Ban Ki Moon’s lies justify terrorism. Obama could have prevented this
Ban Ki Moon’s lies justify terrorism. Obama could have prevented this

On September 15, 2016 UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon condemned Israel for “oppressing” the Palestinians and declared that the "settlements" are “illegal” under international law. "Settlements" are the term used for Israeli communities in Judea and Samaria.

Arutz7 reported that “…the UN chief appeared to excuse Palestinian terror attacks – on the same day as an Israeli woman died of injuries she sustained in a brutal stabbing attack yesterday."

“Palestinian frustration is growing under the weight of a half century of occupation and the paralysis of the peace process,” he said, blaming “the occupation” for causing “hatred and extremism.”

“As oppressed peoples have demonstrated throughout the ages, it is human nature to react to occupation, which often serves as a potent incubator of hate and extremism.”

Israel’s UN delegation is to refute Ban’s statement, which follows a harsh indictment of the UN Security Council by Israeli Ambassador Danny Danon, who noted that the UNSC has failed to condemn a single terror attack against Israelis in the past four months of Palestinian attacks….”

The settlements are not illegal under international law. Ban Ki Moon lies: the territories are disputed, not occupied, the Oslo accords do not call to dismantle settlements.

Ban ki Moon conceals the fact that for centuries Jews were persecuted and expelled from dozens of Arab countries until they created a safe haven in Israel (a country smaller than New Jersey surrounded by 22 Arab Countries), he also avoids saying that Jews were expelled from Hevron in 1929 and from Jerusalem in 1948.

Ban Ki Moon should not be using his office in the UN to repeat lies. Ban’s comments are irresponsible for a man in his position considering that the Arabs use comments like his to justify terror.

Obama could have prevented Ban Ki Moon’s lies by threatening the UN with economic sanctions, as John Bolton revealed in 2012 when the UN changed the PA status “Former United Nations Ambassador John Bolton blamed the Obama administration for failing to block the U.N.’s de facto recognition Thursday of a sovereign Palestinian state…Bolton said the Obama administration could have taken a page from the playbook of former Secretary of State James Baker more than two decades ago when a similar effort to change the Palestinian Liberation Organization’s observer status at the U.N. from an “entity” to a “non-member state,” the same status held by the Vatican.

“We’ve been through this before. We did this 20 years ago and defeated the Palestinians,” Bolton said. “And this is how we did it. Secretary of State Jim Baker issued a statement saying he would recommend to the president that the United States make no further contributions, voluntary or assessed, to any international organization which makes any change in the PLO’s status as an observer organization.

“If the administration had simply done what Jim Baker did 20 years ago, this thing would have been deader than a doornail,” Bolton added…”

1 million Jews in North Africa and the Middle East... left their homes in the decade after the creation of Israel…The great mass of Jews left under duress. They were expelled.
Forward Magazine reports that “Nathan Weinstock hadn’t planned to write a book about the Jews of Arab lands. But when he looked for information about the modern history of Moroccan or Iraqi Jewry, he was surprised to discover that there was no book in French that told the story of the elimination of the Jewish communities in the Middle East and North Africa in the mid-20th century.

“In the end,” he says, “I decided to write it myself.”

One of the surprising discoveries he made was about the powerful bond with their roots felt by many of the roughly 1 million Jews in North Africa and the Middle East who left their homes in the decade after the creation of Israel…The great mass of Jews left under duress. They were expelled. They were subjected to such enormous pressure that they had no choice but to leave.”

Suppose that in the future, after being decapitated, sold as slaves and raped, the Yazidi managed to return to their home villages and to create a state to protect themselves from Islamic aggression. Jews have been persecuted and expelled from most Middle East Countries and they managed to find refuge in Israel, a country smaller than New Jersey. reported that since 1948, 850,000 Jews have been expelled from Algeria, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Lybia, Lebanon, Morocco, Syria, Tunisia,Yemen and other Middle East Countries. Israel is not “Occupied Palestinian Land”. Israel is the homeland of the Jewish People and the only safe heaven for Jewish Refugees in the Middle East.

The Jewish Homeland is surrounded by 22 Muslim dysfunctional Tyrannies. Why do they need a 23rd one?

On November 30, 2015 Aaron David Miller, vice president at the Woodrow Wilson Center for Scholars, wrote in the Wall Street Journal “Henry Kissinger recently asked an intriguing and politically incorrect question: With the state structure weakened in several Arab states and having collapsed in others, with Iran and Islamic State rising, and amid general instability in the Arab world, why create another potentially weak, dysfunctional Arab state in Palestine?

A decade or so ago, when I was a Middle East negotiator, even posing such a question would have been considered a hostile act among peace advocates or, worse, would have been seen as shilling for Israeli right-wingers and neoconservatives.

But amid so much disorder in the Middle East, it’s worth pondering–even if there are several reasons to be cautious or openly skeptical about the prospects:

Negative trend lines: In the Arab world, several states are melting down (Syria, Libya, Yemen); polities are run by authoritarian kings, emirs, or generals (Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Qatar); and a few, such as Tunisia, are struggling to reform. The region will be unstable for years to come, thanks to widespread dysfunction and/or plain bad governance, lack of respect for human rights, systemic corruption, and the absence representative institutions…

Fractious Palestinian politics: The Arab Palestinian national movement resembles Noah’s ark: There are two of everything, split between Fatah and Hamas. That includes two statelets in part of the 'West Bank' and Gaza, two constitutions, two sets of security services, and two visions of where Palestine is and what kind of state it should be. A stable state would require Hamas and Fatah not only to resolve these different visions but also to share power and accommodate those differences in a political system driven by dialogue, not violence. Even under the best circumstances, it’s hard to picture Hamas’s Islamist vision of 'Palestine' reconciled with Fatah’s more nationalist bent, particularly with Fatah’s internal divisions. And there is little in the history of the Arab Palestinian national movement or the Palestinian Authority’s governance style to suggest anything but disruptive politics, much less a smooth transition to functional statehood.

Lack of leadership: The quest and hope for an Arab Palestinian Mandela or Sadat is understandable–if a Western fantasy –given the leaders the Palestinian national movement has had. Yasser Arafat was and Mahmoud Abbas is a skilled politician; each, in his own way, is a product of and well-suited to his time. But neither has possessed both the incentive and the power to unite the Palestinian movement, rise above its self-destructive tendencies, and lead the Arab Palestinians to some version of their own promised land. Should such a leader emerge, it could make all the difference. At 80, Mr. Abbas has not groomed a successor, nor is one on the horizon. His death or incapacitation could easily create a power vacuum that would make the political situation even more unstable…

Mr. Kissinger raised his question at an event marking the 20th anniversary of the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin. It’s possible that a Palestinian state would be different–and set a new trend for good governance and stability in the Arab world. We can always hope. But the reality of the Middle East these days makes going with probabilities, rather than possibilities, a safer bet.”

Just as at the meeting on Wednesday with Netanyahu, in 2013 NBC news reported: “In a televised speech at the Jerusalem Convention Center, Obama said there should be “two states for two peoples.” …The United States is deeply committed to the creation of an independent and sovereign state of Palestine,” he said, adding, “Simply, Palestinians deserve a state of their own.”

Obama needs to explain:
1.Why Obama says “Simply, Palestinians deserve a state of their own.” but never said “Simply, Tibetans deserve a state of their own.”
2.Jordan was also part of British Mandate Palestine. If Obama says the Palestinians deserve to have a state of their own, why does he not demand Jordanian land also?
3.Obama says he supports two states for two peoples yet he refuses the call Israel the Jewish State and does not oppose Abbas when he demands (besides a Palestinian State in the 'West Bank' and Gaza) the right of return for millions of Arab Palestinian 'refugees' that would cause Israel’s destruction.
4.Obama says that the Palestinians deserve a State of their own but what if the creation of that state endangers Israel’s existence? According to Obama, the Arab Palestinians deserve a state of their own, and how about the Jews? What happened in Gaza cannot be ignored. After Israel withdrew from Gaza, Hamas took over and started attacking Israel with missiles. If a Palestinian State is created in the 'West Bank' it will attack Israel from the there as it does from Gaza. The creation of a Palestinian State in the 'West Bank' will bring war, it will make the situation much worse not better.

Abbas rejects the two state solution. Lt. Col. (ret) Jonathan Halevi explained in the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs that Abbas supports a phased plan for Israel’s destruction “…Beneath the moderate guise that Abbas tries to project is a Palestinian leader who unreservedly supports terror and demands to implement what the Palestinians call the “right of return.”

"…What the Palestinians mean by 'right of return' according to Resolution 194 and the Arab Peace Initiative is simple enough and was ratified as an official law by the Palestinian parliament with Abbas’s approval."

According to the 2008 Law of the Right of Return of the Palestinian Refugees:

'The right of return of the Palestinian refugees to their homes and property, while receiving compensation for their suffering, is an inalienable and enshrined right that cannot be compromised, replaced, reconsidered, interpreted otherwise, or subjected to a referendum.

'The right of return is natural, personal, collective, civil, political, passed on from father to son; it is not nullified by the passage of time or by the signing of any agreement and it cannot be abolished or waived in any way.

'The Palestinian refugees shall not be resettled or displaced as an alternative to the right of return.

'Anyone who violates the provisions of this Act shall be guilty of the crime of treason and will be subject to all criminal and civil penalties prescribed for this crime.

'Anything that contradicts this law is considered null and void, and any legislation or agreement that will derogate from the right of return or contradict the provisions of this Act shall be deemed null and void.'

In other words, even after an Israeli withdrawal to 1967 borders and the establishment of a fully sovereign Palestinian state, the conflict will remain unchanged and Palestine will demand the “return” to Israel of the millions of "refugees," including their descendants. The Palestinian demand for “return” entails the transfer of millions of Jews from their homes and the end of the state of Israel…”

Despite Abbas rejection of the two state solution and his commitment to the destruction of Israel, Obama blames Israel for the failure of negotiations and threatened to abandon Israel in the UNSC. On March 2015Newsmax reported that “The White House on Wednesday suggested it could reverse its decades-old policy of using its veto in the United Nations Security Council to protect Israel. It could refuse to veto resolutions related to the Palestinians or introduce a measure of its own, The Wall Street Journal reported. The U.S. could also lend its support to a two-state solution based on Israel’s 1967 borders, a senior White House official told The New York Times.”

Obama is in a rush to pass a UNSC resolution imposing a timetable for an Israeli withdrawal from the 'West Bank' before his time in office ends. He knows that the next administration will not be willing to concede this to the Palestinians without taking into consideration Israel’s security needs.

To justify the UNSC resolution, Obama needs to create a sense of urgency. Abbas is escalating the violence through stabbing attacks to create the sense of urgency that Obama needs. Abbas wants to provoke an Israeli reaction which Obama can use as an excuse to justify the anti-Israel UNSC resolution.

The Palestinian Media Watch translated an interview by one of Hamas founders Mahmoud al-Zahar to the Palestinian newspaper Al-Ayyam in which he said “transfer what it has [in Gaza] or just a small part of it to the West Bank, we would be able to settle the battle of the final promise [to destroy Israel] with a speed that no one can imagine…[Some] have said Hamas wants to create an Islamic emirate in Gaza. We won’t do that, but we will build an Islamic state in Palestine, all of Palestine…”

Those who advocate for a solution in the UNSC cannot ignore that what happened in Gaza can also happen in the 'West Bank'. After Israel withdrew from Gaza, Hamas took power and started missile attack against Israel.

If a Palestinian State is created in the West Bank Hamas will attack Israel with missiles from the 'West Bank' as it does from Gaza. Imposing a solution in the UNSC will make the situation much worse, it will make life in Israel impossible and lead to war. Only those that do not care for the safety of Israel’s citizens would advocate for this.

Demanding an Israeli withdrawal from the 'West Bank' will make the situation far worse not better. The “Two State Solution” is not the only option. There is a much better and honest option which is to recognize that the Arab Palestinians already have a State in Jordan. Since the US/EU claim the Arab-Israeli conflict can be solved though a UNSC resolution why not submit one declaring that Jordan is Palestine?

Most of the Jordanian population is Palestinian, the previous King said “Jordan is Palestine, Palestine is Jordan”. The Queen of Jordan Rania Al-Yassin was born in Kuwait to Palestinian parents Faisal Sedki Al Yassin and Ilham Yassin from Tulkarm, Jordan has a Palestinian Queen, the next King of Jordan will be the son of a Palestinian. If Jordan is recognized as the Palestinian State the Arabs currently living in Israel can continue but they will be Jordanian Citizens.

It is not honest for those who seek a resolution to the Arab-Israeli conflict to ignore that Jordan was also part of British Mandate Palestine. Jordan must also be part of the solution.