UTT Throwback Thursday: ISNA Was and Is a Jihadi Organization

Understanding the Threat, by John Guandolo, July 20, 2017:

In 1963, the first US-based national Islamic organization – the Muslim Students Association (MSA) – was created by the Muslim Brotherhood at the University of Illinois, Urbana.

 

In the early 1980’s the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood created the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) as the next generation of the MSA – headquartered in Plainfield, Indiana – as the “nucleus” of their Islamic Movement to lead and coordinate all of the U.S. MB organizations created over those first 20 years.

The Fiqh Council of North America ensures the MB is compliant with sharia and their own website confirms ISNA’s relationship to MSA

In November 2001, the largest Islamic charity in America – the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF) – was indicted by the U.S. government after a 15 year FBI investigation and convicted in 2008 in the largest terrorism financing and Hamas trial ever successfully prosecuted in American history for funneling millions of dollars to the terrorist group Hamas.

HLF was the largest Islamic charity in America and it was a terrorist organization.  Specifically, it was a Hamas front.  Hamas is an inherent part of the Muslim Brotherhood.  Hamas is essentially the Palestinian MB, and is a designated Foreign Terrorist Organization per the U.S. government and several other governments.

In the HLF trial, ISNA is:  a named un-indicted co-conspirator; identified as a Muslim Brotherhood organization by the Department of Justice; and was identified as a funding source for Hamas.  Monies went directly from ISNA’s accounts to Hamas leaders and organizations overseas.

ISNA directly funds terrorists.

Yesterday, it was revealed the Canadian government pulled the charitable status from ISNA Islamic Services of Canada as well as another Muslim Brotherhood group – the Canadian Islamic Trust Foundation. The two groups lost their charitable status for providing money to the Relief Organization of Kashmiri Muslims (ROKM), which is a charitable arm of Jamaat-e-Islami, a jihadi group.

Four years ago, Canada revoked the charitable status for the ISNA Development Foundation for funding Pakistani jihadis in the Kashmir region.

ISNA is the largest Islamic organization in North America and, coincidentally, the largest Muslim Brotherhood organization in North America.  The MB’s own documents identify it as the “nucleus” of their Movement here.  The Department of Justice identifies ISNA as a Muslim Brotherhood organization funding the terrorist group Hamas.

Up until recently ISNA was involved in certifying Muslim chaplains for the Department of Defense and Bureau of Prisons.  Under the Obama administration, ISNA’s previous President Mohamed Magid:  sat on the Homeland Security Advisory Committee and held a secret clearance; gave lectures at CIA headquarters; was given an award by the FBI’s Washington Field Office (2005); was given the FBI Director’s Award by Director Comey in 2016; worked, along with his senior directors, directly with several Secretaries of State, including Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Kerry; was publicly lauded by President Obama’s Deputy National Security Advisor/Chief of Staff Denis McDonough; was publicly praised by President Obama who made a congratulatory video for ISNA’s annual conference two years ago; and participated in President Trump’s Inaugural Prayer Service at the National Cathedral (see UTT’s video of that HERE).

Former ISNA President Imam Mohamed Magid (r) with President Obama an others

ISNA President Mohamed Magid receives an award from FBI SAC (Washington, DC) Mike Rolince

Today, ISNA’s National Director Sayyid Syeed (from Kashmiri, India by the way) can be found walking the halls of Congress, meeting with national Christian and Jewish leaders, and helping drive the Muslim Brotherhood’s Civilization Jihad as far as he can.

Pastor Scott Prouty (1st Presbyterian Church, Redwood Falls, MN) & ISNA Director Sayyid Syeed

“Interfaith Outreach” with Sayyid Syeed (L) & Former Israeli Prime Minister Shimon Peres

Sayyid Syeed with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton

Remember, the MB’s stated objectives – per their by-laws – is to establish an Islamic State under sharia. This is the same goal as ISIS, Al Qaeda, and all the other Islamic “terrorist” groups in the world.

ISNA has over 300 subsidiary Islamic Societies in the U.S. today that are necessarily hostile to the communities in which they exist.

At least ISNA-Canada is honest about their true intent.  Their website defines their mission as:  “Building an Islamic way of life in North America.”

Despite what they say, ISNA-Canada is directly aligned with the ISNA offices in the United States.  In case you missed it, they are the Islamic Society of North America.

Everyone who swears an oath to support and defend the United States Constitution has a legal and moral duty to oppose and shut down ISNA’s efforts by all means necessary.

The Mismatch Between Europe’s Israel Labeling Demands And Palestinian Legal Arguments

2015-08-05T134230Z_1_LYNXNPEB740NZ_RTROPTP_4_IRAN-NUCLEAR-e1455134070658Daily Caller, by Alex VanNess, Feb. 11, 2016:

International bodies such as the European Union (EU), in their infinite wisdom, have decided to call on Israel to “end all settlement activity,” as well as target Israel, economically, through special labeling of Israeli products originating in Judea and Samaria, the “West Bank.” Moreover, U.S. State Department spokesperson, John Kirby has defended Europe’s actions, which is a departure from the Administration’s position from November that said the EU’s labeling guidelines “could be perceived as a step on the way to a boycott.”

The EU claims that goods produced in settlement areas are not “Made in Israel” and that the new labeling guidelines are to ensure accuracy. This decision ignores Israel’s legal right to this land under International Law and reiterated a faulty position that the lands Israel has controlled since the 1967 Middle East war are not part of the internationally recognized borders of Israel.

Palestinians have spent decades pushing the narrative that Israel’s activities in this region; in particular, settlements are “illegal” theft of Palestinian lands. For decades, a public relations campaign has been waged to ensure that any mentioning of Jewish neighborhoods in the West Bank is proceeded by the phrase “illegal settlements” at every possible opportunity.

Are the Israeli settlements as illegal as the international community says they are? The answer to that is no. With regards to their legal argument, Palestinians and their supporters have been pounding a square peg into the round hole for decades. In doing so, they have bastardized long-understood concepts of international law, to the point of being unrecognizable. However, several key aspects of this issue need to be understood.

First, while over a million Arabs live and own land in Israel, the laws on land ownership under the Palestinian Authority (PA) prohibit Arabs from selling land to Jews. Unless I missed something, there are no international laws on the books saying, “No Jews allowed in the West Bank.” In fact, Jews have lived in that area for thousands of years. The only time Jews haven’t lived there was for the few years, prior to Israel’s acquisition of the territory, when the Arab governments in control of the area forcefully removed these Jews from their homes.

Instead of fighting against these gross injustices, the international community has instead been fed a narrative, which is now widely believed, that Israel’s settlements are a violation of international law. Specifically, Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which states a power “shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.”

However, the Geneva Convention does not apply to this situation. Even if the Convention did apply, Israel’s settler population was neither deported nor transferred to the region; rather, they choose to live in the land because of their deep-rooted connection to it.

Moreover, the Convention specifies that it apply to “all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party.” The treaties specificity regarding “High Contracting Party’s” is an important one. A High Contracting Party under international law is the representative of a group with a de facto capacity to bind the society that they represent to a signed or ratified a treaty. Within the current international system, this refers to a nation state. Unless I’ve missed something, Palestine has never been a state in accordance with the standards set forth under International law.

Prior to Israel’s acquisition of the territory in 1967 the Egyptian and Trans-Jordanian governments, illegally occupied the territory (to the international community’s indifference). The last High Contracting legal sovereign with legal stewardship over the territories was that of the League of Nations Palestine Mandate, which mandated the land for the Jewish people, in recognition of their historic connection to the land.

For decades, Palestinians and their supporters have pushed countless resolutions through the UN, including the Security Council, stating that the Convention applies to the territories; describe settlements as “illegal” and unilaterally defining the territories ownership outside of framework of negotiations.

Additionally, through these resolutions and the UN’s continued obsession with the Palestinians, the UN has been committing a fraud and attempting to position the Palestinians as a High Contracting power and sole legitimate claimant to the land, when they aren’t. Essentially, they are trying to creating ade facto Palestinian State.

However, the UN does not have the authority to create a country for the Arab-Palestinians, or anyone else. In 1947, when the UN General Assembly passed Resolution 181 to partition the territory into two states, they did not create Israel. The Jewish people created Israel, and established its government, language, culture, and military. The UN’s resolution was merely a recommendation.

Palestinians are consistently looking for shortcuts to statehood by pushing international pressure on Israel. However, no matter how many UN resolutions are passed, they do not supersede the 1993 Israeli-PLO Declaration of principles, known as the Oslo Accords and all ensuing agreements. The Oslo Accords are a series of agreements between the Palestinian leadership and Israel — ratified under U.S. and European auspices — and it stipulates that the issue of settlements is one to be determined by the parties through permanent status negotiations.

The agreements, which cover all aspects of their relationship, produced a special independent regime — known as a lex specialis — and despite the current challenges in negotiations, these agreements are legally binding between the two parties and takes precedence over any third party resolutions on the issue.

In fact, the constant attempts by Palestinians to bypass the negotiating process and go to the international community to foment opinion as to the illegality of Israel’s settlements can be seen as a material breach, on the part of the Palestinians, to live up to their end of the peace process.

Products produced in the region, by Israel, don’t require special labels because Israeli activities in the West Bank, such as building, production, or simply existing are activities both sanctioned by the Israel’s government and agreed upon by the Palestinian’s.

The EU’s new labeling guidelines disregard mutually agreed upon arrangements and only serve to further proves their inability to serve as impartial arbiters to peace. We cannot continue to ignore the implications anti-occupation rhetoric has on both bastardizing international law and diminishing any possible future peace between Israel and the Palestinians.

Alex VanNess is the Manager of Public Information for The Center for Security Policy

Also see:

Facebook On Incitement Against Muslims And Jews – A Tale Of Two Responses

224Islamist Watch, by Johanna Markind
originally published at Daily Caller
January 28, 2016

Although Facebook’s ground rules officially prohibit bullying, harassment, and threatening language, last year it received numerous complaints about online incitement. On January 18, Facebook launched an initiative to prevent anti-Muslim hate speech on its German platform. But, according to a lawsuit filed in New York state court and a highly-publicized “experiment,”Facebook has no problem with anti-Jewish incitement.

Last October 20, the German daily Bild printed a double-page newspaper spread documenting racist vitriol posted on Facebook against migrants. On November 10 – days before the Paris attacks – Hamburg prosecutors launched an investigation into Facebook for allegedly failing to remove racist postings. The investigation was reportedly motivated by concern over “how the country’s long-dormant far-right was using Facebook to mobilize” against the influx of refugees. In other words, it was motivated by concern over anti-Muslim and anti-Arab posts.

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg vowed to create a "safe environment" for Muslim users.

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg vowed to create a “safe environment” for Muslim users.

Perhaps stung by that criticism, mere days after two Muslims murdered fourteen people in San Bernardino, California, CEO Mark Zuckerberg vowed that Facebook would “create a peaceful and safe environment” for Muslim users.

On January 18, Facebook launched a Europe-wide campaign to “thwart extremist postings.” This was part of an agreement it reached with Germany. Steps Facebook has taken include hiring the German company Bertelsmann to monitor and delete racist posts to its German platform and funding non-governmental organizations devoted to countering online extremism.

There was another Facebook-related headline on January 18. NBC News reported that Shurat HaDin (an Israeli NGO modeled on the Southern Poverty Law Center) was crowdsourcing to raise funds for an ad campaign. Entitled “Zuckerberg don’t kill us,” the campaign is part of an effort to pressure Facebook not to continue tolerating posts inciting Palestinians to kill Jews. The recent wave of Palestinian attacks had killed 29 Israelis and injured 289 as of January 18.

According to Shurat HaDin, Facebook actively assists people inciting murderous attacks against Jews to find others who are interested in acting on the hateful messages by offering friend, group, and event suggestions and targeting advertising based on people’s online “likes” and internet browsing history. What is more, Facebook often refuses to take down the inciting pages, claiming that they do not violate its “community standards.” Last October, Shurat HaDin filed a lawsuitagainst Facebook in New York state court, seeking to enjoin Facebook from allowing the incitement to continue.

Shurat HaDin demonstrated Facebook’s bias by conducting an online experiment. On December 28, it set up two Facebook pages, one filled with anti-Semitic and anti-Israel postings, the other with anti-Muslim and anti-Palestinian postings. The NGO then ratcheted up the incitement level with parallel posts to both pages, ultimately calling for death to Jews and Arabs.

Then, Shurat HaDin simultaneously reported both pages to Facebook. The same day, Facebook closed the anti-Palestinian page, stating that it violated Facebook’s community standards.

And the page inciting violence against Jews? Initially, Facebook refused to shut it down. Instead, it sent a message reporting that the page did not violate Facebook’s rules. Only after Shurat HaDin reported what it had done and media picked up the story did Facebook change its tune and closethe page, claiming the page did indeed violate Facebook standards, and that the earlier message to the contrary had been a “mistake.”

Now Israel is working to build an international coalition to pressure social media platforms like Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube to take greater responsibility for content posted on them. Ideas under discussion include developing legislation to prosecute social media platforms for failing to keep calls for violence and hateful materials off their platforms. The idea has reportedly gained traction in some European countries.

Where is Facebook’s initiative to prevent anti-Jewish incitement on its Israel platform? Why is Facebook responding so differently to complaints about incitement against Muslims and Jews? Is it too protective of Muslims, or too callous toward Jews? And how many times will its hypocrisy have to be exposed before it begins applying its “community standards” evenhandedly?

Johanna Markind is associate counselor at the Middle East Forum

Latest Hillary Clinton Email Dump Reveals Suggested Push for Palestinian Protests

The Associated Press

The Associated Press

Breitbart, by CLARE M. LOPEZ, Jan. 20, 2016:

Hillary Clinton’s personal email server continues to yield a treasure trove of information. Most recently, a series of emails suggest Clinton had considered a plan to incite Palestinian protests against Israel.

The email, surfacing thanks to the dogged efforts of Judicial Watch, is an 18 December 2011 message from former U.S. Ambassador to Israel Thomas Pickering in which he suggests that then-Secretary of State Clinton should consider a plan to re-energize the stalled Israeli-Palestinian peace talks by inciting Palestinians to ‘non-violent’ demonstrations and protests against Israel.

Pickering, who serves on the Board of Advisors to the notorious National Iranian American Council (NIAC – widely viewed as a lobbying front for the Iranian regime), described a clandestine campaign by the U.S. to whip up anti-Israel sentiment intended to cudgel our Israeli allies into re-engaging in negotiations with the Palestinians. Of course, he emphasized that Clinton should keep confidential the whole nefarious idea as, clearly, they did not want Israel to learn of it:

“Most of all the United States, in my view, cannot be seen to have stimulated, encouraged or be the power behind it for reasons you will understand better than anyone,” he wrote, suggesting that the government enlist liberal non-profit groups in Israel. “I believe third parties and a number NGOs [non-government organizations] on both sides would help.”

Instead of dismissing out of hand the very idea of such a shameful plot—not to mention immediately distancing herself from the one who proposed it—Secretary Clinton instead requested an aide to make a print-out of the email for her.

Nor was this Pickering’s first foray into plotting with America’s enemies—and Israel’s. Just weeks after President Obama’s June 4, 2009 Cairo speech had green-lighted the Islamic Uprising to come, Clinton’s aide, Cheryl Mills, forwarded to her a Washington Post articledated July 16, 2009 that reported on a secret meeting that Pickering had held in Zurich, Switzerland with two senior HAMAS officials. While U.S. officials predictably tried to distance the Obama administration from the talks, the terrorist organization itself (the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood) characterized them in what were likely more accurate terms, as a potential opening with the Obama White House.

In fact, it had been clear since days of the Obama team’s 2008 presidential campaign that he intended to turn established U.S. policy vis-à-vis Islamic jihadist groups like HAMAS and the Muslim Brotherhood upside down by embracing instead of countering them. One of the Obama campaign’s informal advisors, Robert Malley, a long-time advocate for the HAMAS terror group then with the George Soros-funded International Crisis Group (where Pickering is Board Co-Chairman), was compelled to resign from the campaign after reports revealed that he had held meetings with HAMAS. Malley next accompanied Pickering to the June 2009 gathering in Zurich with HAMAS foreign minister, Mahmud Zahar and Osama Hamdan, the Brotherhood affiliate’s top official in Lebanon. It was all an effort to “understand what HAMAS’s views are,” according to Malley (who apparently has not yet had the chance to read the HAMAS Covenant, where the group’s annihilationist intent toward Israel is quite clearly stated).

Malley had to wait several long years before the Obama White House rehabilitated him in April 2015, where he served until recently as the National Security Council (NSC) Coordinator for the Middle East and North Africa. Given how well U.S. policy in that region has gone of late, Malley was promoted on 30 November 2015 to serve as Senior Advisor to the President for the Counter-ISIL Campaign in Iraq and Syria, where his skills at reaching out to the jihadist enemy can really be put to the test.

As Michael Bay’s new blockbuster film, 13 Hours: the Secret Soldiers of Benghazi, premiers around the country this week, it is a good time to consider the wholesale chaos that a policy of alienating (and sometimes deposing) our allies and embracing our enemies has wrought. The story of six American heroes who selflessly charged to the sound of the guns to save dozens of lives contrasts rather starkly with the record of the Obama team, which included Hillary Clinton, Thomas Pickering, and Robert Malley, who continue to charge instead headlong into the embrace of our jihadist enemies.

Clare M. Lopez is the Vice President for Research & Analysis at the Center for Security Policy.

***

Also see:

War Crimes in Gaza: Filmmaker Takes Cameras Deep into Hamas Territory appeared first on Breitbart

Youtube/Screenshot

Youtube/Screenshot

Breitbart, by Phyllis Chesler, June 26. 2015:

Just as another “Freedom Flotilla” is sailing to Gaza, veteran filmmaker Pierre Rehov’s latest film War Crimes in Gaza will be shown next week to the European Parliament under the auspices of the Simon Wiesenthal Center.

Pierre Rehov’s film should also be seen by the International Criminal Court, which has just received files documenting what it claims are “Israeli war crimes.”

This 55-minute film is superb and packed with both visual, factual, and historical information. If everyone on board this flotilla watched this film—and if they were open to reason—they would turn back.

Going undercover into Gaza, Rehov is able to show us some of the wealthy mansions and villas of Gaza, the bustling malls and supermarkets, luxury cars, and well-dressed people at beachfront resorts—so different from the usual visual narratives of disinformation. Rehov shows us those as well: The weeping Palestinian civilians amidst rubble telling tales of IDF atrocities and devastation.

Undercover, Rehov has frightening footage of Hamas training children as young as six how to kill; the torture and public corpse-desecration of anyone whom Hamas suspected was a ‘collaborator’ or anyone whom they viewed as an opponent; Hamas’s omnipresent but hidden “civilian” army in Gaza; the location of Hamas missiles and guns in heavily populated civilian areas; how different Hamas missiles look than IDF missiles once they have hit their target—and much else.

The film teaches us that, since Hamas could not inflict major military damage to Israel, their strategy became one of propaganda—the kind meant to turn the entire world against Israel. It worked. Everyone wanted to believe the worst of the Jewish state. No one wanted to focus on the Muslim-on-Muslim, Arab-on-Arab, and Hamas-on-Palestinian violence.

Colonel Richard Kemp, the former commander of British forces in Afghanistan, confirms, on camera, that Hamas’s goal is not the liberation of Palestinians but the destruction of Israel. Hamas tries to “present Israel as being war criminals.”

According to journalist and author Matti Friedman, hating Jewish Israel “erases a deep sense of guilt” about the Holocaust. Seeing Jews as victimizers not as victims” does that. Friedman also notes in the film that reporters only cover “Israeli actions,” not the preceding Hamas attack, but also because “it matches the story that they want and [reporters] are not interested in being killed [by Hamas]…Bad Jews, good Arabs. Anything that complicates the story is taken out.”

Rehov’s film confirms that Hamas controls all press coverage and will not allow reporters to either see or report on the three kinds of vast, expensive, underground tunnels that Hamas has built all over Gaza. We see the offensive tunnels, which open out into civilian Israel; the smuggling tunnels and the defensive tunnels, which house weapons and Hamas fighters. We come to understand—we see with our own eyes—how Hamas dresses its fighters as “civilians,” and forces it real civilian population to function as human shields in the ground and propaganda wars begun by Hamas.

War Crimes in Gaza turns every Big Lie right side up. From various on-camera Israeli soldiers and military experts, we quickly understand that the IDF follows strict rules of engagement and is, without doubt, the most ethical army in the world with the least civilian casualties possible.

Rehov also challenges some of the latest Lies being told, namely, the IDF purposely killed four small boys who were running on the Gaza beach. Rehov wonders why “so many cameras were filming the sea at this very moment? Were reporters expecting something to happen? Then, who informed them?”

The film attempts to answer some of these. According to Colonel Kemp, “It would not surprise me if the Hamas deliberately lured the IDF to attack this location, as they have done it many times in this conflict before… it is extremely unlikely that children would be targeted by the IDF.” Israeli Colonel Peter Lerner claims that “The IDF had a Hamas terrorist target. We had intelligence pointing specifically to that location.”

Bassem Eid, the founder and director of the Palestinian Human Rights Monitoring group, is perhaps the most eloquent and passionate voice on camera. He hold Hamas responsible for committing war crimes against the Palestinian people. Here is some of what he says:

Israel is using its own rockets and missiles to protect their people. Hamas is doing the opposite. Hamas is gaining power and money while more Palestinians are being victimized in Gaza…there is no doubt that Hamas used people as human shields. IDF sent messages to leave their houses. Hamas prevented them getting out of their houses by saying they are spies of Israel if they do.

Eid insists: “The one [who] committed the genocide is Hamas. The Hamas is offering their innocent people for such a kind of war.”

Rehov has made 12 films, some of which I have previously reviewed. His twelfth film will shortly appear as well. It focuses on the BDS movement. The film’s title is: Beyond Deception Strategy.

Rehov joins Gloria Greenfield as the premier filmmakers spurred by this latest, bloodiest, and long-lasting Al Aqsa Intifada.

Also see:

A British Conference on Israel’s Right to Exist: Really?

Gatestone Institute, by George Phillips, April 12, 2015:

Iran has violated the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty time after time, often undetected; it also continues to violate Article 2, clause 4, of the United Nations Charter: “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state…”

During the British Mandate, the entire area was known as Palestine. The official listing for “Place of Birth” on all passports at the time — for everyone, including Jews — was Palestine.

One can only hope that what clearly seems such a fatally dangerous deal — that threatens the existence of not only Israel, the Middle East and Europe, but, with Iran’s intercontinental ballistic missile program, also the United States — will not be allowed to happen.

The notion of Israel’s “right to exist” has been in the news twice in recent days.

First, the University of Southampton, in Britain, announced that due to “safety fears,” it was cancelling a conference, scheduled for later this month, to question Israel’s right to exist.

Were the “security concerns” related to the fact that the conference would promote the rising infestation of Jew-hatred in Britain? A recent U.K. parliamentary report shows that hate crimes against British Jews have doubled in the past decade, and has called upon the British government to take urgent action.

The second time was when Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, addressing the Obama Administration’s nuclear “framework” with Iran, said that in any deal, Iran should recognize Israel’s right to exist.

Despite being a member of the United Nations along with Israel, Iran nevertheless does not recognize Israel’s right to exist.

Iran has not only been a long-time sponsor of terrorist groups that for years have targeted and killed Israeli civilians (as well as American servicemen in Africa and Lebanon); it has also repeatedly threatened Israel with genocide. The latest announcement came in late March, when Mohammad Reza Naqdi, commander of the Basij militia of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards, said that “erasing Israel off the map” was “non-negotiable.”

As Netanyahu has continually stated, a nuclear Iran is a threat to Israel’s existence and America’s existence.

Under such circumstances, that a British university was even thinking of holding such a conference is perplexing, at best.

The Jewish people have historical ties to the land of Israel that reach back nearly 4,000 years, a longstanding nationalist movement, a government in the post-colonial era and recognition by the United Nations — a similar path to existence as most other countries. Does anyone question, say, Zimbabwe’s right to exist?

Responses to statements that might have been raised, if this conference had gone ahead, include:

False Claim #1: Jews were out of Israel for almost 2,000 years.

The Romans crushed a Jewish revolt in 70 AD, and dispersed Jews throughout the Roman Empire. However, a continuous Jewish presence in the region never ceased. Key events recorded in history include: Jews governing Jerusalem when the Persian Sasanian Empire took over in 614; Jewish scribes working on the final text of the Hebrew Bible in the region between the 7th and 11th centuries; Jews enduring the Crusades; and Napoleon’s plans to invite Jews to form a state in 1799.

 

In 1799, as Napoleon Bonaparte’s army was besieging the city of Acre, Napoleon issued a letter, offering the Palestine as a homeland to the Jews, referring to them as “Rightful heirs of Palestine.” Above, a painting depicting the siege of Acre.

False Claim #2: Israel came about only because of the Zionist movement in the late 19th century.

The 19th century fostered the rise of nationalist movements throughout much of Europe. They led to the creation of modern Greece, Italy, and Germany, and also rose throughout the 20th century, often to end European colonization. In 1914, there were only 62 countries in the world; today there are 196, most of which were formed through nationalist movements, including, recently, Serbia, Croatia and Moldova, among others.

False Claim #3: Jews used violence to gain control of Israel.

Although some Jewish resistance groups occasionally used violence against Britain in an effort to gain independence, many other people, in a press for independence, have taken up arms, too. These include American colonials, Latin American independence movements, and the Algerians, Irish, and Bangladeshis, as well as countless others in the 20th century.

False Claim #4: The Palestinians controlled the land for centuries.

When the Ottoman Empire lost control of Palestine after World War I, there were no people known as “Palestinians” — only Muslims, Christians, Jews and assorted others living in the area. During the British Mandate, which followed World War I, the entire area was known as Palestine. The official listing for “Place of Birth” on all passports at the time — for everyone, including Jews — was Palestine. The word was coined by the Roman Emperor Hadrian in 132 AD, as part of an effort to obliterate the Jewish presence in the province. He changed the telling name of Judaea, and the land around it, to “Syria Palaestina”, and renamed Jerusalem as “Aelia Capitolina.”

The modern concept of Palestinian nationhood came into fruition only after Israel’s War of Independence in 1948, when five Arab armies attacked Israel literally the day of its birth, hoping to kill it in its crib. Many Arabs left; and many Arabs urged their fellow Arabs to leave, assuring them that in a few weeks, after the Jews were routed, they would be able to return. The problem was that the Arabs were the ones who were routed; the Jews won. When the Arabs who had fled wanted to come back, the Israelis said they were not welcome — they had chosen the hostile side. Instead of settling these Arabs in the countries to which they had fled, as the Jews had settled their countrymen fleeing Arab lands, the Arabs preferred to leave them as stateless people — now known as Palestinians. They were then promised, and still are promised, that they will return one day to the homes that they (or, by now, their great-great-grandparents) had voluntarily abandoned to be out of the way of the shooting.

The Arabs who stayed are still where they were, still in their homes, and are full citizens of Israel. They make up 20% of Israel’s population and have equal rights with Israel’s Jewish citizens. They enjoy full representation in Israel’s parliament, the Knesset, and hold senior positions in all professions.

False Claim #5: The UN Resolution legitimizing the State of Israel did not actually pass.

UN Resolution 181, known as the Partition Plan, was a recommendation that in November of 1947 called for the creation in Palestine of an Arab State and Jewish State. It was rejected by the Arabs, who threatened to use force to prevent it — and did.

Israel declared Independence on May 14, 1948, as the British Mandate on Palestine was set to expire. On May 11, 1949, UN Resolution 273, which admitted Israel to the United Nations, was adopted by the required two-thirds majority.

Currently 83% of the UN member states recognize Israel. Countries that refuse to recognize Israel include some Muslim nations, Cuba and North Korea.

False Claim #6: Israel came about only due to sympathies surrounding the Holocaust.

In 1917, well before the Holocaust, the British put forth the Balfour Declaration, which favored a “national home for the Jewish people” in Palestine. Confirmed by the League of Nations in 1922, it put the process to statehood in motion. In 1936, in the midst of Arab violence, the British Peel Commission called for a plan to create a Jewish State, but the plan was not enacted. Had Israel been formed at that point, many more Jews could have fled there to avoid the Holocaust.

False Claim #7: The Palestinians have a right to part of the territory based on the original UN plan.

Palestinians have been offered part of the territory for a Palestinian state again and again. The Palestinians, however, rejected a state of their own offered by the Peel Commission in 1937, and they rejected a state of their own in the UN Resolution 181 Partition Plan, because they would not accept a Jewish state. They came back from the Khartoum Conference in 1967 with three “Nos”: no peace, no recognition, no negotiations; and they twice rejected offers for a Palestinian state from Israel’s Prime Minister Ehud Barak, and later from Israel’s Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, both of whom offered 97% of everything the Palestinians demanded. The Palestinians did not even submit a counter-offer.

One can only conclude that the Palestinians do not actually want state; what they want is to displace the Israeli state. They themselves have confirmed this suspicion at least twice — first in the PLO “Phased Plan” of 1974, never rescinded, which calls for eliminating Israel in stages. The second time was in the Charter of Hamas — now half of a “Palestinian Unity Government” with Fatah. The Hamas Charter calls not just for the destruction of Israel but also for a genocide of all the Jews everywhere. This Charter, too, has never been rescinded.

Israel has granted self-governance to the Palestinians; however, considering the non-stop Arab and Muslim attacks on Israel, Prime Minister Netanyahu and others have said that full autonomy cannot be given to the Palestinians until their terrorist groups are completely demilitarized.

* * *

The “existence” of Israel — the only country in the region with human rights, freedom of expression, and equal justice under law — is not, and should not, even be in question. The more appropriate question is if organizations that ask questions such as that should exist.

Iran has violated the Non-Proliferation Treaty time after time, often undetected; it also continues to violate Article 2, clause 4, of the United Nations Charter: “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.”

In March 2015, apparently not content with wiping just “Israel off the map,” Iran, in the person of its Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, also called for “Death to America.”

One can only hope that what clearly seems such a fatally dangerous deal as the Obama Administration’s nuclear “framework” with Iran — that threatens not only the existence of Israel, the Middle East and Europe, but, with Iran’s intercontinental ballistic missile program, also the United States — will not be allowed to happen.

George Phillips served as an aide to Congressman Chris Smith of New Jersey, working on human rights issues.