Category Archives: Terrorism

Question for the.@UN: Since when did the Palestinians become entitled to a state?


As Newt Gingrich said in 2011, “The Palestinians are an invented people.”

In 1964, the Palestine Liberation Organization was formed to liberate Palestine through armed struggle. But it took years for the notion of a Palestinian people to crystalize.  In 1967, they were not recognized as such, nor were they considered a party to the conflict.  Security Council Resolution 242 passed after the ’67 war, made no mention of them.

The US as a matter of policy, promoted the PLO as the representative of the Palestinian people and forced Israel to accept them in peace discussions at the Madrid Conference in 1991.

In 1993, Israel signed along with them the Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements  (Oslo I)  and in 1995 the Interim Agreement on the West Bank (Oslo II)  but these Accords made no mention of giving them a state.

Surprisingly, President George W. Bush gave it the first official nod for the first time in his vision speech of 2002. This speech came about in response to enormous pressure from Saudi Arabia which was demanding the creation of such a state. Even so, it was conditioned on the Palestinians fighting terror, not aiding it or abetting it. In fact, there were many other pre-conditions to the creation of the state.  But the US and the world quickly forgot about the preconditions and went forward with the idea that the Palestinians were entitled to a state.

Then in 2004, Bush gave a very important letter of assurances to PM Sharon in order to support his plans for disengagement.

“The United States will do its utmost to prevent any attempt by anyone to impose any other plan. Under the roadmap, Palestinians must undertake an immediate cessation of armed activity and all acts of violence against Israelis anywhere, and all official Palestinian institutions must end incitement against Israel. The Palestinian leadership must act decisively against terror, including sustained, targeted, and effective operations to stop terrorism and dismantle terrorist capabilities and infrastructure. Palestinians must undertake a comprehensive and fundamental political reform that includes a strong parliamentary democracy and an empowered prime minister.

“Second, there will be no security for Israelis or Palestinians until they and all states, in the region and beyond, join together to fight terrorism and dismantle terrorist organizations. The United States reiterates its steadfast commitment to Israel’s security, including secure, defensible borders, and to preserve and strengthen Israel’s capability to deter and defend itself, by itself, against any threat or possible combination of threats.[..]

“As part of a final peace settlement, Israel must have secure and recognized borders, which should emerge from negotiations between the parties in accordance with UNSC Resolutions 242 and 338.”

In this letter, which amounted to a contract, Bush committed the US to prevent any other plan being imposed.  He also committed the US to Israel’s security and reiterated Israel’s right to defensible borders. By affirming Res 242, he was affirming that Israel need not vacate 100% of the land.

Within a couple of months of President Obama’s inauguration in 2009, he repudiated this contract. In response to this and other indicators, I wrote thatObama intended to impose a solution on Israel. I explained on these pages in 2009 that he had to repudiate it because the contract if allowed to stand, committed the US to oppose the imposition of any other plan.

Obama then forced Netanyahu to recognize a Palestinian right to a state in his Bar Ilan Speech in June 2009 in which Netanyahu said:

“In my vision of peace, in this small land of ours, two peoples live freely, side-by-side, in amity and mutual respect. Each will have its own flag, its own national anthem, its own government. Neither will threaten the security or survival of the other.”

He went on to stipulate two demands or preconditions: namely the new state must be demilitarized and must recognize Israel as the State of the Jewish people. This was the first time Netanyahu or his party embraced the two state solution. Obama was satisfied even with all the pre-conditions and stipulations. He got what he wanted. He would ignore the stipulations. And this resolution does just that.

Next, he backed the Arab Peace Initiative, which called for 100% withdrawal, contrary to Res 242, albeit with mutually agreed swaps.

Then he demanded a complete building freeze, even in Jerusalem. Even so he could not get any concessions from either the Arab League or from the PA as compensation. Having no other choice, he backed the PA’s demand that, as the price of the PA entering negotiations, Israel should release over 100 Arab prisoners with blood on their hands. Israel agreed, though no one had any expectations that the PA would compromise. This prisoner release was in effect another freebie for them.

After strenuous efforts to achieve an agreement, Obama backed off but demanded that there be a continued freeze and nothing be done to make untenable the two-state solution.

But he hadn’t given up. By engineering the passage of Security Council Resolution 2334 declaring “the establishment by Israel of settlements in the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, has no legal validity” and demanding 100% withdrawal, he, in effect, was getting the Security Council to back his parameters for a peace agreement, namely ’67 lines plus swaps, with a divided Jerusalem.

This, in other words, is a demand by the international community that all lands east of the ’67 lines be free of Jews (judenrein, as the Nazis used to put it).  That would include the Jewish neighborhoods in the eastern part of Jerusalem.  Thus, the lands east of the ’67 lines must be ethnically cleansed of the 900,000 Jews that live there. A majority of which Jews were born there.

The Security Council underlined  “that it will not recognize any changes to the 4 June 1967 lines, including with regard to Jerusalem, other than those agreed by the parties through negotiations….”  Thus the Jews were denied the Temple Mount, the Old City, including the Jewish Quarter, the Holy Basin and the Western Wall, otherwise known as the Kotel.

This resolution completely overturned Res 242, which was passed 50 years ago and which was the cornerstone of all subsequent initiatives like the Oslo Accords, the Roadmap and the Bush letter of ’04. Throughout this entire period, all US presidents stressed the need for direct negotiations to settle all disputes. Any concessions that Israel made along the way were conditioned on the basis of direct negotiations to come.

This resolution removed from such negotiations, the ultimate borders, the fate of the settlements, the requirement that the borders be defensible and whether to create a state.

In the Oslo Accords, Israel made major concessions to the Palestine Liberation Organization representing the Arabs by inviting them into the territories and granting them autonomy in Areas A and B as demarcated by the Accords, believing that all Israeli safeguards in the Accords would protect her. Keep in mind that the Accords did not promise the Arabs a state nor did they proscribe settlement activity.

Prior to signing these Accords, Israel insisted that the PLO accept Res 242 as binding. This was important to Israel because it stipulated that Israel need only withdraw to “recognized and secure” borders. This new resolution negates all Israeli safeguards but not the concessions made by Israel. To do so is unconscionable.

On the one hand, the UN continually accuses Israel of violating international law and declares the settlements illegal by international law; yet, on the other hand, it ignores salient facts and binding contracts. The resolution thus violates the international legal order itself. The UN should be governed by law not by caprice.

Another example of invoking a law that doesn’t exist is the clause which cites “the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force”.  Howard Adelmanmakes short shrift of this proposition. There is no such law.

This resolution is built upon the proposition that the settlements are illegal by international law. But what if they aren’t?  The UN holds that the lands in question are subject to the Fourth Geneva Convention, which applies whenever a High Contracting Party (HCP)  i.e., a country which signed the convention, belligerently occupies the land of another HCP. But in this case the lands in question were not the land of a HCP but were unallocated land under the Palestine Mandate.

PM Netanyahu appointed a commission consisting of one retired High Court Judge and two senior lawyers to study the matter. In 2014, it issued the Levy Report, which concluded that the FGC does not apply. But even if it does apply, it doesn’t prevent Jews from voluntarily settling on the lands. And keep in mind that the Palestine Mandate gave Jews the right of close settlement on these lands, which right has never been terminated, nor can it be.

This matter has never been determined by a court of competent jurisdiction and thus the UN has no right to treat it as settled law.

To use the vernacular, Israel is being railroaded into creating a Palestinian state on all the territories captured 50 years ago, contrary to law, the facts, and existing agreements. Everything is twisted to label Israel a violator of law, when in fact it is the UN that is the violator. All this on behalf of an invented people who didn’t exist 50 years ago.

Hamas BFF Keith Ellison: The Democrats Just Don’t Get It

keith ellison 1

You might think that, having just suffered a shellacking for the ages, the DNC would moderate its stance, sense the pulse of the American electorate, and move to the center.  No, no – not this hardy group of “progressive” ideologues.  With their ship floundering to the port side, they double down and shift more weight to their party’s left.

Welcome to Keith Ellison, considered to be the next chairman of the DNC and a man who epitomizes the slanders the far left falsely attribute to Steve Bannon and others in the Trump cabinet.

Since 2007, Ellison has been the U.S. representative from Minnesota’s 5th Congressional District.  Having taken his oath of office with one hand on the Koran, Ellison is the first Muslim to be elected to the U.S. Congress.  A feel-good story so far, but it doesn’t end here.  By word and deed, Ellison is a virulent anti-Semite.

Deep into his 30s, this man, poised to head the Democratic Party, was a spokesman for the Nation of Islam.  He publicly spewed anti-Semitism and later in life, as a congressional candidate, knowingly accepted $50,000 in campaign contributions given and raised by Islamic radicals who openly supported Islamic terrorism and were leaders of front groups for Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood.  His controversial statements and actions date back to the ’90s, when he served as a local spokesman for Louis Farrakhan’s Nation of Islam movement and raised eyebrows when he publicly claimed in 1995 that Farrakhan “is not an anti-Semite.”

In 1997, Joanne Jackson, executive director of the Minneapolis Initiative Against Racism (MIAR) – the acronym alone is a hint as to where his is going – said: “Jews are among the most racist white people.”  Ellison, at the time using his religious name, Mohammad, read a statement unequivocally supporting her on behalf of the The Minneapolis-St. Paul Study Group of the Nations of Islam: “We stand by Ms. Jackson.”

As a congressman in 2012, Ellison voted against Israel on every proposition, resolution, and bill.  Shy 11 other congressmen, no one has voted against Israel more than Ellison – five separate votes.

Despite this, Chuck Schumer, the new Senate minority leader and darling of the progressive wing of the Democratic Party, is an ardent supporter of Ellison for the DNC chair.  Why would a supposed moderate’s moderate like Schumer support Ellison?  In an eye-opening interview this month, he said he’s backing the Minnesota congressman to lead the Democratic National Committee for a simple reason: Bernie Sanders likes him.  Sanders, ex-presidential candidate and a key liberal voice in the Senate, also earned a spot this past week on Schumer’s new 10-senator leadership team.

In the immortal words of former New York Knicks star Michael J. Richardson, for the Democrats, “the ship be sinking.”

In other words, Schumer, the supposed unflinching supporter of Israel, is corroborative with an unrepentant anti-Semite due to the approval of another who never misses an opportunity to disparage the Jewish State.  You might wonder whom this speaks most to: Ellison, Schumer, or Sanders?  But it gets better.

With a propensity of finding commonality with their enemies and not their friends, far too common among liberal Jews, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL)’s CEO, Jonathan Greenblatt, characterized Ellison as an “important ally in the fight against Anti-semitism” and “on record in support of Israel.”  I only hope marijuana is legal wherever Mr. Greenblatt lives.

This past summer, Ellison (aka Keith X. Ellison, aka Keith Hakim, aka Keith Ellison Muhammed) worked to insert anti-Israel positions and language into the 2016 Democratic national platform and to keep pro-Israel planks out.  He complained in a DemocracyNow! interview that the Israeli “occupation” was to blame for a “humanitarian crisis” and lack of sewage processing in Gaza.  This past June, following a trip to Hebron, he tweeted the following sign and stated:

I saw this as I walked down a street in Hebron. While window opens to street, no Palestinian can walk/drive on it

Unfortunately, this purportedly “important ally in the fight against Anti-semitism” fails to mention that if it were not for homicide bombers, blown up buses and restaurants and weddings, stabbings, and all other mayhem the Palestinians can think of, walls and fences wouldn’t be needed, and they could walk in peace down every street in Israel.

During the 2014 war with Hamas, Ellison was among eight representatives whovoted against funding the Iron Dome anti-missile defense system, which Israel desperately needed due to incessant and indiscriminate incoming rockets from Gaza.

Likewise, in 2015, Ellison co-authored and spearheaded a letter (and obtained signatures on the letter of 23 Democrat members of Congress) demanding that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech to Congress about the Iran deal be delayed until after the sanctions deadline, when the visit would have been useless.

This past month, the House of Representatives’ Ethics Committee opened an investigation into the soon to be chairman of the DNC after Ellison failed to disclose that the Muslim American Society – a group that Muslim Brotherhood members founded to be the “overt arm of the Muslim Brotherhood in the U.S.” – paid $13,350 for Ellison to visit Mecca, Saudi Arabia in 2008.

We could go on and on and on with this, but the wrap remains.  To even consider Keith Ellison to head the party of Truman, Stevenson, and Kennedy is an affront to those great men.  The once great Democratic Party that many of us grew up with in the ’50s and ’60s is long dead.  The highly patriotic party that truly represented the hardworking class of the United States has now morphed into a far-left consortium of perverted liberalism that denounces this country at every twist and turn but is happy to take advantage of its largess.

Keith Ellison, head of the DNC.  What will they think of next?

Keith Ellison Headlined Fundraiser For Activist Who Called For Palestinians To Embrace Jihad

CHUCK ROSS ////Minnesota Rep. Keith Ellison, the favorite to take over as chairman of the Democratic National Committee, campaigned in 2009 for a Libya-born activist who once called on Palestinians to embrace “the jihad way” in order to get free of Israeli control.

The activist, Esam Omeish, a former candidate for Virginia state delegate, has also praised one of the founders of Hamas and commended the work of Palestinian suicide bombers.

Omeish’s positions had been publicized when Ellison, the first Muslim ever elected to Congress, headlined the July 2009 fundraiser for Omeish, who served as president from 2004 to 2008 of the Muslim American Society, a Muslim Brotherhood-linked group.“The very fact that you have ran a honorable campaign in this heated primary shows victory. Don’t stop working, lay it all on the line,” Ellison said at the event, according to Omeish’s campaign website.

Read more: