of return” to Israel. The death toll in the region will certainly rise while Palestinian Arabs believe their future is in Israeli homes.
Jew-hatred was the leading form of hatred in the United States, even before the horrible spike post-October 7. Yet it was actively minimized by politicians and the mainstream media in favor of Victims of Preference, the majority-minority groups of Blacks, Hispanics and members of the LGBT+ community.
When Jew-hatred was tied to Israel, powers in government, media and universities deliberately did their utmost to claim that anti-Zionism wasn’t antisemitism, even as they promoted anti-Semitic laws and narratives.
There are a few primary antisemitic laws and narratives which have become so normalized, many fail to acknowledge their profound Jew-hatred:
Denying Jews their history and heritage
Banning Jews from living somewhere
Banning Jews from praying at their holiest site
Denying Jews Their History and Heritage
Jews have a unique religion. At its core, Jews are a small tribe tied to a specific piece of land, the holy land of Israel. While other religions were idealized as universalistic and therefore pushed to convert masses wherever they went, Jews had no such mantra. Whether they live in Israel or the diaspora (everywhere other than Israel) they pray facing the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, and try to visit Jerusalem at least three times each year, and did not scour the globe in search of new recruits.
Yet university professors say that Israel is a product of “European settler colonialism,” denying Jews their history and heritage, and these professors get tenure and continue to espouse their Jew-hatred to the next generation.
Banning Jews From Living Somewhere
Would anyone consider it legal to pass a law that Black people cannot live somewhere? Has Amnesty International blessed Iran’s policy of banning gay people and hanging them in public, and suggested the law be spread to more countries?
Yet the United Nations General Assembly passed resolutions in the 1970s and the UN Security Council passed Resolution 2334 in 2016 making it illegal for Jews to live in the “West Bank” and eastern Jerusalem, including the Old City of Jerusalem where Judaism’s holiest sites are located. According to international law, an Israeli Arab from Jaffa can relocate to the Old City of Jerusalem but a neighboring Israeli Jew in Jaffa would be called an illegal settler if he did a similar move.
It reeks of Jew-hatred, blessed by the United Nations.
Banning Jews From Praying At Their Holiest Site
Jews, and only Jews, are denied their right to pray at their holiest location. The world brands people who demand such basic human right as “extremists,” rather than the jihadists who insist on such law, threatening Jews with violence.
Israel has continued the antisemitic ban to calm the Muslim world. Palestinian Arabs are not satisfied and want Jews to stop even walking around the Temple Mount during regular visiting hours as they consider such visits “provocative.” The United Nations supports that Jew-hatred, and claims that the Jewish Temple Mount is a purely Islamic holy site.
United Nations map showing the Jewish Temple Mount as only holy to Muslims
All of these things have to do with Jews, not Israelis nor the Israeli government. These are laws that insult any Jew as it relates to their permissible activities in their homeland regardless of whether Israel is run by a right-wing or left-wing government, or even if Israel was a country.
There are also laws in other countries which are infused with Jew-hatred like banning the ritual slaughter of animals for kosher meat, bans on Jewish circumcision or wearing a kippah in public to make it difficult for Jews to live in those countries. Some ban Jews from being able to become the leader of the country. Those countries wrap their animus with misdirection about protecting animal and minor rights, or protecting the civil nature or culture of their societies for passing such edicts.
It is a transparent fig leaf when they extend their hatred for Jews far from their shores.
On a small strip of land far away from their own, countries still press laws infused with Jew-hatred, either because they want to appeal to 1.8 billion Muslims and over 50 Muslim-majority countries, or they simply hate Jews. Either way, these laws helped set the stage for the October 7 massacre, as they normalized Jew-hatred in the Jewish homeland.
The vile REACTIONS to the October 7 massacre did not happen in a vacuum. The UN, media and universities have normalized Jew-hatred for years, and it is well past time to strike the antisemitic laws at the UN and remove the classes and professors at universities.
An estimated 240 people in Israel were ripped from their homes on October 7, 2023. Many witnessed the brutal slaughter of friends and family before they were taken to the terrorist tunnels of Gaza by Hamas.
On November 22, a deal was announced to return the hostages to Israel in exchange for 150 Palestinian Arab terrorists held in Israeli jails, a “humanitarian pause” to the fighting and sending in various items to Gaza including fuel and food.
The United Nations Secretary General Antonio Guterres was happy at the announcement and issued a short statement:
“The Secretary-General welcomes the agreement reached by Israel and Hamas, with the mediation of Qatar, supported by Egypt and the United States. This is an important step in the right direction, but much more needs to be done.
“The United Nations will mobilize all its capacities to support the implementation of the agreement and maximize its positive impact on the humanitarian situation in Gaza.“
Even as roughly 200 people remain in the clutches of the Palestinian political-terrorist group Hamas, the United Nations still cannot prioritize their well-being and urge their release and instead will only focus on Gazans.
It underscores the imperative for the United States and the western world to stand solidly behind Israel as the UN remains a highly biased anti-Israel organization.
United Nations Secretary General Antonio Guterres
ACTION ITEM
Write White House on form: “The United Nations continues to ignore Palestinian terrorism and does nothing to push for the release of the remaining hostages who were ripped from their homes in Israel. In this world which only advocates for Palestinian Arabs, it is imperative for the United States and western countries to stand solidly behind Israel in this very difficult time.”
The United Nations Secretary General issued a statement on November 19, 2023 that he was “deeply shocked that two United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) schools were struck in less than 24 hours in Gaza.” He added “I reaffirm that our premises are inviolable.”
Does the UNSG think that Israeli nurseries are similarly inviolable, never to be infringed or dishonored?
Bloody nursery in Israel after Hamas October 7 massacre
Does the United Nations think that Jewish children in Israel should be allowed to go to school without the ruling government of a neighboring territory invading the country, storming the building and shooting children?
Israeli school riddled with bullets shot by Palestinian Arabs on October 7
Are the playgrounds of Israeli children inviolable, or are Palestinians living nearby allowed to enter and burn children alive?
Israeli classroom soaked with blood after the popular ruling Palestinian party stormed the building and butchered teachers and children on October 7
The fact that UNSG Antonio Guterres refused to demand that Hamas be held accountable for its actions gives an indication that he believes that Israeli schools, playgrounds and nurseries are not protected spaces.
When Guterres concluded his latest statement, “I also want to express my deep appreciation for all the mediation efforts led by the Government of Qatar,” the government which is the main sponsor of Hamas and the leading funder of jihadists in American schools, he also let the world know that Jews in schools everywhere are fair game for jihadi terrorism.
Politicians and presidents of universities are being graded by their reaction to Hamas’s October 7 massacre in Israel and Israel’s response. The pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian communities are keeping score.
Pro- Israel Statements
There are a number of statements that people expect to see, some of which are considered easy and others which show true pro-Israel bona fides.
Condemn October 7. The Hamas attack which killed over 1,200 people was brutal. Most people expect condemning the attack an easy thing to do because of its scale and brutality.
Harsh adjectives of attack. Calling the attack “barbaric”, a “pogrom”, “pure evil” and similar language is similarly expected as a logical extension of the condemnation.
Calling Hamas is a terrorist group. The United States, Canada, United Kingdom and many other countries officially label Hamas a terrorist group, so calling it as such is also not viewed as a major pronouncement but Zionists expect to hear it specifically mentioned now.
Israel has a right to defend itself. This is a natural right and obligation of countries which are attacked. Stating that Israel has such right would normally be considered redundant but nothing seems to be in the Arab-Israeli conflict.
Call to release hostages. Prioritizing the release of an estimated 240 people who were seized in the October 7 attack is a basic humanitarian call. It is surprisingly absent from many public statements, upsetting many Jews and Zionists.
Bring the perpetrators to justice. A natural biproduct of all of these statements is to hold the murderers and abductors to account.
Pro-Palestinian Actions
Pro-Israeli statements blend into pro-Palestinian statements when addressing Israel’s response to the attack. People who condemn violence might want all attacks to end and can hold both pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian statements concurrently. However, when people demonize Israel and support Hamas, the break in the preference becomes clear.
Call for Humanitarian Pause. Israel’s response to the October 7 attack has killed thousands of people. Calling for humanitarian pauses to allow civilians to leave the area and bring in food and fuel is viewed as natural by many peace activists who want to minimize civilian casualties.
Call for Ceasefire. A ceasefire is viewed as much more extreme than a pause, especially early in the Israeli counter-attack. Pro-Israel people want to see the military capabilities of Hamas destroyed and a premature end to the campaign would give Hamas a huge victory. Pro-Palestinians believe that it is the only way to save thousands of Palestinian lives and are not concerned that Hamas may launch more attacks as they promised to do.
Say the October 7 attack had “context.” Backers of Palestinians do not want the narrative of the story to be that Hamas initiated the fight. While people may or may not acknowledge the brutality of the October 7 massacre, they discuss the blockade of Gaza and other Palestinian grievances to frame the discussion.
Rip down Kidnapped posters. The fate of 240 people ripped from their homes undermines the Palestinian narrative which paints Arabs as the victims.
Calling Hamas a “resistance movement”. Hamas calls itself a “resistance” movement, making it sound like a reactionary force rather than a terrorist group. Palestinian sympathizers use the nomenclature, even after the October 7 attack which killed more Jews in a day than any day since the Holocaust.
Not condemning October 7 attack. Many people released statements which skip the Hamas attack and only address Israel’s ongoing attack on Gaza. This is appreciated by the Palestinian community as it frames the oppressor and oppressed narrative to their liking. In contrast, it is considered appalling and a red flag to much of humanity as failing to condemn horrific acts like placing a baby in an oven alive, an action of psychopaths.
Call to “Free Palestine from the River to the Sea.” This demand to end Israel as a Jewish State goes beyond the specific war. It marks the war as the beginning of a liberation of land from Jewish control.
Call to “Globalize the Intifada”. This chant has many iterations like “Intifada revolution”. It spells out the desire to ‘Free Palestine’ with violence as well as either attack Zionists everywhere and/or any entity considered a western imperialist power.
Shouts of “Gas the Jews” and other forms of attack. The call for violence against Jews everywhere, not just in Israel, is the extreme end of pro-Hamas statements, shouted at rallies and in social media.
The scorecard shows people’s preferences in the conflict, like U.S. President Joe Biden and Congressman Ritchie Torres on the pro-Israel side, university leaders like Columbia University president Minouche Shafik who say nothing, and United Nations Secretary General Antonio Guterres, Queen Rania of Jordan and Rep. Rashida Tlaib on the pro-Palestinian side.
Politicians, university presidents and corporate CEOs who all waded into politics in the Russia-Ukraine War and Black Lives Matter incidents, are being pushed to make statements about the 2023 Gaza War, with many angering supporters of each side. Everyone is checking the scorecard to gauge where people’s loyalties lie.
And of course, there were over 1,400 people butchered in Israel on October 7.
The United Nations Secretary General Antonio Guterres addressed each, condemning the attacks.
Regarding Cameroon, Guterres called “on the Government of Cameroon to conduct an investigation and to ensure that those responsible are held accountable.”
For the attack in Myanmar, Guterres said of the terrorists, “Those responsible must be held to account.”
Yet despite to much greater scale and barbarity of the attack on Israel, Guterres pared back his comments. He specifically did not want the Government of Israel to hold the Hamas terrorists accountable.
UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres
In the immediate aftermath of the worst crime against Jews since the Holocaust, Guterres offered “The Secretary-General is deeply concerned for the civilian population and urges maximum restraint. Civilians must be respected and protected in accordance with international humanitarian law at all times.”
Does Guterres think that Hamas terrorists are “civilians” to be protected? Does he not believe that the 1,000-plus terrorists that invaded Israel and burned families alive should “be held to account?” What is the purpose of the statement that is a world apart from what Guterres offers to other countries?
Seemingly, the United Nations is sending a message that countries like Cameroon and Myanmar can and should hold terrorists to account. But not Israel. Israel must use “maximum restraint” despite the horror.
To give context to the 1,400 people killed in Israel on a single day, the total deaths from terrorism in 2022 in the entire Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region was 791 people. The one day toll in Israel was more than any country for the entire year of 2022.
Yet the United Nations urged “maximum restraint.”
This treatment of Israel in the face of terrorism has a long history, as the UN adopted Palestinian Arabs long ago and protects them at all times, even – or especially – when they engage in grotesque jihadi terrorism.
But even now? Even in the aftermath of the October 7 massacre?
According to the United Nations, Israel may never act as judge; it is only to be judged, scrutinized and criticized. It is an object to be acted upon, and must otherwise remain silent, even when slaughtered.
First One Through 