• Why Jihad Watch?
  • About Robert Spencer and Staff Writers
  • FAQ
  • Books
  • Muhammad
  • Islam 101
  • Privacy

Jihad Watch

Exposing the role that Islamic jihad theology and ideology play in the modern global conflicts

John Kerry, Those “Illegal” Settlements, That “Two-State Solution” (Part II)

Jan 4, 2017 1:52 pm By Hugh Fitzgerald

After the Six-Day War, while the Israelis waited for the Arabs to make that phone call about peace negotiations that never came, the Arabs had other ideas. First, they announced at a meeting in the Sudanese capital of the Arab League “the three No’s of Khartoum”: No peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, and no negotiations with Israel. Who and what – before a single “settlement” was started — was then the “obstacle to peace”? Second, the Arabs and their willing collaborators began to speak about, and thus to reify, out of the local Arabs in Israel, Gaza, the West Bank, and in the refugee camps, a “Palestinian people.” This fiction, which Secretary Kerry uncritically accepts (to be fair, so do millions of others), was designed for propaganda purposes, and has proven to be a stunningly effective weapon against Israel. No Arab leaders or diplomats or intellectuals mentioned the “Palestinian people” until 1967, when the need for such became apparent. As Zuheir Mohsen, leader of the Palestinian Arab terror group As Saiqa, famously told a journalist in 1977:

The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct “Palestinian people” to oppose Zionism. Yes, the existence of a separate Palestinian identity exists only for tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan.

Yet Kerry insists that U. N. Resolution 181 — the “Partition Plan” — was meant to “realize the national aspirations of both Jews and Palestinians.” In 1947, there were no “Palestinians” with “national aspirations.” The invading Arab states never mentioned these “Palestinians” and had no intention of giving up whatever territory they managed to win to a nonexistent “Palestinian” people. And in 1947, the “national aspirations” of the Jews were betrayed when they were left by the Partition Plan with only about half of what had been promised under the Palestine Mandate, or – if we include eastern Palestine — only 23% of the territory promised before eastern Palestine had been transformed into the Emirate of Transjordan. To the extent that the local Arabs had any “national aspirations,” they were to destroy the Jewish state. In any case, Resolution 181 became a dead letter when the Arabs unanimously rejected it and then invaded Israel. Kerry wants to resuscitate it.

Kerry then moves on to Resolution 242, and what he, and Resolution 2334, call “occupied Palestinian territory.” But the word “occupied” has both a colloquial and a legal meaning, and this confusion between the two meanings has been well exploited by the Arabs. Israel is an “occupier” in the colloquial sense: through force of arms, it has “occupied” certain territories. But Israel is not only a “military occupier” of the West Bank, in the way that it was an “occupier” of the Sinai. Israel’s legal (historic, moral) claim to the West Bank, under the Mandate for Palestine, remains.

The constant use of the phrase “occupied territory,” or still worse, “occupied Palestinian territory” by John Kerry and so many others suggests that Israel has no claim to the “West Bank” or Gaza other than the temporary one of being a military occupant. One thinks in this regard of such examples as “Occupied Berlin,” “Occupied Vienna,” “Occupied Paris,” “Occupied Japan.” In all of these examples, the word “occupied” signals that the territory in question is under the control of a victorious power or powers, that control having been won through military conquest, and the claim to that territory is understood to be only temporary, based solely on that military occupation. But Israel’s claim to the “West Bank” is not based on the fact of military occupation. Rather, the West Bank is properly thought of as an unallocated part of the Palestine Mandate, and the provisions of the League of Nations’ Mandate still apply. Had Israel managed to capture all of the West Bank in the 1948-49 war, it could have exercised its rights under the Mandate, and incorporated all of that territory into the Jewish state. The fact that the Jews did not end up in possession of Gaza and the “West Bank” at the close of hostilities in 1949 war did not change the legal status of those territories. Israel’s claim based on the Mandate itself was not extinguished. Of course, had the Arabs accepted the Partition Plan, as Israel had done, then Israel would have been obligated to stand by its own acceptance, but the Arab refusal to do so freed Israel from any such obligation. The Six-Day War allowed Israel, by coming into possession of the West Bank by force of arms, to finally exercise its right, based on the Mandate, to establish settlements in that territory.

The claim under the Mandate was reinforced, rather than weakened, by Resolution 242’s insistence that territorial adjustments be made to guarantee Israel’s security (“secure borders”). And when Israel voluntarily gave up the Sinai to Egypt, and later handed Gaza over to “Palestinian” Arab rule – for reasons of realpolitik– that had no bearing on Israel’s continued claim to the “West Bank.”

So what has John Kerry carefully not said in his ill-tempered attack on Israel that has apparently so heartened Hamas? He has failed to mention the most important foundational document for Israel, the Mandate for Palestine, which enshrines Israel’s legal, moral, and historic rights to establish Jewish settlements everywhere in Palestine, from the Jordan to the sea, including all of the West Bank. Not only are those settlements not illegal, but they were, and still are, to be “encouraged” under the express terms of the Mandate. He has failed to mention, too, that Israel gave up fully 95% of what it won in the Six-Day War, and failed to mention the endless Israeli efforts to engage the “Palestinians” in real peace talks, not Rose Garden photo ops; those Israeli efforts have always been rebuffed. When at Camp David in 2000 Ehud Barak made the astounding offer to Yassir Arafat of fully 95% of the West Bank, Arafat refused.

This puts quite a different spin on Israeli behavior from that which Kerry presents. For him, it is Israel that keeps trying to deny the “Palestinians” everything, whereas it is those same “Palestinians” under Abbas as under Arafat, who have turned down Israeli offers, and most important, continue to refuse even to recognize Israel as a Jewish state. The list of Arab refusals starts with the Partition Plan of 1947, then the refusal to make the armistice lines of 1949 into permanent borders as offered by Israel, then the further refusal, for 12 years after the Six-Day War, by all the Arab states to recognize, or to negotiate, or to make peace with Israel (the Three No’s of Khartoum) until Sadat made his separate peace.

And even Kerry’s whipping-boy, Prime Minister Netanyahu, whose government he describes as “the most right-wing” in Israel’s history, in November 2009 put in place a 10-month freeze on settlements, hoping thereby to get the Palestinians back to the negotiating table. It didn’t work. And Kerry, of course, doesn’t mention Netanyahu’s attempt. Far from clinging adamantly to territories it won, Israel has been remarkably generous in giving up territories. The minute Anwar Sadat decided he would break ranks with the other Arabs and negotiate for Egypt alone, he found the Israelis willing, in exchange for a peace treaty, to hand back the entire Sinai. How often, in human history, has a nation victorious in war handed back all the territory it won to an aggressor?

Israel went even further with its concessions in Gaza, removing all of the Jewish settlements, handing Gaza back to the local “Palestinians,” without receiving anything in return but rockets and bombs. Yet Secretary Kerry dares to present Israel as the obstacle to peace, with the “Palestinian” campaigns of terror, and celebrations of terrorists, mentioned only in passing, while the Israeli “settlements” – specifically authorized by the Mandate – are treated, at great length, as “illegal.” He finds the Israelis bizarre in their belief, one that they have come to most reluctantly, that IDF control of the West Bank is a better way to preserve peace than a peace treaty signed with the likes of Mahmoud Abbas. Kerry is outraged that Israelis dare to insist they have a legal right to establish such settlements in the West Bank. Don’t bring up the Palestine Mandate; he doesn’t want to hear about it. And he certainly doesn’t want people beginning to agree with Israelis that the Mandate remains relevant. He doesn’t care what the main author of Resolution 242, Lord Caradon, meant by the phrases “withdrawal from territories” and “secure and recognized borders.” Please don’t trouble Secretary Kerry, either, with the report prepared by the American Joint Chiefs of Staff for President Johnson, about the minimum territorial adjustments that in their view Israel would need for “secure and defensible borders.” For Kerry, it’s more than enough to keep repeating the phrases “two-state solution” and “just and lasting peace,” which for him clearly means almost complete withdrawal to the 1967 lines with “minor adjustments.” For Lord Caradon, however, the most important thing about Resolution 242 was that Israel not be compelled to return to the 1967 lines that invited Arab aggression, and the adjustments need not everywhere be categorized as “minor.” As he forcefully put it:

We could have said: well, you go back to the 1967 line. But I know the 1967 line, and it’s a rotten line. You couldn’t have a worse line for a permanent international boundary. It’s where the troops happened to be on a certain night in 1948. It’s got no relation to the needs of the situation.

Kerry doesn’t want to hear about “secure and defensible borders.” He wants the Israelis to “take risks for peace” (as if Israel was not already taking unbelievable risks for peace), to uproot settlements needed for Israel’s defense, and to put their trust in a peace treaty, while all the evidence suggests that the “Palestinians,” including nobody-here-but-us-accountants Mahmoud Abbas, have no intention of recognizing Israel as a Jewish state until Israel returns to the 1967 lines, including East Jerusalem, and likely not even then. As for the other Arabs, it’s true that right now a shared fear of Iran has made it possible for Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan to collaborate with Israel behind the scenes, but fear of Iran may not prove to be a unifying force forever. As for most Arabs and Muslims, the spectacle of a dimidiated Israel would not sate but whet jihadist appetites.

Among the many things John Kerry would prefer not to be reminded of is that in 1920, 77% of the formerly Ottoman territories that were originally intended to be included in the Palestine Mandate — that is, the land east of the Jordan — was closed to Jewish immigration. Eastern Palestine instead became, thanks to the British, the Arab Emirate of Transjordan. For Kerry, that’s not worth mentioning, but it was a huge event for the Zionists at the time. In fact, those Zionists who did not accept the loss of eastern Palestine continued to include it in their maximalist demands. Their leader, Ze’ev Jabotinsky, even wrote a celebrated poem: “Shtei Gadot L’Yarden – Zu Shelanu Zu Gam Ken” (“Two sides has the river Jordan/This side is ours, and that side too”) expressing the refusal to give up the claim to eastern Palestine. So Israel had by 1948 already been considerably reduced, the British having given away 77% of what had been intended for the Palestine Mandate. To remind people of this is not to endorse Jabotinsky’s demand, but at least to offer a historical perspective that might make some more understanding of Israel’s position.. Would it have been too much to expect John Kerry to mention how, and why, and on what land, the country of Jordan was created?

The Arabs, then, already had in 1948 a “Palestinian” state, consisting of all of eastern Palestine, the country we now call “Jordan,” where 80% of the population identifies itself as “Palestinian.” When the Arabs became convinced, after the Six-Day War, that they could not destroy Israel outright, they sought to undermine Israel in other ways – diplomatic isolation, boycotts, terror attacks – hoping to reduce its size through salami tactics, and to establish a second Arab state, this one in western Palestine, a state whose main purpose would be not to live in satisfied coexistence with Israel (‘two states, side-by-side” etc.) as Kerry naively foresees, but to serve, rather, as a springboard for yet another attempt at destroying, whether through the Fast Jihad of Hamas or the Slow Jihad of Fatah, the one Jewish state, whose mere existence, whatever its size, is such an affront to all Muslims and Arabs. John Kerry, innocent of Islam, gives no sign of realizing how deep is the Muslim Arab opposition to Israel.

So the Arabs refused this and the Arabs refused that. And the Israelis accepted this, and the Israelis gave back that. And the Mandate for Palestine says this, and U.N. Resolution 242 says that. It’s all so complicated and mind-numbing, no wonder John Kerry wants to hear only about a very few things. He blocks out the rest, and he reduces everything to the simple-minded phrases repeated endlessly: the “two-state solution,” the “just and lasting peace.” He doesn’t need to know what has actually happened between Arab and Jew in Palestine in the last 100 years, what principles were invoked or ignored, what rights created or destroyed, what promises kept or broken, what offers accepted or rejected. For Kerry, all he knows and all he needs to know is that the settlements are “illegal,” and positively noxious because they are what prevent that “two-state solution” that “everybody” knows can be arrived at just as soon as Israel stops building new settlements and dismantles all but a few of the old ones.

For the Palestinians, of course, as Kerry may not know, all the cities in Israel are “occupied” territory (“Occupied Haifa,” “Occupied Jaffa,” “Occupied Jerusalem”), and all the towns are “settlements” and all the settlements, of course, are on “Occupied Arab Land.” The Jews, as Infidels, have no rights on lands once possessed by Muslims. There is no historic connection of Jews to Jerusalem, which is also “occupied Palestinian territory.” And even if the Palestine Mandate existed, we are not required to pay any attention to it. Any history that is not on the side of the Muslims can safely be forgotten.

U.N. Resolution 2334 pretends to be about furthering “peace,” but its effect will be to embolden the “Palestinian” side, now less willing than ever to negotiate, since it believes it has now isolated Israel diplomatically. With little to lose, the Israeli government could take a different tack, a hypertrophied hasbara that would speak over the talking heads of the Security Council to a public that, especially in Europe, has been getting its own taste of Muslim convivencia and may, as a consequence, be more sympathetic to Israel’s plight than votes at the U.N. might suggest. Let Israel explain what the Palestine Mandate was intended to achieve, why the settlements are not “illegal,” what made the Partition Plan (Resolution 181) null and void, why those armistice lines were never made into permanent borders, how and why the “Palestinian people” were invented, and then, in terms anyone looking at a map can understand, what territory in the “West Bank” the tiny nation of Israel, as a military matter, must keep, as “settlements,” if it is to have those “secure and defensible borders” it both needs and deserves.

John Kerry assures us that he cares deeply about, even “loves,” the plucky little state of Israel that, he insists, stole his heart away decades ago. But he is convinced that Israel doesn’t understand its real situation, and its blinkered (“extreme right-wing”) leaders can’t seem to grasp that a “Palestinian” state living “side-by-side with a Jewish state” would only improve Israel’s well-being. Here is John Kerry, the American Secretary of State, fierce in Foggy Bottom, languid in Louisburg Square, who knows better than the Israelis what they need, and understands perfectly this most intractable of foreign policy problems. It’s an old and cruel idea: that Israel doesn’t understand its real interests, and must be saved in spite of itself. And John Forbes Kerry has arrived on the scene to help straighten out the little country he loves so much. All he asks of Israelis is that they come to their senses, and do what he, and Barack Obama, and the Security Council, demand.

Fortunately, for Israel, and for the Western world, too, the clock is running out on Obama and on Kerry. This means Israel still has a chance to decide for itself what it needs, at a minimum, in order to survive. Given the history of the Jews during the last 3000 years, that doesn’t seem like much to ask.

Share this:

  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)
  • Click to print (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)
  • More
  • Click to share on Skype (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Telegram (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)

Follow me on Facebook

Filed Under: Featured, Hugh Fitzgerald, Israel, Palestinian jihad Tagged With: John Kerry


Learn more about RevenueStripe...

Comments

  1. mortimer says

    Jan 4, 2017 at 2:00 pm

    British Mandatory Palestine was never formally assigned to any group except for Transjordan. The West Bank was never formally assigned and Israel has as valid a claim to Judea as any other group, and, yes, Israel actually has a BETTER claim to the West Bank, since the clear purpose of dividing Mandatory Palestine in two was to assign the West Bank to a Jewish homeland. It is up to Israel to settle it, rather than allow another battleground like Gaza to develop. Arabs will still live in the West Bank, just as they do in most countries in the world, as EQUAL, and not SUPERIOR citizens.

    • gravenimage says

      Jan 4, 2017 at 10:29 pm

      Good post, Mortimer.

    • efoc says

      Jan 4, 2017 at 11:43 pm

      +1. Very well said Mortimer.

    • Custos Custodum says

      Jan 4, 2017 at 11:55 pm

      … since the clear purpose of dividing Mandatory Palestine in two was to assign the West Bank to a Jewish homeland.

      For cursory readers, I believe that in referring to the “West Bank,” Mortimer means the entire area between the River Jordan and the Mediterranean.

      In modern news reports, the term “West Bank” is generally used as short-hand for the areas in Judea and Samaria that had been occupied by Jordan between 1948 and 1967, and where a residual Jordanian population has been growing exponentially since coming under Israeli control.

  2. Debi Brand says

    Jan 4, 2017 at 2:03 pm

    “Fortunately, for Israel, and for the Western world, too, the clock is running out on Obama and on Kerry. This means Israel still has a chance to decide for itself what it needs, at a minimum, in order to survive. Given the history of the Jews during the last 3000 years, that doesn’t seem like much to ask.”

    Indeed.

  3. Angemon says

    Jan 4, 2017 at 2:07 pm

    Fortunately, for Israel, and for the Western world, too, the clock is running out on Obama and on Kerry.

    Indeed.

    • miriamrove says

      Jan 4, 2017 at 3:06 pm

      Exactly 16 days! Can’t wait! M

  4. mortimer says

    Jan 4, 2017 at 2:11 pm

    Kerry may not realize that a two-state solution was devised in 1920: 1) Transjordan and 2) the Jewish homeland from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean, now called Israel.

    When the West Bank was annexed by Jordan, it did not become an independent state of ‘Palestine’. The West Bank was nothing less than an integral part of Jordan.

    A non-Jewish West Bank would soon revert to being an integral part of Jordan.

  5. Walter Sieruk says

    Jan 4, 2017 at 2:29 pm

    With this new information about that Obama ,Kerry with their farce ,sick joke and disaster of a UN resolution it’s thus very fitting that there should be a reiteration of this following essay.

    About that UN resolution 2334 that Obama backs, or at least failed to veto, which calls for the dividing of the State of Israel in to a “two state solution.” Which in reality is not a real or genuine at all . Thus John Kerry a fool. For even of idea of some people of dividing Jerusalem as well as other parts of the State of Israel between the Jewish people of the Muslim/ Arabs is nothing but folly. To engage the madness of such “talks” is a hoax and a farce .This is because in the so called “negotiations” between the heads of the Jewish nation of Israel and the leaders of the “Palestinians” the Muslim /Arabs the “Palestinian” leaders will speak the truth only when in happens to fit their agenda. The rest of the time the will be speaking half-truths and outright lies. For their goal is to obtain all of the land of the State of Israel ,.Even in it takes much time and it means getting the land piece by piece. So those “peace talks” are a hoax. For the “Palestinian” leaders are employing what is the Islamic doctrine of Taqiyya . Which is the Islamic dogma that lying and deception are good things to do as long as it’s done for the cause of the advancement of Islam. The insidious scheme is part of the stealth jihad .Otherwise known as “Islamic Gradualism.” This sly and something subtle strategy of disingenuous speech, lying deception of achieving the goal of all the land of Israel a war ploy that will be a disaster if the heads of the State of Israel are foolish enough to agree to divide the land of Israel with Muslim /Arabs ,the “Palestinians.” For if such a “peace dialogue” results in a divided land, the outcome will literally be murder. For “Palestinian” leader will allow the jihadists use that land as a base to launch murderous rocked attacks in to Israel. As for example, Hamas of Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon. Such false hopes for peace which are based on the foundation of lies are nothing new when it comes to Israel . For example, the Bible in Psalm 55:20, 21. Reads “Such men do violence to those at peace with them and break their promised word; their speech is smoother the butter but their thoughts are of war.” [N.E.B.]

  6. Walter Sieruk says

    Jan 4, 2017 at 2:33 pm

    A restatement about that travesty of that Obama / UN resolution that is so awful is therefore appropriate.
    This UN Resolution 2334 the Obama and Kerry support counting this folly two things need to be made known. First .John Kerry had tried the make the resolution sound like a valid and good “plan for peace.” This so called plain peace is, in reality, a scheme for disaster is really based on false premises. For its foundation that will produce only a bogus “peace” that will not last. Kerry says no more settlers should be allowed to move into that area land of he calls “the occupied West Bank.” Kerry actually means Jewish settlers and Kerry and he is such an ignorant man that he calls the Muslim/Arabs of that land the “Palestinians” The term “Palestinian” originally was used for all people , Arab or Jew, who, lived in that specific area of land the Middle East before the establishment of the State of Israel and for quite a number of year thereafter . Only later did they Muslim /Arabs apply that term only to themselves feeling that by giving themselves that title them some kind of genuine claim on the land. For balance and fairness there are some Christian/ Arabs who also give themselves that title of “Palestinian.”
    Second, there is a good chance the Obama had his sinister hand this the drafting of the UN Resolution with the Muslim/ Arabs. If not Obama, at least, could have had vetoed that farce of a UN resolution. So ether way he was wrong. Obama along with Kerry also see the West Bank as “An occupied area of land which the Jewish people have no right to .” For Obama and Kerry to have such a view exposes that they are extremely ignorant or they do know better but couldn’t care less. For concerning this subject, things become even more absurd and outlandish when Obama had said that he is “a Christian.” Obama is some strange kind of “Christian” when he also said that the West Bank is “an occupied land the Israel had no right a genuine claim to” For a real Christian respects the Bible which give the Jewish people the genuine right to all of that land including the West Bank as the gift of God. As seen in the Bible in Genesis 28:13-15. 35:10-12. Deuteronomy 32:48,49. Psalm 105:7-11. So a true Christian, not Obama, would acknowledge that God had given that land to the Jews as iby Divine Decree . Likewise a real Christian, not Obama, would recognize that the Bible also teaches that the Jewish people should have that land by historic rights. As shown in the Bible in First Kings 4;20,21,24,25. 8:55,56. In addition a genuine Christian ,,not Obama, would take wise words of the teaching of Jesus. For Jesus taught “If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand.” Mark 3:24. [N.K.J.V.] Moreover , the Bible in Informs its reader in Psalm 135:4. “For the Lord had chosen Jacob for Himself. Israel for His special treasure.”
    .

  7. Walter Sieruk says

    Jan 4, 2017 at 2:38 pm

    It’s thus is a need to reiterate the most far-out but yet not out of the question part about Obama with his co-schemer Kerry concerning their UN resolution 2334. About that anti-Israel UN resolution that Obama may well have had a sinister hand in creating, or at least failed to veto, which calls for the dividing of the State of Israel in to a “two state solution.”
    This shows some things about President Obama .That he is very to do a much hard as possible in the short time he has before he leaves Office. Even if he doesn’t really have such malicious anti- Israel, pro–Islamic feeling the same about of damage is nevertheless done. This also exposes the falseness on his claim that he is “a Christian.” For a real Christian would take seriously the teaching of Jesus. By Obama backing the UN resolution Obama Obviously doesn’t care what Jesus taught . For Jesus taught “If a kingdom be divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand.” Mark 3:24. {K.J.V.]
    In addition , to risk sounding really far –out it had been reported that Obama’s national security advisor , James Jones, had declared the President Obama in the year 2009 had religious experience in the White House Office in the Obama believed that God appeared to him in a vision and told him the he should work for the dividing of the land of Israel into “two states.” [1] if this report of a supernatural experience of Obama actually occurred then the Bible contains the answer to this story . For the Bible teaches that Satan is so very deceitful that he can “appear as an angle of Light” Second Corinthians 11:14 . Furthermore, to divide is showing that Obama ,who is for sure not the Anti-Christ is Nevertheless influenced by the spirit of the coming Anti-Christ who is predicted, in the Bible ,to come in the future. So to divide the land that composes Israel according to the Bible is wrong . So wrong ,in fact , when the real arch – villain who is will be the Anti Christs comes to power in the Middle East he “shall divide the land” Daniel 11:39. As for Obama is the reported religious vision he had in which supernatural being told him to “divide the land ” that this instruction is in contradiction to the Bible in Daniel 11 39. It’s thus in the light of Isaiah 8:20. An instruction in error, folly and darkness. Shame on Obama for wanting to “divide the land” and likewise being taken in by a deceptive religious experience.

    [1] THE TERRORIST NEXT DOOR by Erick Stakelbeack pages 218. 219.

  8. Wellington says

    Jan 4, 2017 at 2:56 pm

    If any people have demonstrated they have no right to a country, it is the so-called Palestinians. They have forfeited any right they may have had (e.g., by way of the 1947 UN Partition Plan) by their determination to have no Israel at all.

    What Israel should have done after the 1967 War was to have expelled Arab populations from the West Bank, Gaza and the Golan Heights and formally and unambiguously annex them to a larger Israel. The Sinai taken in that same war is a somewhat different matter and one could argue that Begin’s deal with Sadat to give it back was justifiable, but I for one would not mind it still being part of a very sizable Israel, which would now be a medium-size state rather than a small one, considering how much larger the Sinai is even with the West Bank, Gaza and the Golan Heights part of Israel. I mean who could say that if Israel had done such a thing that matters would be worse now? How could they be much worse or worse at all than what presently exists? And Israel would now certainly be more secure than it is at present. As a bonus if this had occurred, we wouldn’t need to listen to uninformed and silly people like John Kerry stupidly going on about settlements, a two-state solution, justice for the so-called Palestinians, blah, blah, blah.

    • efoc says

      Jan 5, 2017 at 12:34 am

      A superb article once again – thank you Hugh. Look forward to the next part (should there be one).

      What is interesting is that, since 1945, virtually every genuine refugee has been resettled somewhere in some country in some part of the world. The “Palestinians” are really the only group of people who have never been resettled nor expected to get on with their lives. It is their own self-humiliation, self-pity and self-righteousness that largely defines their identity; if they were to ever give this up, their raison d’etre would cease and they would be expected to behave as proper adults running their own affairs. However, this idea is anathema to them. Indeed, they are used as not only political, but real, pawns in the grand jihad against Israel – this is why they must keep the hatred constantly boiling against Israel, it is why they relish any public relation wars and victories (i.e. boycotts against Israeli products and U.N. motions condemning Israel / Zionism) because this gives them leverage and rationale with which to justify their “grievances” and attack Jews even further. Part of the logic of “Palestinian” violence is that their terrorism has been rewarded by the international community which is why they have never vowed to seriously end it; moreover, the doctrine of jihad ensures that they could not abandon it either since they are religiously motivated to keep attacking infidel Israel until it is destroyed.

      As Bat Ye’or observed in 1985, jihad remained:

      “the main cause of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Since Israelis are to be regarded, perforce, only as a religious community, their national characteristics – a geographical territory related to a past history, a system of legislation, a specific language and culture – are consequently denied. The “Arab” character of the Palestinian territory is inherent in the logic of jihad. Having become fay territory by conquest (i.e. “taken from an infidel people”), it must remain within the dar al-Islam. The State of Israel, established on this fay territory, is consequently illegal.”

      Later on, Bat Ye’or concluded:

      “Israel represents the successful national liberation of a dhimmi civilization. On a territory formerly Arabized by the jihad and the dhimma, a pre-Islamic language, culture, topographical geography, and national institutions have been restored to life. This reversed the process of centuries in which the cultural, social and political structures of Palestine were destroyed. In 1974, Abu-Iyad, second-in-command to Arafat in the Fatah hierarchy, announced: “We intend to struggle so that our Palestinian homeland does not become a new Andalusia.” The comparison of Andalusia to Palestine was not fortuitous since both countries were Arabized, and then de-Arabized by a pre-Arabic culture.”

      It is so easy to read up about this history in today’s age with the advent of the internet – all of this information is out there. Yet much of the political elite remain ignorant or unwilling to discuss the real issues. Hugh is right – someone like John Kerry is merely passing time by mindlessly uttering phrases like “two-state solution” and “occupied Palestinian territory”; it is much easier to stick with the constant memes that Kerry has listened to for years in the media. After all, since these memes are constantly bandied about, they must be true or have some self-evident truth that we must acknowledge, right?

      Well, not necessarily – this conflict demands careful scrutiny and judgement that really urges one to go beyond what is presented in the daily media. Sadly, Kerry, like Obama and many other political leaders, fail miserably in this task and prefer to stick with what is “easy” instead i.e. trying to change the behaviour of Israel. Because not only do they believe that Israel is truly at fault here, they also know, deep-down, that attempting to confront the “Palestinians” and the question of jihad in Islam is too big a task for them to undertake.

      • gravenimage says

        Jan 5, 2017 at 3:37 pm

        Thanks for quoting Bat Ye’or’s excellent analysis, efoc.

        And good to see you posting again.

        • efoc says

          Jan 5, 2017 at 3:41 pm

          Thanks gravenimage. You’re welcome. Always good to read your posts too. Take care mate.

        • gravenimage says

          Jan 5, 2017 at 4:48 pm

          🙂

    • efoc says

      Jan 5, 2017 at 12:37 am

      Hey Wellington, sorry – I meant my comment to be a general comment, not necessarily as a response to you. Apologies for putting this in the wrong place. Thanks for your comment anyway mate.

  9. davej says

    Jan 4, 2017 at 3:35 pm

    Oh dear, i guess we all have “Palestinophobia”.

    Just as in the main battle with Islam you cannot negotiate with or appease a people who hold your complete destruction as their only goal. “Dialogue” under such circumstances is a farce, not sure when the world will get that. You can’t tolerate the intolerant or negotiate with the non-negotiable.

    Also agree that the whole “occupied territory” meme is just another clever piece of propaganda designed to appeal to liberal know-nothings.

  10. somehistory says

    Jan 4, 2017 at 3:39 pm

    With respect to the author, who writes so well, I must disagree on one point. That is, kerry is not ignorant of those historic happenings with regard to what Israel has done, what Israel has given up and what they were supposed to possess as a homeland.

    I believe he knows full well what has been, what was supposed to have happened and that the moslims don’t wish there to be an Israel, or even a solitary Jew anywhere on the planet. I believe his loyalty…such as he is able to show…is completely with the moslims. I would not be the least surprised to learn that he had converted to islam at some point in the past.

  11. Stan Lee says

    Jan 4, 2017 at 3:53 pm

    Kerry calls them “illegal” for only one reason, otherwise he could not care less, Obama told him they were illegal.
    Kerry takes orders, there is nothing constructive in his head.

  12. ibrahim itace muhammed says

    Jan 4, 2017 at 6:09 pm

    hugh fitzgerald, if evil zionist israel could take unilateral decision to annex palestinian land as part of greater israel contrary to multilateral treaty of partition contained in the un resolution no.181 dividing the land into two states, palestine and israel, and reenforced in un resolution no. 242 passed after israeli invasion of palestinian land, requiring it to push back to pre-1967 borders,why jewish mad slave donald trump is assuring his evil masters the jews that he will get un resolution no. 2334 declaring jewish settlements illegal to be repealed?why not rely on jewish bogus claim that the whole land is part of judea land they stayed for 3000 years or more?the pertinent question now is:can such bogus claim override un resolutions passed pursuan to un charter?it is settled position of international law that statutory provisions like un resolutions prevails over any other norm. another question is:do any of these un resolutions makes it a conditional that palestinians or arab nations or even jordan under the so-called mandate must recognise the state of israel with secured and defensive borders before she can comply with them?no where in the texts of any of the resolutions such condition is set; and there is no proviso to that effect.it is trite law in the interpretation of statutory provisions like these un resolutions one cannot smuggle or import into them the opinion of the drafman or the parties they intend to affect.note in one of my comments i argued that un resolution no. 242 does not give israel licence to occupy palestinian land in order to have secured and defensible borders nor does it say israeli compliance by withdrawing back to pre-1967 shall be base on negotiation with palestians or arab neighbors or even jordan under the so-called mandate. do any of the un resolutions says where israel is facing any threat or terrorist attacks, it can annex any part of palestinia territory, including eastern jerussalem, for its security defence purpose?no where such authority is stated in the texts of any of these resolutions.in fact such annexation and jewish settlements constitute infraction to resolution no. 242 which israel relied upon. again, i submit that mr fitzgerald you are wrong.

    • gravenimage says

      Jan 4, 2017 at 10:15 pm

      Appalling apologist for Muslim savagery ibrahim itace muhammed wrote:

      hugh (sic) fitzgerald (sic), if evil zionist (sic) israel (sic) could take unilateral decision to annex palestinian (sic) land as part of greater israel (sic) contrary to multilateral treaty of partition contained in the un (sic) resolution no.181 dividing the land into two states, palestine (sic) and israel (sic), and reenforced in un (sic) resolution no. 242 passed after israeli (sic) invasion of palestinian (sic) land, requiring it to push back to pre-1967 borders,
      ……………………………….

      Of course, muhammed has never addressed that fact that local Muslims violated this resolution immediately–and have ever since–by continuing violence against Israel.

      More:

      why (sic) jewish (sic) mad slave donald (sic) trump (sic) is assuring his evil masters the jews (sic) that he will get un (sic) resolution no. 2334 declaring jewish (sic) settlements illegal to be repealed?
      ……………………………….

      Donald Trump never said he would repeal this unjust resolution, which he does not have the power to do–he said he would *veto* it, which is within his power. Why is muhammed so profoundly ignorant?

      And he spews the usual here–that if anyone, including the President-elect, considers Jews to be equals that he must perforce be their “slave”. More proof–if any were needed–that Muslims have no understanding of equality.

      More:

      why (sic) not rely on jewish (sic) bogus claim that the whole land is part of judea (sic) land they stayed for 3000 years or more?
      ……………………………….

      How is this claim “bogus”? There is ample historical proof–from all sorts of spources, including Islamic ones–that Jews have maintained a presence in the Levant for over 3000 years.

      More:

      the (sic) pertinent question now is:can (sic) such bogus claim override un (sic) resolutions passed pursuan (sic) to un (sic) charter?it (sic) is settled position of international law that statutory provisions like un (sic) resolutions prevails over any other norm.
      ……………………………….

      No, that is not the question at all. And if Muslims are (supposedly) so impressed by UN resolutions, why don’t they stop their violence against Israel? Why don’t they, further, actually begin to adhere to human rights in their barbaric nations? Of course, they will not.

      More:

      another (sic) question is:do (sic) any of these un (sic) resolutions makes it a conditional that palestinians (sic) or arab (sic) nations or even jordan (sic) under the so-called mandate must recognise the state of israel (sic) with secured and defensive borders before she can comply with them?no (sic) where in the texts of any of the resolutions such condition is set; and there is no proviso to that effect.
      ……………………………….

      Actually, United Nations Resolution 242 features this proviso:

      (ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force.”

      Muslims have, in fact, never acknowledged Israel’s right to exist–but have, instead, always intended to destroy Israel.

      muhammed is acknowledging that his only purpose here is to render Israel incapable of defending herself, so that Muslims may more easily slaughter Jews.

      More:

      it (sic) is trite law in the interpretation of statutory provisions like these un (sic) resolutions one cannot smuggle or import into them the opinion of the drafman (sic) or the parties they intend to affect.
      ……………………………….

      This is so garbled that I have no idea what muhammed is intending to say.

      More:

      note (sic) in one of my comments i (sic) argued that un (sic) resolution no. 242 does not give israel (sic) licence to occupy palestinian (sic) land in order to have secured and defensible borders nor does it say israeli (sic) compliance by withdrawing back to pre-1967 shall be base on negotiation with palestians (sic) or arab (sic) neighbors or even jordan (sic) under the so-called mandate. do (sic) any of the un (sic) resolutions says where israel (sic) is facing any threat or terrorist attacks, it can annex any part of palestinia (sic) territory, including eastern jerussalem (sic), for its security defence purpose?no (sic) where such authority is stated in the texts of any of these resolutions.in (sic) fact such annexation and jewish (sic) settlements constitute infraction to resolution no. 242 which israel (sic) relied upon. again, (sic) i (sic) submit that mr (sic) fitzgerald (sic) you are wrong.
      ……………………………….

      Muslims did not recognize Israel’s right to exist pre-1967, and they will not do so were she to revert to those indefensible borders.

      This is, in fact, muhammed’s whole point. He wants to render Israel incapable of defending herself, and hence vulnerable to destruction.

      • Custos Custodum says

        Jan 5, 2017 at 12:02 am

        Thanks for your careful and patient arguments, GI.

        Sadly, one cannot but suspect that many of these pearls are being cast before an unappreciative and unkosher audience.

        • Kay says

          Jan 5, 2017 at 8:40 am

          Yes thank you for your seemingly endless patience to return the discussion to clarity.
          It is particularly helpful for new readers here.

        • gravenimage says

          Jan 5, 2017 at 3:50 pm

          Thank you, Custos and Kay.

          Custos, I don’t expect this vicious Muslim apologist to listen to anything any Infidel has to say–as Kay notes, I am rather dismantling his appalling bs for the benefit of any interested readers here.

          Happy New Year to you both!

        • Custos Custodum says

          Jan 5, 2017 at 6:19 pm

          Thanks, GI, and to you!

          “Dismantling this appalling bs for the benefit of any interested readers here” remains of crucial importance – thanks again for your hard work.

          BTW it is interesting that ibe’s much-regurgitated talking points are all based on the stale secular Leftist/Jordanian rhetoric from the 1980s, the chimera of “international law,” un resolutions (agree with ibe that un does not deserve capitals), etc. One suspects that the original author of these talking points was probably a Western leftist, quite possibly a progressive Jew.

          ibe’s handlers seem to eschew Muslim doctrine, perhaps because – as noted elsewhere in this thread – Islamic teachings are rather ambiguous about the significance of Jerusalem, or simply because they are non-Muslim Leftist agitators.

          Islamic traditions hint at a much greater significance given to Jewish “prophets” and to Jesus during the early phase of Islam before these embarrassing details were cut from the Qur’anic canon.

    • don vito says

      Jan 5, 2017 at 12:30 am

      itace, what would keep a kufr’s blood and property safe from the thieving, bloody hands of your filthy prophet?

      • Climber says

        Jan 5, 2017 at 1:03 am

        Julius Stone, scholar of international law, and known for his statement that the strongest argument for Israeli sovereignty is its presence in Samaria and Judea. Stone explodes with his highly reasoned legal arguments the B.S. by Kerry, here:
        https://www.mythsandfacts.org/media/user/images/discourse%202-article%2049(6)-stone.pdf

    • Champ says

      Jan 5, 2017 at 1:29 am

      “ibrahim itace muhammed” wrote:

      “…i submit that mr fitzgerald you are wrong.”

      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

      And I submit that Hugh Fitzgerald has provided the TRUTH! Bravo, Hugh!

      A refreshing and welcome change to the absurd lies that “ibrahim itace muhammed” offers.

  13. Vic says

    Jan 4, 2017 at 6:17 pm

    Bravo, Mr. Fitzgerald. Excellent articles explaining a complicated topic, nevertheless, the historical facts are there for all to see and understand how international law is made, what has transpired and why. Obama and Kerry decided to willfully subscribe to the “deception, lies and narrative” spouted by the Arabs and enemies of Israel. It’s impossible to think that they are that stupid and as POTUS and SOS with smart people on their staffs, that they were ignorant of the truth. Instead of defending the vulnerable, they chose to join the bully club and see how they could pound on little Israel. If one searches back to the documents that were drawn beginning in 1915 starting with the San Remo Agreement, Balfour Declaration, the Sykes-Picot letter, the British Mandate, the League of Nations, 1948, 1967 wars and even up to now, there is no misunderstanding how those documents became part of international law and how the world powers are obligated to stand by the mandates. However, that is not what they chose to do. By hook or crook, let’s get rid of Israel. Let’s persecute them in the name of peace. Evil is being called good and good is evil.
    Let us hope that we in the US and elsewhere can join voices like yours until we become a force that can penetrate the fog and darkness and people at all levels–citizens and government can fight with truth against such discrimination and apathy. Let’s not kid ourselves. The plague of Islamic terrorism is not just against Israel…its in our countries and it’s coming for us. God is allowing all of those countries that stand against Israel to experience, in different measures, the hell that they have put Israel through by not standing with them in truth and justice.

    • Champ says

      Jan 4, 2017 at 6:21 pm

      Great comment, Vic …and Hugh is 100% correct!

      Thank you Hugh and Jihad Watch for presenting the TRUTH about the Israel situation against the onslaught of lies that are out there.

  14. Bezelel says

    Jan 4, 2017 at 7:07 pm

    “Here is John Kerry, the American Secretary of State, fierce in Foggy Bottom, languid in Louisburg Square, who knows better than the Israelis what they need, and understands perfectly this most intractable of foreign policy problems.”
    That is the part that illustrates just ego-maniacal the obola regime has been. How’s that arab spring working? How much real estate does kerry own in Israel?

  15. abad says

    Jan 4, 2017 at 7:15 pm

    The “Palestinian” Muslims are incapable of handling a state. They have proven that fact to the world time and again. They should give it up, and move either Syria or Saudi Arabia.

  16. gravenimage says

    Jan 4, 2017 at 10:39 pm

    Another fine article, Hugh. Thank you.

  17. Custos Custodum says

    Jan 5, 2017 at 12:05 am

    The Saudis and others have long realized that serious harm to Israel would immediately be followed by the start of the Persian-Arab war of revenge.

  18. ibrahim itace muhammed says

    Jan 5, 2017 at 1:50 am

    gravenimage,it appears to me that you dont know how veto power operates.un resolution no.2334 has already been passed while the united states with veto power to block it abstained and it was passed with majority votes in the absence of exercise of veto power by any of the five permanent members of 14 member security council.trump cannot later use use veto power alone to change it or kill it.if he wants that, another voting by 14 members of the security council and get minimum of 9 votes majority to amend it or repeal. you get the point ?please go back again to my comment,read it carefully and understand it and then compare it with fitzgerald’s article on the subject to determine who is right and who is wrong.i said mr fitzgerald is wrong.you can dig why i said from the comment if you are knowledgeable enough on the subject matter.but instead you embarked on bare refutation.i expect you to go beyond that since you claim to know all.

    • gravenimage says

      Jan 5, 2017 at 4:37 pm

      The repellent ibrahim itace muhammed wrote:

      gravenimage,it (sic) appears to me that you dont (sic) know how veto power operates.un (sic) resolution no.2334 has already been passed while the united (sic) states (sic) with veto power to block it abstained and it was passed with majority votes in the absence of exercise of veto power by any of the five permanent members of 14 member security council.trump (sic) cannot later use use veto power alone to change it or kill it.if (sic) he wants that, another voting by 14 members of the security council and get minimum of 9 votes majority to amend it or repeal. you (sic) get the point ?
      …………………………………..

      Of course I know how veto power at the UN works. The odd thing is that muhammed appears to believe that this UN Resolution is the only one aimed at harassing democratic Israel; this is hardly the case.

      As of 2013, Israel had been condemned in 45 resolutions by the United Nations Human Rights Council since its creation in 2006—the Council had resolved almost more resolutions condemning Israel than on the rest of the world combined.

      This is not proof of Israel violating human rights; it is proof of the UN “Human Rights Council” being grotesquely antisemitic. And why wouldn’t it be? It has has included such outrageous human rights flouters as Saudi Arabia, Bangladesh, Nigeria, Qatar, Algeria, China, Pakistan, Kuwait, and the UAE.

      Unfortunately, the whole thing is a sick joke at this point. Its predecessors, the United Nations Human Rights Committee and United Nations Human Rights Commission, were dissolved for just these reasons–it had become an embarrassment. But the central problem still remains; that blatant human rights violators serve on this council, and necessarily taint virtually its every action.

      More:

      please (sic) go back again to my comment,read (sic) it carefully and understand it and then compare it with fitzgerald’s (sic) article on the subject to determine who is right and who is wrong.
      …………………………………..

      Good lord–haven’t I spent enough time parsing muhammed’s appalling hatred of Jews and other Infidels? I am not going to wade through that swamp again. I doubt very much that there are any pearls of wisdom that I failed to glean the first time.

      More:

      i (sic) said mr (sic) fitzgerald (sic) is wrong.you (sic) can dig why i (sic) said from the comment if you are knowledgeable enough on the subject matter.
      …………………………………..

      Of course I can “dig” why the appalling genocidal muhammed is castigating democratic Israel. His only knowledge on the subject serves his desire to see Israel rendered unable to defend herself.

      More:

      but (sic) instead you embarked on bare refutation.i (sic) expect you to go beyond that since you claim to know all.
      …………………………………..

      This first is, of course, utterly false. I dismantled muhammed’s bs in many cases line by line. It is not my fault that muhammed is unable to follow simple arguments, or that he chooses to ignore key issues such as Muslims’ immediate and ongoing violent violation of UN Resolution 242.

      And no; I have never claimed to “know all”.

      But any decent person defends a democratic nation against violent efforts to destroy her–“decent” does not, of course, include genocidal barbarians such as muhammed here.

    • Champ says

      Jan 5, 2017 at 4:49 pm

      “ibrahim itace muhammed” wrote:

      “i expect you to go beyond that since you claim to know all.”

      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

      Do I detect a hint of misogyny from the mohammedan “ibrahim itace muhammed” toward Gravenimage? Methinks so …

      What is islam if not misogynistic. Not to mention evil to the core.

  19. Guy Jones says

    Jan 5, 2017 at 3:25 am

    This is why I started writing the word “Palestinian” in quotation marks, to give it a clear indication that the very concept is born of a conceit of vile Islamic propaganda.

    The word “Palestinian” should always be written in quotation marks, to delegitimize an intellectually dishonest and historically dishonest meme.

    • Kay says

      Jan 5, 2017 at 8:46 am

      Interesting point. I think twisting words is being used as a powerful weapon.
      (Off topic but I just found out Hemlock Society has been renamed Compassionate Choices, another Soros funded attempt to take down our country state by state and bring death. Come to think of it, the multiple and changing names of these Mohammeden groups, even in our own country, makes it nigh impossible to keep track of them.)

    • Hugh FitzgeraldI says

      Jan 6, 2017 at 10:03 am

      “Palestinian” in quotation marks is one way to deal with the matter. Another would be to always use “Palestinian” as an adjective, not as a noun: “the “Palestinian Arabs” is very different from “the Palestinians.” Little by little , one can undo the verbal conquests of the other side. “

      • dumbledoresarmy says

        Jan 6, 2017 at 6:55 pm

        Yes.

        *Whenever* I read an article – and that includes news reports in English-language Israeli news outlets!! – that waffles on about ‘the West Bank” and ‘Palestinians’ this and that, I mentally translate into “Judea and Samaria” (for the so-called ‘west bank’) and “local Arabs’ ‘Muslim Arabs’ ‘Muslims’ etc, as most applicable in context.

        And when I am in conversation, or if the subject comes up on social media, I never, never, never use the terms ‘West Bank’ or ‘Palestinians’ at all, myself. If I were to link something about Hebron, I would refer to ‘Hebron in Judea”. If I am writing or talking about something that happened in the Land after the Roman conquest but before the restoration of a Jewish state in 1948, I will use the formal term “Mandatory Palestine” for the period 1917-1948; but for everything else I tend to use ‘eretz Israel’ then add a phrase to indicate whichever foreign colonial invader/ occupier currently happened to be in business there.

      • dumbledoresarmy says

        Jan 6, 2017 at 7:02 pm

        Perhaps president-elect Donald Trump and members of his team can be politely encouraged to abandon these ‘loaded’ and contentious terms such as ‘west bank’ and ‘the Palestinian people’ and use appropriate alternatives that reflect the *real* situation.

        Wouldn’t it be fun if they did?

        Imagine if, after having been duly inaugurated, and having visited various neglected portions of the United States, the new POTUS sallies forth on his first international trip… to visit.. Jerusalem. And there gives a speech that, unblinkingly, refers to “Judea and Samaria” and to “Jerusalem” (no rubbish about ‘Arab East Jerusalem’ or ‘East Jerusalem’, etc; just ‘Jerusalem’, for each and every part of it), and never mentions ‘Palestinians’ as a substantive even once but, rather, speaks of ‘local Arabs’ or ‘local mostly-Muslim Arabs’, or ‘Arabs in Judea and Samaria’. Or .. ‘Muslims’.

  20. pbay says

    Jan 5, 2017 at 4:50 am

    Kerry has muslims in his family.. Jew hating S.O.B.

  21. medaber_emet says

    Jan 5, 2017 at 6:07 am

    from now on John Kerry’s name should be officially changed to John CAIRy
    this is who he is

  22. Rob Porter says

    Jan 5, 2017 at 2:29 pm

    A super article that for me filled in so many holes. What a contemptible man is John Kerry, who were it not for his contemptible character would never have served an even more contemptible man like Barack Obama.

    • Cecilia Ellis says

      Jan 5, 2017 at 3:49 pm

      Rob wrote: “What a contemptible man is John Kerry, who were it not for his contemptible character would never have served an even more contemptible man like Barack Obama.”

      Rob, how right you are! And here is greater evidence that supports — though not needed — your assertion about the Narcissist-in-Chief:

      http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/01/04/president-obama-awards-himself-distinguished-public-service-medal/

  23. dumbledoresarmy says

    Jan 5, 2017 at 3:26 pm

    everyone who likes this article by Hugh, and its companion piece (Part One) should 1/ make a copy of it, to keep on their own computer, for future reference and 2/ send it on its travels via social media. If you’re on FB – *share* it there. Spread it around!

  24. Alarmed Pig Farmer says

    Jan 5, 2017 at 5:36 pm

    I blame Israel for the Global Jihad exploding in the world’s face now. By their very presence, most of it residences and businesses bought by Zionists over the prior century from absentee landlords, they literally forced the Arabs to launch multiple unprovoked attacks on Israel. This is so because Allah repeatedly commands Moslems to either make Jews convert or kill them. Antisemitism [sic] among the Arabs (and Persians) is at the foundation of the “religion”. Too bad, cuz they ain’t any softer on other kinds of Infidels. Just ask the Hindus. But back then mass murder was backbreaking work, slashing and chopping them dead one dying Infidel at a time. Hand crafted demise. Now, with modern technology, it can be done en masse, as we saw on Sept 11. But airliners as weapons is nothing compared to WMD. We deceive ourselves, lie to ourselves, about the Jews in Israel in order to maintain willful ignorance on the matter. But now we have the Global Jihad, with WMD on the platter. We can either admit the Jews are right or be mass murdered like the Jews have been and it looks like will be again. Here’s hoping that the Iron Dome is more than it seems now. It must be able to deal with a Persian ICBM coming almost straight down on Tel Aviv. Here’s hoping that it has DSP circuitry advanced enough to snuff the incoming death rocket with no or minimum harm. Here’s hoping that Donald stokes more money into the hyper-successful USA/Israel ultra advanced ABM program. The best DSP chips on earth are designed and made in the Intel plant right there in the target zone.

    Ronald would beam in pride from his grave if Donald does this. Let’s hope.

FacebookYoutubeTwitterLog in

Subscribe to the Jihad Watch Daily Digest

You will receive a daily mailing containing links to the stories posted at Jihad Watch in the last 24 hours.
Enter your email address to subscribe.

Please wait...

Thank you for signing up!
If you are forwarding to a friend, please remove the unsubscribe buttons first, as they my accidentally click it.

Subscribe to all Jihad Watch posts

You will receive immediate notification.
Enter your email address to subscribe.
Note: This may be up to 15 emails a day.

Donate to JihadWatch
FrontPage Mag

Search Site

Translate

The Team

Robert Spencer in FrontPageMag
Robert Spencer in PJ Media

Articles at Jihad Watch by
Robert Spencer
Hugh Fitzgerald
Christine Douglass-Williams
Andrew Harrod
Jamie Glazov
Daniel Greenfield

Contact Us

Terror Attacks Since 9/11

Archives

  • 2020
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2019
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2018
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2017
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2016
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2015
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2014
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2013
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2012
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2011
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2010
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2009
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2008
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2007
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2006
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2005
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2004
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2003
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • March

All Categories

You Might Like

Learn more about RevenueStripe...

Recent Comments

  • revereridesagain on Audio: Robert Spencer on Muslim Brotherhood influence in a Biden/Harris administration
  • SKA on New study reveals that Muslim religiosity strongly linked to hatred towards the West
  • Eva on Chief Rabbi of UK Says It’s ‘Alarming’ That 44% of Muslims Are Anti-Semitic
  • Eva on Chief Rabbi of UK Says It’s ‘Alarming’ That 44% of Muslims Are Anti-Semitic
  • Infidel on Chief Rabbi of UK Says It’s ‘Alarming’ That 44% of Muslims Are Anti-Semitic

Popular Categories

dhimmitude Sharia Jihad in the U.S ISIS / Islamic State / ISIL Iran Free Speech

Robert Spencer FaceBook Page

Robert Spencer Twitter

Robert Spencer twitter

Robert Spencer YouTube Channel

Books by Robert Spencer

Jihad Watch® is a registered trademark of Robert Spencer in the United States and/or other countries - Site Developed and Managed by Free Speech Defense

Content copyright Jihad Watch, Jihad Watch claims no credit for any images posted on this site unless otherwise noted. Images on this blog are copyright to their respective owners. If there is an image appearing on this blog that belongs to you and you do not wish for it appear on this site, please E-mail with a link to said image and it will be promptly removed.

Our mailing address is: David Horowitz Freedom Center, P.O. Box 55089, Sherman Oaks, CA 91499-1964

loading Cancel
Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
Email check failed, please try again
Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.