To transgender a boy, you must castrate him. Such an operation cannot be reverse
The dangers of transgenderism are not yet perceived.
Watch this short documentary to prepare for the eventuality of a California custom which may emerge in a school or kindergarten near you.
Be prepared to fight back.
What’s clear about the American led effort to bring about a rapprochement between Israel and Saudi Arabia is that it has a secondary agenda that aims to undermine not only our G-d given claim to Judea and Samaria, but also our right to implement democratically endorsed domestic policies that run counter to the government’s leftist Opposition.
To accomplish these objectives the American diplomatic plan requires several Israeli concessions, which would essentially require the nullification of our last election. The concessions include our “meaningful” endorsement of a Palestinian state, and the corresponding termination of our settlement enterprise.
Given the composition of our current government, any territorial concessions, particularly those leading to the creation of a Palestinian state, would require a new National Unity government, whose creation would require the replacement of Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich with Benny Gantz and Yair Lapid.
Apart from facilitating the wholesale surrender of our Biblical heartland, this new coalition would also spell the end of any judicial reform for the foreseeable future. The American sweetener for this nightmare would, of course, be the inclusion of Saudi Arabia in the Abraham Accords.
How has our government responded to this extremely hostile American diplomatic offensive? Not by ruling out such horrendous and outrageous concessions, but by attempting to facilitate it with humiliating appeals to the opposition to join a ‘national unity’ government in exchange for postponing any further judicial reform efforts. More shocking, is the government’s refusal to explicitly rule out the creation of a Palestinian state dedicated to the eventual destruction of Israel.
What the Prime Minister seems oblivious to is the fact that Saudi Arabia would be willing to settle for far less from Israel in order to obtain what it wants from the Americans. The Saudis don’t love the Palestinians so much that they would be willing to loose an American defense agreement and all the high tech arms that would flow from that, just because the Arab “street” demands the creation of a Palestinian state.
Instead, Israel should quietly offer the Saudis a defense pact of its own that would probably be more credible than anything the Biden administration would offer. Although the acceptance of such a deal might jeopardize the recently agreed rapprochement between Riyadh and Tehran, we should at least offer it up in place of the Israeli concessions demanded by Washington. And who knows? The Saudis just might go for it.
What’s clear about the American led effort to bring about a rapprochement between Israel and Saudi Arabia is that it has a secondary agenda that aims to undermine not only our G-d given claim to Judea and Samaria, but also our right to implement democratically endorsed domestic policies that run counter to the government’s leftist opposition.
To accomplish these objectives the American diplomatic plan requires several Israeli concessions, which would essentially require the nullification of our last election. The concessions include our “meaningful” endorsement of a Palestinian state, and the corresponding termination of our settlement enterprise.
Given the composition of our current government, any territorial concessions, particularly those leading to the creation of a Palestinian state, would require a new National Unity government, whose creation would require the replacement of Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich with Benny Gantz and Yair Lapid.
Apart from facilitating the wholesale surrender of our Biblical heartland, this new coalition would also spell the end of any judicial reform for the foreseeable future. The American sweetener for this nightmare would, of course, be the inclusion of Saudi Arabia in the Abraham Accords.
How has our government responded to this extremely hostile American diplomatic offensive? Not by ruling out such horrendous and outrageous concessions, but by attempting to facilitate it with humiliating appeals to the opposition to join a ‘national unity’ government in exchange for postponing any further judicial reform efforts. More shocking, is the government’s refusal to explicitly rule out the creation of a Palestinian state dedicated to the eventual destruction of Israel.
What the Prime Minister seems oblivious to is the fact that Saudi Arabia would be willing to settle for far less from Israel in order to obtain what it wants from the Americans. The Saudis don’t love the Palestinians so much that they would be willing to loose an American defense agreement and all the high tech arms that would flow from that, just because the Arab “street” demands the creation of a Palestinian state.
Instead, Israel should quietly offer the Saudis a defense pact of its own that would probably be more credible than anything the Biden administration would offer. Although the acceptance of such a deal might jeopardize the recently agreed rapprochement between Riyadh and Tehran, we should at least offer it up in place of the Israeli concessions demanded by Washington. And who knows? The Saudis just might go for it.
The escalation in Palestinian terrorism that started over a year ago shows no signs of abating, data from Rescuers Without Borders (Hatzalah Judea and Samaria) published on Tuesday indicates.
In the first six months of 2023, the emergency service recorded 3,640 acts of terror throughout Israel, including 2,118 cases of rock-throwing, 799 attacks with Molotov cocktails, 18 attempted stabbings and six car-rammings.
The number of shootings has already surpassed last year’s total, with 101 instances of gunfire directed at Israelis reported. Hatzalah’s figures do not include the hundreds of attacks on security personnel during counterterrorism operations in Palestinian villages.
Palestinian terrorists have killed 28 people and wounded 362 others since January, the organization said.
In addition, two Israelis died from wounded sustained in previous years. Shimon Maatuf died in February after suffering severe head wounds in an attack by two Palestinians armed with axes in 2022, and New York-born Chana Nachenberg died last month after a Palestinian suicide bombing put her in a coma 22 years ago.
Rescuers Without Borders was founded in 2000, at the beginning of the Second Intifada, with the goal of establishing a civilian emergency response infrastructure in Judea and Samaria. Eventually, the organization expanded the scope of its work to include all of Israel.
Hatzalah released its biannual report on terrorism amid yet another uptick in Arab attacks throughout Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria.
Earlier on Tuesday, security forces thwarted a possible terrorist attack at the Shuafat checkpoint in northeastern Jerusalem, arresting a 14-year-old Palestinian suspect who behaved suspiciously. Officers found a knife in his possession.
On Monday, Palestinian terrorists threw rocks at vehicles in northern Samaria, wounding at least four Israeli civilians, including a woman in an advanced stage of pregnancy. At least three cars were targeted in the attack, which took place on Route 55 near Ma’ale Shomron, medical officials said.
A day earlier, an Israeli man was shot and seriously wounded, and his two daughters lightly injured, in a Palestinian drive-by shooting near the Tekoa Junction in Gush Etzion. According to the IDF, the terrorist opened fire from a passing vehicle at the victims’ car on a highway about 15 kilometers (9 miles) south of Jerusalem.
Following an hours-long manhunt, security forces apprehended the suspected shooter in nearby Bethlehem, where he had barricaded himself inside a mosque.
On July 28, the major German news magazine Der Spiegel reported that the German Ministry of Interior supports Israel’s 2021 decision designating 6 Palestinian NGOs as terrorist entities. Germany and other European governments are the major funders for these groups, providing millions annually.
This is a significant repudiation of the German Ministry of Foreign Affairs and other European officials who claim that Israel did not provide sufficient proof linking these NGOs to the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) terrorist organization. According to Der Spiegel, the Ministry of Interior found the evidence of these ties provided by Israel to be “substantial,” adding that it “could stand in court.”
Moreover, the Ministry labeled the German MFA’s criticisms of Israel’s designations as “reckless” and politically motivated. NGO Monitor has consistently urged European governments to review the publicly-available information linking these NGOs to the PFLP, and this development reflects our outreach and research.
In March, NGO Monitor Vice-President Olga Deutsch presented our research and policy analysis to German MPs in Berlin. This included our 80-page report, “Clear and Convincing: The Links between the PFLP and the European Government-funded NGO Network,” presenting the overwhelming, publicly available evidence that ties these NGOs and their leadership to the PFLP.
In this document, we highlighted the individual governments and financial institutions that have ended or cut back their relationships with PFLP-affiliated groups after reviewing the evidence.
In this context, the German-Israel Society (DIG) released an official statement stating, inter alia, that “NGO Monitor once again presented its findings on the PFLP connections of Palestinian NGOs financed from Germany, this time in a comprehensive report. The DIG has discussed these reports with officials in the federal government and parliament on several occasions.” He added that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs failed to address any of NGO Monitor’s findings and in order to continue funding NGOs they “must first refute the PFLP connections of these organizations, as documented in the NGO Monitor report.”
As the analysis in Der Spiegel demonstrates, the debate over German and European funding for these NGOs is growing. NGO Monitor will provide additional updates as developments take place.
ד”ר ארנון גרויס, אוגוסט 2023
מחקר זה עוסק בכ-115 מפות הארץ המופיעות במהדורה האחרונה של ספרי הלימוד שיצאו לאור מטעם הרשות הפלסטינית בשנת 2020 (ספרים בודדים יצאו לפני כן ולא שונו מאז) ואשר נמצאים בשימוש בבתיה”ס של אונר”א. במסגרת זו נבדקו 125 ספרים מכיתות א’ עד י’ בתחומי המקצוע הבאים: ערבית, אנגלית, לימודי חברה (כולל גיאוגרפיה והיסטוריה), חינוך אסלאמי, מתמטיקה, מדעים וטכנולוגיה.
מטרת המחקר הייתה לבדוק איך מוצגת הארץ – ישראל/פלסטין – לאור הסכסוך הקיים בין שתי האומות הטוענות לבעלות עליה. הנחת היסוד במחקר הייתה ששני הצדדים רואים את הארץ הזאת כיחידה אחת שהיא כולה מולדתם והדבר חייב להתבטא גם במפות המופיעות בספרי הלימוד שלהם. כדי לאשש הנחה זו, נבדקו גם שני ספרי גיאוגרפיה ישראליים, שאושרו רשמית ע”י משרד החינוך הישראלי, ויצאו לאור ע”י המרכז לטכנולוגיה חינוכית (מט”ח) אשר נחשב למוציא לאור מרכזי של ספרי לימוד בישראל.
ואכן, נמצאו מפות בספרי הלימוד הישראליים אשר מציגות את הארץ כיחידה אחת ללא גבולות פנימיים תחת השם “ישראל” כאשר מדובר במפות שאינן בעלות אופי מדיני. בדוגמה שלהלן – מפה בכותרת “הקרקעות בישראל” אשר כוללת גם את אזורי יהודה, שומרון ועזה (וגם את רמת הגולן שהוחל עליה החוק הישראלי בשנת 1981):
מפה מס’ 1 (ישראל – האדם והמרחב, על יסודי (מט”ח, 2007) עמ’ 187)
תופעה מקבילה אנו מוצאים גם במפות הפלסטיניות. להלן מפה בכותרת: “מפת פלסטין – פיזית”:
מפה מס’ 2 (לימודי חברה, כתה ה’, חלק א’ (2020) עמ’ 17)
מפות ישראליות אחרות מבטאות את העובדה ששטחי יהודה ושומרון לא סופחו לישראל (מלבד מזרח ירושלים) וחבל עזה הפך לשטח ללא נוכחות ישראלית כלל החל משנת 2005. מדובר בעיקר במפות הנושאות אופי מינהלי שמוציאות את השטחים האלה מגבולות מדינת ישראל תחת הכיתוב “[אזור] ללא נתונים”. להלן מפה בכותרת “צפיפות האוכלוסין בישראל לפי נפות”:
מפה מס’ 3 (חוקרים ארץ – גיאוגרפיה לכתה ו’ ממלכתי וממלכתי-דתי (מט”ח, 2015) עמ’ 69)
בין המפות הפלסטיניות שבשימוש בבתיה”ס של אונר”א, לעומת זאת, יש רק מעט מפות שמציינות בנפרד את השטחים האלה. בדוגמה שלהלן, המפה איננה מציינת במפורש מה קיים מעבר להם:
מפה מס’ 4 (חינוך לאומי ולחיים, כתה ב’, חלק א’ (2019) עמ’ 62)
מפה אחרת מציגה את הנגב כחלק מפלסטין מחוץ לשטחים הנ”ל:
“1. תוואי הקרקע בפלסטין מגוונים – מישורים, הרים, בקעות ומדבריות. שטחו של מדבר הנגב נאמד במחצית שטח פלסטין. אפשר להציג זאת באמצעות השבר…”
מפה מס’ 5 (מתמטיקה, כתה ג’, חלק א’ (2020) עמ’ 82)
מפה שלישית, בכותרת “פלסטין לאחר מלחמת שנת 1948” מציינת במקרא במפורש מה קיים מעבר לשטחים הנ”ל:
“[כתום] שטחים ערביים
[סגול] שטחים שעליהם השתלטו הציונים לאחר המלחמה”
מפה מס’ 6 (גיאוגרפיה והיסטוריה מודרנית ובת-זמננו של פלסטין, כתה י’, חלק ב’ (2020) עמ’ 8)
ובחזרה למפות הישראליות. המציאות המדינית הנוכחית מתוארת בהן כהווייתה, תוך סימון שטחי A, ולפעמים גם B, של הרשות הפלסטינית. יש לציין, עם זאת, שהרש”פ איננה גוף מדיני ריבוני – למרות שהוכרה ע”י האו”ם כמדינה משקיפה שאיננה חברה. עפ”י הסכמי אוסלו, שעל בסיסם הוקמה ושעדיין תקפים, היא גוף מינהלי אוטונומי תחת ריבונות צה”ל שכפוף מצידו להחלטות ממשלת ישראל. להלן שתי מפות ישראליות. הראשונה מציגה את שטחי A (בחום כהה), והשנייה מציינת את שטחי A (בחום כהה) ו-B (בחום בהיר):
מפה מס’ 7 (ישראל – האדם והמרחב, על-יסודי (מט”ח, 2007) עמ’ 9)
מפה מס’ 8 (חוקרים ארץ – גיאוגרפיה לכתה ו’ ממלכתי וממלכתי-דתי (מט”ח, 2015) עמ’ 10)
בניגוד מוחלט למפות הישראליות האלה (ואחרות – גם בספרים אחרים שנבדקו ע”י מחבר מחקר זה), אין בכל מצאי המפות הפלסטיניות שבשימוש בבתיה”ס של אונר”א היום ולו מפה אחת שבה מצוינת ישראל. גם כאשר מדובר במפות בעלות אופי מדיני מובהק מופיעה כל הארץ תחת השם “פלסטין” בלבד. כך, ישראל, שהיא מדינה ריבונית מוכרת וחברה בארגון האו”ם מאז שנת 1949, נמחקת במפות שבשימוש בבתיה”ס של אונר”א, שהיא סוכנות רשמית של האו”ם.
המפה הראשונה בדוגמאות שלהלן, בכותרת “מפת פלסטין והלבנט”, מציגה את ארבע מדינות הלבנט בשמות: סוריה, לבנון, ירדן ופלסטין:
מפה מס’ 9 (גיאוגרפיה והיסטוריה מודרנית ובת-זמננו של פלסטין, כתה י’, חלק א’ (2020) עמ’ 8)
הדוגמה השנייה לקוחה מספר לימוד אנגלית. המפה, ללא כותרת, מציגה את מדינות האזור בשמותיהן ללא פרטים נוספים. גם כאן מחליפה פלסטין את ישראל:
מפה מס’ 10 (אנגלית עבור פלסטין, כתה ו’, חלק א’ (2019) עמ’ 55)
ועוד מפה בכותרת “מפת פלסטין” תוך ציון שמותיהן של המדינות השכנות:
מפה מס’ 11 (לימודי חברה, כתה ו’, חלק א’ (2020) עמ’ 9)
בדוגמה הבאה מובלט האופי הפלסטיני הבלעדי של הארץ כולה. במפה בכותרת “מפת המולדת הערבית” מצוינות מדינות ערב בשמותיהן. ביניהן מופיע השם “פלסטין” לצד הארץ כולה שצבועה בצבע אחד ומעליו מתנוסס הדגל הפלסטיני:
מפה מס’ 12 (טיפוח לאומי וחברתי, כתה ד’, חלק א’ (2020) עמ’ 8)
המפה הזאת מופיעה בספר הלימוד במסגרת שיעור מס’ 2 שכותרתו: “פלסטין [היא] ערבית ומוסלמית”:
בדוגמה הבאה מודגשת בלעדיות הבעלות הפלסטינית על הארץ במסגרת תרגיל שבו מתבקש התלמיד לצבוע את מפת הארץ בצבעי הדגל הפלסטיני:
“השיעור השני: אני מצייר את ארצי
פעילות מקדימה: צורת ארצי
מפה מס’ 13 (חינוך לאומי ולחיים, כתה ב’, חלק א’ (2019) עמ’ 8)
ועוד דוגמה. הכיתוב לצידה אומר: “יחד נגן על המולדת”:
מפה מס’ 14 (חינוך אסלאמי, כתה ב’, חלק א’ (2020) עמ’ 42)
בלעדיות פלסטין על-גבי מפת הארץ מתבטאת גם במוצר הנמכר לתיירים שעליו מפת הארץ צבועה בצבעי הדגל הפלסטיני ולידה השם “פלסטין” בערבית ואנגלית. להלן דוגמה המובאת בספר לימוד אחר:
מפה מס’ 15 (לימודי חברה, כתה ה’, חלק ב’ (2020) עמ’ 57)
אם שטח מדינת ישראל שמלפני 1967 הוא שטח כבוש, כמצוין במפה מס’ 6, אזי יש לשחררו. במפה שלהלן, על רקע מסגד אלאקצא ולצידה ראשו של רעול פנים, תחת הכותרת “פלסטין [היא] לב האומה” ניתן לכך ביטוי מרומז:
מפה מס’ 16 (השפה הערבית, כתה ז’, חלק א’ (2020) עמ’ 13)
בהקשר זה, ערים בישראל שמלפני 1967, ושבהן גרים, או גרו, ערבים, נחשבות לערים פלסטיניות – גם אם רוב תושביהן היום הם יהודים:
“6. אציין על-גבי מפה אילמת של פלסטין את הערים הפלסטיניות הבאות:
עכו, חיפה, עזה, יריחו, ירושלים, שכם, צפת, באר שבע, חברון, רפיח.” יצוין כי השמות המודגשים הם שמות ערים בישראל שמלפני 1967 (כולל ירושלים המערבית) ורוב תושביהן יהודים.
מפה מס’ 17 (לימודי חברה, כתה ה’, חלק ב’ (2020) עמ’ 39)
ובדוגמה הבאה בכותרת “ערים פלסטיניות”:
“פעילות 3: נתבונן במפה שלהלן ואז נבצע את מה שלהלן:
ניתן דוגמאות לערים פלסטיניות:
-על החוף
-בהרים בפנים הארץ
-ערים הנמצאות באזור בקעת הירדן
-ערים הנמצאות באזור המדברי”
על המפה בכותרת “מפת פלסטין” מופיעות הערים: עכו, צפת, חיפה, טבריה, נצרת, יפו, באר שבע – כולן בישראל שמלפני 1967, וכן שכם, רמאללה, ירושלים (שחלקה המערבי היה בשטח ישראל לפני 1967), בית לחם, חברון, עזה, רפיח.
מפה מס’ 18 (לימודי חברה, כתה ה’, חלק ב’ (2020) עמ’ 36)
נוסף על ההתעלמות מקיומה של מדינת ישראל כמדינה ריבונית, תוך הצגת שטחה כולו כשטח כבוש – ומכאן משתמע שיש לשחררו, קיימת התעלמות רבתי במפות שבשימוש אונר”א מהיהודים בארץ אשר מונים היום כשבעה מיליון נפש. הדבר מתבטא בהעדר מוחלט מהמפה של ערים שנוסדו ע”י יהודים בתקופה המודרנית, ובראשן תל אביב. המסר ברור: היהודים הם זרים בפלסטין ואין להם מקום בה. להלן דוגמה אחת מני רבות: הערים המופיעות על המפה – צפת, טבריה, נצרת, עכו, חיפה, ביסאן (בית שאן של היום), אום אלפחם (הוכרזה כעיר תחת שלטון ישראל), ג’נין, טובאס, טולכרם, שכם, קלקיליה, יפו, לוד, רמלה, רמאללה, יריחו, ירושלים, בית לחם, חברון, עזה, באר שבע. הערים החסרות: תל אביב, חולון, בת ים, רמת גן, בני ברק, פתח תקווה, הרצליה, נתניה, חדרה, עפולה, נצרת עילית (נוף הגליל), קריית שמונה, קריית גת, בית שמש, דימונה, אופקים, שדרות, נתיבות, כרמיאל, הקריות ליד חיפה, ועוד רבות אחרות.
מפה מס’ 19 (חינוך לאומי ולחיים, כתה ב’, חלק ב’ (2019) עמ’ 58)
ועוד דוגמה: הערים ששמותיהן מצוינים על-גבי המפה – עכו, צפת, חיפה, נצרת, שכם, רמאללה, יפו, עסקלאן (אשקלון של היום), יריחו, ירושלים, בית לחם, חברון, באר שבע, עזה, רפיח.
מפה מס’ 20 (לימודי חברה, כתה ה’, חלק א’ (2020) עמ’ 55)
וראו גם את המפות מס’ 6, 11, 18 לעיל, ויש עוד רבות.
שני יוצאים מן הכלל הן ערים שהוקמו ע”י יהודים, אשר מופיעות במפה תחת השם הערבי של המקום השומם בו הוקמו אח”כ: אילת (אום אלרשראש) – כמה וכמה פעמים (ראו מפות מס’ 11, 18 לעיל) וחדרה (אלח’ודירה) – פעם אחת (מתמטיקה, כתה ד’, חלק א’ (2020) עמ’ 86).
המפות הישראליות, לעומת זאת, מציינות בדרך כלל ערים מרכזיות כגון שכם, חברון ועזה בשטחי יהודה, שומרון ורצועת עזה (ראו מפות מס’ 1, 3, 7, 8 לעיל).
העלמת הנוכחות היהודית בארץ בספרי הלימוד שבשימוש אונר”א באה לביטוי גם בהקשר ההיסטורי. להלן טקסט בעניין זה הצמוד למפת הארץ וסביבתה אשר מובאת בספר לימוד אנגלית. מדובר בהקדמה תחת הכותרת “אודות פלסטין” ושבה אין כלל אזכור של עברה היהודי:
“ארץ יפה זו שוכנת על פרשת הדרכים בין אסיה ואפריקה ולכן הייתה תמיד מקום מפגש חשוב לתרבויות שונות. שרידים ארכיאולוגיים הינם בעיקר מהתקופות הכנענית, הרומית, הביזנטית והמוסלמית והם מצויים בכל הארץ – לעיתים קרובות בעריה העתיקות.”
מפה מס’ 21 (אנגלית עבור פלסטין, כתה י’, חלק ב’ (2017) עמ’ 4)
לסיכום, השוואה פשוטה של המפות המופיעות בספרי הלימוד שבשימוש אונר”א לאלה הישראליות מעלה מסקנה אחת: המפות הישראליות משקפות את המציאות הקיימת, בעוד שהמפות הפלסטיניות שבשימוש בבתיה”ס של אונר”א מבטאות את החזון הפלסטיני. בחזון זה ישראל איננה קיימת, כל הארץ היא בריבונות פלסטינית, שבעת מיליוני היהודים החיים בישראל “מועלמים” – על עריהם וההיסטוריה העתיקה שלהם, והדרך להגשמת חזון זה היא דרך של מאבק. דבר אחרון זה נאמר במפורש בטקסטים שנבדקו במחקרים קודמים ונרמז גם כאן (מפה מס’ 16 לעיל).
אין שום דרך להצדיק את השימוש במפות כאלה ע”י סוכנות של האו”ם המחויבת לעקרונות כיבוד ריבונותה של כל מדינה חברה בארגון האו”ם – כולל מדינת ישראל, לניטראליות מוחלטת בין הצדדים לסכסוך, ולפתרון הסכסוך בדרכי שלום עפ”י החלטות האו”ם. השימוש במפות אלה ע”י אונר”א מבטא זלזול תהומי בעקרונות אלה ועל המדינות התורמות לפעול בנחרצות כדי לשנות את תמונת המצב העגומה הזאת.
The present research deals with some 115 maps of the country appearing in the latest edition of schoolbooks issued by the Palestinian Authority in 2020 (few books were issued earlier and have not been revised since then) and used in UNRWA schools. Its source material included 125 books of grades 1-10 in the subjects of Arabic, English, Social Studies (including Geography and History), Islamic Education, Mathematics, Sciences and Technology.
The research aimed at checking the way this country – Israel/Palestine – is presented, in view of the ongoing conflict between the two nations that claim to be its owners. The basic hypothesis of this research was that the two parties see this country in its entirety as their homeland, which should be expressed in the maps appearing in their respective schoolbooks. In order to substantiate this hypothesis, two Israeli geography textbooks were examined too. They were officially licensed by the Israeli Ministry of Education and were issued by the Israeli Center of Educational Technology (CET), which is considered a central publisher of schoolbooks in Israel.
Indeed, there were found in the Israeli textbooks maps that present the country as one unit with no internal boundaries under the name “Israel” when those maps were not of political character. The following example is a map titled “Soils in Israel”, which also includes the territories of Judea, Samaria and Gaza (as well as the Golan Heights that was placed under Israeli legal jurisdiction in 1981).
Map No. 1 (Israel – Man and Space, Intermediate and High School grades (CET, 2007) p. 187)
A parallel phenomenon is found in the Palestinian maps as well. Following is a map titled “Physical Map of Palestine”:
Map No. 2 (Social Studies, Grade 5, Part 1 (2020) p. 17)
Other Israeli maps express the fact that the territories of Judea and Samaria have not been annexed by Israel (except for East Jerusalem) and the Gaza Strip has become a territory with no Israeli presence there whatsoever since 2005. These are mostly maps that carry an administrative character as they exclude these areas from Israel’s territory using the expression of “[a region with] no data”. Following is a map titled “Population Density in Israel according to Sub-Districts”:
Map No. 3 (Exploring a Country – Geography for Grade 6 [of] State and State-Religious [Schools] (CET, 2015) p. 69
Among the Palestinian maps in use in UNRWA schools, on the other hand, there are only few maps that show the contours of these areas. In the following example, the map does not say specifically what is found beyond them:
Map No. 4 (National and Life Education, Grade 2, Part 1 (2019) p. 62)
Another map treats the Israeli Negev region as part of Palestine beyond the contours of Judea, Samaria and Gaza:
“1. The physical features in Palestine variegate – plains, mountains, valleys and deserts. The surface of the Negev desert is estimated at about half the surface of Palestine. It is possible to present that by the fraction…”
Map No. 5 (Mathematics, Grade 3, Part 1 (2020) p. 82)
A third map titled “Palestine after the 1948 War” says specifically in its legend what is the area beyond these areas:
“[Orange] Arab territories
[Purple] Territories taken over by the Zionists following the war”
Map No. 6 (Geography and Modern and Contemporary History of Palestine, Grade 10, Part 2 (2020) p. 8)
And back to the Israeli maps. The current political reality is described there as is, with the Palestinian Authority’s territories designated as area A, and sometimes its B territories as well, are clearly shown. It should be noted, though, that the PA is not a sovereign political body – even though it has been recognized by the UN as a non-member observer state. According to the Oslo Accords, by which the PA was established and which are still in force, it is an autonomous administrative body under the suzerainty of the Israeli Defense Force, which, in its turn, is subject to the jurisdiction of the Israeli government. Following are two Israeli maps. The first one presents areas A (colored dark brown), and the second one shows areas A (dark brown) and B (light brown):
Map No. 7 (Israel – Man and Space, Intermediate and High School grades (CET, 2007) p. 9)
Map No. 8 (Exploring a Country – Geography for Grade 6 [of] State and State-Religious [Schools] (CET, 2015) p. 10)
In total contrast to these Israeli maps (as well as many others in books examined by the author of this research), there is not even one map in the entire corpus of maps in use in UNRWA schools today that shows the State of Israel. Even in clearly political maps the whole country appears under the name “Palestine” only. Thus, Israel, a recognized sovereign state which has been a member of the UN organization since 1949, is erased from the maps used by UNRWA, an official UN agency!
The first map among the ones in the following examples, titled “Map of Palestine and the Levant”, presents the four states in the Levant region under the names: Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and Palestine:
Map No. 9 (Geography and Modern and Contemporary History of Palestine, Grade 10, Part 1 (2020) p. 8)
The second example is taken from an English textbook. The map, untitled, presents the region’s states by their names with no additional details. Here again Palestine replaces Israel:
Map No. 10 (English for Palestine, Grade 6, Part 1 (2019) p. 55)
Another map, titled “Map of Palestine”, gives the names of the neighboring states:
Map No. 11 (Social Studies, Grade 6, Part 1 (2020) p. 9)
The exclusively Palestinian character of the country as a whole is emphasized in the following example. A map titled “Map of the Arab Homeland” presents the Arab states with their names. The name “Palestine” appears next to the country in its entirety (colored in red) with the Palestinian flag above it:
Map No. 12 (National and Social Upbringing, Grade 4, Part 1 (2020) p. 8)
This map appears in the textbook within the framework of Lesson 2 titled: “Palestine is Arab and Muslim”:
The exclusive Palestinian ownership of the country is emphasized within an exercise in which the student is requested to color the country’s map with the colors of the Palestinian flag:
“The second lesson: I am drawing my country
Preparatory activity: The shape of my country
Map No. 13 (National and Life Education, Grade 2, Part 1 (2019) p. 8)
And another example. The inscription next to it says: “Together we shall protect the homeland”:
Map No. 14 (Islamic Education, Grade 2, Part 1 (2020) p. 42)
Palestine’s exclusive appearance on the country’s map is also seen in a product sold to tourists which depicts the country’s map colored with the Palestinian flag’s colors, alongside the name “Palestine” in Arabic and English. Following is an example given in another textbook:
Map No. 15 (Social Studies, Grade 5, Part 2 (2020) p. 57)
If Israel’s pre-1967 territory is an occupied one, as indicated in map No. 6, then, it should be liberated. The struggle for this goal is hinted in the following illustration that presents the map of the whole country against the background of Al-Aqsa Mosque and a veiled face of what might be regarded as a member of a terrorist organization, under the title “Palestine is the heart of the nation”:
Map No. 16 (Arabic Language, Grade 7, Part 1 (2020) P. 13)
In this context, cities within Israel’s pre-1967 territory where Arabs live, or used to live, are considered Palestinian cities – even if the majority of the population there is Jewish:
“6. I will indicate on a silent map of Palestine the following Palestinian cities:
Acre, Haifa, Gaza, Jericho, Jerusalem, Nablus, Safed, Beer Sheba, Hebron, Rafah.” It should be noted that the bold-lettered names are those of cities inside pre-1967 Israel (including western Jerusalem) and their population is mostly Jewish.
Map No. 17 (Social Studies, Grade 5, Part 2 (2020) p. 39)
The next example, titled “Palestinian cities”:
“Activity 3: We will look at the map below and then will accomplish the following [requirements]:
We will give examples of Palestinian cities:
-On the coast
-In the hinterland mountains
-Cities located in the Jordan Valley
-Cities located in the desert region”
On the map, titled “Map of Palestine” appear the following cities: Acre, Safed, Haifa, Tiberias, Nazareth, Jaffa, Beer Sheba – all are Israeli cities before 1967, as well as Nablus, Ramallah, Jerusalem (of which the western part was Israeli before 1967), Bethlehem, Hebron, Gaza and Rafah.
Map No. 18 (Social Studies, Grade 5, Part 2 (2020) p. 36)
Apart from ignoring the existence of Israel as a sovereign state, having presented its entire territory as occupied – with the implied notion that it should be liberated, there is total non-recognition in the maps used in UNRWA school of the Jews who live in this country and who number today some seven million people. That non-recognition is expressed by the total absence from the map of cities established by Jews in modern times, chiefly Tel Aviv. The message is clear: Jews are foreign to Palestine and they have no legitimate place there. Following is one example out of many: The cities appearing on the map – Safed, Tiberias, Nazareth ,Acre, Beisan (today’s Beit She’an), Umm al-Fahm (declare officially as a city under Israeli rule), Jenin, Tubas, Tulkarm, Nablus, Qalqilyah, Jaffa, Lydda, Ramleh, Ramallah, Jericho, Jerusalem, Bethlehem, Hebron, Gaza, Beer Sheba. The missing cities: Tel Aviv, Holon, Bat Yam, Ramat Gan, Beney Berak, Petah Tikvah, Herzliya, Netanya, Hadera, Afula, Upper Nazareth (lately renamed Nof Hagalil), Kiryat Shmona, kiryat Gat, Beit Shemesh, Dimona, Ofakim, Shderot, Netivot, Karmiel, The Krayot near Haifa, and many others.
Map No. 19 (National and Life Education, Grade 2, Part 2 (2019) p. 58)
And another example: The cities the names of which are indicated on the map – Acre, Safed, Haifa, Nazareth, Nablus, Ramallah, Jaffa, Asqakan (today’s Ashkelon), Jericho, Jerusalem, Bethlehem, Hebron, Beer Sheba, Gaza, Rafah.
Map No. 20 (Social Studies, Grade 5, Part 1 (2020) p. 55)
See also maps Nos. 6, 11, 18 and there are many more.
Two exceptions are cities established by Jews which appear on the map under the Arabic names of the desolate places where they were later built: Eilat (Umm al-Rashrash) – several times (see maps Nos. 11, 18 above) and Hadera (Al-Khudaira) – once (Mathematics, Grade 4, Part 1 (2020) p. 86).
Israeli maps, by contrast, usually show central cities such as Nablus, Hebron and Gaza in the areas of Judea, Samaria and the Gaza Strip (and see maps Nos. 1, 3, 7, 8 above).
Hiding the Jewish presence in the country in schoolbooks used by UNRWA finds its expression in the historical context as well. Following is a text accompanying the map of this country and its surroundings in an English textbook. The text, titled “About Palestine”, refrains from mentioning the country’s Jewish past:
Map No. 21 (English for Palestine, Grade 10, Part 2 (2017) p. 4)
In conclusion, a simple comparison between the maps in UNRWA’s schoolbooks and their Israeli counterparts provides us with one conclusion: The Israeli maps reflect the existing reality, while the Palestinian maps used by UNRWA express the Palestinian vision. In that vision Israel does not exist, the whole country is under Palestinian sovereignty, the seven million Jews who live in Israel “disappear” – with their cities and their ancient history there, and the way of realizing this vision is by struggle. That struggle is explicitly mentioned in texts examined in former research studies and is hinted here as well (see map No. 16 above).
There is no way of justifying the use of these maps by a UN agency that is committed to the principles of respecting the sovereignty of each member state of the UN organization – including the State of Israel, total neutrality vis-à-vis the parties to the conflict, and the resolution of that conflict peacefully according to UN resolutions. The use of these maps by UNRWA betrays a gross disrespect of these three principles and the donor states should act vigorously in order to change this dismal situation.
FILE PHOTO: Russian President Vladimir Putin chairs a meeting on economic issues via a video link in Moscow, Russia, July 25, 2023. Sputnik/Alexander Kazakov/Kremlin via REUTERS/FILE PHOTO
(Editor’s note: We believe the Jewish/Israeli leadership, in tandem with the Soviets, was involved in the creation of the PLO and the Palestinian people (as suggested in the Oded Yinon Plan) and is involved in their ongoing Marxist class struggle against the West (via Israel). The Jewish leadership is not a victim of the Palestinian invention, as the following paper suggests at times. However, the average Israeli is considered cannon fodder by its own leadership and certainly would be victimized by this cruel Balkanization scheme. Lastly, Brand concludes that Israel is the West’s first line of defense, an extremely naive statement if not a deliberate lie. Israel and Russia are working hand in hand for the demise of the West and the crowing of world communism as its replacement. For further analysis, see: Pacepa’s misreading of Operation SIG)
How Soviet Russia created the “peace process” and incited the Muslim world against the U.S.
By Wallace Edward Brand
July 11, 2020 Anno Domini
The “peace process” is now, after some 20 years after OSLO, is known to be no more than a charade. The revelations of the highest ranking Soviet bloc defector, Major General Ion Mihai Pacepa, show that the peace process is, and has from the outset, been nothing but a charade.
It all started with the creation of a fictitious “Palestinian People” who allegedly demand political self determination. This collective noun was created by the Soviet disinformation masters in 1964 when they created the Palestinian Liberation Organization, the “PLO”. The term “Palestinian People” as a descriptive of Arabs in Palestine appeared for the first time in the preamble of the 1964 PLO Charter, drafted in Moscow. The facts in the preamble to the Charter were affirmed onlyh by the first 422 members of the Palestinian National Council, handpicked by the KGB.
Why in Moscow? The 1960s and 1970s were the years the Soviets were in the business of creating “liberation organizations”: for Palestine and Bolivia in 1964, Columbia 1965, in the 70s “The Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia” that bombed US airline offices in Europe, and “The Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine that bombed Israelis.” But the PLO, was by far its most enduring success.
Major-General Ion Mihai Pacepa is the highest ranking defector from the Soviet bloc during the Cold War. He has written that for nearly four decades, the PLO has been the largest, wealthiest, and most politically connected terrorist organization in the world. For most of that time, it was held in the firm grip of Yasser Arafat’s iron fist. But Arafat was not the fierce, independent actor he posed as; he was completely dependent on the Soviet KGB and its surrogate Warsaw Pact intelligence services for arms, training, logistical support, funds, and direction.
According to Pacepa his KGB handlers included Vasali Samoylenko, Vladimir Buljakov, and Soviet “Ambassador” Alexander Soldatov. Arafat’s closest friend and head of PLO intelligence, Hani Hassan, was actually an agent of the DIE, the Romanian subsidiary of the KGB. Pacepa was its head. He speaks not from opinion but from his personal knowledge.
In the PLO Charter preamble they actually had to use the phrase “Palestinian Arab People” to exclude those Jews who had retained a presence in Palestine since Biblical times and had been a majority population in Jerusalem as early as 1845. Romanian Communist dictator Ceausescu, at Soviet urging, persuaded Arafat to abandon his claim of wanting to annihilate the Jews in Israel in favor of “liberating the Palestinian People” in Israel.
Why? A brilliant strategy. That was the first step in reframing the conflict between the Arabs and the Jews from religious jihad to secular nationalism in a quest for political self determination, a posture far less offensive to the West. By focusing on political liberation for a small group of Arabs, it ignored the fact that Israel is a small state whose existence is threatened by the surrounding Arab states. These are states that outnumber its population many fold with Muslims who are commanded by an extreme form of their religion to kill infidels to take back land formerly controlled by Muslims.
It creates Jews in Israel, ignoring they are a relatively small group in comparison with the Arabs surrounding them, as oppressors of an even smaller discrete group of Arabs, described in the Charter as Palestinian Arabs excluding those in Jordan, Judea, Samaria and Gaza. (After the 1967 war, and the Isreali conquest of Judea, Samaria and Gaza, the exclusions for Arabs in those areas were removed the Charter. To enter into the pretended peace negotionations it pretended to excluse the Palestinian Arabs within the Green Line but has never taken steps to carry out its promise to amend the PLO Charter). It transforms the Jews from victims to oppressors. It worked.
The Arabs in Palestine had been engaged in religious jihad at least since 1929 when they massacred 69 Jews in Hebron and more elsewhere, egged on by Haj Amin al Husseini, a member of the Muslim Brotherhood. He had imported the Brotherhood’s vicious jihadist doctrines into Palestine from Egypt. Now, mirabile dictu, jihad became “liberation”. The religiously motivated attacks on Jews were turned into “resistance” from oppression motivated by secular nationalism. This will explain to you why, whenever the Arabs attacked the Jews thereafter, they said they were “resisting”.
In his book, History Upside Down,[2] David Meir Levi puts it this way:
“Arafat was particularly struck by Ho Chi Minh’s success in mobilizing left-wing sympathizers in Europe and the United States, where activists on American campuses, enthusiastically following the [propaganda] line of North Vietnamese operatives, had succeeded in reframing the Vietnam war from a Communist assault on the south to a struggle for national liberation. Ho’s chief strategist, General Giap, made it clear to Arafat and his lieutenants that in order to succeed, they too needed to redefine the terms of their struggle. Giap’s counsel was simple but profound: the PLO needed to work in a way that concealed its real goals, permitted strategic deception, and gave the appearance of moderation: “Stop talking about annihilating Israel and instead turn your terror war into a struggle for human rights. Then you will have the American people eating out of your hand.”
At the same time that he was getting advice from General Giap, Arafat was also being tutored by Muhammad Yazid, who had been minister of information in two Algerian wartime governments (1958-1962): wipe out the argument that Israel is a small state whose existence is threatened by the Arab states, or the reduction of the Palestinian problem to a question of refugees; instead, present the Palestinian struggle as a struggle for liberation like the others. Wipe out the impression that in the struggle between the Palestinians and the Zionists, the Zionist is the underdog. Now it is the Arab who is oppressed and victimized in his existence because he is not only facing the Zionists but also world imperialism.
To make sure that they followed this advice, the KGB put Arafat and his adjutants into the hands of a master of propaganda: Nicolai Ceausescu, president-for-life of Romania.
For the next few years, Ceausescu hosted Arafat frequently and gave him lessons on how to apply the advice of Giap, Yazid, and others in the Soviet orbit. Arafat’s personal “handler,” Ion Mihai Pacepa, the head of the Romanian military intelligence, had to work hard on his sometimes unruly protege. Pacepa later recorded a number of sessions during which Arafat railed against Ceausescu’s injunctions that the PLO should present itself as a people’s revolutionary army striving to right wrongs and free the oppressed: he wanted only to obliterate Israel. Gradually, though, Ceausescu’s lessons in Machiavellian statecraft sank in. During his early Lebanon years, Arafat developed propaganda tactics that would allow him to create the image of a homeless people oppressed by a colonial power. This makeover would serve him well in the west for decades to come.”
Brezhnev, according to Pacepa, carried it one step farther when Carter came into office. He suggested to Pacepa that Carter might fall for Yassir Arafat PRETENDING to renounce violence and pretending to seek peace negotiations. He persuaded Arafat to do this by telling him that the West would shower him with gold and glory. It did. Billions of dollars and a Nobel prize. Ceausescu warned Arafat he would have to pretend over and over again. Abbas is still pretending. James Woolsey, former CIA director has been reported as stating that Pacepa is credible. Pacepa’s account is also corroborated by Zahir Muhsein, a member of the PLO executive board. In an interview by the Dutch newspaper Trouw in 1977, he stated that there is no such thing as the “Palestinian People”, that the term’s use is a political ploy, and there is no quest for political self-determination — that as soon as the Jews have been wiped out, sovereignty would be turned over to Jordan.
Hafez Assad also has stated there was no “Palestinian People”; that prior to 1964 the Arabs in Palestine called themselves “citizens of Greater Syria”.
During WWI the British offered the local Arabs self determination if they helped in the war against the Ottoman Empire but the local Arabs fought on the side of the Ottomans to the eternal gratitude of the Turks.
This is from Pacepa’s article “Russian Footprints” in National Review Online:
“In 1972, the Kremlin decided to turn the whole Islamic world against Israel and the U.S. As KGB chairman Yury Andropov told me [Pacepa], a billion adversaries could inflict far greater damage on America than could a few millions. We needed to instill a Nazi-style hatred for the Jews throughout the Islamic world, and to turn this weapon of the emotions into a terrorist bloodbath against Israel and its main supporter, the United States. No one within the American/Zionist sphere of influence should any longer feel safe.
“According to Andropov, the Islamic world was a waiting petri dish in which we could nurture a virulent strain of America-hatred, grown from the bacterium of Marxist-Leninist thought. Islamic anti-Semitism ran deep. The Muslims had a taste for nationalism, jingoism, and victimology. Their illiterate, oppressed mobs could be whipped up to a fever pitch.”
Again from the National Review Online article, Pacepa writes:
“In the mid 1970s, the KGB ordered my [Rumanian intelligence] service, the DIE — along with other East European sister services — to scour the country for trusted party activists belonging to various Islamic ethnic groups, train them in disinformation and terrorist operations, and infiltrate them into the countries of our ‘sphere of influence.’ Their task was to export a rabid, demented hatred for American Zionism by manipulating the ancestral abhorrence for Jews felt by the people in that part of the world. Before I left Romania for good, in 1978, my DIE had dispatched around 500 such undercover agents to Islamic countries. According to a rough estimate received from Moscow, by 1978 the whole Soviet-bloc intelligence community had sent some 4,000 such agents of influence into the Islamic world.
In the mid-1970s we also started showering the Islamic world with an Arabic translation of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a tsarist Russian forgery that had been used by Hitler as the foundation for his anti-Semitic philosophy. We also disseminated a KGB-fabricated “documentary” paper in Arabic alleging that Israel and its main supporter, the United States, were Zionist countries dedicated to converting the Islamic world into a Jewish colony.
We in the Soviet bloc tried to conquer minds, because we knew we could not win any military battles. It is hard to say what exactly are the lasting effects of operation SIG. But the cumulative effect of disseminating hundreds of thousands of Protocols in the Islamic world and portraying Israel and the United States as Islam’s deadly enemies was surely not constructive.”
You can find additional revelations in Pacepa’s biography, Red Horizons and in a Front Page magazine interview with him:[4].
The foregoing gives much insight into the invention of the Palestinian Arab People, however the strongest clue on the motivation of inventing a “Palestinian People” can be found from a reading of Professor Eugene Rostow’s 1980 article Palestinian Self-Determination: Possible Futures for the Unallocated Territories in the Yale Studies on World Public Order.
“Slowly and reluctantly, Europe and the United States are coming to realize that the pattern of events in the Middle East reflects more than random turbulence in the aftermath of the British and French Empires. For nearly thirty turbulent years, the Soviet Union has sought control of this geo-political nerve center in order to bring Western Europe into its sphere. Even if Soviet ambitions were confined to Europe, Soviet hegemony in the Middle East would profoundly change the world balance of power. But Soviet control of the Middle East would lead inevitably to further accretions of Soviet power if China, Japan, and many smaller and more vulnerable countries should conclude that the United States had lost the will or the capacity to defend its vital interests * * * The exploitation of Arab hostility to the Balfour Declaration, the Palestine Mandate, and the existence of Israel has been a major weapon in the Soviet campaign to dominate the Middle East. * * * * The attack on the legitimacy of Israel has been the strongest and most effective tool of Soviet strategy in the Middle East* * * The anti-Israel card is not the only asset in the Soviet Union’s Middle East hand, but among the Middle Eastern masses it has been trumps. * * *After the 1973 War, when there was some danger that Egypt and other countries might make peace with Israel, the Soviet Union invited Arafat to Moscow, supported his appearance before the United Nations in November, 1974, and increased its pressure for General Assembly resolutions supporting claims of self- determination for the Palestinian Arabs and denouncing Zionism as ‘racism’ [emphasis added]”
Professor Rostow again addressed the question of the political rights of the Arab and Jewish Peoples and the rights of the so called “Palestinian People” in a paper he wrote just after the OSLO agreement was signed, in November 1993 entitled The Future of Palestine:
“The mandate implicitly denies Arab claims to national political rights in the area in favour of the Jews; the mandated territory was in effect reserved to the Jewish people for their self-determination and political development, in acknowledgment of the historic connection of the Jewish people to the land. Lord Curzon, who was then the British Foreign Minister, made this reading of the mandate explicit. There remains simply the theory that the Arab inhabitants of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip have an inherent “natural law” claim to the area. Neither customary international law nor the United Nations Charter acknowledges that every group of people claiming to be a nation has the right to a state of its own.” [emphasis added]
It was Woodrow Wilson in his Fourteen Points Speech in 1918 who was the first to put forward the right of self-determination, focusing on these rights for Syria, Mesopotamia and Palestine although foreshadowed by the work of John Locke. And in 1941 its was again mentioned by Franklin Roosevelt and Winston Churchill in their “Atlantic Charter” in 1941 created aboard a battleship in the Atlantic Ocean. These were both mentioned as matters of “natural law” with the rights of self-determination as a natural or God given right. But they slowly evolved from natural law into International Law.
The first UN adoption of the right of self-determination was in its Charter, in 1945 just after the end of WWII. Self-determination is clearly mentioned in the 1945 UN Charter (Art. 1(2)) but only as a “principle”. States’ sovereignty and territorial integrity are reserved in Art. 2:
“The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles.
1. The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.”
Among the General Assembly Resolutions not long after WWII was Resolution 1514, the decolonization resolution, adopted some 15 years later in December, 1960 and then two more that were not expressly addressed to decolonization arrived in the middle 60’s, The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Each of these provided as a matter not only of “natural law” but also of International Law that “All peoples have the right to self determination. But they also required respect for territorial integrity by insisting they “respect that right [of self-determination] in conformance with the conditions of the Charter of the United Nations”. As of this date, International Law supported the right of self-determination in decolonizations where no secession was involved that would impinge on territorial integrity of a sovereign state.
Was the Soviet Union’s pressure on the UN General Assembly to support the “Palestinian” claims for self determination promoted by the dezinformatsia to help the attack on the legitimacy of Israel by promoting the cause of the Arabs? These resolutions for two international covenants were adopted in 1966, two years after the preamble of the first charter of the PLO invented the Palestinian People to be put into effect in 1976. A major factor in the early 1970s was the after- shock of the oil embargo, and the rising influence of the OIC Organization of the Islamic Conference (now “Cooperation”), which included the Arab Bloc and many other countries. The influence of the Soviet Union was primarily channeled through the NAM (Non-Aligned Movement) which included the Third World countries, and were pretty much “aligned” with the Left in spite of their name.
If they wanted to help the Arabs in Palestine by supporting a state for them to be carved out of the Jewish Peoples state, the Russians had three barriers to overcome. First, the Palestinians were undifferentiated members of the Arab people located in Palestine. They were not and never had been a nation or a people. They had never ruled Palestine from a capital in Palestine.
Second, they had never sought the right of self determination.
Third, the right under International Law had been limited to decolonizations where there was a tension between such a right and the right of sovereign states to territorial integrity. Only decolonizations would not affect the boundary of an existing sovereign state. Secessions would.
With the Soviet invention of the Palestinian Arab People in 1964, and their quest for self-determination assumed in the preamble of the PLO Charter, (Brand, Was there a Palestinian Arab National Movement at the End of the Ottoman Period) the first two barriers could be overcome
The same people may still working now on overcoming the third barrier. Territorial integrity of sovereign states has been the mainstay of world order since the 1648 Peace of Westphalia. International Lawyers had always given territorial integrity a priority over the right of self determination. There is some evidence that the right to self-determination was considered for the charter of the League of Nations in 1919, but at the time, the authors could not resolve the cases where there was tension with the territorial integrity of sovereign states.
Currently there is a movement among ethical philosophers and International Law commentators for an exception to the existing rule of International Law that the right of self determination only supports decolonization and not secession that would change the boundary of a state. They argue for it as a last resort where a people or nation is much oppressed by the majority population of the state. You don’t have to look far to hear, created by PW or psychological warfare, the Narrative of Perpetual Palestinian Victimhood at the hands of the Jews, now accepted around the world as a poetic truth; one that can’t be dented with facts, logic or reason even though the evidence showing the far greater benefits the Jews brought to the Arab People establishes the relative insignificance of any burden placed on them. To what extent these are prompted by the desinformatsiya we won’t know until the defection of another member of the former Soviet bloc closely associated with the KGB’s successors.
According to Major General Ion Pacepa in his recently published book Disinformation, the dezinformatsiya has not ended its work following Gorbychev. It still remains the largest division of the Russian agency that is the successor of the KGB.
The current violence both in Israel and around the rest of the world is a third wave of Islamic Jihad or Holy War, with the violence in Israel disguised by the Soviets as secular nationalism in a quest for political self determination. As a consequence, Israel is the West’s first line of defense.
Russia is still the enemy of Israel and the United States.
Tomorrow, August 1, my new book entitled “Nazis Islamic Antisemitism and the Middle East: The 1948 Arab War against Israel and the Aftershocks of WW II” will be available.
Trying to predict events when it comes to Israel and the region is fraught with uncertainty.
Crystal balls may be notoriously unreliable, but nevertheless, there are certain circumstances where the situation is so predetermined that forecasting a prognosis is very easy.
Whether the scenarios I am going to describe actually eventuate remains to be seen but based on the law of inevitability, there is more than an even chance they will occur.
The first is the departure from the scene of the PA President for life, Abbas. Like all dictators, he believes that his position as leader is his by divine right and, therefore, it is not necessary to even go through the charade of holding elections. Unlike others in his situation, there is no guarantee that the results could be successfully manipulated in order to guarantee a 99% approval.
Rampant corruption and bully tactics by the enforcers of Fatah and the PA has ensured competing terror groups gaining in popularity and support.
With no designated successor in sight, the stage is set for a real right royal blood bath when Abbas finally departs. It is highly unlikely that he will voluntarily retire, so it will be due to health reasons or mental incapacity that he will vacate his position.
It is amazing but nevertheless indicative of the double standards and hypocrisy now prevalent in the international community that neither the Biden Administration nor any other democratic country has demanded any accountability from Abbas. When it comes to Israel, everyone is quick to condemn, give advice and make demands about domestic and internal matters. The fact that Abbas is embraced by, and in return extends solidarity with the world’s worst abusers of human rights and democratic values are seemingly irrelevant.
It is maintained by those in Israel and elsewhere that Abbas and the PA/Fatah are the best we can hope for and better than Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the other assorted terror groups now waiting in the wings.
This is another of those mirages so beloved by the far left, self-loathers and hallucinating individuals alike.
The incontrovertible reality soon to be foisted on us all is that the day after Abbas disappears from the scene, all hell will break out. There will be a jihad war of succession with all the various terror groups vying for supremacy. In order to succeed, they will need to advocate and promise death, martyrdom and the elimination of the Zionist “occupier.” They will be cheered on by their various supporters, which will include not only local Islamist jihadists but also the useful idiots in Western political parties and at the United Nations. Without a doubt, of course, the likes of North Korea, Iran, China and Russia will also be lending vocal and perhaps material support.
The end result is not hard to predict.
Israel will be warned to show restraint and will be blamed for the outcome because “we did not show enough support for Abbas and his financial support to terror perpetrators.” Any steps that Israel might take to safeguard and protect its citizens will be condemned. Additionally, Israel will be told that it must urgently make gestures in order to placate those who do not believe that Jews have any right to live anywhere here.
My predictions are not a flight of fancy. They are based on hard cold realities which we ignore at our collective peril. Unfortunately, ignoring predetermined scripts is a genetic defect afflicting far too many.
The recent health scare involving Bibi Netanyahu should focus our thoughts on what happens the day after he retires.
Nobody is immortal, but some, particularly politicians, seem to think that not only can the country not survive without them at the helm but that it is imperative they carry on forever. The retirement age for males in Israel is 67, and that is rigorously enforced by many employers.
Personally speaking, after having worked non-stop for forty-seven years, I was more than ready to retire and enjoy quality time doing things at leisure. I realize that circumstances vary depending on one’s financial situation, profession and abilities but generally speaking “getting out” while one is still physically and mentally in top condition is preferable to hanging on until one drops.
It is not as though life suddenly terminates on retirement, although those who refuse to do so often believe that it is the end of the world. Particularly in Israel, there are so many opportunities to volunteer and engage in meaningful activities that one is usually busier in retirement than previously.
Those who refuse to retire merely impede the progress of younger fellow workers and contribute to future mayhem when they eventually are forced to leave.
This is the situation now faced in the political scene in Israel. It is not a new situation but one which keeps endlessly repeating itself with the same dire results.
This means that the day after “Bibi” eventually leaves, chaos and mayhem will break out in Likud. No clear successor has been appointed, groomed or designated, which will result in a “free for all” among those striving to grab the top job. Various factions will be vying for influence, and bitter infighting will be the order of the day. Do not be surprised if this causes the party to split into various groups, each proclaiming itself the authentic voice of right-wing ideology.
This has happened in the past to other political parties, and given the realities of the current situation, it is guaranteed to occur again.
All this could be avoided if only those concerned worried more about the welfare of the country than their own personal ambitions.
The next scenario revolves around what happens the day after Iran announces that it has developed a nuclear option. It has already been allowed to acquire the missiles to deliver them, and therefore it only needs the actual weapons themselves in order to fulfil its declared intention to wipe out the “Zionist entity.”
Taking into account the US, EU & UN’s pathetic responses to North Korea and its unimpeded march to nuclear blackmail status the probability of Iran getting away with the same tactics is very high. By the time the State Department and White House manage to get their collective acts together, the Iranians will have struck. The UN Security Council will be neutered by the vetoes of China and Russia and the progressive Democrats and their willing partners will have organized frenzied opposition to anything which might hold Iran to account.
Hopefully, if Israel acts in time to thwart Iranian genocidal ambitions, the day after will look entirely different. What remains certain is that the usual suspects will be convulsed with indignation at the chutzpah of Israel acting to defend itself. Media editorials and pontifications by clueless appeasers will proliferate and demands for sanctions against the intended victim rather than the aggressor will be advocated.
During his recent visit to the USA, President Herzog met with the UN Secretary General. He told him that “Israel expects the UN to stand with Israel against Iran.” Based on past and current performances, this expectation is in the realm of fantasy and false hopes. It is a sign of the times that the media and some commentators actually thought that this was attainable.
These “day after” scenarios are already predetermined.
Their toxic outcomes can be mitigated and eliminated if firm measures are put in place to deal with them.
The question remains as to whether those responsible are prepared to act resolutely and in time.
Czech
French
German
Hebrew
Noruegan
Russian
Spanish
Swedish
Polish
Portuguese
