The Temple of Solomon stood on the top of a mountain in Jerusalem. A mosque called Al Aksa now stands on that “Temple Mount”, however the entire Temple Mount is now called Al Aksa by the Arabs & that includes the strange & beautiful structure that stands there & which is called the Dome of the Rock. Today’s cartoon deals with the threats of retaliation voiced by local Palestinian leadership to the idea of America moving its embassy to Israel’s capital City

B”sd

Dear Family & Friends

The moon is just waning, like a slice of lemon on its back. It’s beautiful.

A new President in America is coming in on Friday. Pope Francis recognized the state of “Palestine” & gave them an Embassy in Rome. The Paris peace summit fell flat. Israel’s presence in Judea & Samaria recognized as legal by French Court – first time. Elyakim Haetzni at Oz Vegaon Friday 9am. Very important: DON’T LET THEM WIN!

All the very best, Gail/Geula/Savta/Savta Raba x 2/Mom

1.The Paris peace summit “fell flat as a failed souffle”

2.Pope Francis & PA Head Mahmoud Abbas conferred at the Vatican

3.An Execrable Coup: Exhilarating Counter-Coup By Joan Swirsky

6.Hugh Fitzgerald: The Insubmissive Infidel, Or, Just A Jot About Jerusalem from JIHAD WATCH

7.Do not let them win by HaRav Shmuel Eliyahu

8.Israel’s just presence in Judea & Samaria is coming to light. 9.Trump, The Pistol & Holy Branch by Caroline Glick 10.Conservative in the Age of Trump by Daniel Pipes 11.Is There a Palestinian People? Can It be Defeated? by Daniel Pipes 12.MKs Yehuda Glick & Sharren Haskel will attend Trump Inaugural Friday 1/20/17

1.The Paris peace summit “fell flat as a failed souffle”

despite concern it could end with another damaging anti-Israel resolution.

French President Francois Hollande (AP)

The Paris peace summit, despite concern that it could end with another damaging anti-Israel resolution, turned out “flat as a failed souffle,” Israeli Foreign Ministry Spokesman Emanuel Nahshon said.

The conclusion of Sunday’s Mideast peace conference in Paris urged Israelis and Palestinians to “officially restate their commitment to the two-state solution.” It also warned both sides against taking one-sided actions that could hurt talks, an apparent reference to Israeli settlement building in eastern Jerusalem, Judea & Samaria.

Despite concern in Israel that the conference could end with another damaging resolution against the Jewish state, nothing of the sort occurred. Earlier in the day, US Secretary of State John Kerry – who had defended the Obama administration’s abstention from UN Security Council Resolution 2334, condemning Israeli settlements and had led the failed Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations – assured Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that the US would oppose any further resolutions based on conclusions at the summit.

Nonetheless, the summit, with the participation of over 70 countries, ended with a message to Israel as well as to the incoming US administration that the only viable solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, according to international opinion, is a two-state solution.

“The two-state solution is still the objective of the international community for the future,” French President Francois Hollande said. “With this conference I wanted to inscribe the two-state solution on the international agenda.”

However, “We do not want to impose any solutions,” he suggested. “It is not a question of dictating to the parties … Only direct negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians can lead to peace. No one will do it in their place,” he told the gathered diplomats from across Europe, the Mideast and other regions, as well as from the United Nations, the Arab League and other international organizations.

“The fight against ISIS has occupied the international community. But how can you think that the Middle East can be stabilized if you don’t deal with its oldest conflict?” he stated. “The world cannot, should not resign itself to the status quo,”

Hollande urged the diplomats to support peace efforts by offering economic incentives to Israelis and Palestinians.

The final declaration also included criticism of incitement & “terror” an apparent reference to Palestinian attacks. And some of the pro-Palestinian language in an earlier draft was removed after diplomats huddled in Paris.

The incoming US administration did not take part in the meeting, nor did it immediately comment on its final statement. President-elect Donald Trump had expressed disagreement with the conference.

Apparently in deference to the Trump team, the UK delegation did not include any senior-level officials.

Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Emmanuel Nahshon dismissed Sunday’s conference, tweeting that it was “flat as a failed soufflé.”

“A big show is no replacement for direct negotiations between the parties,” he said.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has repeatedly objected to the conference, saying that only direct negotiations could bring about a peace deal. The conference, he said, marked the “last flutters of yesterday’s world.”

“Tomorrow will look different and tomorrow is very close,” he said in apparent reference to Trump’s incoming administration.

While the conference was underway, a few hundred pro-Israel demonstrators, waving Israeli flags and placards denouncing the summit, gathered outside Israel’s embassy in Paris.

“The Palestinians and a number of Arab states have not expressed a will for peace,” said Serge Klarsfeld, a well-known French Nazi hunter. “If it existed and if the Arab world recognized the existence of Israel, we would find the means to solve all the problems very quickly.”

By: World Israel News and AP

2.Pope Francis & PA Head Mahmoud Abbas conferred at the Vatican

Pope Francis & PA Head Mahmoud Abbas conferred at the Vatican Jan 15, 2017

Palestinian Authority (PA) head Mahmoud Abbas met on Saturday with Pope Francis at the Vatican, where he inaugurated the Palestinian embassy to the Holy See.

It was their third meeting. The Vatican stressed the sanctity of Jerusalem to Jews, Christians and Muslims.

Abbas said during the 23-minute meeting that he had only heard through news reports of the proposal by President-elect Donald Trump to move the US embassy to Jerusalem.

The Palestinians strongly oppose the embassy move, claiming it would kill any hopes for negotiating an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement and rile the region by undercutting Muslim claims to the holy city.

“We hope that this news is not true, because it is not encouraging and will disrupt and hinder the peace process,” he said.

In its communiqué after the meeting with Abbas, the Holy See did not refer to Jerusalem by name, but said that during the talks, “emphasis was placed on the importance of safeguarding the sanctity of the holy places for believers of all three of the Abrahamic religions.”

Abbas referred to Jerusalem as “the capital of the State of Palestine,” adding that he and Francis “reaffirmed the importance of the city for the three monotheistic religions and our support for Jerusalem being an open city.”

In fact, under Jordanian control of the Old City from 1948 to 1967, Israeli-Arab Muslims were denied access to the Islamic sites of Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock. Similarly, while Christians were granted access to their holy sites, the number of pilgrims authorized to enter the Old City and Bethlehem during Christmas and Easter was restricted.

Moreover, property restrictions forbidding Christians from purchasing land in Jerusalem were imposed on the Christian residents, while institutions of faith were compelled to abide by strict state controls. Religious Christian schools were required to teach Arabic and forced to be closed during Islamic holy days.

Jews were banned completely from the Jordanian-controlled sites, most notably from the Kotel (Western Wall) and other Jewish holy sites, such as the Jewish cemetery on the Mount of Olives. Several synagogues were desecrated and razed to the ground.

Since 1967, when the IDF liberated the Old City of Jerusalem, members of all faiths have enjoyed access to their places of worship.

During the meeting, Abbas – who continues to deny the Jewish connection to Jerusalem – presented Francis with gifts recalling Christianity’s birthplace in the Holy Land, including a stone from the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem and documentation about the ongoing restoration of the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem.

According to the Vatican’s communiqué, the meeting then “turned to the peace process in the Middle East, and hope was expressed that direct negotiations between the parties will be resumed to bring an end to the violence that causes unacceptable suffering to civilian populations and to find a just and lasting solution.”

After the meeting, Abbas formally inaugurated the new Palestinian embassy across the street from one of the main gates of Vatican City. He pulled back a curtain revealing a plaque and extended the Palestinian flag from a flagpole outside a window. The small embassy, located in the same building as the embassies of Peru, Ecuador and Burkina Faso, comes after recent accords in which the Vatican formally recognized the “State of Palestine.”

“This embassy is a place of pride for us & we hope all of the countries of the world will recognize the state of Palestine, because this recognition will bring us closer to the peace process,” he said.

Jerusalem is the holiest city in Judaism, where the two Holy Temples stood. The Holy City has been the spiritual center of the Jewish people since the 10th century BCE.

By contrast, Jerusalem is the third-holiest in Islam – after Mecca and Medina – and only since about a century after the death of the prophet Mohammed, who had never visited Jerusalem.

Palestinians deny the Jewish Temples ever existed and that Judaism has any connection to the Jews, despite overwhelming archaeological and historical evidence.

By: AP and United with Israel Staff

3.An Execrable Coup: Exhilarating Counter-Coup By Joan Swirsky —— Bio and Archives

In 2009, America experienced a genuine coup d’état, exquisitely formulated and flawlessly executed after decades of planning by the socialists, communists, and jihadists among us who loathe America and have wished for nothing less than transforming our great country into a mecca of far-left, anti-American policies, punctuated by preposterous liberal constructs like political correctness and multiculturalism, and ultimately subservient to Sharia law.

As strange, indeed mind-bending, as this seems, remember that anything that is alien to American values & promises to undermine America’s passion for freedom & strength is considered a good thing & heartily embraced by the America-hating left. Hence, their fetish with Islam, a political system-cum-“religion” that is antithetical to every value that sane Americans hold dear.

As proof, the policies and laws enacted over the past eight years have consistently militated against America’s well-being. This is the proverbial drop in the bucket:

· An eviscerated military and favor-the-enemy Rules of Engagement.

· Porous borders over which tens of thousands of unvetted illegal aliens have swarmed, many of them violent criminals and, no doubt, stealth jihadists.

· A Big Government mentality that encourages unemployment (95-million) and therefore dependency on government from cradle to grave.

· Massive debt––currently pushing $20 trillion––which weakens our country’s ability to pay for essential needs like infrastructure, Medicare and Medicaid, et al., again with the goal of dependency on government.

· A horrific healthcare system (Obamacare) that alienates doctors, punishes patients with sky-high premiums and inferior care, and simply doesn’t work–––hence its inevitable implosion (taking place right now).

· The most dumbed-down educational system in American history––Common Core––that is based on the fantasy of fairness but in fact deprives every public-school student of even a minimally decent education and a chance to succeed…more government dependency.

· Implanting operatives from terrorist organizations like the Muslim Brotherhood into every branch of our government, including (to name a few) the State Dept., the Pentagon, Homeland Security, the Attorney General’s office, the EPA, the FBI, the CIA, on and on and on––all of them intent on subverting the U.S. Constitution and replacing it with Sharia law, the animating force of Islam, which dictates not only that gays be executed & women who are raped be tried & convicted for infidelity, but that a failure to embrace Islam be punished with either a hefty tax or death.

· A foreign policy that supports our enemies and spits in the faces of our most faithful allies, for instance Israel, England, Egypt, the list is long.

Handing over control of the Internet to the United Nations––the most corrupt, tin-pot-dictator-driven, anti-American, anti-Semitic, American-resource-draining cesspool in our country. If I had one piece of advice for President-Elect Trump, it would be to kick this rancid organization out of the United States! Nothing they’ve ever done has been good for our country. Talk about “draining the swamp”!

AGENT OF CHANGE––GIMME A BREAK!

Americans were both horrified and dumbfounded when the former community organizer, Barack Obama, turned out not to “transform” America for the better, but to be the figurehead––no one would accuse him of being a leader––who left our country in devastating debt, largely unemployed, perceived as the prototypical 97-pound weakling by our allies, and viewed by our own citizens as a lazy but golden-tongued puppet who preferred non-stop golfing vacations and entertaining rap stars and police-hating performers like Beyoncé in the White House to even a remote semblance of governing.

Even more horrifying was the depth and breadth and immense scope of this coup. It included, ala Karl Marx, a complete takeover of the media––the vehicle by which the American public imagines it knows what is going on. This takeover included non-stop false flags and a steady stream of fake news, which the public might never have known about save for Wikileaks.

Except for a very few outlets, the TV networks, radio stations, and newspapers all sang the same song. Why? Not only because the media has always leaned left, but because Mr. Obama had gotten complete control over the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and therefore could and did censor what he pleased, supporting those who danced to his radical tune and trying to marginalize those who didn’t.

But wait! Things got even worse. Hundreds and perhaps thousands of conservative groups that applied for tax-exempt status to the Internal Revenue Service found that their petitions were routinely denied––not for weeks or months but years. When the career crooks in the IRS were exposed, they were magically allowed to resign with full back pay and pensions intact. Nice.

Here are Mr. Obama’s, ahem, legacy items, according to editorial graphic artist Dixon Diaz:

· Lowest economic growth in American history.

· Record number of mass shootings.

· Record number of terrorist attacks on American soil.

· Record number of people on food stamps.

· Record high health insurance costs.

· Worst rioting since 1967.

· Highest poverty level in American history.

Nice.

And that is not to omit the things blazed indelibly into the memory, for instance the disgraceful images of Mr. Obama defiling the Oval Office with his feet on the splendiferous Resolute desk, or the rank bullying he displayed in putting “the gun of government to the heads of the Little Sisters of the Poor, demanding that they either pay to destroy children in the womb or be crushed,” as described by Peter Heck in American Thinker.

THE SOROS FACTOR

To both casual observers and political junkies, it seemed all-too-obvious that the real brains behind this coup was the brilliant, megalomaniacal hedge-fund billionaire, Hungarian-born George Soros, who was probably responsible for appointing Iranian-born lawyer Valerie Jarrett as Barack Obama’s consigliere, effectively putting her in charge of the White House, the putative president, and their shared fetish of giving the arch-terrorist state, Iran, billions of dollars to develop nuclear weapons that will be aimed at the Great Satan, which the mullahs call the United States of America, and, as they promise every day, at the Little Satan, Israel. Nice.

I would not be surprised if Mr. Soros didn’t mandate Iranian-born Huma Abedin as Hillary Clinton’s consigliere because he knew of Abedin’s longtime affiliation with the Muslim Brotherhood, the prominent role both she and her parents played in that Nazi-inspired, anti-American organization with its stated goal of conquering what they consider vile democracies and converting them into Islamic-controlled states subservient to the caliphate they all dream about.

Why? Because Mr. Soros is a genius at orchestrating complex scenarios that are uniformly bad for America. A prolific author, he has written, among other tomes, The Bubble of American Supremacy. The many books that have been written about him further reveal his distaste for America, where he lives in spectacular splendor. Here is but a sample of book titles that describe his long-held mission:

From Shadow Party to Shadow Government: George Soros & the Effort to Radically Change America by John Perazzo & David Horowitz.

The Shadow Party: How George Soros, Hillary Clinton & Sixties Radicals Seized Control of the Democratic Party by David Horowitz & Richard Poe.

It’s Not Easy Being God: The Real George Soros by Dr Joy Tiz.

Soros: The Life and Times of a Messianic Billionaire by Michael T. Kaufman.

But it is the way that Mr. Soros has used his vast wealth around the world that makes his support of the coup against America so plausible, as Wayne Madsen explains in a recent and fascinating article, Does George Soros Control the Obama White House? In short, Madsen concludes yes––Mr. Obama’s “moneybags” indeed controls the White House.

In short, Mr. Soros is a master at manipulating markets all over the world and, for the most part, avoiding criminal prosecution, although a French Court did indict him, saying that “his billion-dollar raids on national currencies and financial institutions were not based on peerless financial acumen, but on illegally acquired inside information.”

Mr. Soros believes in the fairy-tale notion of one-world globalism, the better to eliminate the “unfair” disparity between the rich and the poor. What he considers a lofty goal involves destroying the most productive and generous nations on the face of the earth: America and Israel. Nice.

That is the tip of the Soros iceberg. From what is being reported, Mr. Soros has assembled a team of media people and politicians to fight the Trump presidency every step of the way. You can already see the flunkies in the U.S. Congress doing their best to sabotage President-elect Trump’s cabinet nominees with questions that are both loaded and hostile.

Yet, for the first time in his formidable dealings, it is clear that Mr. Soros has met his match in PE Trump. Oops, I take that back! Actually, Mr. Soros––his philosophy, his candidates, and his lust to take down America––has been decimated by Mr. Trump. Mr. Soros simply ran into a rich guy who was smarter than him!

That’s right, another billionaire who lives just a stone’s throw from Mr. Soros in New York City just happened to defeat not only the presidential candidate Mr. Soros backed for president––the amazingly unlovely and unqualified Hillary––but the entire Democrat Party, the classless Clintons, and the craven media into which he has poured multi-millions over the past several decades!

It’s no small thing, as the The Wall St. Journal reported the other day, that Mr. Soros lost nearly one-billion dollars after the Trump election, so sure was he that the nag he backed would win. “Mr. Soros was cautious about the market going into November and became more bearish immediately after Mr. Trump’s election, [but] the stance proved a mistake—the stock market rallied on expectations that Mr. Trump’s policies will boost corporate earnings and the overall economy.”

Think a measly billion doesn’t matter to Mr. Soros? Think again. Billionaires measure their billions the same way that ordinary men measure their shoe size!

C’MON TRAIN

There he was, business and media mogul extraordinaire––not a toy Lionel train car or a Pullman coach, but a massive self-propelled locomotive––who showed up at the presidential debates of 2015 and by May of 2016 had run over and decimated 16 opponents, all seasoned and professional politicians!

All of a sudden, both the politicians themselves and members of the media were forced to take Mr. Trump seriously. But they couldn’t help themselves; they were still the same supercilious, patronizing, bought-and-paid-for leftist lackeys who had been commenting all along on this runaway train. So they kept up their antagonistic drumbeat, confident that the sheer volume of their commentary and propaganda would be his undoing.

Aiding and abetting their mission were dozens of pollsters across the country whose skewed polls showed consistently that the chronically coughing, wobbling, decrepit-one-day/re-botoxed-the-next-day Hillary––the woman without a platform and lacking even a tiny dollop of charisma––was significantly ahead of the brash billionaire. Pundits on every network and cable news shows echoed these polls and predicted that the Electoral College votes, and Michigan and Pennsylvania and Wisconsin and Ohio and of course California and New York, would definitely, positively, unmistakably insure a Hillary victory.

One thing none of them counted on was the tremendous sophistication of voters across the country––the same voters they’re still disparaging––who had been watching the devolution of our county for eight years and praying and waiting for at least one sane person to save our country from the malignant leftism in our body politic that Mr. Obama so relentlessly stoked.

They recognized in President-elect Trump the absolute answer to their prayers and proceeded to blanket our entire country in red, except for the few bastions of blue on the East and Left Coasts. Hence Hillary’s “popular vote” so-called victory, thanks to a voter-motor law cooked up by Gov. Jerry Brown and enacted into law in October 2015.

A report from Investors Business Daily says that: “According to the American Civil Liberties Union—which opposes the motor-voter law—California houses 3.3 million illegals, or a quarter of the nation’s total. So the stage is set not just for extending voting to illegals but for swinging national elections, too.”

Meanwhile, the Trump locomotive barreled on with the president-elect interviewing dozens of potential hirees at Trump Tower in NY City, at his resort in Bedminster, New Jersey, at his “winter White House” Mar-a-Lago in Palm Beach Island, Florida, ultimately selecting those who will staff his cabinets and administration. The indefatigable Mr. Trump also embarked on an extensive thank-you tour to Ohio, New Hampshire, Mississippi, Iowa, Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, et al, attracting the same huge “rock star” crowds that gave him his thunderous victory.

THE LEFT’S LAST GASP

I know it’s not objectively funny, but I can’t help actually laughing out loud when witnessing those thousands of badly-behaved three-year-olds soiling their diapers, banging their heads, and generally throwing non-stop temper tantrums since Election Day. They keep hurling things onto the tracks––right in front of President-elect Locomotive––because they still can’t absorb the fact that everything they’ve based their identities on, everything they believe, everything they hoped for, everything they’ve learned in school and on TV, everything they thought they accomplished––was utterly and totally destroyed by one man and millions of voters.

These children have tried everything:

· Popping up at demonstrations, complete with shiny new placards, in front of Trump Tower.

· Regurgitating stale and wildly inaccurate talking points, as happens five days a week from a woman named Whoopi and a joyless creature name Joy.

· Devolving into an embarrassing freakout at a press conference, as did CNN’s Jim Acosta when the grown-up in the room didn’t call on him.

· Contriving an evidence-free Russian hacking scandal to rationalize Hillary’s crashing loss. Why? So they could kick 35 Russian diplomats out of the U.S. and quickly invade their compounds to purge any records that might implicate Mr. Obama––not Mr. Trump––in subterfuge, not to omit the other desperate purging and shredding of records they’re engaged in at this very minute.

· Stacking the hearings for PE Trump’s cabinet nominees with dense Democrats like New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand and still-bitter Republicans like Florida’s Sen. Marco Rubio.

· Calling on a famed actress to audition for the role of a snooty, finger-wagging scold and display her “selective empathy” at Hollywood’s Golden Globes Awards.

· Trotting out a puerile pol like Georgia’s Rep. John Lewis to take a cheap potshot.

· Inventing a sex scandal based on made-up gossip from the now thoroughly discredited BuzzFeed.

· Preaching, as The New York Times did about what’s wrong with nepotism, when its entire conglomerate is based on nepotism.

· Exposing, as writer Glenn Greenwald did, that [Obama’s] CIA and a complicit media are deeply involved in the stop-Trump juggernaut.

· Threatening the most massive and disruptive demonstrations and riots during the upcoming inauguration.

This is all part of the same phenomenon, American-hating leftists gone mad. As one blogger commented: “I haven’t seen the Democrats so angry since Republicans took away their slaves!”

This is aberrant behavior which the Wall St. Journal’s Kimberly A. Strassel explains: “The more that progressives have failed to win political arguments, the more they have turned to underhanded tactics to shut down their political opponents…Mr. Trump can expect plenty more of this to come. In winning the election, he blocked the left’s ability to use some of its favorite intimidation tactics. It no longer controls an accommodating federal bureaucracy. It no longer runs a Justice Department willing to threaten political opponents and turn a blind eye to liberal abuse. So the left will increasingly rely on campaigns of delegitimization…this is the best they’ve got.”

Again, the left’s vile behavior is not objectively funny. But as PE Trump systematically swats away these irritants like so many pesky gnats, I have to admit that I’m loving every minute!

In just a few days, I and the entire country (except for the loons on the left) will rejoice when watching Mr. Trump take the oath of office, making him the 45^thPresident of the United States of America. Finally we will have a president who loves America and will fight like a hundred tigers to overturn and fix all the malevolent policies inflicted on our country over the past eight years.

What an exhilarating counter-coup!

Joan Swirsky is an award-winning journalist and author. Her website is www.joanswirsky.com and she can be reached at joanswirsky@gmail.com.

An Execrable Coup: An Exhilarating Counter-Coup By Joan Swirsky

4.Friday at Oz veGaon with Atty Elyakim Haetzni

Friday at Oz veGaon with Atty Elyakim Haetzni
1) This coming Friday January 20th, on the day of the inauguration of President Trump, we will, please G-d, have the pleasure and honor to host at Oz veGaon our dear friend, Atty Elyakim Haetzni.
Elyakim and his wife Tsipp are among the founders and leaders of the settlement enterprise in Judea and Samaria. They carry the ideological baggage and the responsibility to pass it on to future generations by publishing weekly articles and op-eds in the Yediot newspaper and on Arutz 7, with enthusiasm and fervor as 50 years ago. Forever young. Elyakim will be talking about “Milestones for the Trump era.” As usual it will be a sharp, clear and fascinating lecture.
Come one come all!
For transportation: Renee Margolis 052-3294194
2) Register today to the Sovereignty Conference!
Dear friends, all publications and detailed program for our upcoming Fourth Sovereignty Conference will, please G-d, be sent out to you by tomorrow.
The conference will take place, PG, on Sunday February 12th at the Crowne Plaza hotel in Jerusalem from 6:00 pm till 10:30 pm.
The entrance is free but places are limited and registration is a must. Therefore we urge you all to hurry and reserve your seats by calling 03-9185554. If you need earphones for simultaneous translation to English, please make sure to mention that.
Yehudit Katsover 050-7161818 Nadia Matar 050-5500834
www.ribonut.co.il www.womeningreen.org

Friday at Oz veGaon with Atty Elyakim Haetzni

5.The passing of Professor Steve Plaut, OBM.

Prof.Steven Plaut, a native Philadelphian who was a strong advocate of Israel, who held a PhD in economics from Princeton and taught business finance & economics at the University of Haifa in Israel has passed away. His voice for liberty & his stinging wit will be greatly missed.

From Aryeh Zelasko zelasko@gmail.com “Sadly I have come to learn of the news of the passing of Professor Steven Plaut of the University of Haifa. While Steven and I disagreed passionately on many aspects of the Israeli-Arab conflict and I would frequently have to ask him to edit his rather inflammatory style of writing when I was editing his work because I thought interesting points were blocked by the unbridled passion of his language, I came to respect his love and dedication for Israel, even though we didn’t always agree on perspectives. Our relationship was quite complex, but there was always a mutual respect when we disagreed, and we did often, that I thought was exemplary of what needs to exist in academia and the public discourse. From my relationship with him, I learned that we need to hear and understand one another and realize that even with persons with who we disagree passionately, there can be areas of common ground, mutual understanding and even mutual respect. There is too much of that lacking these days within politics and academic discourse. While we were very much on opposite sides of many issues, I will miss him as we respectfully stretched on another to understand the other’s point of view and that is a blessing. May the memory of Steven Plaut be forever a blessing.”

6.Hugh Fitzgerald: The Insubmissive Infidel, Or, Just A Jot About Jerusalem from JIHAD WATCH

By Hugh Fitzgerald,

“Palestinian” leader Mahmoud Abbas’ advisor on religion, one Mahmoud Al-Habbash, has declared that a move of the American embassy to Jerusalem by the Trump administration would constitute “a declaration of war on all Muslims,” and then threatened:“This will not pass in silence.” He was not alone. A half-dozen other “Palestinian” leaders chimed in with similar threats, claiming that if “America recognizes Jerusalem as the capital of the Jews,” then America will have declared “a new war against the Palestinians and also against the Arabs and the Muslims.”
Many American officials, including several former ambassadors to Israel, are also against the move. They claim it will cause “instability” (as if the Muslim Middle East were not already the most unstable region in the world today), and “harm” Israel’s budding relations behind-the-scenes with some in the Arab world (as if Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia would deprive themselves of the covert help Israel gives them against common enemies, including the Muslim Brotherhood and Iran). More interesting is that “Palestinians” in East Jerusalem, some reports suggest, appear to be “apathetic” about the possible U.S. Embassy move. Of course, the “Palestinian” leaders need to show they are doing something, earning their corrupt keep, and one way is to whip up sentiment against the move, even if locally it hardly matters to many “Palestinians,” who have other, more basic concerns, to worry about.

At this point, for Trump to back down from what he repeatedly said he would do, both during the campaign and after his election, would be taken by many Arabs and Muslims as a sign that their threats work, even with someone like Trump, who prides himself on his toughness. And such a victory would embolden the Arabs and Muslims to attempt more such victories through threat, and not only on matters involving Israel, but within Western Europe, too. Imagine, for example, that flush with victory on the Jerusalem issue (and one can almost hear the cries and ululations of triumph if Trump yields, and announces that he’s “putting off” indefinitely the Embassy move), Muslims decided to threaten Dutch voters that “if you elect Geert Wilders we will boycott Dutch goods” (just like the boycott of Danish products in 2006, to punish Denmark for publication of the Muhammad cartoons), or to make a similar threat to French voters about electing Marine Le Pen: “we’ll boycott French goods, we won’t visit Paris.” Or Muslim threats against any European country that passes measures deemed “anti-Islam” — everything from banning the niqab to serving pork in school lunches, to requiring Muslim girls to attend swimming classes with boys. Could, would European politicians and voters allow themselves to be bullied in such a manner? Of course they could; pusillanimity is a universal problem.

But if Trump stands firm, that should help stiffen the backbone of those Europeans who are rightly alarmed about Islam but – with so much surrender in the air — need encouragement. Trump’s refusal to kowtow will give them something to emulate. But if he gives in on the Jerusalem embassy move, it makes more likely both that other threats will be made by Muslims, their appetites whetted, against the West, and that the demoralization of the Western world – already evident in such craven leaders as Theresa May and Angela Merkel — will increase. The Embassy move may seem to be a matter only about Jerusalem, but it has become much more: a test of wills between the West (as represented by the United States) and a hostile Muslim world which, maddeningly, threatens even as it relies on the West for its economic and, in some cases, political survival. Furthermore, if Trump were to declare that he needed a “waiver on national security grounds” to the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995, just like his three predecessors, that would no doubt mean more than just a reversal of his policy; it would make it unlikely that any of his successors would try to move the Embassy. Following such a humiliating retreat by Trump, what future president would expend political capital trying to reverse course yet again? The American Embassy would remain in Tel Aviv, with any hope of its being moved to Jerusalem permanently extinguished.

A lot, then, is at stake.

In the first, and obvious, place, such a retreat would do violence to history and the truth. The connection of the Jewish people to Jerusalem, as their “eternal capital,” is not to be undone by votes in that most corrupt and corrupting of institutions, the U.N., where a powerful Muslim bloc holds sway. The Muslim connection to Jerusalem is a matter of faith, not history: Jerusalem is “holy” to Muslims because Muhammad supposedly ascended into Heaven on his winged steed Al-Buraq, from the “farthest mosque” (Al-Masjid al-Aqsa) located on the Haram al-Sharif (Temple Mount). You have to be a Muslim to believe the story about Muhammad’s Night Journey. You do not have to be Jewish, however, to know that Jerusalem was the capital of the Jews for thousands of years, that King David and King Solomon really did exist, that the Western Wall and Temple Mount and the cemetery on the Mount of Olives all testify to the ancient Jewish presence, that there is considerable archeological evidence for both the First and Second Temples, and that Jerusalem is mentioned 349 times in the Jewish Bible (but not mentioned once in the Qur’an). The Jewish connection to Jerusalem is a matter, then, of history, not of faith. Nor should the threats of Arabs and Muslims be allowed to sever that connection simply because they have become past masters at rewriting history, as recently demonstrated at UNESCO, in a resolution where the Muslim connection to Jerusalem was emphasized and the Jewish link to the Temple Mount was not even mentioned.

When Presidents Clinton, Bush, and Obama all invoked considerations of national security to claim a waiver from implementing the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995, they were demonstrating their fear of what they assumed might happen, without closely examining what the Arabs could actually do; none was willing to call what can reasonably be seen as the Muslim Arab bluff. And those who now counsel Trump not to fulfill his campaign pledge on the Embassy move — he should be cautious, he should be prudent, he should rock no boats, he should worry more about the Arab and Muslim reaction — are guilty of the same.

For what exactly could Muslims do to the United States, as a response to the Embassy being moved, that they are not already doing, or are trying to do? There have been more than 30,000 separate terrorist attacks by Muslims since 2001, all over the world. The only reason that total is not even higher is that Western security services have grown in their effectiveness, not because Muslims have decided they need to wait for a specific “reason” to attack. No particular act by Infidels is necessary to provoke such attacks; it is enough that Infidels remain Infidels.

If Trump were to do what he promised to do, it would give the world of cautious diplomacy a salutary shock. It would show up the cowardice of previous presidents. It would be a declaration of independence from, and well-deserved expression of contempt for, the U.N. Of course, such a move would be met with plenty of outrage, both real and feigned, but also with support from such anti-Islamic leaders in Europe as Geert Wilders and even, possibly, Marine Le Pen, by way of demonstrating that they, too, will not be subject to Muslim blackmail. Should Wilders win, in particular, and if Trump has moved the Embassy to Jerusalem by then, it would not be surprising if the Dutch leader were to follow suit. Then one hopes — “first a little, thence to more” – others will find out it isn’t so dangerous a move after all. And having one’s embassy in Jerusalem will take on symbolic significance, a way of demonstrating not just a respect for history, but that the West will no longer allow itself to be cowed by Muslims – either in foreign or domestic policy.

What dire threats can the “Palestinians” follow through on? Will they refuse to accept the hundreds of millions of dollars they receive each year in American aid? Let them. Can they punish our European allies, by refusing the billions they receive from them? That should be fine with us and the Europeans. The “Palestinians” can huff and they can puff, but the only house they will blow down is their own. They are at this point no longer the center of Arab interest; many Arab leaders have had their fill of the “whining Palestinians,” and having become weary of their “cause,” are more concerned with all the serious threats – such as the Islamic State, Al-Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood and, especially, Iran – to their own security.

What about the other Arabs? That means, above all, Saudi Arabia. Will the Saudis cease to pay for the tens of thousands of students they have enrolled in American colleges? Those student numbers have already been steadily reduced over the last few years due to a huge budget deficit, and if the Saudi government reduces those numbers still further, that will reflect budget belt-tightening, not an attempt to punish the United States, which for Saudi Arabia remains the one indispensable country. When Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, American airmen promptly arrived in Saudi Arabia to reassure the Saudis. The Americans are still there, the ultimate guarantor of Saudi security. There have been many reports, too, about a covert alliance with Israel, that supplies Saudi Arabia with intelligence on Iran. The Saudis now fear most an aggressive Iran threatening them through proxy wars, as it helps the Shi’as in Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Lebanon. Iran might even, the Saudis fear, sow open revolt among the Shi’a in the oil-bearing Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia. While the “Palestinians” like to think that they will forever remain the focus of Arab foreign policy (as it undoubtedly once was), the permanent cynosure of all Muslim eyes, and assume their cause will always come first, there is reason to believe they have an exaggerated sense of their importance, for the Arabs are now preoccupied with many other conflicts and threats to their well-being. How important is this Embassy move for Saudi Arabia (with Israel now an ally in the war against Iran), compared to the Iranian presence that appears to encircle it? Or the threats from the Islamic State, Al Qaeda, and the Muslim Brotherhood, not just to the Saudis but to many of their neighbors in the cauldron of the Middle East?

And what about the threat that the Saudis might sell off $750 billion in American assets if the Embassy is moved, a threat that has been made before to halt other initiatives, but never carried out? The Saudis said, for example, they would sell those assets if Congress passed a bill giving the families of 9/11 victims the ability to sue Saudi Arabia. Congress not only passed the bill, but when Obama vetoed it, passed it a second time by overriding the veto.

And what did Saudi Arabia do? It did nothing at all; it kept its American investments; its bluff was called. And if it were to make the same threat over the Embassy move, and even if it made good on the threat, many economists now believe, even if it did sell off those American assets, such a move would now have scarcely any effect on the U.S. economy, with its 18 trillion-dollar GDP, with $500 billion traded daily in the bond market alone, but might well devastate the Saudis. As one economist summed up the Saudi quandary:

They can sell the liquid assets fairly quickly – however moving large volumes will imply they will get a haircut, and someone else will make a nice profit. There would be a blip or two in the various indices but no real impact. The more real concern for the Saudis would be where to put that money – euros? rubles? rupees? gold?

For the not so liquid assets – they would need to have a massive firesale. A lot of people will make a killing. And there will be a supply glut in that market. But it would be fairly localized. And they probably won’t be able to liquidate completely.

So net result – they might be able to pull out some portion. Some portion will be frozen. And another portion will end up as someone else’s profit.

None of the economists appear to believe that any economic damage would be inflicted on the American economy. The consensus is that Saudi Arabia would be inflicting economic damage only on itself. That the Saudis refused to go through with their threatened sale of assets when Congress passed – twice – a bill allowing 9/11 families to sue the Saudis shows that they understand this, but hope that those they threaten do not.

The final worry is, of course, about oil. Could the Saudis start cutting off oil supplies, as in 1973? No, they could not. In the first place, in 1973 the oil market was the tightest it had ever been, so tight that OPEC managed to make the quadrupling of oil prices stick. Now market conditions are completely different. There is plenty of oil worldwide, including shale oil, for which effective new methods of extraction have been found. And there are plenty of non-oil sources of energy, which is even more worrisome for oil producers. We hear constantly of new advances in the efficiency of electric cars, and of solar collectors, and other technical achievements that put the oil market under constant downward pressure. The Saudis cannot be cavalier with customers; they must hold on to any part of the American oil market they can. And since oil is fungible, were hotter heads to prevail, and the Saudis decided to strike back at the U.S. for its embassy move by ceasing to sell to the Americans, they would then have to sell that oil elsewhere. To win a customer away from its current supplier would require the Saudis to offer a lower oil price. Should they succeed, that other supplier whom they have replaced will now be eager to sell its oil in the market that has just lost its Saudi supplier – that is, the United States. Lower revenues for the Saudis, no change for the Americans.

A production cut, on the other hand, would cause the price of oil to rise. More American shale oil would become economic to extract, the price of alternative sources of energy – wind and solar and nuclear – would become steadily more competitive following the oil price rise. The Saudis would bear the total brunt if they were the only ones to cut production. And Saudi Arabia is not quite as fabulously rich as it was in the past. Saudi Arabia has been burning through its cash, at a rate close to $100 billion in each of the last two years, because of the oil glut (the Saudis derive 92% of their income from oil); it needs all the revenue it can get. It’s not likely to cut production, given its current needs, in order to make a doubtful political point. Iran is much more on its mind, and the Saudis need both money for armaments, and American security guarantees against Iran that cannot any longer be counted on as a given.

Donald Trump’s words about Saudi Arabia during the campaign must have given Riyadh pause. He said that if elected, he might halt purchases of oil from Saudi Arabia and other Arab allies unless they commit ground troops to the fight against the Islamic State or “substantially reimburse” the United States for combating the militant group, which threatens their stability. And he showed his keen awareness of just who needs whom in the relationship: “If Saudi Arabia was without the cloak of American protection, I don’t think it would be around.”

That must have disturbed the Saudis, who have been able to push their weight around Washington ever since OPEC’s rise in 1973, by acting as if it is the United States that is in desperate need of Saudi Arabia. And now, following Congressional passage of the bill to allow 9/11 families to sue the Saudis that the Kingdom (and the Obama administration) had tried hard to stop, comes Donald Trump, with words that rattled Riyadh. This is no time for the Saudis to annoy the Americans. The Saudis are not fools, and they will not sacrifice themselves, economically or in security matters, to make a point for the tiresome “Palestinians.”

Other Muslim states might wish to punish the American government for recognizing a historical truth in moving its embassy in Israel to Jerusalem. But would they really do something beyond verbal menacing? What else can they do? Sever relations? Not accept our surplus wheat? Refuse the weapons we supply to so many of them? Would Jordan want to forgo the $1.6 billion this year in American aid, without which the country would stagger, if not collapse? Or Egypt its $1.5 billion, or Afghanistan its $1.1 billion, or Pakistan its nearly $1 billion? What threats could they carry out, without fearing American retaliation? For Trump, as we all know, is no fan either of foreign aid, or of Islam, and would be delighted to see a half dozen Muslim countries “punish” us by breaking off relations, thereby giving him all the excuse he needs to end that aid. The leaders of those countries know perfectly well how much they need American aid, and how eager Trump is to cut it off. They won’t be taking any chances on their own well-being, just to please the likes of Mahmoud Abbas and Saeb Erekat.

Trump should call the bluff of the assorted “Palestinians” threatening all manner of mayhem. The fearful and the faint have had their moment in the sun. Now it’s time to try the truth: Jerusalem is Israel’s capital. The rewriters of history must not prevail. The American Embassy belongs in Jerusalem. Just make the move, announcing it laconically and after the fact, without fanfare and without deigning to take notice either of the threats from all those mahmoud-dabbashes or of the feelgood fantasies of Pope Francis. After the expected period of Muslim agitation and even, from Gaza and Ramallah, fabricated hysteria, once the Embassy is moved things will quiet down, and with none of those dire Muslim threats having come to pass, the world will go on pretty much as before, except that those who in Europe want a stronger campaign against the Muslim invasion of their countries – and their numbers are growing — will be heartened by, and no doubt wish to emulate, the no-nonsense approach taken in Washington. The mixture as before just hasn’t been working. It is time to try something new, time to kiss the lips of unacquainted change.

7.Do not let them win by HaRav Shmuel Eliyahu

If you doubt rumors against PM come from desire for good government, leaks show someone’s working hard to eliminate Prime Minister. Arutz Sheva 16/01/17 22:26

Rabbi Shmuel Eliyahu – Flash 90

The Book of Kings begins with the story of King David who hears in his old age from people who want to crown Adoniyah ben Hagit instead of Solomon. When David understands what’s cooking he swears to stop this coup and on the same day he crowns Solomon even though his time has not come. He understood not to let the fire keep burning and the need to act quickly, before it’s too late.

I write this in the context of an investigation against the Prime Minister and the calls that he resign. Anyone who has read the books of the two Justice Ministers, Daniel Friedman and Yaakov Ne’eman, learns that this method is known to those who have failed at the ballot box. They use the legal system to eliminate political opponents under the guise of fairness and justice, so that the public does not object.

If anyone thinks that the rumors and investigations against the Prime Minister come from a desire for clean, honest government, along come the daily leaks against the Prime Minister that absolutely do not stand the test of morality and justice – and they reveal to us that someone here is working hard to eliminate the Prime Minister.

These leaks did not make the headlines by accident. Someone took care to leak and publish them in order to mislead you. To break the Prime Minister’s spirit and mislead the legal adviser. They want you to delude yourself that it’s not so terrible to discard an elected Prime Minister because we can bring someone with cleaner hands.

Do not let them win. They want to undo the will of the voters and to crown one who does their will. Even if he is replaced by a right-winger, he is likely to fall in line with their own agendas as did Ariel Sharon. All who come will fear their power and reach. Do not believe a word that comes out of their mouths. They want to make an illegal coup and they need you to believe in these rumors.

We must stop them. This is also a danger to democracy and to Israel. The people voted for Netanyahu and one does not topple a prime minister for cigars and meetings with journalists. Shimon Peres was not ousted over this, and neither should Netanyahu be.

8.Israel’s just presence in Judea & Samaria is coming to light. A groundbreaking ruling that was “forgotten” by the media is now surfacing. By Jean-Patrick Grumberg

This groundbreaking ruling by a French court was given in 2013, but somehow escaped the media’s awareness.

A pro Israel activist has worked to bring this “old news” to light, because of its outmost significance.

“I decided to put to work my years of Law Studies in France, and I meticulously analyzed the Court ruling,” Jean-Patrick Grumberg wrote.

The following is an analysis of the dramatic court proceedings and their significance:

In a historical trial, the 3rd Chamber of the Court of Appeal of Versailles declared in 2013 that Israel is the legal occupant of Judea and Samaria.

The Court of Appeal of Versailles ruled that Israel’s presence in Judea and Samaria is unequivocally legal under international law, dismissing a suit brought by the Palestinian Authority (PA) against Jerusalem’s light rail built by French companies Alstom and Veolia

To rule on the suit, the Court of Appeals had to determine the legal rights of Palestinians and Israelis in the region. Their conclusion was that the Palestinians have no right – in the international legal sense – to the region, unlike Israel, who is legitimately entitled to all land beyond the 67 line.

The story goes back to the ’90s, when Israel began work for for the construction of the Jerusalem light rail. The tender was won by French companies Veolia and Alstom. The light rail was completed in 2011, and it crosses Jerusalem all the way through the city.

Following this, the PLO filed a complaint with the Tribunal de Grande Instance of Versailles France, against Alstom and Veolia, because according to PLO, the construction of the tram was illegal since the United Nations (UN0, the European Union (EU) and other governments consider Israel’s presence there illegal.

In order to rule whether the light rail’s construction was legal or not, the court had to review the texts of international law and examine international treaties in order to establish the respective legal rights of the Palestinians and the Israelis.

This is the first time since the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948 that an independent, non-Israeli court has been called upon to examine the legal status of Judea and Samaria under international law, beyond the political claims of the parties.

While the Court’s findings have no effect in international law, they do have the utmost importance, which is to clarify the legal reality.

The Versailles Court of Appeal’s conclusions are resounding: Israel has real rights in Judea and Samaria, its decision to build a light rail in Jerusalem or anything else in the area is legal, and the judges rejected all the arguments presented by the Palestinians.

The PLO claimed that Israel’s presence in the area was illegal according to international treaties and that that the light rail construction has resulted in the destruction of Palestinian buildings and houses, and has conducted many illegal dispossessions. Therefore, several clauses from the annexed Regulations to the October 18, 1907 Fourth Hague Convention were violated.

The Court of Appeal rejected all the Palestinian arguments.

Referring to the texts on which the PLO claim is based, the Court of Appeal considers that Israel is entitled to ensure order and public life in the region, and therefore Israel has the right to build a light rail, infrastructure and dwellings.

The Court explained that the PA misinterpreted the texts and they do not apply to Israel presence in Judea and Samaria.

All the international instruments put forward by the PLO were acts signed between states, and the obligations or prohibitions contained therein are relevant to states. Neither the PA nor the PLO are states, and therefore, none of these legal documents apply to them.

Likewise, the Court showed that these texts are binding only on those who signed them, namely the contracting parties. Neither the PLO nor the PA have ever signed these texts.

The Court, quite irritated by the arguments presented by the PA, boldly asserted that the law cannot be based solely on the PLO’s assessment of a political or social situation.

The Court of Appeal therefore sentenced the PLO and Association France Palestine Solidarité (AFPS), who was co-appellant, to pay 30,000 euros ($32,000) to Alstom, 30,000 euros to Alstom Transport and 30,000 euros to Veolia Transport.

Neither the PLO nor the Palestinian Authority nor the AFPS appealed to the Supreme Court, and therefore the judgment became final.

This is the first time that a Court has legally destroyed all Palestinian legal claim that Israel’s occupation is illegal. By: Jean-Patrick Grumberg for www.Dreuz.info

9.TRUMP, THE PISTOL & HOLY BRANCH by Caroline Glick JPost.com Jan. 17, 2017 A new era for the corrupt “peace process” begins on Friday.

President-Elect Donald Trump

With a gun on his hip, on November 13, 1974, PLO chief Yasser Arafat stood before the UN General Assembly and made the West an offer that it didn’t refuse.
At the end of a long speech in which he rewrote history to erase all connection between the Jewish people and the Land of Israel and criminalized the very notion of Jewish freedom, Arafat declared, “Today I have come bearing an olive branch & a freedom fighter’s gun. Do not let the olive branch fall from my hand. I repeat: Do not let the olive branch fall from my hand.”

Arafat’s offer has served since that time as the foundation of European relations with the Palestinians and the wider Islamic world. It has also been the basis of US-PLO relations for the better part of the past four decades.
His trade was simple and clear.
If you stand with the PLO in its war to annihilate Israel and deny Jewish freedom, then PLO terrorists and our Arab state supporters will leave you alone.
If you refuse to join our war against the Jewish state, we will kill you.
Today, Arafat’s successor, Mahmoud Abbas, is reiterating Arafat’s offer.
Speaking Saturday at the Vatican after the Holy See decided to recognize “Palestine”, Abbas said that if US President-elect Donald Trump goes ahead with his plan to move the US Embassy to Jerusalem, it will “fuel extremism in our region, as well as worldwide.”
Abbas’s spokesman was more explicit. Saturday night, Osama Qawasmeh, spokesman for Abbas’s Fatah PLO faction and member of Fatah’s Revolutionary Council, said that if the US moves its embassy to Israel’s capital city, “The gates of hell will be opened in the region & the world.”
Abbas and Qawasmeh also said that the PLO expects that members of the international community will make Trump see the light and abandon his plan.
French President Francois Hollande’s “peace conference” on Sunday was the international community’s way of fulfilling Abbas’s demand.
As multiple commentators have noted, the conference’s purpose wasn’t to promote prospects for peace. It was to constrain Trump’s policy options for handling the Palestinian war against Israel.
By bringing together representatives of some 70 countries to insist that Israeli homeowners are the moral equivalent of Palestinian terrorists, Hollande and his comrades hoped to box Trump into their PLO-compliant policy.
Spelling out the demand Trump is required to accept, French Foreign Minister Jean-Marc-Ayrault parroted the Palestinian threats.
Asked by the French media Sunday if moving the US Embassy to Jerusalem would provoke the Palestinians, Ayrault said, “Of course.”
He then demeaned Trump’s plan to move the embassy as nothing but the regular bluster of American politicians.
In his words, “I think he [Trump] would not be able to do it. It would have extremely serious consequences and it’s not the first time that it’s on the agenda of a US president, but none has let himself make that decision.”
Ayrault is correct about Trump’s predecessors.
To one degree or another, since the early 1970s, successive US administrations have joined the Europeans in selling Israel down the river to prevent Arafat’s minions from pointing their guns at the American people.
Like the Europeans, the Americans have upheld their side of this bargain even when the PLO failed to uphold its end. For instance, in 1973 Arafat ordered his terrorists to storm the Saudi Embassy in Khartoum and take US ambassador Cleo Noel, his deputy, George Curtis Moore, and Belgian diplomat Guy Eid hostage. Arafat then ordered his henchmen to murder the diplomats after then president Richard Nixon rejected his demand to release Robert F. Kennedy’s Palestinian murderer, Sirhan Sirhan, from prison.
Instead of responding to the execution of US diplomats by siding with Israel against the PLO, the US covered up and denied the PLO’s responsibility for the attack for the next 33 years.
The US is still covering up for the PLO’s murder of US embassy personnel in Gaza in 2003. At the same time, it is providing the PLO with nearly three quarters of a billion dollars in direct and indirect annual aid, including the training and provision of its security forces.
The Europeans for their part have egged the US along throughout the years. France has generally led European efforts to convince the Americans to side with Palestinian as well as Hezbollah terrorists in their war against Israel in the name of “peace.”
Sunday morning, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu dismissed the Paris conference as a “futile” relic of a period that is about to end.
Netanyahu said that the conference’s goal of boxing Israel into an untenable framework for dealing the Palestinians was nothing more than the “final palpitations of a yesterday’s world.”
“Tomorrow,” he intoned, “will look a lot different. And tomorrow is very close.”
Trump will take office on Friday. Since he was elected, he has given every reason to believe Abbas & his deputies & their European & American enablers will have to either put up or shut up.
Speaking of the president-elect, Henry Kissinger said that Trump is the first man in recent memory who doesn’t owe anybody anything for his victory.
The only people he is answerable to are the voters who elected him.
Trump’s electoral victory owes to his success in tapping into the deep reservoir of popular disaffection with the elitist culture and policies that have governed post-Cold War West. He has used the mandate he received from American voters to revisit the basic assumptions that have driven US policies for the past generation.
His skepticism at NATO and the EU are examples of his refusal to simply accept the received wisdom of his predecessors. Just this weekend he told Germany’s Bild magazine that he continues to question the purpose of NATO, which is a drag on US taxpayers and doesn’t fight terrorism.
He similarly restated his ambivalence toward the EU and that its open border policy has been a “catastrophic failure,” and he expects more countries to follow Britain’s lead and exit the EU.
Trump’s position on the PLO and the Palestinian war on Israel is of a piece with his wider rejection of the common wisdom of Western elites. Just as he didn’t hesitate to say that the EU mainly serves as an instrument for Germany to dominate the European market, so he has made no mystery of his rejection of the moral equivalence between Israel and Palestinian terrorists which forms the basis of the 2-state formula.
Not only won’t Trump join the Obama administration and the French in criminalizing Israeli homeowners, Trump is celebrating them. He has invited the leaders of Israeli communities in Judea and Samaria – that is, the so-called “settlements” – to attend his inauguration.
Trump appears dead serious about moving the US Embassy to Jerusalem.
Under these circumstances, Israel has the opportunity and the obligation to end the PLO’s ability to threaten the US, not to mention itself. It is Israel’s duty to ensure that the next time the PLO tries to exact a price in blood for America’s refusal to abide by the terms of Arafat’s blackmail, his terrorist group is finally destroyed.
Similarly, Israel is now obliged to take the lead and abandon the PLO-friendly two-state policy, which blames Israel for Palestinian terrorism, and adopt a strategy that works in its place.
Netanyahu has refused to consider any alternative until after Barack Obama is out of office.
Consultations must be scheduled for Saturday night.

“The Way to Peace: Israeli Victory, Palestinian Defeat,” my article in the current issue of Commentary, has provoked criticism mainly with regard to two points: my accepting the existence of a Palestinian people and my belief that it can be defeated. My arguments:

(1) There is no such thing as a Palestinian people: Indeed, as readers note, no such people existed through the centuries. Palestine (Arabic: “Filastin”) as a political unit only came into use as a Zionist triumph when imposed by the British occupiers following the issuance of the Balfour Declaration in 1917. Palestinians (Arabic: “Filastiniyun”) also came into use only in the twentieth century. Jerusalem never served as capital of a sovereign Muslim state. All true.

But, starting in 1920, with the imposition of a geographical unit later to be called the British Mandate for Palestine, the Arabic-speaking Muslims of that territory understood they had to adopt the Palestinian identity. In 1948, when Jews abandoned the term Palestine in favor of Israel, the word Palestinian became exclusively Arab. With the foundation of the Palestine Liberation Organization in 1964, this identity acquired political expression. The Palestinian Authority in 1994 gave it official status. At this point, it is futile, even silly, to deny the existence of a distinct Palestinian Arab people.

That said, the Palestinian Arab identity that emerged so quickly from political necessity may not last forever; as I noted back in 1989, “the primacy of Palestinian nationalism could eventually come to an end, perhaps as quickly as it got started.”

(2) Muslim peoples never give up, always keep going in warfare, and so cannot be defeated: I addressed this in passing in the Commentary article: “Muslims have repeatedly given in to infidels through history when faced with a determined superior force, from Spain to the Balkans to Lebanon.”

To which, the reply comes that in these and other cases, Muslims did not entirely give up: Islamists dream of Al-Andalus, Turkey’s Prime Minister Erdogan has neo-Ottoman ambitions in the Balkans, and Lebanese Muslims successfully terminated the Christian-dominated state.

Again, all true. But the notion of retaking Spain is limited to the realm of fantasy, Erdogan has no intention militarily to retake the Balkans, and Lebanon’s Muslims exploited the designs on their country of a neighbor (Syria) to bring down the Maronites.

Comparing Muslims with Christians makes this point more clearly: If the above examples show an undying Muslim spirit, the same applies to Christian too (and, by extension, to everyone, e.g., the Chinese).

· The Kingdom of Spain claims Gibraltar, despite its being ceded in perpetuity to Great Britain in 1713, over 300 years ago.

· The government of Greece claimed parts of Anatolia after World War I that had been under Muslim rule for as long as 700 years.

· Benito Mussolini, the ruler of Italy, attempted to resurrect the Roman empire over 1,400 years after the demise of the western empire in 476 A.D.

This listing points to the fact that irredentist ideas sometime survive a very long time and can come roaring back to life. That, however, does not change the fact that wars end when one side gives up, something that applies to Muslims as well as non-Muslims. (January 10, 2017)

Related Topics: History, Palestinians

Related Articles:

· The 11th Encyclopædia Britannica on Who Is a Palestinian

· Dreaming of Al-Andalus

· The Year the Arabs Discovered Palestine [Long version]

receive the latest by email: subscribe to daniel pipes’ free mailing list

The above text may be reposted, forwarded, or translated so long as it is presented as an integral whole with complete information about its author, date, place of publication, & the original URL.

12.MKs Yehuda Glick & Sharren Haskel will attend President Trump Inaugural Friday 1/20/17

In an unprecedented move, two members of the Israeli Knesset will attend Trump’s inauguration ceremony this Friday.

Two lawmakers from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud party will attend the inauguration of US President-elect Donald Trump on Friday. Apparently, this will be the first time that Israeli Knesset members will have attended such an event.

“I am honored to be invited to the inauguration ceremony, which is a historic occasion, and at the same time continue to strengthen the relations between Israel and the US,” said Sharren Haskel, who will be at the event with Yehuda Glick.

“As part of my diplomatic experience I have had the opportunity to meet with officials from the American government in order to foster cooperation between the US and Israel,” she added. “I will continue to work to strengthen our great alliance with the US.”

Glick, who was invited by “Hayovel,” an organization that brings Christians to Israel to help local farmers, told Times of Israel that he was specifically interested in fostering those relations.

“My going has nothing to do with my political opinions,” Glick said. “I’m going there as someone active in dialogue between American Christians and Israel. I won’t participate in any political events.”

Several prominent leaders of communities in Judea and Samaria will also attend, including Samaria Regional Council head Yossi Dagan, Efrat Mayor Oded Revivi and Ma’ale Adumim Mayor Benny Kashriel.

“We’re opening a new page with the Americans,” Kashriel stated, the Jerusalem Post reported.

By: Jonathan Benedek, World Israel News