Understanding the Israeli election. (See 1 below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The Haka! (See 2 below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
You have to have heart. (See 3 below.)
NYU has no heart, nor brains. Daniel Pearl's father responds. (See 3a below.)
My courageous Israeli Palestinian op ed writer friend also speaks out and is it possible? (See 3b and 3c below)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
|
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1)
Jewish critics of Israel have a problem with Israelis, not with Netanyahu
The willingness of major groups and denominations to try to undermine the choice of Israel’s voters calls into question their belief in and respect for democracy.
The last time the outcome of a U.S. presidential election was as decisive as the vote held last week in Israel, Americans were pretty much unanimous as to what to call it. The word was landslide. And that’s why those American groups and denominations that wasted no time in not merely denouncing a newly re-elected Benjamin Netanyahu, but called for the U.S. government to override the will of Israelis, should reflect on the damage they are doing to the Jewish people.
The traditional benchmark for a landslide is 55 percent of the popular vote. Since the start of the 20th century, that total was matched or exceeded 10 times by American presidents. Ronald Reagan’s 1984 re-election was the last such occasion.
I bring this up because it’s important to place the outcome of the April 9 Knesset election in Israel in perspective.
To place Israel’s electoral system alongside that of American presidential votes would appear to be comparing apples to oranges. With voters casting a single ballot for one among many lists of candidates for the Knesset, it’s easy to misunderstand the outcome. Israeli elections always come across to Americans as a chaotic muddle with no party ever gaining a majority.
But if you think Benjamin Netanyahu and his Likud Party won only a razor-thin plurality over Benny Gantz’s Blue and White Party, you don’t understand what really happened. Israelis knew that when they cast a ballot for a party that pledged to support Netanyahu’s bid to lead the next government—even when it wasn’t the Likud, but one of the prime minister’s allies or frenemies—it was as good as a vote for the Likud. The same goes for those who voted for parties other than the Blue and White, but which were prepared to back Gantz’s bid to be prime minister.
So, if you want to know how many Israeli voters really voted for Netanyahu, you need to total the votes of all the right-wing and religious parties that were pledged to him. That total was approximately 55 percent. That’s why few (even among the prime minister’s die-hard foes) are pretending that the election was anything but a decisive victory for him.
This is important because the immediate reaction from much of the organized Jewish world in the United States was to treat Netanyahu’s victory as an event that called into question the ties between Israel and the Diaspora. Rabbi Rick Jacobs, the head of the Union of Reform Judaism, stated that Netanyahu was causing “a dramatic rupture with many in the American Jewish community.” Jacobs helped organize a letter signed by nine Jewish groups that demanded that U.S. President Donald Trump ignore the wishes of Netanyahu and his new government, and insist on the creation of an independent Palestinian state and to oppose the extension of Israeli law to West Bank settlements as the prime minister promised.
These nine groups (which include some entities associated with Reform and Conservative Judaism, the left-wing Israel Policy Forum and the formerly mainstream Anti-Defamation League) have, of course, every right to oppose Netanyahu’s positions, just as many among the minority of Israelis who voted for his opponents may do. But they should be honest about what they’re doing. By speaking out in this fashion only a couple of days after the dust settled post-voting, they are trashing the verdict of Israeli democracy.
Given that some of the same sources were among the most vocal in expressing worries about the future of Israeli democracy, this is highly ironic. Israel’s democratic system is in no danger, but these critics are angry that most Israelis don’t vote the way they would like them to.
The issue on which they are prepared to discard the ties between Israel and American Jews is one that is hardly worth such a split. Netanyahu made it clear that he’s not talking about annexation of the West Bank, but applying Israeli law to settlements where, it must be pointed out, Israeli law already is applied as a general practice. Doing so wouldn’t prevent a two-state solution were the Palestinians ever inclined to accept one, which Jacobs and his friends know very well they have repeatedly rejected.
What is really at stake here is nothing more than the anger of American Jews who are still shocked that Israelis don’t value their advice. The clear majority of Israelis, including many who voted for Blue and White because of disgust with Netanyahu’s legal problems and because Gantz offered no substantive disagreements with the prime minister on security issues, have rejected the blind belief of Jacobs and his friends in withdrawal from the West Bank as an end in and of itself.
We know Jacobs and ADL head Jonathan Greenblatt oppose Netanyahu and Trump. But it’s time to acknowledge that their real beef is with the Israeli people, who have repeatedly rejected their opinions by margins of landslide proportions. Most Israelis believe that endangering their security by creating a hostile sovereign power in Judea and Samaria—the way Ariel Sharon did in Gaza with his 2005 withdrawal—would be madness.
Writers like former Forward editor Jane Eisner and Peter Beinart, who are open about rejecting the political will of Israeli’s people and in abandoning the notion of Israel’s centrality (Eisner) or working to subjugate Israel to the will of foreign powers who wish to impose a solution on it (Beinart), are more honest than Jacobs and Greenblatt about their goals.
Regardless of their own opinions about Netanyahu or the conflict, it’s likely that many Reform and Conservative Jews, as well as donors to ADL, aren’t comfortable with having these organizations express such contempt for the people of Israel or for them to attempt to sabotage the U.S.-Israel relationship. Nor should they be. These unelected leaders of American Jewry who have the nerve to lecture the people of Israel about Jewish values and morals deserve to be ignored.
Jonathan S. Tobin is editor in chief of JNS—Jewish News Syndicate. Follow him on Twitter at: @jonathans_tobin.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2)Doing the Haka
Despite the furor that rages, the world appears to be quietly moving along.
By George Friedman
In New Zealand, the Maoris have a ceremonial dance called the haka. Today it’s performed at rugby matches and consists of the New Zealanders making stylized threatening gestures, including sticking out their tongues at their competitors, crouching, jumping and chanting. It is deeply rooted in Maori history, but for all its energy and passion, it does not do what it is intended to do, which is frighten their opponents, and the rugby match goes on.
The political history of humankind is filled with the haka and the violence that was meant to come next. Even at the great turning points, the deepest agonies of humanity, life went on. This was no comfort to those caught in the moment. They died, but in the end, so did everyone. That is of course too Olympian a perspective for most of us, and certainly for those of us with children and grandchildren, but there is a terrible truth to it.
On a lesser level, there are moments when the haka goes on, when all sides are determined to frighten each other and frighten the world, yet it means no more than what it means at a rugby match. Coming back down to earth, we seem to be at a moment like that. The furor rages, but the world appears to be quietly moving along.
The Americans and the Chinese have been locked in a “trade war.” There has been great anticipation of catastrophe for both sides, yet the world remains unchanged save for the noise.
The North Koreans have nuclear weapons. The Americans don’t want them to. Each meeting is greeted with the expectation that something will happen. Apart from each side pulling frightening faces, nothing does.
Russia continues to lick its wounds after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the loss of Ukraine. Threatening gestures are made in places that hardly matter to Moscow, like Syria, and Russia struggles with the price of oil, but little of substance takes place.
On the Continent, there are those who regard the European Union as the source of Europe’s redemption, others who see it as a necessary evil, and still others who see it merely as evil. Each faction has utter contempt for the other and makes frightening faces, but nothing comes of it.
In the Middle East, the lines shift as Arabs and Israelis face the Iranians in a battle never really joined. The Kurds and the Palestinians demand statehood, but both are still far from reaching their goal.
And in the United States, Donald Trump is president and the Democrats despise him. Each day, each side invents a new way to hurl contempt, and the viewers are enthralled by the venom. But at the end of the day, Trump sleeps in the White House and those who feel this is outrageous demonstrate their outrage.
There are, of course, places where terrible things are happening, and they must not be dismissed. But such dreadful things have been going on for a long while and will likely continue beyond our time.
This is not the normal condition of the world. Think of the 2008 financial crisis and the great movement of global power that it incited, with China staggering economically and Europe fragmenting politically. These are not moments but rather unfolding trends.
Nothing is settled, even when things come to a standstill, as they appear to be now. Nothing is leading to anywhere. Trade wars continue without coming to a head, nuclear talks lead nowhere, gestures of power remain gestures, and ancient animosities continue to show themselves. And the politics of the time plod on, resembling a haka more than any great historical moment.
In one sense, it has always been this way, the blood and fury flowing while humanity goes on. At other moments, they are the signs of a period that has exhausted itself. That is what our current moment looks like. What 2008 created has run its course, and the world is waiting for the next act in the never-ending drama. But such moments of meaningless paralysis can continue a long time; in retrospect, they are good times, but in the moment, they frustrate those who aspire to great things. It is a moment of mediocrity, in which the haka challenges the course of history, but it does not capture the moment that is coming.
The problem is that once the haka has been danced, eventually the game begins. We seem to be in the haka interlude, with dances meant to inspire terror being performed and onlookers seeing the performance as merely odd. But the period of gestures will end.
Where the future war will break out is truly unclear. At the moment, none of these hakas warrant war. But wars never seem to warrant violence until they are underway.
The world, as always, is filled with genuine issues that affect nations profoundly. In due course, the gestures end and the issues are settled. Some of the lesser issues can be resolved with calm discussion. It is the most significant ones that transit from the gesture to the conflict.
It is rare that all explode at once. But equally rare that none explode at all.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
3)
Israeli scientists unveil world’s first 3D-printed heart with human tissue
Researchers at Tel Aviv University say their ‘major medical breakthrough’ will advance possibilities for transplants
AFP — Scientists in Israel unveiled a 3D print of a heart with human tissue and vessels on Monday, calling it a first and a “major medical breakthrough” that advances possibilities for transplants.
While it remains a far way off, scientists hope one day to be able to produce hearts suitable for transplant into humans as well as patches to regenerate defective hearts.
The heart produced by researchers at Tel Aviv University is about the size of a rabbit’s.
It marked “the first time anyone anywhere has successfully engineered and printed an entire heart replete with cells, blood vessels, ventricles and chambers,” said Tal Dvir, who led the project.
“People have managed to 3D-print the structure of a heart in the past, but not with cells or with blood vessels,” he said.
But the scientists said many challenges remain before fully working 3D printed hearts would be available for transplant into patients.
Journalists were shown a 3D print of a heart about the size of a cherry, immersed in liquid, at Tel Aviv University on Monday as the researchers announced their findings, published in the peer-reviewed journal Advanced Science.
Researchers must now teach the printed hearts “to behave” like real ones. The cells are currently able to contract, but do not yet have the ability to pump.
Then they plan to transplant them into animal models, hopefully in about a year, said Dvir.
“Maybe, in 10 years, there will be organ printers in the finest hospitals around the world, and these procedures will be conducted routinely,” he said.
This photo taken on April 15, 2019, at the University of Tel Aviv shows a 3D print of heart with human tissue. (JACK GUEZ / AFP)
But he said hospitals would likely start with simpler organs than hearts.
– Producing ‘ink’ –
In its statement announcing the research, Tel Aviv University called it a “major medical breakthrough”.
In its statement announcing the research, Tel Aviv University called it a “major medical breakthrough”.
Cardiovascular disease is the world’s leading cause of death, according to the World Health Organization, and transplants are currently the only option available for patients in the worst cases.
But the number of donors is limited and many die while waiting.
When they do benefit, they can fall victim to their bodies rejecting the transplant — a problem the researchers are seeking to overcome.
Their research involved taking a biopsy of fatty tissue from patients that was used in the development of the “ink” for the 3D print.
Dr. Assaf Shpira looks at a 3D print of heart with human tissue at the University of Tel Aviv on April 15, 2019. (JACK GUEZ / AFP)
First, patient-specific cardiac patches were created followed by the entire heart, the statement said.
Using the patient’s own tissue was important to eliminate the risk of an implant provoking an immune response and being rejected, Dvir said.
“The bio-compatibility of engineered materials is crucial to eliminating the risk of implant rejection, which jeopardises the success of such treatments,” said Dvir.
Challenges that remain include how to expand the cells to have enough tissue to recreate a human-sized heart, he said.
Current 3D printers are also limited by the size of their resolution and another challenge will be figuring out how to print all small blood vessels.
But while the current 3D print was a primitive one and only the size of a rabbit’s heart, “larger human hearts require the same technology,” said Dvir.
3D printing has opened up possibilities in numerous fields, provoking both promise and controversy.
The technology has developed to include 3D prints of everything from homes to guns.
3a)
Judea Pearl Renounces NYU Distinguished
Alumnus Status as School Prepares to
Award Students for Justice in Palestine
Turing Award winner Judea Pearl has renounced his status as a distinguished alumnus of New York University, following the school’s decision to award its Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) chapter — which orchestrated an ongoing boycott of Zionist student clubs — for “extraordinary and positive impact on the University community.”
Pearl, who graduated with a doctoral degree from NYU’s Tandon School of Engineering in 1965, was granted a Distinguished Alumnus Award by the Polytechnic Alumni Association during a campus lecture in 2013 and is currently a chancellor’s professor of computer science at the University of California, Los Angeles. He also leads a foundation named after his late son, journalist Daniel Pearl, who was killed by Islamic terrorists in 2002 while on assignment in Pakistan.
“In the past five years, SJP has resorted to intimidation tactics that have made me, my colleagues and my students unwelcome and unsafe on our own campus,” Pearl wrote in a letter to NYU President Andrew Hamilton. “The decision to confer an award on SJP, renders other NYU awards empty of content, and suspect of reckless selection process.”
Pearl stated that his efforts to engage with university officials over these concerns “have been met with platitudes about ‘free speech’ despite the fact that the US State Department now includes, in its definition of discrimination, intimidation based on race, religion and ethnicity.”
“Mr. President, I have been in academia for close to 50 years, and I know the difference between free speech and campus norms,” he continued. “Entrusted with the mandate of maintaining a climate of learning and mutual respect, your office should distance itself from the SJP selection and explain to the campus why such distancing is necessary. In the absence of a corrective action by your office the academic standing of this university is begging for other voices to call out the Orwellian character of (SJP’s) award.”
Rabbi Abraham Cooper, associate dean at the Simon Wiesenthal Center, called NYU’s decision to honor SJP “a slap in the face to the Jewish community, including Jewish graduates and significant donors.”
“It is devoid of any ethical basis, rewarding professional propagandists who legitimize terrorism and demonize the Jewish State of Israel,” he argued, before encouraging other NYU community members to follow in Pearl’s footsteps.
In an email last week, an NYU alumni relations official told Pearl that according to university spokesperson John Beckman, the President’s Service Award is annually granted to more than 50 extra-curricular clubs and 100 individuals, which are selected by a group of student affairs staff members and a student representative.
“While many in our university community disagree with the SJP, we will continue to defend the rights of our students and others to express their opposing views,” the official asserted.
SJP first revealed that it would be receiving the award, which will be presented on Wednesday, in a Facebook post earlier this month.
“We are thrilled to announce that we have been selected to receive a presidential service award at NYU,” the group wrote. “Despite the push back we have received from our institution, we agree that we have made ‘significant contributions to the university community in the areas of learning, leadership, and quality of student life,'” SJP added, quoting a letter it said it had received from the university.
The news was met with concern by some NYU students and alumni, who pointed to SJP’s blacklisting of campus clubs with opposing views and its introduction of a resolution supporting the Palestinian-led boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) campaign against Israel, which was adopted by the Student Government Assembly (SGA) in December.
The controversial campaign has been long denounced by major US and global Jewish groups for rejecting the existence of a Jewish nation-state in the Levant and promoting antisemitic tropes. Supporters say it seeks to force Israel to abide by international law and rectify injustices inflicted on Palestinians by the state’s creation.
NYU said at the time it would not adhere to the SGA resolution, noting that President Hamilton’s “opposition to boycotts of Israel is long-standing and well-known.”
The university also shared a 2016 statement by Hamilton, who called academic boycotts of Israel “contrary to our core principles of academic freedom, antithetical to the free exchange of ideas, and at odds with the University’s position on this matter.”
This stance is rejected by SJP, which last April led more than 50 campus groups in announcing a boycott of Israeli academic institutions, as well as “Israeli goods and goods manufactured in the Occupied Territories, except for those manufactured by Palestinians.”
SJP’s coalition further committed to boycotting Realize Israel and NYU’s other Zionist student club, TorchPAC, with signatories agreeing not to co-sponsor events with them.
Several off-campus groups were also included on the SJP blacklist, among them the Anti-Defamation League civil rights group.
Later that same month, two students were arrested and subsequently released after allegedly stealing and burning an Israeli flag while participating in an SJP protest of “Rave in the Park,” an annual celebration held by the NYU club Realize Israel.
Also last year, SJP led more than 30 others groups in an October pledge “not participate in or apply to study abroad programs hosted at NYU Tel Aviv,” while supporting an SGA resolution last March that called on NYU to review “its nondiscrimination policies for Palestinian, Middle Eastern and other affected students traveling to the State of Israel and attending NYU Tel Aviv.”
Responding to news of SJP’s selection, Realize Israel said last week it was “outraged that the University would award an organization that has spent the last several years making Jewish and pro-Israel students feel unwelcome and unsafe on campus.”
“Members of SJP defaced Israel’s flag and physically assaulted pro-Israel students for openly celebrating their identities, and members of SJP brought forward not one, but two one-sided and factually inaccurate anti-Israel resolutions to the Student Government Assembly through a non-transparent, unbalanced, and undemocratic process,” the group noted.
“By presenting the NYU President’s Award to SJP, not only is our university condoning violence and discrimination against members of the NYU community, but it is declaring that this type of behavior represents the ethos of our university,” Realize Israel continued. “[It] is high time that the administration put an end to this endless cycle of intimidation, and we plan to voice our concerns about the systemic anti-Semitism perpetuated by anti-Israel activism that is plaguing our campus.”
SJP, which later appeared to mock Realize Israel’s concerns by claiming the group was “bitter” that it was not selected to receive an award, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
3b)
Hamas’s Honesty and the Deal of the
by Khaled Abu Toameh
Posted By RUTHFULLY YOURS
· Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas has undoubtedly read the Hamas charter. He knows that if he accepts any peace plan that does not include the expulsion of all Jews from their homes, he will be denounced by his rivals in Hamas as a traitor. Abbas is also aware of Hamas’s threats to shower Israel with rockets. He knows that at the same time as Hamas attacks Israel, it will seek to flatten him for “betraying” Arabs and Muslims in “allowing” Jews to continue living in “their” state. This is the Palestinian reality that the “Deal of the Century” is about to be dealt.
April 15 marked the 18th anniversary of the firing of the first Hamas rocket toward Israel. On this day, 18 years ago, Hamas’s military wing, Izaddin al-Qassam, launched its first rocket attack at Israeli population centers near their border with the Gaza Strip.
On the eve of this occasion, Yahya Sinwar, the Hamas leader of the Gaza Strip, threatened that his movement will continue to fire rockets at Israel. The rockets, he said, will be fired at Israeli “settlements” not only near the border with the Gaza Strip, but also at supposed “settlements” in the Israeli cities of Ashkelon, Ashdod and Tel Aviv.
Sinwar said that the recent Egyptian-sponsored ceasefire understandings between Hamas and Israel are not a peace agreement. The understandings, he explained, do not require Hamas to disarm or halt, near the border with Israel, the weekly demonstrations, also known as the “Great March of Return.”
“The understandings do not have any political dimension,” the Hamas leader said. “I promise that if a war is imposed on us, the occupation will have to evacuate its settlements, not only near the Gaza Strip, but also in Ashdod, Ashkelon, the Negev and even Tel Aviv. Remember this promise.”
Sinwar’s threats serve as a reminder that Hamas and other Palestinian terror group consider Israel one big settlement that needs to be annihilated. Hamas and the other terror groups do not see a difference between a Jew living in the West Bank and a Jew living in Tel Aviv or Ashkelon. To terror groups, all these Jews, regardless of whether they live in the West Bank or in Israel proper, are “settlers” and “colonists.”
For them, Tel Aviv, Ashkelon, Ashdod and all Israeli cities are no different than Jewish communities and neighborhoods in east Jerusalem and the West Bank. That’s why Hamas and the terror groups consider all “settlements” — inside Israel and in the West Bank — as legitimate targets for their rockets.
Contrary to claims by some Western political analysts and media outlets, Hamas has never recognized Israel’s right to exist. Needless to say, Hamas has never renounced the “armed struggle” against Israel.
Above all, Hamas has never accepted the “two-state solution” or changed its charter, which explicitly states: “When our enemies usurp some Islamic lands, Jihad [holy war] becomes a duty binding on all Muslims. In order to face the usurpation of Palestine by the Jews, we have no escape from raising the banner of Jihad. This would require the propagation of Islamic consciousness among the masses on all local, Arab and Islamic levels. WE must spread the spirit of Jihad among the [Islamic] Umma, clash with the enemies and join the ranks of the Jihad fighters.”
Sinwar deserves credit for being honest about his movement’s true goals. He also deserves credit for sticking to every word mentioned in the Hamas charter, which was published more than 30 years ago and remains as relevant as ever to this very day.
Jihad, according to the Hamas leader, should be waged not only against Jews living in West Bank settlements, but also against those residing in “settlements” in all of Israel, including Tel Aviv. He says he wants to see all Jews evacuated from their homes. He says he is hoping that the Hamas rockets will one day force Israel to “evacuate” all Jews from their homes.
In the past 18 years, Hamas, Islamic Jihad and other terror groups in the Gaza Strip have fired thousands of rockets and missiles at Israel.
A report by the IDF on Hamas’s rocket arsenal notes that the terror group has about 6,000 rockets. They include more than 1,000 units of self-produced short-range rockets (15 km range), more than 2,500 units of smuggled short-range rockets (15 km range), approximately 200 units of self-produced Grad rockets (20 km range), approximately 200 units of smuggled Grad rockets (20 km range), approximately 200 units of self-produced improved Grad rockets (45 km range), approximately 1,000 units of smuggled improved Grad rockets (45 km range), more than 400 units of self-produced medium range rockets (up to 80 km range) and dozens of long-range rockets (100-200 km range).
The other terror groups in the Gaza Strip, the report says, have approximately another 5,500 short-range, medium-range and long-range rockets.
That is why Sinwar’s threats to fire more rockets at Israel should be taken with deadly seriousness. He is also right when he says that the ceasefire understandings with Israel are not a political agreement with the “Zionist entity.” Hamas cannot reach any political deal with Israel because it does not agree to Israel’s right to exist. This is the message that Sinwar and leaders of all Palestinian terror groups want the world to hear. For the terrorist leaders, the only peace they will accept is one that results in the elimination of Israel and the evacuation of all Jews from their homes.
Hamas, of course, is strongly opposed to US President Donald Trump’s upcoming plan for peace in the Middle East, also known as the “Deal of the Century.” How can Hamas accept any peace plan that recognizes Israel’s right to exist? Hamas is opposed to the Deal of the Century not because the plan doesn’t offer the Palestinians enough land. It is opposed to the plan because it doesn’t offer the Palestinians all the land, from the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan River.
Consider another phrase from the Hamas charter, one that explains why it cannot recognize Israel’s right to exist: “The Islamic Resistance Movement [Hamas] believes that the land of Palestine has been an Islamic Waqf throughout the generations and until the Day of Resurrection; no one can renounce it or part of it, or abandon it or part of it.”
Drafted more than three decades ago, the message the Hamas charter sends to the US, the Arab world, Palestinians and the rest of the international community sounds as if it was issued yesterday. It is a straightforward, unambiguous message that says:“[Peace] initiatives, the so-called peaceful solutions, and the international conferences to resolve the Palestinian problem are all contrary to the beliefs of the Islamic Resistance Movement [Hamas]. For renouncing any part of Palestine means renouncing part of the religion. There is no solution to the Palestinian problem expect by Jihad.”
Hamas is not a small group whose threats can be brushed aside as “irrelevant.” It is a terror groups that possesses thousands of rockets and controls the entire Gaza Strip, where nearly two million Palestinian live. It is a terror group that won the Palestinian parliamentary election in 2006. It is a terror group whose supporters have won a number of university student council elections not only in the Gaza Strip, but also in the areas controlled by the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank.
Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas has undoubtedly read the Hamas charter. He knows that, as a Muslim, if he accepts any peace plan that does not include the expulsion of all Jews from their homes, he will be denounced by his rivals in Hamas as a traitor. Abbas is also aware of Hamas’s threats to shower Israel with rockets. He knows that at the same time as Hamas attacks Israel, it will seek to flatten him for “betraying” Arabs and Muslims in “allowing” Jews to continue living in “their” state. This is the Palestinian reality that the Deal of the Century is about to be dealt.
Khaled Abu Toameh, an award-winning journalist based in Jerusalem, is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at Gatestone Institute.
3c)
25 Years After Oslo: The Elephant in the
Room Is it possible for Muslim Palestinians
to make peace with Israel? Robert L. Meyer
Posted by Ruth King
Author’s note: I have been a student of Islam for five+ years because I wanted to know what motivates so called “Islamist” or “Radical” Muslims against Jews, Israel and the West. I now understand. The short article below sets out the argument why “Land For Peace” is simply impossible under Islam, owing to Koran Sura 2, Verse 191 — and it is for this reason (and Western and Israeli diplomats and negotiators’ ignorance of it) that it has been, is, and will be impossible for Muslim Palestinians to make peace with Israel. This Palestinian position has been confirmed by the top Palestinian religious figures, who have corroborated that ALL of Palestine is a holy, Islamic waqf (Arabic: an inalienable religious endowment under Islamic Shariah law), and therefore it is prohibited to give up “even a millimeter” of it. The article has been vetted and approved for accuracy by a number of Islamic experts.
*
It is now more than 25 years since the Oslo Accords were signed in October 1993. Yet in the many published opinion pieces and reporting on this anniversary and the failure of the parties to agree on a final two-state solution to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, nowhere is found any Israeli politician or journalist who has the slightest inkling of the massive effect of Islam in influencing and motivating the Palestinian supposed peacemakers.
Islam is indeed “The Elephant in the Room.”
The Koran, chapter 2, verse 191 states: “Drive them out from where they drove you out.”
Islamic scholars universally have interpreted this verse to mean that once land becomes Islamic, by conquest or otherwise, it stays Islamic forever and that Muslims must drive out any non-Muslim government that takes power in a land once ruled under Islamic law.
Caliph Umar conquered Jerusalem and Palestine in 637 AD, and the Land of Israel remained under Muslim rule (with the exception of the 188-year Crusader Period, 1099 – 1187 AD) until September 1923, when the British Mandate began. To Muslims, Palestine has been “Muslim land” since its conquest by Islam in 637 AD.
Moreover, this position has been corroborated and confirmed (in Arabic) by Mahmoud Al-Habbash, who is Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas’ advisor on Islam and also the Supreme Shari’ah Judge of the Palestinian Authority (“PA”): “Mahmoud Al-Habbash emphasized that according to Islamic Shari’ah law, the entire land of Palestine is waqf (i.e., an inalienable religious endowment under Islamic law) and is blessed land, and that it is prohibited to sell, bestow ownership or facilitate the occupation of even a millimeter of it.”
[Official PA daily Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, Oct. 22, 2014, translation by Palestinian Media Watch (“PMW”)]
See also the statement below from the Palestinian Authority, translated from the original Arabic: “Anyone who thinks that the nation has sold its Palestine or its Jerusalem is just imagining things. Anyone who thinks that a day will come when the nation will sell one inch or millimeter of the blessed and sanctified land of Palestine is just imagining things. The entire nation says what [PA] President Mahmoud Abbas said: ‘The Palestinian, Arab, Muslim, or Christian who will relinquish one inch of Jerusalem has not been born and will never be born.’”
[Official PA TV, April 20, 2018, translation PMW]
The Palestinian Authority’s current Mufti, Muhammad Hussein, has corroborated this same position: “Palestine, that includes within it Jerusalem, is waqf land [and] it is forbidden by Shari’ah law to relinquish it or ease the transfer of ownership of it to enemies, because it is part of the Islamic public property. Granting ownership over Islamic territory or part of it to enemies is invalid and constitutes treason.”
[Official PA daily Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, April 13, 2018, translation PMW]
Please note that the Palestinian Authority reflects the same view set out in the Hamas Charter (Article Eleven): “The Islamic Resistance Movement [Hamas] believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic waqf consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgment Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up.”
For these reasons, the exchange of Muslim “Land for Peace” with Israel simply is impossible under Islam. Has anyone in Israel ever noticed and considered this point — or are we so ignorant of Islam that it has never been properly considered and evaluated?
The Koran, chapter 2, verse 191 was once mentioned to Shimon Peres in 2015. He replied, “No. You are wrong. We made peace with Egypt. We made peace with Jordan.”
Shimon Peres was right — and wrong.
Prior to signing the Israel/Egypt Peace Treaty of March, 1979, Egyptian President Anwar Sadat held out for — and ultimately received — his stated demand to get back “every square inch” of the Sinai. This occurred notwithstanding Israel’s initial negotiating position for a continuing Israel monitoring presence at Sharm el Sheikh and the western mountains of Sinai and retention of both the Israel-developed Taba and Yamit tourist communities in the Sinai near Eilat.
After the Israel / Egypt peace treaty was signed, Sadat could turn to the Egyptian people and rightfully claim that he had recovered “every square inch” of Egyptian-administered
The Jordanian case is even more interesting and illuminating.
In a two-step exercise starting in June 1988, King Hussein first renounced all Jordanian claims to Judea and Samaria, the wishfully named “West Bank” of Jordan. Six years later, in October 1994, Israel and Jordan signed a peace treaty.
However, there had been a serious problem: Israel occupied three areas of Jordanian land since June 1967: The tiny “Peace Island” in the middle of the Jordan River, and two agricultural fields belonging to Israeli settlements in the Arava, south of the Dead Sea.
In Annex 1A and 1B of the Peace Treaty, this matter was resolved: Israel fully recognized Jordanian sovereignty over all this land. Jordan agreed that Israel could continue to “use” the lands in the same manner as previously for a rolling 25-year period unless terminated by Jordan following a one-year notice (which Jordan gave in late October 2018).
After the signing of the peace treaty, King Hussein could turn to the Jordanian people and rightfully claim that he had recovered every square centimeter of Jordanian-administered
As for the land of Israel/Palestine itself located “from the River to the Sea,” the Arab League and Jordan left this to Palestinian President Yassir Arafat and the Palestine Liberation Organization as the sole entity to negotiate and resolve with Israel.
What did Yassir Arafat and his successor, Mahmoud Abbas, do?
At the Camp David negotiations in July 2000 between Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak and Yassir Arafat, following Israel’s offer to give up 97% of Judea and Samaria to the Palestinians, Arafat stunned Barak and President Bill Clinton by never making a counteroffer. Why? Because he could not do so: the Koran (chap. 2, verse 191) did not permit it. Allah says that Muslim land can never be given to the kufaar(infidels) under penalty of death. Palestinian recognition of Israeli sovereignty over any part of Palestinian land was impossible, Muslim Palestinians never would have accepted it and Arafat would have been murdered by his own people.
After the Camp David negotiations failed, Yassir Arafat was asked by an Israeli Muslim Arab journalist in Arabic why he walked away from the negotiations. “Because the Israelis would not give us 100%!” he replied. The Koran mandated that Arafat recover all of Palestine starting with the so-called “West Bank.” He was not free to do otherwise.
It was the same story seven years later in the negotiations between Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas held at the Annapolis Conference in November 2007: Ehud Olmert made very generous offers to the Palestinians, delivering 97% of Judea and Samaria to them, “slicing and dicing” Jerusalem horizontally and vertically, creating a land bridge between Gaza and Judea and Samaria and even allowing some Palestinian refugees back into Israel.
However, how did Abbas respond? He also made no counteroffer. Why? Because he could not do so (Koran, chap. 2, verse 191). The Koran prohibited recognizing Israeli sovereignty over any part of Muslim Palestinian land, Muslim Palestinians would never have accepted it, and Abbas also would have been murdered by the Palestinians.
According to the Koran, the Palestinians are commanded to reclaim ALL Palestinian Muslim land “from the River to the Sea,” a holy waqfunder Shariah law. The concept of Israeli-administered Muslim land (i.e. recognizing the sovereignty of the State of Israel over any part of Palestine) is impossible in Islam.
Have you ever noticed how Palestinian claims are always rooted in land-based terms? They speak of the “occupation” of their land, being “driven out” of Palestine by the Israelis in 1948, and recovering all their land “from the River to the Sea.” The Palestinian Authority’s Law No. 1 criminalizes Palestinian sales of land to Jews under penalty of death. Mohamed on his deathbed gave an order to “expel the Jews and the Christians from the Arabian Peninsula and not leave any but Muslims there.” The Hamas riots at the Gaza / Israel border are in commemoration of “Land Day.” Does any of this ring a bell?
In the Oslo Accords, the Palestinians pledged to recognize the State of Israel behind the “Green Line” and to amend the Palestinian Covenant accordingly. They never did. They cannot and will not do so without contravening Allah’s command in the Koran, chap. 2, verse 191.
As you think of the thousands of hours of negotiations by Israel, the USA and other international negotiators in trying to reach a final accord with the Palestinians on a “two state solution” since Oslo, one is reminded of the “mirror principle.”
Israeli, US and other politicians and negotiators keep thinking that they are negotiating with “the man in the mirror,” i.e., someone who thinks as they do in a Western, secular way, without regard to prevailing religious factors.
Some commentators state that the leadership of the Palestinians, starting with Yassir Arafat, is secular. To the extent that this may be true, it does not matter. The Palestinian people certainly are not secular. A survey undertaken by the Jerusalem Media and Communications Centre published on August 6, 2018 asked Palestinians in Judea and Samaria (the “West Bank”) and Gaza: “In general, is religion an important part of your life? The response was 96.8% “yes” in the West Bank and 99.2% “yes” in Gaza.
Israeli and American negotiators are not negotiating with “the man in the mirror” like themselves, but with religious Muslim believing Palestinians. A little more hard knowledge about Islam, which is “the Elephant in the Room,” would help in understanding the Palestinians as driven by their own seriously held religious and cultural imperatives, which are completely the opposite of those of the Israelis and the Americans.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
No comments:
Post a Comment