Wednesday, April 05, 2017

Fwd: Saudi Peace Initiative - A hoax! By Eli E. Hertz

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "Eli E. Hertz" <today@mythsandfacts.org>
Date: Apr 5, 2017 7:23 AM
Subject: Saudi Peace Initiative - A hoax!
To: <faigerayzel@gmail.com>
Cc:

Saudi Peace Initiative

A hoax!

Eli E. Hertz | April 4, 2017
Repeat

In March 2002, the Arab League met in Beirut and adopted a two-state solution proposal, based on normalization of relations with Israel in exchange for a complete Israeli withdrawal to pre-Six-Day War borders and the return of the 1948 refugees. This proposal was a non-starter, designed more as a positive image builder for Arabs and especially for the Saudis, who made up 15 of the 19 September 11 hijackers, than a genuine contribution to peace in the Middle East.

On April 30, 2013, Qatar's foreign minister suggested the revival of the Arab Peace Initiative, introduced in 2002, and for the first time eased its demand that Israel return to its pre-1967 borders. Instead, the minister accepted the possibility of tweaking those borders with a comparable and mutually agreed "minor swap of the land."

However, it is illuminating to examine the record of the League of Arab States' resolutions, since the founding of the Arab League in 1945, which is hardly a model for peaceful settlement of disputes in the spirit of the United Nations. For instance, prior to the establishment of the Jewish state, the League took the following steps:

In December 1945, the Arab League launched a boycott of "Zionist goods" that continues to this day.

In June 1946, it established the Higher Arab Committee to "coordinate efforts with regard to Palestine," a radical body that led and coordinated attempts to wipe Israel off the map.

In December 1946, it rejected the first proposed Palestine partition plans, reaffirming "that Palestine is a part of the Arab motherland."

In October 1947, prior to the vote on Resolution 181 - the "Partition Plan" - it reasserted the necessity for military preparations along Arab borders to "defending Palestine."

In February 1948, it approved "a plan for political, military, and economic measures to be taken in response to the Palestine crisis."

In October 1948, it rejected the UN "Partition Plan" for Palestine, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in Resolution 181.

On May 15^th 1948, as the regular forces of Egypt, Trans-Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and contingents from Saudi Arabia and Yemen invaded Israel to "restore law and order," the Arab League issued a lengthy document entitled "Declaration on the Invasion of Palestine." In it, the Arab states drew attention to:

"The injustice implied in this solution [affecting] the right of the people of Palestine to immediate independence ... declared the Arabs' rejection of [Resolution 181]" which the League said "would not be possible to carry it out by peaceful means, and that its forcible imposition would constitute a threat to peace and security in this area" and claimed that the "security and order in Palestine have become disrupted" due to the "aggressive intentions and the imperialistic designs of the Zionists" and "the Governments of the Arab States, as members of the Arab League, a regional organization ... view the events taking place in Palestine as a threat to peace and security in the area as a whole. ... Therefore, as security in Palestine is a sacred trust in the hands of the Arab States, and in order to put an end to this state of affairs ... the Governments of the Arab States have found themselves compelled to intervene in Palestine."

The Secretary-General of the Arab League, Azzam Pasha, was less diplomatic and far more candid. With no patience for polite language, and on the same day that Israel declared its independence on May 14, 1948, at a Cairo press conference reported the next day in The New York Times, Pasha repeated the Arabs' "intervention to restore law and order," revealing:

"This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades."

The League of Arab States continued to oppose peace after Israel's 1948 War of Independence:

In July 15 1948, the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 54 calling on Arab aggression to stop:

"Taking into consideration that the Provisional Government of Israel has indicated its acceptance in principle of a prolongation of the truce in Palestine; that the States members of the Arab League have rejected successive appeals of the United Nations Mediator, and of the Security Council in its resolution 53 (1948) of 7 July 1948, for the prolongation of the truce in Palestine; and that there has consequently developed a renewal of hostilities in Palestine."

In October 1949, the Arab League declared that negotiation with Israel by any Arab state would be in violation of Article 18 of the Arab League.

In April 1950, it called for severance of relations with any Arab state which engaged in relations or contacts with Israel and prohibited Member states from negotiating unilateral peace with Israel.

In March 1979, it suspended Egypt's membership in the League (retroactively) from the date of its signing a peace treaty with Israel.

On March 27^th 2002, it adopted the Beirut Declaration, at the height of Palestinian suicide attacks in Israel, the Arab League declared:

"We, the kings, presidents, and emirs of the Arab states meeting in the Council of the Arab League Summit in Beirut, capital of Lebanon ... have conducted a thorough assessment of the developments and challenges ... relating to the Arab region and, more specifically, to the occupied Palestinian territory. With great pride, we followed the Palestinian people's intifada and valiant resistance. ... We address a greeting of pride and honour to the Palestinian people's steadfastness and valiant intifada against the Israeli occupation and its destructive war machine. We greet with honour and pride the valiant martyrs of the intifada."

Note, the League of Arab States, which has systematically opposed and blocked all peace efforts with Israel for the past 72 years, is also in a declared state-of-war with Israel.

When talks broke down at Camp David in 2000, Palestinian Arab leaders unleashed the al-Aqsa Intifada, which amounted to a full-blown guerrilla war against Israel.

Unfortunately, Arab leaders often turn to such violence to gain what they were unable to achieve at the negotiating table.
If you'd like to Unsubscribe from this newsgroup Click Here

Fwd: Daniel Greenfield's article: The New Civil War

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "Sultan Knish" <noreply+feedproxy@google.com>
Date: Apr 5, 2017 7:54 AM
Subject: Daniel Greenfield's article: The New Civil War
To: <faigerayzel@gmail.com>
Cc:

Daniel Greenfield's article: The New Civil War

The New Civil War

Posted: 04 Apr 2017 10:09 AM PDT

A civil war has begun.

This civil war is very different than the last one. There are no cannons or cavalry charges. The left doesn't want to secede. It wants to rule. Political conflicts become civil wars when one side refuses to accept the existing authority. The left has rejected all forms of authority that it doesn't control.

The left has rejected the outcome of the last two presidential elections won by Republicans. It has rejected the judicial authority of the Supreme Court when it decisions don't accord with its agenda. It rejects the legislative authority of Congress when it is not dominated by the left.

It rejected the Constitution so long ago that it hardly bears mentioning.

It was for total unilateral executive authority under Obama. And now it's for states unilaterally deciding what laws they will follow. (As long as that involves defying immigration laws under Trump, not following them under Obama.) It was for the sacrosanct authority of the Senate when it held the majority. Then it decried the Senate as an outmoded institution when the Republicans took it over.

It was for Obama defying the orders of Federal judges, no matter how well grounded in existing law, and it is for Federal judges overriding any order by Trump on any grounds whatsoever. It was for Obama penalizing whistleblowers, but now undermining the government from within has become "patriotic".

There is no form of legal authority that the left accepts as a permanent institution. It only utilizes forms of authority selectively when it controls them. But when government officials refuse the orders of the duly elected government because their allegiance is to an ideology whose agenda is in conflict with the President and Congress, that's not activism, protest, politics or civil disobedience; it's treason.

After losing Congress, the left consolidated its authority in the White House. After losing the White House, the left shifted its center of authority to Federal judges and unelected government officials. Each defeat led the radicalized Democrats to relocate from more democratic to less democratic institutions.

This isn't just hypocrisy. That's a common political sin. Hypocrites maneuver within the system. The left has no allegiance to the system. It accepts no laws other than those dictated by its ideology.

Democrats have become radicalized by the left. This doesn't just mean that they pursue all sorts of bad policies. It means that their first and foremost allegiance is to an ideology, not the Constitution, not our country or our system of government. All of those are only to be used as vehicles for their ideology.

That's why compromise has become impossible.

Our system of government was designed to allow different groups to negotiate their differences. But those differences were supposed to be based around finding shared interests. The most profound of these shared interests was that of a common country based around certain civilizational values. The left has replaced these Founding ideas with radically different notions and principles. It has rejected the primary importance of the country. As a result it shares little in the way of interests or values.

Instead it has retreated to cultural urban and suburban enclaves where it has centralized tremendous amounts of power while disregarding the interests and values of most of the country. If it considers them at all, it is convinced that they will shortly disappear to be replaced by compliant immigrants and college indoctrinated leftists who will form a permanent demographic majority for its agenda.

But it couldn't wait that long because it is animated by the conviction that enforcing its ideas is urgent and inevitable. And so it turned what had been a hidden transition into an open break.

In the hidden transition, its authority figures had hijacked the law and every political office they held to pursue their ideological agenda. The left had used its vast cultural power to manufacture a consensus that was slowly transitioning the country from American values to its values and agendas. The right had proven largely impotent in the face of a program which corrupted and subverted from within.

The left was enormously successful in this regard. It was so successful that it lost all sense of proportion and decided to be open about its views and to launch a political power struggle after losing an election.

The Democrats were no longer being slowly injected with leftist ideology. Instead the left openly took over and demanded allegiance to open borders, identity politics and environmental fanaticism. The exodus of voters wiped out the Democrats across much of what the left deemed flyover country.

The left responded to democratic defeats by retreating deeper into undemocratic institutions, whether it was the bureaucracy or the corporate media, while doubling down on its political radicalism. It is now openly defying the outcome of a national election using a coalition of bureaucrats, corporations, unelected officials, celebrities and reporters that are based out of its cultural and political enclaves.

It has responded to a lost election by constructing sanctuary cities and states thereby turning a cultural and ideological secession into a legal secession. But while secessionists want to be left alone authoritarians want everyone to follow their laws. The left is an authoritarian movement that wants total compliance with its dictates with severe punishments for those who disobey.

The left describes its actions as principled. But more accurately they are ideological. Officials at various levels of government have rejected the authority of the President of the United States, of Congress and of the Constitution because those are at odds with their radical ideology. Judges have cloaked this rejection in law. Mayors and governors are not even pretending that their actions are lawful.

The choices of this civil war are painfully clear.

We can have a system of government based around the Constitution with democratically elected representatives. Or we can have one based on the ideological principles of the left in which all laws and processes, including elections and the Constitution, are fig leaves for enforcing social justice.

But we cannot have both.

Some civil wars happen when a political conflict can't be resolved at the political level. The really bad ones happen when an irresolvable political conflict combines with an irresolvable cultural conflict.

That is what we have now.

The left has made it clear that it will not accept the lawful authority of our system of government. It will not accept the outcome of elections. It will not accept these things because they are at odds with its ideology and because they represent the will of large portions of the country whom they despise.

The question is what comes next.

The last time around growing tensions began to explode in violent confrontations between extremists on both sides. These extremists were lauded by moderates who mainstreamed their views. The first Republican president was elected and rejected. The political tensions led to conflict and then civil war.

The left doesn't believe in secession. It's an authoritarian political movement that has lost democratic authority. There is now a political power struggle underway between the democratically elected officials and the undemocratic machinery of government aided by a handful of judges and local elected officials.

What this really means is that there are two competing governments; the legal government and a treasonous anti-government of the left. If this political conflict progresses, agencies and individuals at every level of government will be asked to demonstrate their allegiance to these two competing governments. And that can swiftly and explosively transform into an actual civil war.

There is no sign that the left understands or is troubled by the implications of the conflict it has initiated. And there are few signs that Democrats properly understand the dangerous road that the radical left is drawing them toward. The left assumes that the winners of a democratic election will back down rather than stand on their authority. It is unprepared for the possibility that democracy won't die in darkness.

Civil wars end when one side is forced to accept the authority of the other. The left expects everyone to accept its ideological authority. Conservatives expect the left to accept Constitutional authority. The conflict is still political and cultural. It's being fought in the media and within the government. But if neither side backs down, then it will go beyond words as both sides give contradictory orders.

The left is a treasonous movement. The Democrats became a treasonous organization when they fell under the sway of a movement that rejects our system of government, its laws and its elections. Now their treason is coming to a head. They are engaged in a struggle for power against the government. That's not protest. It's not activism. The old treason of the sixties has come of age. A civil war has begun.

This is a primal conflict between a totalitarian system and a democratic system. Its outcome will determine whether we will be a free nation or a nation of slaves.

You are subscribed to email updates from Sultan Knish . To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now.	Email delivery powered by Google
Google Inc., 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, United States

Tuesday, April 04, 2017

Fwd: UNRWA spreads the word that UNRWA will introduce new curriculum of peace

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Center For Near East Policy Research Lt <ctrforneareastpolicyresearch@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 6:32 PM
Subject: Fwd: UNRWA spreads the word that UNRWA will introduce new curriculum of peace
To: ctrforneareastpolicyresearch <CtrForNearEastPolicyResearch@gmail.com>

From: Center For Near East Policy Research Lt <ctrforneareastpolicyresearch@gmail.com>

Date: Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 12:19 AM
Subject: UNRWA spreads the word that UNRWA will introduce

new curriculum of peace
To: SehgalM@gao.gov

April 5, 2017

Attn:

Ms. Mona Sehgal

SehgalM@gao.gov

Assistant Director,

International Affairs and Trade

U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO)

441 G St, NW, Washington, DC 20548

http://www.gao.gov

Dear Mona,

Wishing you success in the progress of your current GAO investigation of UNRWA.

Over the past week, UNRWA spread the word that UNRWA intends to introduce a new curriculum for peace and tolerance in the UNRWA school system.

However, UNRWA reports widespread popular opposition to such an initiative. (1)

The fact that UNRWA admits that there is a problem in their schools represents a newsworthy development in itself.

However, the Center for Near East Policy Research checked all public and private sources in UNRWA. No intention, initiative or program exists in the UNRWA Department of Education for any change in the UNRWA curriculum.

UNRWA curricula in Judea, Samaria, Jerusalem and Gaza remain under the supervision of the Palestinian Authority Ministry of Education, which makes it clear that no plans are afoot for any change in the Palestinian Authority Education System.

Successive PA Ministers of Education have made it clear that the PA Ministry of Education runs schools with a unified curriculum for UNRWA, Hamas and the Palestinian Authority. The current war curriculum of the Palestinian Authority used by UNRWA speaks for itself. (2)

The presence of Hamas in UNRWA schools speaks for itself. (3)

Why, then, does UNRWA spread the word they intend to introduce a new curriculum?

This serves UNRWA image with a new US administration at the helm. The US, indeed, pays for 33% of the UNRWA budget, which has reached $1.2 billion. (4)

UNRWA presents the US government with good intentions of UNRWA, blaming popular opinion, which would not allow UNRWA to act in a noble fashion.

UNRWA has used this PR approach in the past.

Between 2008 and 2010, UNRWA spread the news that it was going to introduce holocaust education. UNRWA dispatched professional fundraisers to raise the finance needed to teach the holocaust to the next generation of Palestinian school children.

Yet UNRWA expressed regret in 2011 that it could not implement the holocaust education program because of "popular opinion".

However, The Center for Near East Policy Research checked out this development with Michael Kingsley-Nyinah, then the director of the executive office of UNRWA in New York, who replied to our query: "I am writing to clarify that there is no 'Holocaust curriculum' as such in UNRWA schools and there are no plans to introduce one."(5)

However, UNRWA earned praise in the Jewish community because of their "intention" to introduce holocaust curriculum for the next generation of Palestinian Arab children, although such a curriculum was never planned in the first place.

(1)http://israelbehindthenews.com/hamas-strongly-attacks-unrwa-intention-introduce-changes-curriculum-elementary-schools/15766/

(2) http://israelbehindthenews.com/jews-jewish-state-schoolbooks-used-unrwa-de-legitimization-demonization-indoctrination-war-2/15319/

(3) http://israelbehindthenews.com/unrwa-supply-line-hamas-next-round-fighting/15754/

(4)http://israelbehindthenews.com/jews-jewish-state-schoolbooks-used-unrwa-de-legitimization-demonization-indoctrination-war-2/15319/

(5) http://israelbehindthenews.com/there-is-not-and-has-never-been-a-plan-for-a-holocaust-curriculum-in-any-unrwa-school/7025/

With warmest regards,

David Bedein

Director

Israel Resource News Agency

Center for Near East Policy Research

+972-547-222-661

www.cfnepr.com

www.israelbehindthenews.com

Twitter: @DavidBedein

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/david.bedein

Skype: david.bedein2

cc: Sen. James Risch, chair, US SENATE SUBCOMMITTEE ON NEAR EAST, SOUTH ASIA, CENTRAL ASIA, AND COUNTERTERRORISM and all subcommittee members.

cc: Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, US House Subcommittee on Middle East and North Africa all subcommittee members

cc: Deputy Minister of Israel Foreign Affairs, Ms. Tzipi Hotoveli

cc: Rabbi Abraham Cooper, Associate Director, Simon Wiesenthal Center

cc: Rabbi David Saperstein, Outgoing US Ambassador for Religious Freedom

Sincerely,

Robin Ticker

Israel Advocacy Calendar (www.IsraelAdvocacyCalendar.com).

Activist emails sent to my list are L'Ilui Nishmat Yisrael ben David Aryeh ob"m (Izzy - Kaplan) and Howard Chaim Grief great activists and lovers of Eretz Yisroel, Am Yisroel and the Torah. Yehi Zichronum Baruch. May their memories serve as a blessing.

Most of these emails are posted on Shemittahrediscovered.blogspot.com

Personal emails to individuals will not be posted to my blog.

Hundreds Attend wedding of a Haredi shunned over IDF Service

bs"d

Please also read

Military strategy vs. the Rabbis - Israel National News. Rabbanim should demand adherence to Torah first.

http://shemittahrediscovered.blogspot.com/2017/03/military-strategy-vs-rabbis-israel.html

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Google+ (Caren May) <replyto-191fec7b@plus.google.com>
Date: Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 9:33 PM
Subject: Shared a post
To: faigerayzel@gmail.com

Caren May shared a post.

Hundreds attend wedding of haredi shunned over IDF service <img src="http://www.israelhayom.co.il/site/upload/photos/video_icon/video_icon_24.png" style="width:15px; height:15px;" />

Groom says he was overwhelmed by the support. • "The owners of the venue said they cannot remember such joy at an event that took place there. It w...

You received this notification because Caren May was in a circle that you had subscribed to. Unsubscribe from these emails.
Privacy tip: Protect your info. Remove your email signature before you reply.

Google Inc., 1600 Amphitheatre Pkwy, Mountain View, CA 94043 USA

Sincerely,

Robin Ticker

Israel Advocacy Calendar (www.IsraelAdvocacyCalendar.com).

Most of these emails are posted on Shemittahrediscovered.blogspot.com

Personal emails to individuals will not be posted to my blog.

Fwd: UNRWA Spreads the Word that UNRWA will Introduce New Curriculum of Peace But is it all Talk and No Substance? From David Bedein Near East Policy Research. Sounds like happenings in PSFC...

bs"d

In a similar vein..

We applaud Governor Cuomo for his Executive order to reject BDS from New York State.

We applaud the City Council for passing a resolution (law 1058-A) condemning BDS in New York City.

However, such condemnations have toothless and of no real substance. Otherwise we, the Committee to abolish BDS from the Park Slope Food Coop, would have an address in Albany or in the City Council to report the Park Slope Food Coop. The PSFC have shamelessly allowed BDS to occupy their office space and use PSFC name and resources to promote BDS bias in their bi monthly newspaper and reading groups and General meetings while at the same time have been quite successful to silence those who have tried to challenge their false and deceitful narrative. They have gone so far as having a BDS website and have even prosecuted members of the PSFC who have tried to stop them and suspended them from the Coop! This one sided pro BDS bias has been going on for 8 years in spite of the membership voting against BDS! Yet the Executive Order and the City Council resolution doesn't help us as nobody has returned our calls or responded to our letters....