Sunday, May 24, 2020

The Surrender of the Temple Mount and the Long Defeat of Zionism

The date was 7th of June 1967, The IDF had just liberated the Temple Mount from the Arabs in a stunning military victory. The Temple mount was in Jewish hands for the first time in nearly 2000 years, and the Israeli Soldiers were wandering around in an almost dreamlike state.

“Har Habayit BeYadeinu” Jubilant Israeli soldiers celebrate with captured Jordanian flags outside the Dome of the Rock, During the Six Day War, June 1967

It was at this point, a few hours after the Temple Mount was liberated that an extraordinary conversation took place. The conversation was between Gen. Uzi Narkiss and IDF chief Rabbi Shlomo Goren, and it varies depending on which version of the story you believe.

According to Narkiss’s Version, Goren suggested that they pack the Dome of the Rock with 100Kg of explosives and ‘rid themselves of it once and for all’ . He told Narkiss that his name would go down in the history books, and that this was their golden opportunity because tomorrow it would already be too late. Narkiss refused, telling Goren that he was already assured of his place in the history of Jerusalem, and that he would throw Goren in Jail if he did not desist. Goren walked away dejectedly.

Another version of the story according to Goren’s former aid Rabbi Menachem HaCohen, says that Goren told Narkiss that it would not have been a ‘terrible shame’ if during the course of the war, a bomb would have dropped on the shrine obliterating it. Narkiss replied saying that he was glad this did not happen.

Both versions agree that Goren made the suggestion to blow up the mosque, and that Narkiss refused.

In a tape recording of a speech made in 1967 to a military convention, Goren could be heard saying:

“I told this to the defence minister (Moshe Dayan) and he said, ‘I understand what you are saying, but do you really think we should have blown up the mosque?’ and I said, ‘Certainly we should have blown it up.’

“It is a tragedy for generations that we did not do so. … I myself would have gone up there and wiped it off the ground completely so that there was no trace that there was ever a Mosque of Omar there.”

A short time after the liberation of the Temple Mount, the decision was made to return the keys of the Temple Mount to the Waqf, In what must be considered in hindsight, as one of the greatest missed opportunities in Jewish history, when an ideological defeat was somehow snatched from the Jaws of an extraordinary military victory.

141030120922-01-temple-mount-horizontal-large-gallery

David Ben-Gurion and Yitzhak Rabin visit the Temple Mount for a victory tour following the Six Day war, June 1967

Just what was the message that was sent out by the Israeli government when they made this historic blunder? That we do not really belong here? We do not know what we are doing here? Take it! You were here first? If these rootless Zionists thought that they could trade the Temple Mount in exchange for peaceful co-existence with the Arabs, then history has proven that they were very much mistaken, and the struggle for the Temple Mount remains at the core of the Israel-Arab conflict. The ramifications of that fateful decision have now returned to haunt us.

The Temple Mount is the holiest place in Judaism, but the Arabs cannot and will never accept the right of Jews to pray there. The entire Arab world understands that if they were to accept the right of Jews to pray on the Temple Mount, it would be a tacit admission that the Jewish life in Israel predates the Arab presence in the land. This would not only undermine the Arab claim to Jerusalem but also their claim to the land of Israel, and call the entire Arab narrative into question.

For their part, the Israeli government has always seen the Temple Mount as something of an unwanted burden. Israel was founded as a western style democracy and a secular state, and successive Israeli governments have understood that Temple Mount has the potential to alter the secular nature of the state of Israel and act as a catalyst which could transform Israel into a religious state. They are also fearful that upsetting the delicate status quo on the Temple Mount could spark a religious war with the Arabs that would leave Israel isolated, and threaten the very existence of the Jewish State. In Short the Israeli government has neither the will or the backbone to uphold the Jewish right of prayer on the Temple Mount.

In fact the decision to hand the Keys to the Temple Mount to the Arabs is a prime example of how the land for peace formula is a flawed concept and should be consigned to the dust bin of history. It is this rootless Zionist mentality of Israel’s leaders that has caused the borders of the state of Israel to recede, encouraged our enemies, and led to a long defeat of Zionism over the past 40 years. And by surrendering sovereignty over our holiest site we have called into question our historic right to our ancestral homeland. After all, it is this same rootless Zionist mentality that has led us to bring Judea and Samaria to the negotiating table and agree to discuss the status of certain settlements. By agreeing to negotiate over these settlements the Israeli government have not only undermined the legitimacy of the rest of the settlements in Judea and Samaria, but the legitimacy of The Jewish State itself.

If Israel has no right to the Temple Mount, then it has no right to Judea and Samaria. If Israel has no right to Judea and Samaria, then what right does it have to Haifa, Tel Aviv or Beersheba? The last thing Israel needs is the emergence of a terrorist entity in Judea and Samaria, akin to the regime in Gaza, with designs over the rest of Israel. In other words, the more we cut away from the cloth of Zionism, the more our enemies will be encouraged by this and continue to tug at its threads, in the hope it will come apart at the seams or even unravel entirely.

The Israeli government fails to understand that Israel is no ordinary land, it is the Land that God promised to his chosen people, a Holy land, and by attempting to carve it up like just another piece of real estate they are not only going against traditional Jewish values, but against God himself and the principles of Judaism. If the Land of Israel can be compared to a delicious cake, then Jerusalem would surely be the icing on this cake, and the Temple Mount would be the cherry on top of the icing on the cake.

But Zionism has not been defeated yet, and the war is far from over. In order for us to prevail, we must be prepared to fight for what is most precious to us, and to return to traditional Jewish values. The holiday of Chanukah commemorates the re-dedication of the Temple, and the message of Chanukah is to bring light into dark places. If ever the Temple Mount needed re-dedication it is now. And what darker place is there than the Temple Mount at the moment?

For Israel to achieve success, we must invoke the spirit of the Maccabees and be more assertive and proactive to uphold our rights as Jews. If we take the first steps by ourselves God will surely reciprocate and support us. Perhaps what we really need right now is a Chanukah miracle.

Article by Shiloh Soffer, published on December 16, 2014, 12:50PM. Shiloh was born in England and graduated from University with an Bachelor’s degree in Chemical engineering. In 2005, Shiloh moved to Israel and spent a couple of years working in the engineering industry. He later moved back to London to further his career. Shiloh has recently made Aliyah for the second time, and hopes to settle in Israel permanently.

#CryForZion #Temple Mount #Zion

Saturday, May 23, 2020

United States is "occupied" territory - Not Jerusalem or Judea and Samaria (The whole territory of the Historical Land of Israel)

United States

is "occupied" territory - Not Jerusalem or Judea and Samaria (The whole territory of the Historical Land of

Israel

)

Washington, D.C., New York City, Chicago, Los Angeles, etc is far more of an "occupied" capital or territory than Jerusalem (Jerusalem and Judea and Samaria have thousands of years of Jewish history and habitation. All archaeological discoveries in The Land of Israel substantiate the Jewish history in Israel).

Europeans after creating new settlements, conquered an entire continent of North America, annihilated the natives, extracted its natural resources, kicked out the Mexicans and called it "America," claiming first "Philadelphia" and afterwards, the city of Washington as its capital.
Over six hundred thousand people died in the American Civil War that prevented the South from seceding and breaking apart the United States. How many people died when Berlin was divided until 1989 when communism was disintegrating, and again now Berlin is unified. The same applies to many of the Eastern European countries who were occupied by Russia and when the USSR was dissolved, when the Berlin wall was knocked down they all abandoned communism between 1990-93 and returned to its own totally independent sovereignty.

As regards the rest of the world, Jerusalem is one of the oldest capitals in the world, and it belongs to the Jewish people, it was never a Capital of any other nation.

The world does not recognize Jerusalem as the Jewish capital, because the world does not recognize the right of Jews to exist. Those liberal Jews in USA, Israel, Europe and elsewhere who pander to the non-Jews by endorsing views that deny or compromise the Jewish sovereignty over The Historical Land of Israel, hoping that they would be "acceptable" are deluding themselves, they live in fantasy world, not reality. It did not help them with Nazi Germany who exterminated over 6 million Jews, men, women and children; or in the past 2,500 years in the Diaspora, when the Jews were persecuted, tortured, murdered and discriminated and it will not help them today.

After WWI the Arabs/Muslims were allocated and received over 13 million sq. km. of territory with a wealth of oil reserves. Following in Napoleon Declaration and intent in 1799 to reconstitute the Jewish National Home in its former historical territory The Land of Israel - Palestine. The British in 1917 issued the Balfour Declaration that emulated Napoleon's intent. The victorious Supreme Allied Powers incorporated in 1920 the Balfour Declaration having the force of International law. Thus, the Jewish people were allocated about 120,000 sq. km. or 47,000 sq. miles of their historical territory. Today they have only about 21,000 sq. km., but the Arabs/Muslims and the world nations begrudge even that small peace of our Jewish historical territory. To add insult to injury, they joined the U.N. in issuing a resolution (non-binding with no legal standing) that the Jewish historical territory including Jerusalem has no Jewish connection. Which is absurd, and it only exposes the UN, as a puppet of Israel's enemies and not as an organization that its charter is to promote peace and harmony among nations.

The world nations stood idle and silent while The Arabs/Muslims terrorized, murdered and expelled over a million Jewish families with their children and confiscated all their assets, including personal property, businesses, homes and over 120,000 sq. km. of land. Real Estate which the Jewish people had owned for over 2,400 years (valued in the trillions of dollars); where were the world nations cries of protest and demand for justice and the return of Jewish Homes and Real Estate then and where are they now?

Most of the expelled Jewish families from Arab/Muslim countries were resettled in The Land of Israel, and today comprise over half the population. The European nations had better refrain from demanding that the Jewish people in Israel should give up their historical land to the Arabs/Muslims; since the European nations have taken over the Jewish assets, personal property (Gold, Silver, Artifacts, etc.), businesses, homes and Real Estate and many of those Jewish people and their descendants and heirs were also resettled in The Historical Land of Israel.

We the Jewish people returned to the occupied and desolate Land of Israel in the 1800's and joined our Jewish brethren to re-blossom, revitalize and turn it into green pastures, with a new great economic infrastructure, industry and housing, after much toil and hard work and with the help in infusion of capital and resources by our brethren in the Diaspora.

We, The Jewish People, are proud and thankful to have back our historic sovereign Jewish country with an Army that can defend itself properly and in many cases Jews around the world.

We the Jewish People will not surrender our land to nobody. We should be thankful to the almighty that we are in a similar position today as we were during the time of King David.
The world as whole needs Israel and The Jewish People, more than the Jewish people need the world.

History shows every nation or society that let the Jewish people thrive, prosper and flourish, also thrived and flourished.
When a nation or society harassed, terrorized, murdered and discriminated against the Jewish people in their country, the country declined and its power and economy diminished greatly, if not disappeared altogether.

Today's time is not like the Spanish Inquisition or the Bolshevik era when Jews were persecuted and murdered or Nazi Germany when Jews tried to escape Nazi extermination Camps, they had nowhere to go for sanctuary. Even The Jewish Land of Israel aka Palestine allocated by The Supreme Allied Powers in 1920 under international agreements to the Jews after WWI, was illegally blocked by the British, which caused an enormous amount of Jewish people to die.

Today the Jewish people have the sovereign State Israel, with its strong defense, advanced technology and Medical innovations that the whole world benefits and relies on.
May we be granted the honor we have in fact earned to live and see the rebuilding of The Jewish Temple in its previous holy site on Temple Mount also known as Mount Moriah.
YJ Draiman

Why Israeli Rule in the West Bank Is Legal under International Law - Professor Eugene Kontorovich

Why Israeli Rule in the West Bank Is Legal under International Law

Eugene Kontorovich

April 8, 2018

Filed under: International Law, Settlements, The Middle East

Why Israeli Rule in the West Bank Is Legal under International Law

An interview with Professor Eugene Kontorovich by Sarah Haetzni-Cohen

A version of this interview first appeared in Hebrew in Makor Rishon on March 23, 2018.

Professor Eugene Kontorovich is the head of the international law department of the Kohelet Policy Forum and a fellow of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. He teaches at the Law Faculty of Northwestern University. Born in Ukraine, Professor Kontorovich spent most of his adult life in the United States. Several years ago, he moved to Israel with his family.

Q: From the viewpoint of international law, how can the legal position of Judea and Samaria [West Bank] be defined?

Professor Kontorovich: The question that should be asked is: What were the borders of Israel when it was first established? What defines this is the borders at the moment of independence. Israel was created, like most countries, after a successful war where no one came to its aid. In international law, there is a clear rule regarding the establishment of new countries: the country’s borders are determined in accordance with the borders of the previous political entity in that area. So what was here before? The British Mandate. And what were the borders of the British Mandate? From the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan River.

The UN General Assembly’s declaration on November 29, 1947, was a recommendation for partition rather than an operative resolution. What actually defined the situation was what the Mandate did, and it neither accepted the recommendations nor put them into force. During the War of Independence, Jordan and Egypt conquered territories from Israel illegally, and it was almost universally agreed that neither Jordan nor Egypt had any legitimate claim of sovereignty over Judea and Samaria or Gaza. But Israel did. When Israel liberated the territories in 1967, it renewed its control over lands that it had sovereignty over based on the Mandatory borders.

Today, the prevalent approach is that even though the land did not belong to Jordan, it was “Jordanian enough,” and therefore the laws of occupation and the Geneva Convention apply to it. This is nonsense, because even if we assumed this was correct, the Geneva Convention no longer applies when there is a peace treaty, and there has been a peace treaty with Jordan since 1994. It has to be either one or the other: Either it belonged to Israel all the time and Israel liberated its own territory in 1967, and you can’t occupy your own territory. Alternatively, it was “Jordanian enough” in 1967 for the laws of occupation to apply. In that case, the peace treaty with Jordan nullified the Geneva Convention. The Oslo Accords even took it a step further and granted local self-government.

Q: Some claim that even if we did not occupy land, we are occupying people.

Kontorovich: People try to put these two things together, but there is no connection between them. If someone wants to talk about ethics, let’s talk about ethics, not international law. Why do people want to discuss international law when they are essentially talking about ethics? Because ethics are subjective, but the law was created to bring people to agree on the rules in a situation where they have different ethical positions.

These are not occupied territories. These are territories over which Israel has sovereign claims. There are many examples in the world of cases where a nation has sovereignty, but it provides a different kind of governing arrangement. In our case, at the moment, it’s military rule. One example is American Samoa. There, they have their own administration, but without independence. The residents don’t have citizenship, and they can’t vote in U.S. elections even if they move to New York.

Kontorovich reiterates what he believes is a critical point. The Palestinians have the right to vote in Palestinian elections, and self-government. Yet we act as if Oslo never occurred.

Kontorovich: The basic philosophy of democracy – and now we are no longer talking about legal claims because there is no such thing as a right to representative democracy in international law – is that people must have representation in a government that decides how their lives will look. In America, there is a principle: “No taxation without representation.” Does Israel levy taxes on the Palestinians? No. Sometimes it’s the opposite. We pay for them out of our own pockets. Do we issue them traffic tickets or impose family laws upon them? Not at all. All we do is govern from a security point of view, and it is not an issue of democracy.

In international law, a people has the right to self-determination, but that does not mean an independent state. There are thousands of ethnic groups around the world that want an independent state – Catalans, Kurds, or the Tamils in Sri Lanka. International law has told each one of them, “no.” The Catalans have the right to vote, but the Spanish government can more or less do whatever it wants to them. It can tax them, decide that their elections are not legal, and dissolve their government. We, on the other hand, can’t do that in Area A [of the Palestinian Authority]. Our involvement in Area A is only security, and that’s completely legitimate. We don’t tax them. We only collect taxes for them, which happens in many other places around the world. It’s for sure not “ruling over them.”

One of the principles of self-determination is that a nation is responsible for its decisions. If the Palestinians say they are a nation and Mahmoud Abbas is their leader, they need to bear the consequences of his actions. When a people’s self-determination representative says “no” to internationally-backed offers of full independent statehood – which very few peoples are even lucky enough to be offered – this means they accept the alternative, which is the status quo. Imagine what the Kurds would do if the international community recognized a state for them in northern Iraq only. This is way beyond what they have ever imagined. It’s very rare to be offered a state with so much international support. If the Palestinians allow themselves to refuse, they have to take the consequences. These consequences are the alternatives to a state.

Q: What’s the next stage?

Kontorovich: The basic idea is a Palestinian self-government within a defined territory. They already have something like this today. It doesn’t mean they can put us in danger, but they can govern themselves. The second stage is the dissolution of Israel’s military rule in Judea and Samaria. Some of the area would be under regular Israeli law (and the Palestinians living there would be offered citizenship). We should not use the term “annexation,” because when you annex something, it is not yours. “Imposing sovereignty” is also not an exact definition because Israel’s sovereignty today in Judea and Samaria is expressed through military rule, which is something that is possible and acceptable.

We mustn’t say that we don’t claim sovereignty over Areas A and B, but we are simply choosing a different method of government in order to maximize the self-determination of the residents in these areas. This type of government grants autonomy that does not include voting in Israeli general elections. It exists in other places around the world. One example of this is the Isle of Man. They don’t vote in British Parliamentary elections, but in elections for their own self-government. However, all of their foreign policies and defense issues are handled by the United Kingdom. Gaza needs to be treated differently. From a legal point of view, it could be said that the Palestinians already have a state in Gaza.

Some Principles to Follow

I asked Kontorovich to describe a few rules of thumb, some dos and don’ts, and significant principles. They are as follows:

You need to be very careful with the terminology you use. Judea and Samaria are not “occupied territories,” but if we keep calling them that, this is an understanding that will stick. We should also not use on any level – professional, legal, or political – the words “laws of occupation.” Furthermore, Israel needs to stop applying the humanitarian aspects of the Geneva Convention – something which Israel has done voluntarily, beyond the letter of the law. There is no legal requirement to do this.
If we want to say that we have any claim on the land, we should go ahead and show it. It doesn’t mean we have to ultimately keep 100 percent of everything. But we need to clarify our claim from the legal point of view. If we claim that Judea and Samaria are occupied, then we have no basis for being in Jerusalem because there is no legal difference. We think that we can choose and everyone will accept it. What’s the basic demand of the Palestinians? They want Judea, Samaria, and more. Why? Because if a thief comes and steals your property, you don’t just thank him when he gives it back to you.
We need to understand that the Israeli government’s position will always be the most pro-Israel one available. No one in the entire world is going to be to the right of us on our claims – thus our claims set the outside parameters of international discussion. We always want to be logical and practical, but we miss this dynamic and then complain that it’s not fair.
The Trump administration is an opportunity that may never repeat itself. He has thrown the old paradigms out of the window, and fulfilled promises. He understands that whoever says “no” also has to take responsibility. We have to be ready to present a clear vision after his present diplomatic efforts fail.
Our vision must be clear and principled: Israeli law in one part of the territory and Palestinian self-government in the other. It is not a good idea to give too many details about where sovereignty will lie or it will just hold us back in the future.
The situation is neither black nor white – two states or one. No one takes any notice of what lies in between. There are many such examples in the world. Why would we think that one of the most complicated places would not require a more complex and nuanced solution?
We are constantly on the defensive and in a state of fear. We have forgotten the rules of diplomacy: Don’t start the battle by showing how much you are afraid, neither defensively, economically, or demographically.
The government often chooses an unclear, ambiguous policy toward Judea and Samaria, out of fear of international reaction. This reaction is not necessarily connected to what Israel does. There is a basic appetite for criticism of Israel. Just as we never get international credit for making concessions, there isn’t always a price for every activist decision that we make. Unfortunately, we have shown that we are under pressure and prepared to give in, and so they focus on us.
The Palestinians are the only nation that ever said “no” to an offer of independence with international support. We must repeatedly point this out.
People say that the status quo is not stable, but in fact the status quo here is the most stable in the entire Middle East. A final status plan needs to look like the status quo – only official, organized, and not temporary.

In conclusion, Kontorovich wanted to give our readers the following message:

Don’t believe the Middle East experts and professionals on the peace process. Anyone who served in the State Department for the past 30 years is thought of as an expert on the peace process. But he also failed consistently in bringing peace, and you should only take him with a grain of salt. These experts did not anticipate any of the most significant events that happened in the Middle East, including the Arab Spring. They thought that it would all end with democracy, but look what’s happening today. They’ve already failed, so why believe them?

The Manufactured Outrage over “Annexation” Posted on May 21, 2020 by Victor Rosenthal

The Manufactured Outrage over “Annexation”

Posted on May 21, 2020 by Victor Rosenthal

Annexation. The word is spat out with such vitriol that one would think that what is contemplated is mass murder. From Mahmoud Abbas to Jordan’s King Abdullah, to the European Union, to Justin Trudeau, the condemnations, warnings, and threats continue to flow. And of course, Joe Biden had his say.

A few words about the reality behind the so-called “annexation.” To start with, nothing is being annexed. It is the reasonable position of the Israeli government that it is sovereign in Judea and Samaria according to international law; and you can’t annex something that already belongs to you. But wait, you say, virtually the entire world disagrees, as is pointed out ad nauseum by sources like the BBC and the NY Times. Unhappily for them and the Palestinians they empathize with, international law is neither a popularity contest nor subject to a majority vote in the UN General Assembly. It is quite possible that the Government of Israel is right and “virtually the entire world” is wrong. This isn’t an article about that, but if you are interested, here is a good one.

The government calls it “extension of Israeli civil law,” and that is because presently those parts of Judea and Samaria that are not under the control of the Palestinian Authority (PA) are subject to a military government (this is the case whether residents are Israelis or Palestinians).

Those who are so up in arms about the proposal also like to say that “Israel plans to annex the West Bank.” The correct formulation is that Israel proposes to extend its civil law to certain parts of Judea and Samaria where Jewish communities exist, and to most of the Jordan Valley, with the exception of Jericho, with its large Arab population. It’s important to note that almost no Arabs live in the areas in question. Those that do will be offered full Israeli citizenship, just like the Arabs of Jerusalem – or Haifa, or Yafo.

The Jordan Valley has always been considered an area that must be under Israeli control in any permanent establishment of borders, because it is essential to Israel’s defense. No “two-state solution” that did not recognize this would ever be accepted by Israel. And neither would one which included the ethnic cleansing of Jews and the destruction of their communities in Judea and Samaria.

The furor over “annexation” is an excuse to attack Israel and the Trump plan, which is the first real breakthrough in diplomatic efforts to end the conflict since the unfortunate Oslo Accords institutionalized it.

The Palestinians have adopted a paradigm of the conflict in which Israel is entirely at fault. Justice, they say, requires that we vacate “their” land – in fact, if you asked them, they would say that this includes everything from the river to the sea; they believe they are being generous by just asking for Judea and Samaria (at least, for now). But this paradigm is wrong. In fact, we are the ones who have been excessively generous in repeatedly offering them large parts of the land, offers that were rejected because they did not provide a clear enough path to an Arab state in all of the land.

Mahmoud Abbas says that he wants a “two-state solution,” and “annexation” would make that impossible. But Abbas has always understood “two-state solution” to mean a virtually complete withdrawal from Judea and Samaria, including the expulsion of all Israelis from those areas. He also envisions the realization of a right of return (a made-up concept that doesn’t appear in international law) for the millions of descendants of the Arab refugees of 1948. He does not accept that even the portion of Israel that would remain in Jewish hands after such a “solution” would be a “Jewish state” or “the state of the Jewish people;” indeed, he has said several times that there is no Jewish people. Therefore, it isn’t inaccurate to describe Abbas’ two states as one exclusively Arab state and one multiethnic state that would soon have an Arab majority.

There is little likelihood that the Palestinians will abandon their paradigm and their concomitant demands, and none at all as long as they are led by the PLO and Hamas.

The Trump plan, which is the framework under which Israel is acting today, recognizes that the traditional two-state idea is a non-starter, which is why countless rounds of negotiation have failed. Therefore it does not require Palestinian agreement before starting the process that is intended to lead to permanent, recognized borders for Israel, and autonomy (although not full sovereign statehood) for the Palestinians. This is unacceptable to the Palestinians just because it makes it impossible for them to realize their actual goals, spoken only in Arabic, of replacing Israel with an Arab state.

The European Union and Obama Administration officials accepted the Palestinian paradigm, although – at least for public consumption – they also said that they supported Israel’s security and right to exist. Thus they constantly reiterate as a mantra “two-state solution.” This position is self-contradictory.

Joe Biden, who wants to be President of the US, also favors a “two-state solution” and opposes “annexation.” He must: to do otherwise would lose the left wing of the Democratic base, as well as put him on the same side as his opponent. I don’t know how he feels personally about there being a Jewish state, if he has ever asked himself this question, or indeed if he has any actual ideas beyond wanting to be President. But I do know that he lent himself to the Obama Administration’s attempts to pressure Israel.

Back in May of 2010, while Biden was visiting Israel – Obama himself chose to avoid Israel until his second term, traveling to some 33 countries before then – the EU-funded Peace Now organization in Israel reported to the Americans that a regional committee had taken a preliminary step to add 200 more housing units to an existing plan to build apartments for religious Jews in Ramat Shlomo, a neighborhood in Jerusalem that was outside of the Green Line. A total of about 1600 apartments were included in the plan.

Biden harshly condemned the announcement, but insisted that “There is no space between the United States and Israel when it comes to Israel’s security.” However, after he returned to the US, the administration ramped up attacks on Israel, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton berated Netanyahu in angry 43-minute phone call in which she accused Israel of “insulting” the US and Biden personally, blamed Israel for preventing negotiations with the Palestinians, and demanded additional concessions to the Palestinians, including the release of terrorist prisoners, to “build confidence.”

Like today’s row over “annexation,” there was a manufactured outrage, an international pileup on Israel for its stubborn intransigence. The difference is that today the American President supports us, rather than leading the charge against us. Today it’s easy to forget 2010, when it seemed that the pressure from Washington for dangerous, even suicidal, concessions would never let up.

For what it’s worth, no new housing was built in Ramat Shlomo until 2018, when some 500 apartments were built. The promise of 1600 new units that so angered Biden and Obama in 2010 is only now being kept.

2 Responses to The Manufactured Outrage over “Annexation”

Cassandra says:

May 21, 2020 at 4:21 pm

Democrats have little trouble recognizing white supremacism when they see it, and they understand very well its dangers. Arafat very cleverly hid the Arab and Muslim supremacist motives behind his war against Israel by promoting it as a “liberation” movement. But so many years later, with all the terror attacks and incitement against Israelis, and all the peace plan rejections by the Palestinians, one must remain willfully deaf and blind to avoid recognizing the hate-based foundation of the Palestinian cause. Oddly, Israeli leaders make it possible for Democrats to remain willfully deaf and blind by never making the case of Arab and Muslim supremacism and hate for Jews to the world. It’s as if they think they’re obliged to fight their enemies without making that case, even though it is the most fundamental driving force of the war against Israel. How is support for the Palestinian cause to be challenged without identifying the hypocrisy of Westerners—Democrats, no less—supporting such a hate-based cause?

Log in to Reply
- Pinchas Baram says:
  
  May 23, 2020 at 10:59 pm
  
  good post, Cassandra– but I think the answer is simple: Israeli Jews, like American Jews, are too p.c. and woke, and are afraid to say that the Arabs are imperialists and totalitarians (look at their fakakta history over the centuries!) and that Islam is an ideology, not just a “religion”, and is full of lies, hate and supremacism.
  this stupid cowardly fear of being called racist and islamophobic is at the root of the problem. it’s interesting that Jews ( Jewish Democrats especially) often liked to think they are a robust minority which “talks truth to power”, of course demonstrates in Washington on all kinds of climate and feminist issues, and of course resists and mocks Pres. Trump,– but when it comes to speaking aloud
  for pro- Israel self-preservation and sovereignty in its Biblical homeland of Judea and Samaria, it chickens out.
  
  Log in to Reply