Tag Archives: Palestine

Kurds, Palestinians and Double Standards

Joseph Puder//The Washington Post headline on June, 2, 2015, read: “Obama Makes an Impassioned Case for a Palestinian State.” While President Obama and his administration are eager for the establishment of another unstable and likely terrorist Arab (there are 21 Arab states, and Palestine is the 22nd) state called Palestine, they have largely ignored if not betrayed the Kurds in Iraq, Syria, Iran and Turkey. The Kurds are one of the largest national groups globally without a state of their own, and they are yearning for one independent Kurdish state. Justice for the Kurds, it seems, is subjected to the whims of Shiite-Muslim Iran, Sunni-Muslim Turkey, and the Iraqi Shiite-Arab government in Baghdad. The Obama administration, it appears, will not act on its own to correct an injustice done to the Kurdish people 92 years ago at the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne. The administration has cast a blind eye on the oppression the Kurdish people have endured under the regimes in Tehran, Ankara, Baghdad, and Damascus.

U.S. policy has handed over veto power on economic and military aid for the Kurds to the Shiite prime ministers of Iraq, Nouri al-Maliki and Haider al-Abadi. Baghdad appears to be the clearing house for weapons shipments to the Kurds who have gallantly stopped the Islamic State (IS) onslaught throughout northern Iraq. The Kurds, equipped with defensive arms were able to defeat IS, yet, the well-equipped, predominantly Shiite Iraqi army shamelessly retreated from the advancing IS forces that reached as far as the Baghdad suburbs. In the process, the Iraqi army abandoned its U.S. supplied arms that now make up a large part of the IS arsenal.

Considering that the Islamic Republic of Iran has the overriding influence in Baghdad, not the U.S., it begs the question as to why the U.S. won’t arm the peshmerga Kurdish forces directly with modern and offensive arms, to enable them to defeat IS. Currently, the Kurdish forces lack heavy arms such as tanks and artillery, not to mention air power. Since the Kurds have proved themselves in fighting IS, they deserve U.S. support much more than the hapless Iraqi army.

A significant political issue has loomed large in the relationship between Baghdad and Erbil. It is Article-140 of the Iraqi constitution, and it has to do with rights to Kirkuk, historically a Kurdish city. Saddam Hussein expelled more than 37,726 Kurdish families from Kirkuk and replaced them with Arabs. The Obama administration has sided with Baghdad on this issue. Article-140 lays down a clear road map to define the final boundaries of the territory to be administered by the KRG. The excessive delay in implementing this article is the primary cause of tension and administrative problems in the so-called disputed areas. These are areas that suffered severely from ethnic cleansing and community destruction under the former (Saddam Hussein) regime.

Failure to implement Article-140 is also in violation of the policy the Iraqi government announced in June, 2006. The Iraqi Prime Minister then stated that “the government will be committed to implement Article-140 of the Constitution which is based on Article-58 of the ‘Law of Administration for the State of Iraq’, also known as the Transitional Administrative Law (TAL).”

The Article specifies three phases for implementation that includes normalization, a census, and a referendum on Kirkuk and other disputed areas. “The government was to start by taking appropriate steps for the normalization phase, including rejoining detached districts and sub-districts to Kirkuk governorate, and completing this phase no later than 29 March 2007. The census phase was to be completed by 31 July 2007, and the referendum phase by 15 November 2007. The overall question is, thus, why hasn’t the Iraqi federal government met its commitments? Since 2003, successive Iraqi governments have failed to implement this constitutional article.”

The Obama administration has sent Brett McGurk, (deputy special presidential envoy for the global coalition to counter ISIL) to “arbitrate” the issue of Kirkuk and the adjunct areas, but the U.S., wary of upsetting the Shiite-led Iraqi government, and more importantly, their Iranian overlords (lest they turn away from negotiations on the nuclear issue) has been decidedly pro-Baghdad. This may be one of the reasons why the Administration has failed to provide arms to the pro-American Kurds.

Last August, IS shifted the brunt of its firepower against Erbil, the capital of the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG). The reluctant President Obama inexplicably wavered a while before approving airstrikes against IS. Still it was the heroic stand of the Kurdish peshmerga forces that halted the IS advance with the help of U.S. air power.

Ankara, much like Baghdad and Tehran is concerned with Kurdish self-determination. Turkey is worried about the rise of a strong Kurdish entity in Syria under the leadership of the Democratic Union Party (PYD), which seeks to do in Syria what the KRG has done in northern Iraq, namely becoming an internationally recognized autonomous region. Ankara fears that its own discriminated and abused Kurdish minority might seek detachment from Turkey and join southeastern Turkey with the other autonomous Kurdish regions. It is for this reason that Turkey’s President Erdogan allowed the Kurds in Kobani to bleed while Turkish tanks stood by. The Kurds of Kobani, helped by U.S. airpower, ultimately triumphed over the IS barbarians.

Sherkoh Abbas, President of the Kurdistan National Assembly of Syria (KNA-S), in a conversation with this reporter, addressed the following message to Washington. “The Kurds are the natural allies of the U.S. and western democracies.  Moreover, they are the boots on the ground. We are fighting in Syria and Iraq on behalf of humanity against the evil force known as IS (or ISIL). The U.S. administration needs to support us by providing the Kurds political recognition and military aid.  U.S. aid, however, should be direct, and not via hostile entities such as Iran, Iraq, and Turkey.  The U.S. should extend the No-Fly Zone to the Kurdish regions of Syria and Iraq; this would allow the Kurds to protect all the minorities and refugees from throughout war-torn Syria. It would also deny ISIL re-supply lines from Turkey.”

Abbas added, “The P5+1, providing Iran with sanctions relief, would enable the Ayatollahs to increase their support for the Assad regime and Hezbollah in Syria.  By supporting the Kurds the U.S. will thus reduce the influence of Iran in Iraq and Syria.  In fact, the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corp (IRGC) has taken over the Kamishly International airport in northeastern Syria to be used as a base for the Iranian al-Quds forces, and for Hezbollah’s direct flights from Lebanon. At the same time, chemical weapons have been deployed by ISIL against Syrian Kurds. The growing influence of Iran in Syria, and the spread of ISIL terror and brutality run counter to the interests of the Kurds, the U.S. and the west, as well as Israel.”

It has become an Obama administration’s imperative to keep Iraq and Syria as undivided unitary states, despite the fact that these states are artificial creations of the colonial powers. Yet, this policy is inconsistent with its efforts to force Israel to vacate the strategic defenses of the West Bank (Judea and Samaria) to create a Palestinian State. If indeed the privileged (the Palestinians have had multiple opportunities to create a state but chose war and terror against Israel) Palestinians should have a state, the Kurds certainly deserve statehood much more.

Islamic State, Palestine, Double Standards

ISIS 2

David Singer// UNESCO, the United Nations and just this week – the Vatican – have recognised that the “State of Palestine” exists – despite the fact that it lacks all four basic requirements laid down in Article 1 of the Montevideo Convention 1933:

“The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications:

a ) a permanent population; b ) a defined territory; c ) government; and d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.”

Reverend Federico Lombardi – the Vatican spokesman – confirmed the Holy See’s stance:

“Yes, it’s a recognition that the state exists”

The Vatican is justifiably concerned with protecting Christian communities in the Middle East against further ongoing death, dispersion and destruction of their churches as has been happening to Christian communities in Syria and Iraq during the last twelve months.

Easing the concerns of Christians in areas B and C, the “West Bank” areas under Palestinian Authority control, would have certainly played a part in the Vatican’s decision.

Bethlehem’s Christian population has been reduced from 60% in the 1990’s – prior to coming under Palestinian Authority control in 1995 – to barely 15% Christian by 2013 – whilst 1,000 Christians are reported to be leaving every year.

In contrast, Christian population growth in Israel last year stood at 1.3% and risking a rift in its relations with Israel displays poor judgement by the Vatican, given these realities.

Those 107 member States voting for Palestine’s admission to UNESCO on 31 October 2011 did so in direct contravention of Article II (2) of the UNESCO Constitution which provides:

“… states not members of the United Nations Organization may be admitted to membership of the Organization ….”

Hamas 6

Voting to admit into UNESCO an entity that is not a lawful state is beyond understanding.

The UN General Assembly compounded UNESCO’s amazing decision when 138 UN member States voted to recognize “Palestine” as a “non-member observer state” on 29 November 2012. The rule of law was thrown out the window with these UNESCO and UN decisions.

The international response to Islamic State has been markedly different since its declaration on 29 June 2014.

In just one year Islamic State has pillaged, plundered, beheaded and murdered its way through Syria and Iraq – now governing the population and controlling state assets in an area larger than Great Britain.  Pledges of allegiance have come from many terrorist groups including Boko Haram and Sinai Province.

However, Islamic State meets all four Montevideo Convention criteria.

Yet British Prime Minister David Cameron urges Islamic State’s existence not be recognised by simply not using its self-declared name – reportedly telling BBC Radio 4’s Today programme:

“I wish the BBC would stop calling it ‘Islamic State’ because it is not an Islamic State. What it is, is an appalling barbarous regime … it is a perversion of the religion of Islam and many Muslims listening to this programme will recoil every time they hear the words.”

French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius has an even stranger view:

“This is a terrorist group and not a state. I do not recommend using the term Islamic State because it blurs the lines between Islam, Muslims and Islamists. The Arabs call it ‘Daesh’ and I will be calling them the ‘Daesh cutthroats’.”

Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott has reportedly used the term “death cult” 346 times since last September.

The Pope, too, seems reluctant to use the term “Islamic State”.

President Obama uses the acronym “ISIL” to deny it is Islamic or a State.

“Palestine” – not a State – is recognised as a State.

“Islamic State” – a State – is not recognised as a State.

No wonder the world is in such a state of turmoil and confusion.

Palestinian Statehood – Separating Fact from Fantasy

 

The NY Times recently reported that the Vatican has concluded a treaty recognizing Palestinian statehood. During Israel’s recent election, however, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu commented that if re-elected, he would oppose the creation of a Palestinian state. He has good reason to oppose it.

Security Council Resolution 242 (November 22, 1967) speaks of withdrawal by Israel from lands occupied in the Six-Day War provided that Israel’s sovereignty, territorial integrity, political independence and right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force are recognized.

The response of the Palestinians and the Arab world was simple and unequivocal – The Khartoum Declaration – “No recognition, no negotiation, no peace” – and despite generous offers by Israeli Prime Ministers Barak and Olmert, it is clear that no Palestinian leader then or now is prepared to accept Israel’s right to exist in any borders whatsoever despite all the rhetoric to the contrary.

This became clear on May 10th, 1994, in the wake of Arafat’s signing the Oslo Accords, when he travelled to Johannesburg, South Africa and compared his signing of the Accords with Mohammed’s deceptive signing of a 10-year peace treaty at Hudaybiyyah with the Quraish tribe of Mecca. Two years later, Mohammed broke the Treaty, attacked the Quraish, slaughtered them and conquered Mecca. In other words, the 10-year Treaty was a deception designed to allow Mohammed time to build his forces until they were powerful enough to conquer the Quraish. Arafat stated unequivocally that he viewed the Oslo Accords in the same light as Hudaybiyyah.


In the same month, Israel and the PLO signed the Cairo Agreement under which Israel withdrew from Jericho and more than half of Gaza , all of which was turned over to Palestinian control. The Agreement was based on the formula of “land for peace” whereby Israel relinquished strategic territory and the Palestinians promised to prevent violence and combat terrorist attacks against Israel.

The Cairo Agreement had the exact reverse effect. It unleashed a wave of unprecedented Palestinian terrorism, which included suicide bombings that shook Israel to its core. “Land for peace” quickly devolved into “land for terrorism.” Subsequent deals, such as the Oslo II Accord of September 1995, the January 1997 Hevron protocol, and the October 1998 Wye River Agreement were all based upon the same principle. In each case, Israel handed territory over to the Palestinians in exchange for promises of peace, and, in each instance, without fail, Israel’s gestures were reciprocated with terrorist attacks against its citizens and its country.

And for those who maintain that a more “moderate” Palestinian leadership is now in power, perhaps they should consider the comments of Ahmed Bahar, deputy speaker of the PA parliament, who, on May 14th, confirmed that the Palestinian parliament continues to reject any Jewish right to the land of “Palestine” (meaning the State of Israel) which it defined as “an Islamic endowment to which Jews have no right to even a single inch.” It also confirmed that the Palestinians will never agree to the settlement of the so-called “Palestinian refugees” outside the territory of “Palestine” (meaning the State of Israel), nor will they ever agree to recognize Israel.

The Palestinians have broken every promise they made in the Oslo Accords and continue to seek recognition from world bodies such as the UN and the ICC so as to avoid any negotiations (as required by the Accords) or compromise that would require their recognition of the State of Israel.

Critics of Netanyahu’s position fail to note that, in furtherance of this goal, Palestinian suicide bombers were sent into Israel during the Second Intifada solely for the purpose of killing Jews in marketplaces, restaurants and discoteques because they believed that by doing so, they would secure their “martyrdom”.

The irony is that there never was a “peace process” except in the minds of the Western media and most Western leaders who have bought into all these lies and deceptions. The intention, rather, was to use international diplomatic pressure to force Israel into making strategic concessions that would ultimately lead to its destruction ….. as Arafat openly admitted in Johannesburg over twenty years ago.

Critics should note as well that the Palestinian educational system includes Palestinian poetry, schoolbooks, crossword puzzles and children’s music videos that teach Palestinian children that “Jews are the descendants of pigs and monkeys” and must be killed, and Palestinian leaders have openly declared that any future Palestinian state would be “Jew-free”. They are also using US and European foreign aid dollars to pay Palestinian terrorists in Israeli prisons as well as the families of Palestinian suicide bombers, and they continue to name marketplaces, town squares, tournaments, and cinemas after these suicide bombers whom they hail as “heroes” and “martyrs”. Nor is mention ever made of Hamas’s founding Charter that openly calls for the murder of Jews wherever they are, and for the destruction of their State.

The sad truth is that the Palestinians want a state not beside Israel, but in place of it. If critics would take the time to read what the Palestinians are saying to each other in Arabic (as translated by the Middle East Media Research Institute and Palestine Media Watch) as opposed to what they are saying to Western leaders and the Western media in English, they would understand the Islamic concept of taqqiyah (deception) and discover the real truth behind the Arab-Israeli conflict – not Israel’s refusal to accept a State of Palestine, but the Arab refusal to accept the existence of Israel as a Jewish state on what they consider to be Islamic lands.

Netanyahu’s new government needs to reject any such pressure to recognize a Palestinian state under current circumstances as should all Western leaders. To give up further lands in exchange for a deceitful peace is something that Israel tried in the 1990s with tragic results. It should not be repeated again.

 

Mark Silverberg

The writer is a foreign policy analyst for the Ariel Center for Policy Research (Israel). He is a former member of the Canadian Justice Department, a past Director of the Canadian Jewish Congress (Western Office), a member of Hadassah’s National Academic Advisory Board and a Contributing Editor for Family Security Matters and Intellectual Conservative. He served as a Consultant to the Secretary General of the Jewish Agency in Jerusalem during the first Palestinian intifada. His book “The Quartermasters of Terror: Saudi Arabia and the Global Islamic Jihad” and articles are archived at http://www.acpr.org.il andwww.marksilverbeg.com.

Palestinians and the Art of the Possible

Bismarck once said, “Politics is the art of the possible.” So it is with the Mideast, as much as it was in the Europe of Bismarck. The pro-Western, and pro-Zionist side is failing to take this insight to heart, preferring legal theory to practical wisdom.

The Jewish writer Yehudit Shier Weisberg is quick to cite San Remo as the authorization for Jewish settlement wherever in Judea and Samaria that Jews build communities. She has noted:

The present United Nations Charter recognizes its obligation to uphold the commitments of the League of Nation[s]. Article 80 of the UN Charter states that a right gained through a Mandate will not expire as a result of the expiration of a Mandate — Yehudit Shier Weisberg

Mrs. Weisberg further builds her case:

… [R]ights once granted or recognized under a treaty or other legal instrument do not expire with the expiration of the treaty or instrument is now codified in article 70(1)(b) of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties … — Yehudit Shier Weisberg

This leads to the conclusion:

So according to international law valid to this day, Jews are allowed to settle anywhere west of the Jordan River — Yehudit Shier Weisberg

With such a forceful legal insight, Mrs. Weisberg correctly asserts the Jewish right to build in Judea and Samaria under International Law.

However, the inconvenient flip side of San Remo, is that Arabs in Judea and Samaria are also to have full civil rights, which were also forcefully guaranteed by the Palestinian Mandate, and which also do not expire. If the Mandates obligations to the Jews are valid, so also are the obligations to the Arabs.

The same Mandate guaranteed:

…safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion. — Article 2, of final draft of the League of Nations San Remo Mandate

We know that these rights included the right to vote, as the British Mandate offered voting rights to the Arabs.

As I have told my Jewish friends, from time to time, San Remo is a two-edged sword, and one cannot assert one’s rights under San Remo, while ignoring the aforementioned rights of the Arabs. The Arabs were to be treated equitably, which requires voting and building permits.

If San Remo is to be the basis for Israel’s claims to Judea and Samaria, then extending full civil rights, including voting rights, to the Arabs must follow. This is precisely why Israel has offered the voting franchise to the Arabs in the Golan Heights and the eastern side of Jerusalem. If those local Arabs are foolish enough to  not avail themselves of the offer — and most are so foolish — their rights still do not expire, as Mrs. Weisberg has so forcefully demonstrated.

Where those rights are not tendered to the Arabs, the Jewish rights, it might be argued, are in abeyance, since the rights are connected. Yet, today the Arabs in Judea and Samaria, when prosecuted by Israel, are tried in military, not civil, courts with a consequent abridgment of legal protections. They have no say, by voting, in the Israeli government which controls their borders, a right guaranteed by San Remo, which, as noted, does not expire.

Sadly, San Remo was weak. Britain was quick to riddle the document with escape clauses; and duplicitous enough to avoid declaring a Jewish precedence in rights over the Arab, except in the right of setting up national homeland. Britain talked out of both sides of her mouth; and left a time bomb of a problem.

To be sure, I am not so crazy as to advocate that Israel immediately extend the franchise to 2 million increasingly radicalized Arabs in Judea and Samaria; but that is the flip side of any claim to the land based on San Remo. If Jewish rights do not expire, then neither do Arab rights. That is the rub; and that is why I am not so benighted as to build a case for Israel based on a flawed San Remo.

Therefore, let us remove the problem from sovereignty by virtue of a sorely duplicitous San Remo instrument and apply the principle of Bismarck. Let us aim for what is possible, with an eye to saving Israel apart from the suicidal obligations of San Remo to the Arabs.

Concentrating on what is possible, we find that young Arabs are willing to immigrate out of Judea and Samaria.

44% of young Palestinians are willing to [e]migrate if given the opportunity. — Dr. Martin Sherman, citing a Bir Zeit University Poll, as quoted by JPOST, 2006

That is an amazing statistic. At once we see that almost half of the future Palestinian demographic in Judea and Samaria could disappear, if we dispensed with blaming one side or the other, and worked to implementing a practical solution.

The Arab elite are so terrified of this statistic that they have issued fatwas against emigration.

No doubt, once the 44% have left, the remaining 56% might soften their hardline stance, and more could be persuaded to leave.

So the question remains: if 44% of Arab youth in Judea and Samaria are willing to emigrate. How can we help them? The answer, of course, is by financial compensation.

Arrangements can be made to offer visas to a third country, along with monetary packages, tended to the youth upon arrival in that country. The money should be sufficient to set the youth, or young family, up in a self-sustaining basis in the new land. Low-balling compensation, to lower costs, would only defeat the purpose. Moreover, the Palestinians should come in with enough capital that the receiving nations would welcome them as assets, rather than burdens. No nation will take in poor Palestinians.

$100,000 per adult, with $50,000 for children under 14, would prove more than sufficient to set up Palestinians for life in many countries, offering them enough to purchase a house and a business.

For this to work requires a willingness to forego some justice. Many Israelis want no part of reimbursing the violent Palestinians, but while such a view might have merit, the end result will be a continued low-grade war. Bismarck’s wisdom is in order here.

For a precedent to this view, one might cite the American Civil War. Prewar abolitionists were horrified when the plan to purchase and manumit slaves was considered. It was ungodly to reward the slave owner with profit for his crime. However, the Civil War cost far more than the contemplated purchased manumission would have, with the horrific result that 600,000 of America’s finest stock died. The Constitution would not have been distorted from a prewar extreme of state’s rights to the postwar extreme of Federal control, and a happier balance would have obtained. Sometimes, the most moral thing to do is to forego human justice; and leave it up to God.

Assuming we have such money available, what countries would take them in?

Sadly, we must rule out all the Arab countries. The Arabs have determinedly refused to naturalize Palestinians for decades, under the aegis of the Casablanca Protocol of 1965. Though neutrality stated, the Protocol is exercised to deny rights to any Palestinian. The Arabs, who otherwise disagree on everything else, have shown a remarkable cohesion on this. Some nations, like Saudi Arabia, have a Palestinian naturalization exclusion written into their laws.

Pressure could be put on non-Arab Muslim nations to take their brethren; though by extension, we can probably safely assume that Pakistan, Malaysia, and Indonesia will exhibit that very same Muslim solidarity against naturalization. Should that be proven wrong, and Palestinians be welcomed, these countries would prove wonderful destinations, where the Palestinians could be set up in a prosperous condition for a reasonable cost.

The cost of setting up the Palestinians in Europe and America would be prohibitive. Moreover, given Arab anger at the West — which is blamed for its part in creating Israel — it would probably not be so safe to take too many Palestinians in.

But, as I previously noted in AT, there is a place in the world where Arabs are welcomed, where they often become elites, and almost always assimilate well: South America. While most Arab immigrants to South America were Christian, not all were — and the descendants of those Muslims who did arrive are often Christian. Moreover, South America is a place where $100,000 per adult would be sufficient to set up the Palestinians for life.

So let’s crunch some numbers, shall we?

Uruguay allows anyone who can show a $6,000 a year income to immigrate in. A young Palestinian couple coming in with $200,000 would easily meet that requirement — with any future children becoming Uruguayan rather than potential mujahideen in Judea and Samaria.

Uruguay, right now, has a population of 3.3 Million, with less than 400 being Muslim.

The Muslim population lives primarily near the border with Brazil. An Islamic cultural representative estimated 300 to 400 Muslims in the country but noted that the majority were minimally observant. – U.S. State Department, 2007

Were Uruguay to accept 25,000 Muslims, they en toto would only constitute 0.75% of Uruguay’s population.

Uruguay is probably South America’s most secular republic. A civil war was fought over this principle, and Uruguay ruthlessly secularized, removing crucifixes from classrooms, and God from oaths. Such a secular people will not so easily tolerate Islamic extremism. The new Palestinian arrivals, if dispersed, will assimilate, and eventually Christianize and/or secularize over time.

We in America know fully well the power of Hispanic culture, which is why our legal, voting, and tax forms are now bilingual. Hispanic culture, formed out of the Reconquista, will not so easily yield to multicultural tolerance of Islamic shenanigans; but will eventually overpower it. Once young Palestinian females catch a glance of Uruguay’s lusty national dance, the Candombe, sharia will collapse rather quickly.

This is no mere exercise in thought. Obama and Kerry offered a $4 billion dollar package to the Palestinians trying to wring out a peace deal in 2013. For that same amount of money, they could have moved 40,000 young Palestinian women to South America, which would have been a real move for peace.

If Uruguay could easily take 25,000 Palestinians, how about Chile?

Chile has 18 Million people. Less than 4,000, or 0.025% are Muslim. Moreover Chile is in the midst of an Evangelical Revival, which would sweep up many new arrivals. If 100,000 Palestinians were sent to Chile — at an overall cost of $10 billion dollars — $100,000 per adult — they would still constitute only about 0.6% of the population. Already, Chile has shown a willingness to absorb even Muslim Palestinians at lower numbers. Chile has a large 500,000 strong, economically settled, assimilated, intermarried, and elite Palestinian Christian community, which is rather sympathetic to many of the Muslims in Judea and Samaria. These Palestinian Christians would outnumber the new Muslim arrivals around 5 to 1. The rest of Christian non-Palestinian Chileans would outnumber the Muslims almost 175 to 1.  A few new mosques might be built; but in the end, assimilation is inevitable, and the mosques would eventually be sold to strip malls for construction.

One has to merely make sure that the new arrivals are not concentrated in Muslim ghettos, and one can readily see that in one generation, most will convert either by intermarriage with Christians, or by choice. One could further recommend that individual families be located near Evangelical Pentecostal Churches, and the outcome would be all but certain.

Peru has 30 Million people with only 5,000 Muslims. If 150,000 Palestinians were sent to Peru, they would constitute less than 0.5% of the population. Like, Chile, Peru has strong Evangelical communities, some of which even send missionaries to the Muslim world.

Brazil, with 200 Million people, could take more. São Paulo has a large Christian Arab community which would welcome them, and even has an Arab Evangelical Church.

Likewise with Argentina, Paraguay, Colombia, etc. in proportion to their population, and economic capacity for absorption, with preference being given to those countries with stronger proselytizing Evangelical communities.

In all these countries, families coming in with $100,000 per adult, and $50,000 per child under 14, could easily buy a house, a car, and set up a business in South America. The arrivals would be readily welcomed by large Christian Arab communities, already prosperous and settled for generations, who would ease the immigrants’ introduction, and hasten their assimilation, while toning down their Islamic ardor, and probably completing the arrangement with intermarriage unto conversion, something which is quite common as evinced by this Muslim-Argentine with a Christian daughter.

A non-practicing Muslim, [Tamara] married an Argentine Christian and allowed her two daughters to choose their own religion. “One is a Christian, the other one is still thinking about it”, Tamara says. — Buenos Aires Herald

Though most Zionists are eager to point out that Islamic rage is independent of the return of the Jews to their land — in order to avoid the blame game — it cannot be denied that, though the Jews are right in their return, that return has been a red flag in the face of the Islamic bull.

We cannot accept that Palestine will become Jewish. — Osama Bin Laden

A festering Palestinian problem only aggravates an already crazed Islamic street. Moving the Palestinians out of Palestinian will not make the Muslim street any saner, but it will refocus their rage internally, rather than at the West, whom they blame for supporting Zionism.

But how can this be done? No Arab group will agree to sell out Palestine.

Precisely! But who says we have to go through Arab agencies? I suggest that the deal be discretely offered to individuals. Dr. Martin Sherman had referred to this as atomization. It does not require corporate Arab agreement.

An effort could be made, especially to young Arab women — the ones who have yet to start childbearing — that they could be offered an escape from sharia. They could be offered $100,000 and a visa to a South American republic. The key is the visa. Without an escape, they would never take the money. Women, in particular, being less violent, would be more readily acceptable to Latin countries. There is no reason that an offer could not be made, and the woman flown out in a few hours, before retaliation is even possible.

Would it work? To some extent. Every little bit helps. It will start off slowly, but as more settle into South America, social networks will be created to help the remaining arrivals. It will accelerate over time. Landed Arabs will never agree, but they are a minority. Landless — and by extension, rootless — youth would have nothing to lose. Concentrate on getting the women out, for they hold the key to stopping the demographic growth of Arabs. Removing men would do nothing in a polygamous society, where the remaining men would merely double up on the wives. As the number of women decrease, testosterone will force men to leave, many at their own expense.

Who should pay?

Some Christian churches, the Evangelical Right, should be asked to contribute. If Arab countries can be persuaded to contribute, I have no problem; but I doubt any Arab country will subsidize an Arab flight from “Palestine.” Don’t hold your breath.

Much of this will have to be subsidized by the Jewish community worldwide. If that irks some Jews, and it will, remind them of the Abolitionist error during the Civil War. Impress dissenters that by subsidizing the relocation, they are not rewarding the Arab, but rather indirectly paying a third-party country to take the problem off of Israel’s back. No payments means the Israelis are stuck with the problem. In the end, this will be cheaper than a Mideast Conflagration.

The EU should be persuaded — by legal action, if necessary — to stop contributing to Arab building projects. The millions spent on building solar-powered camps for Bedouins could easily pay for Palestinians to be relocated. It matters not whether the Arab construction is illegal, or whether Israel is illegally withholding permits from the Arabs. Avoid the legal wrangling altogether, and do what is practicable.

But does this sound crazy?

Au contraire! In fact, in 2008, Condoleezza Rice suggestion a Palestinian relocation to a province in Argentina.

The United States proposed giving Palestinian refugees land in South America as a radical solution to a problem that has haunted Middle East peace talks for decades. — The Guardian

Secretary Rice’s solution was just a variation of what is being suggested here, except that in this plan no one South American country would have to provide the whole solution by ceding a province, and the Palestinians would not be concentrated, encouraging a growth in Islam; but rather spread far and wide with an eye to assimilation.

Conclusion: Rather than arguing about the rights granted to the Jewish people under San Remo — which conversely require rights also be tendered to the Arabs as well — a better solution can be found in applying a common-sense policy of relocation, using the wisdom of Bismarck that “politics is the art of the possible.”

Forget the legalese, which can swing both ways, and concentrate on merely moving the Arabs out.

Recognize that whether morally just or not, Jews will have to pay much of the expense. Christian Zionists should also be encouraged to put their money where their mouth is. The EU and the State Department should be required to stop subsidizing a continuance of the Arab problem, and refocus their monies on a solution. Cut subsidies to UNRWA and use the money to relocate the Arabs. Cut subsidies to the Palestinian Authority and use the money to send Arab women out to a life of freedom. The monies spent on tent cities built in Area C — which sooner or later, rightly or wrongly, will be bulldozed by the Israelis — should be used to relocate the Arabs instead.

The key here is to make sure that the incoming Arabs are not concentrated. The arrivals should be kept under 1% of the population of whatever country takes them in. South Africa, where Muslims are only 1.5% of the population, but very powerful, has shown that 1% is about the tipping point for social issues. Under 1% and Islam dies out, which is the historical South American experience. Caution should therefore be exercised in the number of immigrations sent to Argentina, which is near that 1% Muslim tipping point already. With 400 million in South America, the addition of 2 Million Palestinians from Judea and Samaria to the continent would constitute only 0.5% of the continental population, well under our cutoff.

Gaza is another matter and may be a lost cause; but since Jews are not presently settling in Gaza, it can be kept under blockade. Judea and Samaria is the pressing situation. Concentrate there.

Europe and the USA should inform Arab countries that no Arab immigration will be tolerated until the Arabs start naturalizing Palestinians in Syria, Egypt, Iraq, etc. Those who will not naturalize Palestinians should not expect us to naturalize them.

The UN should be told that funding to maintain the problem will not be subsidized. Rather only funding to relocate will be considered. Had all the money spent on a two-state solution been spent on relocation, Judea and Samaria would be Jewish by now.

Finally, stop nay-saying. This is doable, if people would forego their pride, concentrate less on who is right or wrong, and just work toward ending the problem. Politics is the art of the possible.

Mike Konrad is the pen name of an American who is neither Jewish, Latin, nor Arab. He runs a website, http://latinarabia.com, where he discusses the subculture of Arabs in Latin America. He wishes his Spanish were better.

Palestinian Hamas leader reportedly beheaded by ISIS

ISIS 2
 The war between Sunni ISIS and Shiite Iran is taking a toll on Hamas, allied with the mullahs.  ISIS has taken control of 90% of a Palestinian “camp” (really just a district of Damascus) that once housed half a million people, but which, in the wake of the civil war in Syria, now houses 18,000 people. And once in control, ISIS turned its savagery against a sworn enemy of Israel. Erika Solomon of the Financial Times reports on the background:

Militants from Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Isis) have seized nearly all of a Damascus district just outside the city centre, activists said, amid reports of atrocities in the besieged neighbourhood.

Activists on Saturday said the jihadi group may succeed in cementing a foothold in the Syrian capital, a move that would increase pressure on President Bashar al-Assad’s seat of power as he tries to fight a four-year revolt against his rule. (snip)

“Reports of kidnappings, beheadings and mass killings are coming out from Al-Yarmouk,” said Saeb Erekat, an member of the Palestinian Liberation Organisation’s executive committee, based in the West Bank. “The priority must be to save the Palestinian refugees in the camp by creating a safe passage for them out of the death trap that Al-Yarmouk has become.”

Arutz 7 provides the detail:

On Saturday, senior Israel Arab journalist Khaled Abu Toumeh posted agraphic image which appeared to show the severed head of Sheikh Abu Salah Taha, held aloft by an ISIS fighter in Yarmouk.

A Turkish news site supplies the grisly picture:

One can get dizzy trying to follow the connections and rivalries that animate this Islamic religious civil war. If it doesn’t engulf humanity in a catastrophe, at least it has the possibility of distracting the militants from destroying Israel.

Israel would never behave in such a manner, but can you imagine the world outcry if Israel behaved so barbarically toward those sworn to genocide against it?

Will The Real Palestine Please Stand Up?

Hamas 6

Ilya Meyer // Part of the “solution” to the entire Middle East morass that US President Obama reckons is the key to the outbreak of world peace, universal love and spontaneous outbursts of “Kumbaya” being sung in Hebrew, Arabic and Persian, is the evasive Palestinian-Israeli peace, that elusive chimera that if caught will solve all our problems in single stroke.

So here are a few truths that we all need to internalise so we can all help President Obama realise his dream. You may think this is difficult, that no, we can’t achieve it. But the fact is, YES WE CAN. In fact, we even have an entire electoral campaign built around that simple, universal truth. A truth so simple yet so condensed that experts in Washington are still trying, six years later, to ascertain what it actually means at its very heart.

PLO 1

  1. There are no prospects for peace anywhere in the entire Middle East unless Palestinian Arabs get a capital city (they don’t yet have a state and they’re killing each other over who should rule that state, but hey, who’s quibbling) which is in the heart of Jerusalem. Let me explain: Jerusalem is the Israeli capital city that none other than Barack Obama (yes, this same one, not a clone) insisted in the run-up to his election must remain the undivided and sole capital of the State of Israel.
  2. It is apparently this lack of peace between Israelis and Palestinian Arabs – and the troubling lack of a Palestinian Arab capital inside the Israeli capital – that is fuelling sectarian Sunni-on-Shia violence in Lebanon. And Syria. And Iraq. And Yemen.
  3. Equally clearly, it is this lack of peace between Israelis and Palestinian Arabs that is fuelling the rise of Boko Haram and Al Shabab in Africa.
  4. And of course it is the same reason why Muslim immigrants are perpetually displeased in countries such as Britain, France, Sweden, Belgium, Germany, Australia – in fact, the entire world where they have settled. What is confusing and very annoying, however, is why Hindu, Sikh, Jewish, Chinese, Filipino, Polish, Rumanian and other immigrants insist on swiftly acclimatising to and fully embracing their new lives in these very same countries. That’s REALLY annoying and needs to be studied, but that’s a separate issue.
  5. Unsurprisingly, it is the lack of peace between Israelis and Palestinian Arabs that is prompting Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmud Abbas, currently in the eleventh (11th) year of his 5-year presidency, to threaten the Jewish state of Israel with terrorism, war and even legal action for alleged war crimes – by which he means Israel’s attacks against Gaza, the Hamas-controlled enclave from which Hamas has fired more than 14,000 missiles into exclusively civilian population centres in Israel – schools, apartment houses, shops, buses, kindergartens, hospitals.
  6. All of which explains, equally clearly, why this same Abbas is now entreating the Arab world to bomb that same Gaza – because Hamas ousted Abbas from power in a bloody coup almost a decade back. Of course, he doesn’t want to threaten the Arab world with terrorism, war and legal action if they do bomb Gaza. That treatment is only reserved for Jews. And before you can ask – no, this kind of deliberate selection of Jews and only Jews for negative treatment is NOT anti-Semitic: some of Abbas’s best friends are Jews…
  7. Hamas 2

All the above is of course perfectly clear to any right-thinking individual. What isn’t clear, at least to this writer – and I would really love US President Barack Obama to comment on this – is how this Palestinian Fatah call to bomb Palestinian Hamas can be squared with the US President’s solution, since both Fatah and Hamas are in a coalition government with each other. And Obama assures us that the only solution for peace in the entire Middle East is for Israel to make peace with the Palestinian Arabs.

Because of course the logical question is, which Arabs? Those Hamas Arabs who bomb Jews in their homes? Or those Fatah Arabs who bomb Israel for daring to bomb those Hamas Arabs who bomb Jews in their homes? Or those Fatah Arabs who implore the rest of the Arab world to bomb those Hamas Arabs who kill Fatah Arabs – but only for that crime, not because they also bomb Jews in their homes?

Hamas  1

In short, which Palestinian Arabs are we supporting?

President Obama, I’m asking you this question because you’ve constantly assured us you have all the answers. We’ve seen how right you’ve been so far in Libya, Egypt, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Israel, Russia.

So please, President Obama, would you please just help us out here? We could do with all the help you can offer. But don’t take time out from your busy schedule with Iran – securing that watertight deal, which gives us peace in our time, naturally comes first.

And don’t mind what Israel does in the meantime as you sip a cup of mint tea in Tehran and savour the historic signing ceremony. Israel won’t be bothering you at all after this.

Because Israel will be too busy preparing for the war of survival you have just foisted on the Jewish state as she scrambles to defend itself from spreading Iranian Mullah hegemony.

What hegemony, you ask Mr President? Look at a map: Iran, then Lebanon, then Syria, then Iraq. And now Yemen.

In all this raging conflict and geopolitical turbulence, it’s reassuring to know that we still have the solution within our grasp. The solution you so rightly underscore as the only issue worth discussing, Mr President: peace between Israel and the Palestinian Arabs. But not peace among the Palestinian Arabs, or their backers, or the vast Arab and wider Muslim hinterland to the north, south or east…