Beyond the Cusp

May 30, 2014

UN and EU Continue to Perpetuate Palestinian Propaganda

One of the chief negotiators, leaders and propagandists for the Palestinian Authority and its Fatah faction Saeb Erekat reportedly told UN Mideast peace envoy Robert Serry, a known anti-Israel instigator willing to spread any malodorous stories accusing Israel of even the most malicious and deceitful claims against Israel, as well as the secretary generals of the British and Finnish foreign ministries that Israel strove to “destroy the two-state solution.” He further purported that the Israeli initiated policy of “settlements” in Judea and Samaria, IDF activity in “Palestinian territories,” as well as the targeted killings and arrests of terrorists ignoring that the deaths of terrorist suspects is almost exclusively due to their resisting arrest dying in the resultant firefight which possess equal risks and danger to IDF troops was responsible for the failure of the peace negotiations. He accused the Israelis of intending to end the negotiations so as to enable the forming of a “one-state solution” which he claims would be an “Apartheid state.” His claims are very similar to the claims made by United States Secretary of State Kerry whose accusations that Israel would become an Apartheid state if the negotiations failed. Interestingly, when former and last President of apartheid-era South Africa F.W. de Klerk was asked his opinion of Secretary Kerry’s accusations he stated, “There are many definitions of apartheid. I do not know what Mr. Kerry meant, but one should be careful about making comparisons. From what I know of Israel, I do not think it’s a fair comparison. I ​​would not call Israel an apartheid state. You have closed borders, but even the United States has closed borders and Mexicans cannot enter freely. There are Palestinians here with full rights and representation in the Knesset, there are no discriminatory laws against them. It’s not fair to call Israel an apartheid state. If Kerry said it, I think he made a mistake.”


Obviously there is a huge difference in the range of opinions concerning Israel and the charges of Apartheid which have become a staple in the anti-Israel fanaticism which has spread out of the Arab and Muslim worlds, through much of Europe, and across campuses throughout the entire globe. But looking at the qualitative experience and knowledge of real Apartheid, the originating nation where Apartheid charges were the initial worldwide political crusade that brought about radical change and equality to South Africa which was implemented during the administration of former South African President F.W. de Klerk, who is more knowledgeable and less likely to hold prejudices in judging the truths about the conditions in Israel, former South African President F.W. de Klerk, the chief negotiator for the Palestinians and proven propagandist Saeb Erekat or United States Secretary of State Kerry whose claim to fame was his acrimonious testimony where he falsely accused his fellow United States Viet Nam soldiers, sailors and airmen stating amongst his now infamous testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on April 22, 1971, “They told the stories at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.” How anything John Kerry has stated throughout his storied career built on the slandered reputations of the men of the same military in which he “served” is beyond comprehension.


Some of the remainder of Mr. F.W. de Klerk’s commentary during his interview is worth reporting as it states very precisely and succinctly what the real test could be in Israel’s future if the negotiations prove incapable of reaching a resolution accepted by both sides, he stated, “The test will be everybody living then in such a unitary state, will everybody have full political rights? Will everybody enjoy their full human rights? If they will, it’s not an apartheid state. There will come in Israel a turning point where if the main obstacles at the moment which exist to a successful two-state solution are not removed, the two-state solution will become impossible.” Many may be quick to point to the recent South African government actions to boycott Israeli made items from the contested areas of Judea and Samaria and other statements and actions claimed to be the result of Israeli Apartheid laws and activities. The disparity of opinions can be credited to many possible explanations, one of which would include but not be limited to perspective on Apartheid policies between those imposing such a system versus those who were under the depravities of Apartheid. This difference of attitudes is very similar if not exactly the same as the difference between supporters and opposition to Israel and Israeli policies. I know that such quotes can be found supporting virtually any political argument and almost no one who has already reached a position is not about to have an epiphany from any number of quotes, still it is worth putting every view possible out for consideration, especially if the quotes support what one believes.


The problem which is so distressing for those of us who support Israel is the ease and willingness displayed by so many to accept without question any accusations which demonize Israel and Israelis, plus many show a measurable enthusiasm in spreading, and in some cases exaggerating, every derogatory accusation they come across. This was made affirmed when Martin Schulz, the President of the European Parliament, addressing the Knesset speaking in his native German where he stated, “Einer der Fragen dieser jungen Menschen, die mich am meisten bewegt hat, war: Wie kann es sein, dass Israelis 70 Liter Wasser am Tag benutzen dürfen und Palästinenser nur 17?” Literal translation determines that President of the European Parliament Schulz had accused Israel of water starving the Palestinians claiming, “One of the questions of these young people, which most moved me, was: How can it be that Israelis are allowed to use 70 liters of water per day, but Palestinians only 17?” Later his comments were altered and the official translation and original German include the phrase “although I could not check the exact figures” (“wobei ich die genauen Zahlen nicht nachschlagen konnte”) in order to amend his insult allowing for a measure of discretion not stated in his original speech. He was so completely sure that whatever he was told in an interview arranged for him by the Palestinian leadership with a youth had to be valid, especially since it reinforced his pre-established suspicions and demonization of Israel and Israeli leadership in their treatment towards the Palestinians that he did not at the time see any need to verify the charges. If Mr. Schultz was alone in this predisposition it would be something that could be dismissed as one incident. Catherine Ashton, the Foreign Policy Chief of the European Union, has denounced Israeli activities with particular vehemence on the so-called settlement construction and any activities within Jerusalem, whose annexation by Israel she refuses to recognize, while granting the Palestinian Authority and even Hamas latitude and excusing their attacks on Israelis and echoing almost every Palestinian territorial claim despite United Nations resolutions which allow for some lands to be annexed by Israel that are considered necessary for Israeli security in defending possible future attacks. There are numerous leaders within European governments which also have a history of condemning Israel often making charges adding their voices to Palestinian claims and accusations which have subsequently been proven false. Often there is no apology or retraction once proof of inaccuracy or outright falsehood instead the offending politician simply refuses further comment allowing the statement to stand despite the truth. One of the most guilty of such statements and who has even repeated false claims demanding that he speaks the truth and that any evidence against his truths are simply Israeli or Jewish lies and propaganda is the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian Richard A. Falk. Fortunately Mr. Falk will be retiring from his poisonous execution of his view of his duties but unbelievably the UN Human Rights Council has now appointed, as another of its special rapporteurs, none other than Richard Falk’s wife, Hilal Elver. And yes, she completely supports and promises to continue her husband’s singularly focused recriminations against everything Israel doing all her position allows to work for the delegitimization of the Jewish State.


The displays of open hostility and pure bile that has poured forth from the United Nations, European Union and all too many European leaders and politicians not only have refused to show any signs of decline but appear to be escalating. The United Nations Human Rights Council actually has as part of its bylaws that they issue a condemnation of Israel at the beginning of every session before considering any other business. How does such a predisposition serve truth and actually addressing the real problems that face the world? The only honest and viable reason for such hostility and unfiltered hatred is that as anti-Semitism became unfashionable after World War II and the revelations of the brutality and horrors of the Holocaust, not just to the Jews but also Roma, Homosexuals, Polish citizens, Russian captives, numerous religious leaders including Catholic and Protestant clergy and others considered to be threats or undesirables by the Nazi hierarchy, anti-Semitism did not simply disappear and eventually reappeared in the form of anti-Israel hatreds. Many of the condemnations of Israel take on similar dimensions to the traditional anti-Semitic invectives such as underhanded control of political processes, monopoly of the media, insidious plots to rule the world, monetary manipulation and hoarding and among others even many traditional blood libels such as kidnapping non-Jewish children to use their blood in the making of ceremonial foods such as matzos. The similarities are too close and easily recognized to be ignored or excused for other reasons other than blind hatred. Much of the Arab world, particularly the Palestinian Authority, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Fatah, PLO, Iran and numerous others, do not even bother to mask their anti-Semitism with much of their propaganda and political cartoons showing near exact copying of Nazi, Czarist and other traditional and historic anti-Semitism. These depictions are just as often aimed at Israel as they are at Jewish People in general. Such is evidenced by the Charter of Hamas where they call for not just the eradication of Israel supplanting it with the state of Palestine, but also to continue the war until every Jew on the Earth has been hunted down and eradicated. Then there are the speeches out of Iran, from Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood and leading Muslim radical clerics throughout the Middle East and North Africa which often take on similar sentiments as stated by Yusuf al-Qaradawi, a leading Muslim cleric with a wide audience, who claims, “To conclude my speech, I’d like to say that the only thing I hope for is that as my life approaches its end, Allah will give me an opportunity to go to the land of Jihad and resistance, even in a wheelchair, I will shoot Allah’s enemies, the Jews.” I honestly cannot think of a more pure statement displaying a delusional, psychotic, pugnacious and unadulterated display of unconstrained hatred than this and others I have witnessed coming from those who target Israel or the Jewish People. I am sure there may exist other such statements of hatreds that I would find equally disturbing and unconscionable but have fortunately not come across them in the recent past and hope to never have such displeasure in the future. Now if only humankind would accommodate by not adding to any of the hatreds which appear to have been one of the enduring moral weaknesses that has plagued human history with only pain, suffering and destruction as its resulting consequence.


Beyond the Cusp


November 10, 2013

United States Pulls Back in Mediterranean and Israeli MK Bennett’s Letter on Iranian Nuclear Talks

The United States under the leadership of President Obama is currently recalling the Aircraft Carrier Nimitz from the Persian Gulf via the Mediterranean Sea and the Destroyer USS Graveley from the Mediterranean Sea as the Russians have displayed greater strength in the Mediterranean Sea sending “Varyag,” flagship of Russia’s Pacific Fleet, and “Pyotr Veliky” (“Peter the Great”), the nation’s most powerful nuclear-powered battleship into the area. The drawdown by the United States was called for as there was no longer a need for the extra naval presence as the crisis and potential for a strike on Syria has expired. The Nimitz had remained in the area well past her regular rotational time as a measure in case her airpower were to be necessary for any missions against Syria over their use of chemical weapons. There will be some who will refer to the pulling of these two very powerful ships coinciding with the presence of the Russian naval strength but such is not likely the case. As stated, the Nimitz was due back in port months ago and the rotation of naval vessels is a regular part of their deployments. The truth is that the United States had kept a larger than normal presence in the Mediterranean Sea and Persian Gulf over the past few months as the situation required the extra potential and force projection. The most pressing item currently is the negotiations with Iran over their nuclear program.

Currently in Geneva United States Secretary of State John Kerry, European Union Foreign Policy Chief Catherine Ashton and Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif are meeting in final discussions over the recommendations for a final agreement proposed by the Iranians presented at the start of this week’s talks. The French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius stated “there is an initial draft that we do not accept… As we speak, I have no certainty that we can finish up.” The French Foreign Minister was not included in the final negotiations nor were the representatives from Russia, China or Germany. Where some will make a point that the Europeans have been leading the charge on imposing stronger sanctions on Iran and this is the reason why the European representatives have been replaced with the more lenient European Union Foreign Policy Chief Catherine Ashton but that call might be a bit of a stretch. The proof will be the contents of the agreement assuming that a deal can be hammered out. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu has already pretty much condemned any deal which allows the Iranians to not disassemble their over 18,000 centrifuges thus allowing them to have the ability of restarting them at a later date and manufacturing nuclear weapons before the world either discovered their subterfuge or, even having such knowledge, were able to react and prevent the Iranian nuclear weapons breakout. President Obama was quick to point out that no deal has yet been reached making Prime Minister Netanyahu’s protestations somewhat premature though statements from President Obama in the recent past have indicated that he is seeking any deal which will permit him to militarily stand down and not face any confrontation. President Obama has let it be known that his opinion is even a partial deal for the interim is far preferable to any confrontation and that he recognizes that Iran under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty has the right to enrich uranium to lower levels for peaceful uses. Some have seen the President’s conciliatory statements as a virtual surrender to the Iranian demands that they be permitted to continue with their nuclear program with assurances of solely using it for peaceful purposes and their willingness to submit to inspections including surprise inspections. The main point made is that Iran has agreed to inspections before and still managed to prevent the inspectors from having access to the instillations sometimes for days, sometimes weeks, sometimes longer and in a few cases not at all. This has left some disturbed that such importance is now being placed on the Iranian pledge to submit to inspections as the main point in allowing them to continue to enrich uranium presumably limited to five percent and under. The problem with such an agreement is with their latest version of centrifuges the Iranians now have breakout ability even using low enriched uranium that has only been enriched to three and a half percent. Due to this new parameter, any concerns over the Iranian nuclear program being permitted to keep their centrifuges assembled and operative is a valid and necessary to remember in any agreement point of concern. Late last night the news reports informed that no agreement was reached between Iran and the P5+1 as the talks have ended. Whether or not this is a desirable result, time will tell. No agreement still leaves Iran with over 18,000 spinning centrifuges and at best intermittent inspections depending on the mood of the Ayatollahs. Perhaps it is best to be optimistic and think of this as not the worst result because the sanctions remain which will eventually either cause the Iranian religious leadership to acquiesce or the Iranian people finally throw off the yoke of oppression under which they have had to endure for far too long. For that we have the United States to blame as it was the United States which overthrew an elected leader in 1953 placing the Shah into power presumably to prevent Soviet influence from becoming preeminent in Iran and then in 1979 it was once again the United States which provided the cover for the replacement of the Shah with the Ayatollah. In the immediate future the main aim should be to initially quiet the centrifuges and once they have been stopped from enriching uranium then their dismantlement will be the priority along with preventing any plutonium production at the heavy water reactor in Arak. After these items are addressed and accomplished, then Iran can return to a more normal existence and reacquire normal relations and trade freely as long as they continue to not pursue nuclear weapons capability or other undesirable behaviors.

Transcript of Minister of the Knesset Naftali Bennett’s, of the Bayit Yehudi (Jewish Home) Party, Minister of Economy and Diaspora Affairs, and member of the Security Cabinet, letter concerning the potential, possibly pending, agreement between the Iranians and the P5+1 consisting of the five permanent members of the Security Council which are Russia, China, the United States, Britain and France plus Germany is below. For further information on what may be transpiring at these negotiations, please read yesterday’s article Obama Aiming to Emulate Neville Chamberlin.

These critical days in November will be remembered for years to come.

The Free World stands before a fork in the road with a clear choice: Either stand strong and insist Iran dismantles its nuclear-weapons program, or surrender, cave in and allow Iran to retain its 18,500 centrifuges.

Years from now, when an Islamic terrorist blows up a suitcase in New York, or when Iran launches a nuclear missile at Rome or Tel Aviv, it will have happened only because a Bad Deal was made during these defining moments.

Like in a boxing match, Iran’s regime is currently on the floor. The count is just seconds away from 10. Now is the time to step up the pressure and force Iran to dismantle its nuclear program. Not to let it up.

It would be dangerous to lift the sanctions and accept a deal which allows Iran to retain its entire uranium-production line.

It would be dangerous because Iran would, a year, two or three from now, just turn everything back on and obtain a nuclear weapon before the world can do anything to stop it.

It is not enough to shut off the centrifuges. They need to be completely dismantled.

We call upon the West to avoid signing a Bad Deal.

Israel’s responsibility is to ensure the security of its citizens and that is exactly what we will do.

We will never outsource our security.


Naftali Bennett

Beyond the Cusp

Blog at

%d bloggers like this: