The Bible Teaching Ministry of David Hocking
“The Word of our God shall stand forever” Isaiah 40:8

Browsing ‘Articles’


Wednesday, January 14th, 2015


“Hezbollah has weapons that the enemy can expect and we have ones that they aren’t expecting. Our resistance has not been damaged, and Israel is mistaken if it thinks it has,” Nasrallah said.

According to the Hezbollah leader, Israel is interested in a conflict that would be a landslide victory for it, however he claims that such a win is completely unrealistic. “If Israel attacks Lebanon, our resistance is strong and our ability to win is great.”

In October, Hezbollah planted and detonated two bombs in the Mount Dov region along the border with Lebanon, with one device wounding two IDF soldiers.

A second blast tore through the same area about 30 minutes later, but failed to cause injuries or damage.

The wounded soldiers belonged to the Combat Engineering Corps bomb squad unit, which was accompanying Golani Brigade soldiers on patrol in the area.

Both bombs were planted on the Israeli side of the border.

The IDF responded by shelling two Hezbollah targets in southern Lebanon.


Tuesday, January 13th, 2015

(Jerusalem Post Article)

“PA does not yet constitute a state and is therefore not eligible to accede to the Rome Statute,” Obama tells Netanyahu.

WASHINGTON – US President Barack Obama briefed Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu by phone about “recent developments” in negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program, the White House said.

In the phone call, Obama reiterated America’s months-old position entering negotiations: “The United States is focused on reaching a comprehensive deal with Iran that prevents Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon,” the White House said in a statement, “and verifiably assures the international community of the exclusively peaceful nature of its nuclear program.”

The readout also highlights the importance of “continuing close cooperation with Israel” on Iran policy as negotiations enter a critical stage. While two deadlines for a comprehensive nuclear accord were scrapped last year, diplomats are working to forge a political agreement by the end of March.

Obama and Netanyahu also discussed the Palestinian Authority’s efforts to join the International Criminal Court, condemned by the US and Israel alike this month.

PA President Mahmoud Abbas signed the Rome Statute to accede to the court on December 31.

“The Palestinian Authority does not yet constitute a state and is therefore not eligible to accede to the Rome Statute,” Obama told Netanyahu, reiterating the US position as outlined last week. “The United States does not believe Palestinian accession to the ICC is a constructive way forward.”

Fallout from Abbas’ move has been swift: Netanyahu’s government halted the transfer of tax revenues, and Congress has warned to cut its nearly $400 billion in aid to the PA should it proceed.

Obama “encourages both sides to seek ways to deescalate tensions,” he noted in the phone call.

Asked by The Jerusalem Post whether the attack on a kosher supermarket in Paris was a topic of the call, one White House official said “the attacks were briefly discussed.”

The State Department joined France in calling that assault “anti-Semitic” over the weeken


Monday, January 12th, 2015

Lies, Palestinian Promises and Abbas

There is an old saying that, “promises, like pie crust, are meant to be broken.”

This may be somewhat cynical but when it refers to the promises made to Israel by the Arabs who call themselves Palestinians, it is utterly apt.

Never in the history of international diplomacy has so much dissimilitude been perpetrated for so long by one side – the PLO and it’s grotesque offspring, the so-called Palestinian Authority. It’s congenital untruthfulness and corresponding Israeli gullibility has resulted in disastrous and horrendous consequences for the embattled State of Israel.

The Arab League created the PLO in 1964 – three years before the so-called “occupation” – and as an instrument to destroy the Jewish state. It soon came under the infernal leadership of Yasser Arafat.

,,,“land for peace” and the “two state solution” must now be replaced with the only word that matters for Israel’s survival: Sovereignty.
The same Egyptian born, Yasser Arafat, had tried to take over Jordan with his horde of terrorists but had been driven out and pushed into Lebanon by King Hussein in September, 1970. It was a bloodbath that resulted in the Jordanian Arab Legion killing thousands of PLO gunmen. Arafat’s surviving PLO thugs then turned Lebanon, that once Christian nation, into a living hell with Christians massacred.

Arafat’s terror gangs were in turn eventually thrown out of Lebanon many years later by the Israel Defense Force (IDF). The PLO had made life in northern Israel intolerable due to their murderous infiltrations across the Lebanese-Israel border with the cold blooded killing of Israeli children. Remember, Ma’alot, Avivim, Kiryat Sh’mona?

Regrettably, Arafat slipped through Israel’s hands in Beirut and was allowed to escape with many of his thugs to Tunis, helped by the U.S. If he had been left to rot in Tunis, many, many lives would have been saved in subsequent years, but the deluded Israeli Left later invited Yasser Arafat to leave his well-deserved exile in Tunis and rebuild his terror regime, corrupt dictatorship and kleptocracy again; this time in the very heart of biblical and ancestral Jewish Judea and Samaria (the so-called ‘West Bank’).

The leftwing Rabin government even gave weapons to Arafat’s growing army believing that it would accord with the Oslo Peace Agreement whereby security would be maintained by Arafat’s goons. But, as anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear knew, the weapons were instead soon used against Israeli civilians. These acts of towering and monumental stupidity by the Left led Israel down a road map to near self-destruction.

Dr. Martin Sherman has tirelessly exposed the insanity and inanity of the Israeli Left while at the same time lamenting the inadequacy and incompetence of the Israeli Right. For instance, Dr. Sherman refers to the words of the leftist, Yossi Beilin, who is arguably the baleful architect of the catastrophic Oslo Agreement.

Beilin wrote in the Israeli newspaper, Maariv, the following delusional screed about what would be done if the Palestinians continued their terrorism in defiance of the so-called Oslo Peace Accords:

The ultimate test of this agreement will be a test of blood. If it becomes clear that [the Palestinians] cannot overcome terror, this will be a temporary accord and… we will have no choice but to abrogate it. And if there is no choice, the IDF will return to the places it is about to leave in the upcoming months.
– Yossi Beilin, Ma’ariv, November 26, 1993

Well, it never was intended to become a temporary accord by those pushing for its implementation and Israel was subsequently pressured by the U.S. not to return to the places it had so foolishly vacated – certainly not when the Clinton Administration invested so much into an agreement.

After all, Clinton recognized the terrorist PLO and required Israel to begin undertaking the unthinkable – the abandonment of ancestral, biblical and strategic Jewish land to the arch-terrorist, Yasser Arafat.

The die was cast on that fateful day when a somber Yitzhak Rabin shook hands with a grinning Arafat on the White House lawn. And what was promised to Rabin by the liar in chief, Arafat, was an amendment to the Palestinian Covenant that calls for Israel’s destruction.

It, of course, never happened. But what did happen was what we now call the Oslo War. In fact Arafat flew to South Africa immediately afterwards where, in a Durban mosque, he reassured his Muslim audience – in Arabic – that he would never make peace with the Jews.

In 1994, Israel – the only party that has ever carried out its part of this Faustian bargain – transferred control of Gaza and Jericho to Arafat under yet another accord; this one called the Cairo Accord.

Again, Arafat promised to increase his efforts to combat Palestinian terror attacks. His promise was made with a forked tongue and more Jews perished at the hands of Palestinian gunmen. But still the naïve and deluded Israeli leaders persisted in carrying out the letter of the agreements they, oh, so foolishly signed.

In 1995 the Jewish state transferred control of six cities in Judea and Samaria (the so-called ‘West Bank’) to Arafat as fulfillment of the Oslo-2 Accord. Again, Arafat promised to crack down on Palestinian terror against Israelis. It was all lies for with such creatures as Arafat, talk is cheap. Muslims are taught to lie to “infidels” in pursuit of Islamic aims. It is enshrined in the Koran and is called Takiyyah.

So while Jewish corpses piled up, Israel yet again made even more concessions to the growing cancer of Arafat’s Arab entity plaguing Judea and Samaria and all parts of Israel. And all the while the Israelis alone were urged to take, “risks for peace.” Such risks with an implacable Muslim enemy mean ultimate national suicide.

In January, 1997 Prime Minister Netanyahu gave away control of most of Hevron – one of the four Jewish holy cities – to what was now called the Palestinian Authority. And again, from Arafat’s mouth spewed the bogus promise of combatting Palestinian Arab terror against the Jewish state.

Can there be any understanding of why so many Israeli leaders and politicians continue to put their trust in the cynically duplicitous promises of the Arabs who call themselves Palestinians or in the arguably less than friendly Obama Administration and State Department?

Even after all the dread experience of putting trust in the deceitful words of the PA, the Israeli leader, Ariel Sharon, in 2005 horribly expelled 10,000 Jewish souls from their villages and farms in Gaza. In return we all know the result: wars, terror, misery and nearly 12,000 missiles aimed at Israeli civilians to date.

The so-called Palestinians – now under the leadership of Arafat’s lieutenant, the financier of the Munich Massacre and a Holocaust denier, Mahmoud Abbas – will never carry out any commitments made to Israel. Abbas’ trip to France to march against terror is just another example of Islamic Takiyyah.

As I have written so many times before, where the Muslim foot has trod triumphal in the name of Allah, that land is forever in the Dar al-Islam (the House of Islam).

If it is lost to the “infidel” then it enters the Dar al-Harb (the House of War) and it is incumbent upon every Muslim to wage eternal war until it is recovered.

Thus, the Palestinian Authority, which is overwhelmingly Muslim, will never make peace with the Jewish state: Period.

That being the case, any Israeli who still believes that there ever will be peace with the Palestinian Authority or – heaven forbid – with a state called Palestine, (one that has never existed as a sovereign state in all of recorded history) is terminally deluded and must never, ever be allowed to govern Israel or make any concession to any Muslim entity.

Alas, we can expect the Livnis and the Herzogs and all their benighted leftwing followers to continue the “land for peace” lunacy that has brought Israel to the present tragic plight. With another election now due in March, the question remains: Will the result be another lost opportunity, another suicidal compromise, that brings yet another rudderless Israeli ship of state?

Long overdue is for the Israeli Right to once and for all hammer away relentlessly to the Israeli public that the infamous euphemisms for Israel’s destruction and death, namely “land for peace” and the “two state solution” must now be replaced with the only word that matters for Israel’s survival: Sovereignty.

The Jewish homeland must extend in every last centimeter from the River Jordan to the Mediterranean Sea. It is not enough to annex just Area C. The Right must end its absurd preoccupation with arguing why the Left is wrong and instead begin articulating why the indigenous people, the native people, the Jews, must not allow alien Arab enemies to lay claim to any part of its patrimony and God given Covenanted land. Oh, how the world will howl. But let it.

Only then may the Right not only win elections but no longer see the electorate’s trust in them betrayed by subsequent tragic concessions to the Left. The Right must transform Israel into a nation that, though still hated by a morally compromised world, nevertheless will be a strong Torah based nation feared and respected by its enemies.

Martin Sherman is absolutely correct when he points to the utterly depressing reality in Israeli politics, namely the inability of the Right to finally defang the corrosive leftwing doctrine of appeasement and capitulation that always rears its ugly head. As he so cogently states in his most recent article published on January 1, 2015 titled: Delusional, destructive Left, incompetent, impotent Right:

“The fact that the Right has not been able to marshal the intellectual depth, ideological vigor and political acumen to dispatch this demonstrably delusional doctrine to the garbage heap of history, with all the scorn and ridicule it so richly deserves, is as incomprehensible as it is inexcusable.”

And with an election coming soon, he ends with the following prescient words:

“Unless there is a far-reaching enhancement in the intellectual fare offered the voter, the grim choice confronting him/her will once again be between a delusional Left and an incompetent Right.”


Sunday, January 11th, 2015


It is still not clear whether reports in Turkish newspaper Aydinlik concerning the expulsion by Qatar of Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal are accurate. Hamas officials have indignantly denied that their leader is shortly set to quit his Doha home.

But certainly, Mashaal’s expulsion would fit with the broader pattern of recent events.

Recent months have witnessed a number of acts by Qatar suggesting it is seeking to repair relations with its fellow Gulf monarchies, and with Egypt. Hamas, the enemy of Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi and the Saudis, can have no part in this.

The expulsion of Mashaal, if it takes place, will be the latest concession by Doha to the wishes of Cairo and Riyadh.

Qatar’s latest moves are the fruit of partial defeat for Doha in its regional agenda; Saudi Arabia and Egypt are the winners. Lets take a look.

Qatar, in the first two years of the regional upheaval that began in 2011, appeared to be riding high. The tiny emirate backed the Muslim Brotherhood movement; its enormously influential Al Jazeera channel pumped out propaganda on behalf of the movement and against its enemies. In late 2012, at what was evidently its high-water mark, the Qatar-Brotherhood alliance appeared to be forming a new power bloc in the Middle East.

The Brotherhood had achieved power in the most populous Arab state – Egypt. It Tunisian iteration, al-Nahda, won elections there.

Militias associated with a Brotherhood-type outlook and financed by Qatar, such as the Tawhid Brigade of Aleppo, were playing a key role in the Syrian war – and victory looked within reach. Turkey, under the rule of the Brotherhood-influenced AK Party, had drawn close to Qatar and saw itself playing a key role in the emergent Sunni Islamist alliance.

Two years on, nearly all of this is in ruins.

Most importantly, the army is back in power in Egypt and is engaged in an attempt to crush the Brotherhood. In Tunisia, Nahda lost elections in 2014 and has ceded power to its non-Islamist rivals. In Syria, a regionwide mobilization by Iran of its allies and proxies, and the determined support of Russia as well as rebel confusion and disunity, have saved Syrian President Bashar Assad’s regime.

This has left both Qatar and Hamas somewhat beached. Doha had antagonized its fellow Gulf monarchies to distraction, in the service of a new power bloc that apparently is not going to come into existence after all.

Hamas, meanwhile, had also placed its bets on this emergent Sunni Islamist bloc.

The Palestinian branch of the Brotherhood had removed itself from Damascus, rejected the Iranian attempt to exhort it to declare its support for Assad, and suffered a major loss in Iranian funding as a result.

RECENT MONTHS have seen both Qatar and Hamas seeking to adjust themselves to this new reality, but in different directions.

In mid-September, Doha ordered several prominent members of the Egyptian Brotherhood to leave the emirate. They had been offered asylum after fleeing their country following the military coup in July 2013.

The first indication of improved relations with other Gulf states came after a surprise summit of Gulf Cooperation Council countries on November 16, 2014. As a result of this meeting, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates agreed to return their ambassadors to Qatar after an absence of eight months. In the days after, Saudi King Abdullah II received a phone call from Qatari Emir Tamim bin Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani.

The GCC summit in Bahrain in early December saw further Qatari concessions on Libya and Egypt, where Doha’s position had run in direct contradiction to that of Saudi Arabia and the UAE.

Doha gave its full support to Sisi and his “road map” for Egypt at the summit; afterward, Qatari Foreign Minister Khalid Bin Mohammed al-Attiya pledged Doha’s support for Sisi, and spoke of the importance of Egypt’s regional role.

Then, on December 20, Sisi met with an envoy of the Qatari emir, in a meeting brokered by Riyadh.

Thus, the Mashaal departure, if indeed it takes place, will be the latest in a string of concessions offered by Doha to the Cairo-Riyadh alliance – which is emerging as the key power arrangement among the Sunnis at present.

Qatar is of course enormously wealthy, but it is also a flimsy state, lacking hard power of any kind. For its economic and business activities to continue to flourish, it cannot afford to stray too far from existing power alliances, which will inevitably be dominated by states other than itself.

For a while, the Qataris thought they were set to be the financiers and cheerleaders of a new, Egypt-centered bloc – yet that bloc was stillborn. The Qataris are now accommodating themselves to this reality.

Hamas, too, must make its own new arrangements, and indications are that the movement is leaning in the direction of renewed rapprochement with Iran. The year 2014 saw a gradual thaw in relations between Hamas and Tehran, though all suspicion is unlikely to have dispelled.

Hamas’s needs are different from those of Qatar. And of course, Hamas has no way to align with the Cairo-Riyadh alliance – which regards it as an element of the Brotherhood they are seeking to defeat.

This leaves Tehran or Ankara as possible backers – or more likely, a hedging and a combination of the two.

Of course, one should not assume that Qatar will entirely end its support for Islamist movements. Doha has not fallen in love with Riyadh; it is repositioning out of necessity and through clenched teeth. The more extravagant Egyptian demands – such as that Doha expel prominent Brotherhood preacher Yusuf al-Qaradawi – are unlikely to be fulfilled; Qaradawi has lived in the emirate since 1961.

Ultimately, what the Qatari concessions indicate is the burgeoning strength of the Cairo-Riyadh alliance, which has forced a Qatari realignment while appearing to offer no, or hardly any, gestures in return.

This new alliance (which has good, if largely silent, relations with Israel), is perhaps the most important diplomatic development in the region since 2011.

As of now, with the US seeking rapprochement with Iran, the main blocs facing one another in the region are the Iranians and their allies against the Saudis and their own.

The Brotherhood and the Salafists are a factor, to be sure, but for the moment a weaker one.

In sum, the travails and maneuvering of Qatar and Hamas reflect the disarray of the Sunni Islamist camp.


Saturday, January 10th, 2015

by Elad Benari (Arutz Sheva News)

IDF Chief of Staff Benny Gantz on last Thursday expressed disappointment at the Palestinian Authority’s (PA) application to join the International Criminal Court (ICC) and pursue war-crimes charges against Israel,

Gantz, who is visiting the United States, said that the IDF works hard to prevent civilian casualties while still defending the country.

He called the possible charges an unnecessary, unilateral step and said Israel has the ability to investigate incidents when needed.

Gantz was speaking to reporters after a Pentagon meeting with Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

The PA formally presented a request to the United Nations last Friday to join the ICC, in a move firmly opposed by both Israel and the United States.

On Tuesday, the United Nations accepted the request, saying that “Palestine” will become a member of the ICC as of April 1.

State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki reiterated on Wednesday that Washington opposes the move, noting the PA is not eligible to join the ICC because the U.S. “does not believe that the state of Palestine qualifies as a sovereign state”.

Dempsey, with whom Gantz met on Thursday, has said in the past that Israel went to “extraordinary lengths” to limit civilian casualties during the fighting in Gaza last summer.

“I actually do think that Israel went to extraordinary lengths to limit collateral damage and civilian casualties,” he said.

“In this kind of conflict, where you are held to a standard that your enemy is not held to, you’re going to be criticized for civilian casualties,” he added in comments in November.

Dempsey said Hamas had turned Gaza into “very nearly a subterranean society” with tunneling throughout the coastal enclave.

“That caused the IDF some significant challenges. But they did some extraordinary things to try and limit civilian casualties, to include … making it known that they were going to destroy a particular structure,” he note


Saturday, January 10th, 2015

by Israel Kollel (Arutz Sheva News)

The Torah (Shmot 3:5) relates that after seeing the burning bush, Hashem tells Moshe to remove his shoes. The rationale presented for this is, “for the place upon which you stand is holy ground.”

The need to take off one’s shoes in a sacred place is mentioned in Sefer Yehoshua (5:15), and is established as normative halakha in the last mishna in Brachot (9:5), which prohibits entry to Har HaBayit, the Temple Mount, while wearing shoes.
The significance of taking off one’s shoes when entering a sacred place is not explicit in the Tanach, Mishna or Gemara. Different explanations are suggested by the commentators (mefarshim).

Chizkuni (Shmot, ibid.) comments that since one’s shoes may be dirty, it’s inappropriate to enter a holy place with shoes. This technical rationale is also offered by the Rambam in his commentary to the aforementioned mishna in Brachot.
Rav Hirsch (Shmot, ibid.) suggests a more fundamental understanding for this practice, claiming that this act symbolizes the need for direct contact between the person and the sanctity inherent in the ground. Shoes are essentially a barrier, and when one comes in contact with sanctity, one needs to remove the barriers to ultimately be affected and influenced by it.

In a similar vein, Rav David ben Amram Ha’Adeni, in his Midrash HaGadol, suggests that removing one’s shoes symbolizes the need to free oneself of mundane thoughts, concentrating on developing a relationship with God.

In our hectic and chaotic world, people are often working 24/6, constantly connected virtually and functioning as “human-doings,” not human-beings. Taking off one’s shoes represents and facilitates a time-out from the rat race. The physical, grounding connection to the holy soil beneath one’s feet, which we often are too busy to appreciate, provides one with the mental space necessary to be spiritually sensitive. This enables one to cultivate a relationship, a real connection, with God.

May we be zocheh, merit, to internalize this message, and to be successful in this endeavor.


Thursday, January 8th, 2015


As new details are revealed in the investigation of the Islamic State (ISIS) terror cell in Hevron, security officials estimate that hundreds of Hamas terrorists are leaving the “moderate” terrorist group in favor of ISIS to wage war on Israel – and the Palestinian Authority (PA).

The leader of the Hevron ISIS cell, Ahmed Wadah Salah Shehada (22), admitted under Israel Security Agency (ISA, or Shin Bet) investigation that he switched from Hamas to ISIS in recent years because it was too “moderate” for him, in that Hamas didn’t compel Sharia Islamic law, reports Channel 2.

Reportedly the security system assesses that hundreds of other terrorists have made the move to ISIS like Shehada, and are in contact with the terrorist organization through online social media.

“This cell was just the tip of the iceberg,” a security source was quoted as saying. “There are terrorists who are tired of Hamas because it is portrayed as moderate and not aggressive and extremist enough against Israel.”

He continued “there they see ISIS as an organization that implements the Islamic laws – Sharia. Hamas is under great pressure from this phenomenon which is slowly eating into its power. ISIS is entering into this vacuum.”

Indeed, ISIS already reportedly has a foothold in Gaza where it took an active part in last summer’s terror war against Israel, and where it claimed a bombing attack on the French Cultural Center last October.

Already as of last October 30 Arab citizens of Israel had reportedly joined ISIS.

ISA has cyber units working around the clock to locate the new ISIS cells online and take them out before they take lethal action against Israeli targets. However, some would argue Israel isn’t taking stringent enough counter-measures; an Arab citizen of Israel was given a temporary permit to return to Israel on Wednesday after leaving to join ISIS in Syria.

Recruiting for ISIS in Israel – on Facebook

New details of how ISIS’s hold in Israel is being expanded were revealed in the ISA investigation of the terror cell in Hevron that was nabbed last November, details which were recently published.

In investigation, the cell leader Shehada admitted “it started around a year ago. I contacted Al-Nusra Front and ISIS activists through their Facebook pages.”

“My intention was to join them in the fighting in Syria, against the (Bashar) Assad regime. After several talks that I had with my friends in Hevron, I decided not to fly there, and (instead) establish an ISIS cell in Hevron,” said Shehada.

“Our goal was to establish a cell that would conduct attacks against the IDF and the Palestinian Authority,” said Shehada, noting that Israel wasn’t the only target. “We understood that Hamas isn’t doing the job. We downloaded from the ISIS site posters and pictures and distributed them to residents.”

That recruitment also included indoctrination and propaganda through Facebook, he admitted, while noting his cell’s goal was to abduct and murder an IDF soldier during the Muslim month of Ramadan.

“The plan was to take (a soldier’s) rifle, to hide his body in a water hole and to take his uniform to conduct a shooting attack against soldiers,” said Shehada.

He revealed that one night as the three-man cell conducted surveillance runs around Hevron armed with a rope to tie up a soldier, “we saw a soldier who said ‘good night’ to us, but we went home without abducting him.”

Speaking about the switch to Hamas, another cell member said “we believe that ISIS is better than Hamas and the Palestinian Authority, who don’t do anything for the residents.”

“We held a few meetings in Hevron, with the goal being to acquire rifles and pipe bombs that we could use against soldiers and Palestinian police stations in Bab el-Alzawiya,” he said. “We looked at all kinds of websites and learned how to produce pipe bombs.”


Tuesday, January 6th, 2015

by Ambassador Alan Baker (Arutz Sheva News)

Ten points proving that Oslo is irrelevant.

1. The peace negotiation process as set out in the Oslo Accords was intended to lead to peace between Israel and the Palestinian People and mutual recognition of each other’s “mutual legitimate and political rights” (Preamble, Oslo I and Oslo II).

2. In this context Israel was prepared to compromise on the historic and legal rights of the Jewish People in the area, through agreement for peaceful relations. To this end the parties agreed in the Oslo Accords not to initiate or take any steps that will change the status of the territories pending the outcome of the permanent status negotiations (Oslo II, Article 31(7)).

3. Yasser Arafat, in his September 9, 1993, letter to Yitzhak Rabin, declared that “all outstanding issues relating to permanent status will be resolved through negotiations.”

4. This overall series of commitments and obligations constitutes a contractual framework of obligations between Israel and the Palestinians, signed as witnesses and guarantors by the King of Jordan, the Presidents of the U.S. and Egypt, the Foreign Ministers of the Russian Federation and Norway, the EU and endorsed by the UN.

5. By petitioning the UN, the International Criminal Court and international organizations to recognize them and accept them as a full member state, and by their unification with the Hamas terror organization, the Palestinians have knowingly and deliberately bypassed their contractual obligations pursuant to the Oslo Accords in an attempt to prejudge the main negotiating issues outside the negotiation.

6. This, together with their attempts to delegitimize Israel among the international community and their attempted actions against Israel’s leaders, has served to frustrate any possibility of realization of the Oslo Accords, and as such the Palestinians are in material breach of their contractual obligations.

7. By the same token those countries supporting them are in breach of their obligations and guarantees as witnesses.

8. By all legal standards, according to the accepted and universally recognized laws of contracts and international agreements, a fundamental breach enables the injured party to declare the agreement void and is freed from any further obligations pursuant to the agreement or contract.

9. Therefore the fundamental breach of the Oslo Accords by the Palestinians is indicative of their conscious decision to undermine them and prevent any possibility of their implementation. As such they have rendered the Accords void.

10. In such a situation of fundamental breach and according to all accepted rules of contracts and agreements, Israel has the legitimate right to declare that the Oslo Accords are no longer valid and to act unilaterally in order to protect its essential legal and security interests.


Monday, January 5th, 2015

by David Singer (Arutz Sheva News)

The impassioned plea by the father of a Jordanian F16 fighter pilot captured by Islamic State has shot down attempts by American President Obama, British Prime Minister David Cameron, Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott and the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) to distance Islam from the Islamic State (ISIL).

Speaking to the media – the father of Islamic State’s star captive – 1st Lt. Mu’ath al-Kaseasbeh, – said:

“I direct a message to our generous brothers of the Islamic State in Syria: to host my son, the pilot Mu’ath, with generous hospitality. I ask God that their hearts are gathered together with love, and that he is returned to his family, wife and mother.

We are all Muslims.”

This desperate cry for mercy stands in stark contrast to what President Obama stressed at a media conference in August:

“Let’s be clear about ISIL. They have rampaged across cities and villages killing innocent, unarmed civilians in cowardly acts of violence. They abduct women and children and subject them to torture and rape and slavery. They have murdered Muslims, both Sunni and Shia, by the thousands. They target Christians and religious minorities, driving them from their homes, murdering them when they can, for no other reason than they practice a different religion.

They declared their ambition to commit genocide against an ancient people. So ISIL speaks for no religion. Their victims are overwhelmingly Muslim, and no faith teaches people to massacre innocents.”

Cameron has been equally as strident:

“We should be clear: this is not the “War on Terror”, nor is it a war of religions. It is a struggle for decency, tolerance and moderation in our modern world. It is a battle against a poisonous ideology that is condemned by all faiths and by all faith leaders, whether Christian, Jewish or Muslim.”

Abbott was eager to support Obama and Cameron’s statements – telling a media conference during the Martin Place siege in Sydney last week:

“But the point I keep making is that the ISIL death cult has nothing to do with any religion, any real religion.”

These Presidential and Prime Ministerial statements had followed a most explicit condemnation of Islamic State by Iyad Ameen Madani – the Secretary General for the Organization of Islamic Cooperation – the collective voice of the Muslim world – representing 57 countries over four continents comprising 1.4 billion Muslims – the second largest inter-governmental organization after the United Nations.

As Vatican Radio reported on 25 July:

In a statement, he [Madani] officially denounced the “forced deportation under the threat of execution” of Christians, calling it a “crime that cannot be tolerated.” The Secretary General also distanced Islam from the actions of the militant group known as ISIS, saying they “have nothing to do with Islam and its principles that call for justice, kindness, fairness, freedom of faith and coexistence.”

Yet the simple plea of one distraught Jordanian parent pleading for his son to be set free – stressing that “we are all muslims” – will certainly sheet home the distinct unease being felt by non-muslims living in Sydney – still reeling from the Lindt Chocolat Café siege and subsequent shoot out in Martin Place killing two innocent civilians and the self-styled Islamic cleric who perpetrated the siege.

Such unease subsequently found the head of the Australian Defence League and two other people being charged over a brawl near a mosque in Sydney’s Islamic heartland – Lakemba.

The news that Sulayman Khalid, 20, was one of two men arrested on Christmas Eve as part of an ongoing counter-terrorism investigation into the alleged planning of a terrorist attack on Australian soil – has only increased such unease.

As the Daily Telegraph reported:

“Khalid, also known as Abu Bakr, appeared earlier this year on SBS’s Insight wearing a jacket emblazoned with the Islamic State flag and stormed off the set when questioned about his support for IS fighters.”

France has last week also seen three supposedly “lone wolf” incidents allegedly involving “deranged” Muslim perpetrators in:

Nantes – when a van was driven into a crowd killing one and wounding 9 other shoppers Dijon – where a man shouting “allahu akbar” (“God is greatest” in Arabic) injured 13 in a similar attack to that in Nantes Tours – where an attacker – also yelling “allahu akbar” – was shot dead after stabbing three police officers

Meaningless OIC condemnatory statements designed to distance Islam from Islamic State are no longer sufficient.

Surely the time has come for the OIC to galvanise its member States into pledging unified Islamic military action to degrade and destroy Islamic State.

Such steps could include:

OIC resolving that all 57 member States join the American-led coalition of 62 States presently fighting Islamic State.

Presently only 13 of those Islamic States have joined the coalition. Major Islamic States – such as Malaysia, Indonesia, Algeria, Pakistan and Nigeria remain uncommitted.

Making a unified Islamic approach to the United Nations Security Council by sponsoring a resolution calling for the use of armed force by the United Nations against Islamic State under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter.

Four Islamic States – Malaysia, Nigeria, Chad and Jordan – are members of the UN Security Council and provide an effective bloc to pressure the Security Council – particularly those States exercising a veto – into taking such action.

Growing Islamoparanoia needs to be contained – if rampant Islamophobia is not allowed to run riot.


Sunday, January 4th, 2015

Jerusalem (AFP) – Israel was weighing its options Sunday for further punishing the Palestinians after freezing millions in tax revenues as a first response to their bid to join the International Criminal Court.

But the request to join the court, formally presented on Friday, infuriated Israel which quickly moved to freeze the transfer of half a billion shekels ($127 million/106 million euros) in tax revenues to the Palestinian Authority.

“The Palestinian Authority has chosen to take a path of confrontation with Israel, and we will not sit idly by,” Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told cabinet ministers on Sunday, vowing to put up a vigorous defence of Israel’s soldiers.

Although Palestinian chief negotiator Saeb Erakat denounced the freezing of the transfer as “piracy,” Israeli officials warned it was only the first in a series of punitive steps.

“If the Palestinian Authority doesn’t take a step back, I think we have to take much more severe steps,” said Strategic Affairs Minister Yuval Steinitz, a close associate of Netanyahu, referring to a “gradual dissolution” of the PA.

Israel may also file countersuits against top Palestinian officials, a source close to the government said on Friday. But, in an unusual development, Israel was not planning to announce any new settlement construction in the settlements, a senior foreign ministry official said on Sunday.

Speaking to Israeli diplomats serving in Europe, foreign ministry director general Nissim Ben Sheetrit said Israel’s response would be “harsher and more comprehensive” than just freezing the taxes, but would not include settlement announcements, ministry spokesman Emmanuel Nahshon told AFP.

“Israel is about to switch from defence to attack mode,” Nahshon quoted him as saying, confirming comments first published by Haaretz website.

A senior official quoted by Haaretz said the government had learned a lesson from that incident and would not be taking any steps making Israel the focus of criticism rather than the Palestinians.

“We will not let Israel Defence Forces (IDF) soldiers and officers be dragged to the International Criminal Court in The Hague,” Netanyahu told ministers on Sunday.

The ICC can prosecute individuals accused of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes committed since July 1, 2002, when the court’s founding treaty, the Rome Statute, came into force.

Israeli legal officials quoted by the top-selling Yediot Aharonot said that while the Palestinian decision to join the ICC could be “a nuisance for Israel, it would not yield any practical legal results”. And a high-ranking legal official said Israel was ready to counter with its own lawsuits against senior Palestinian officials immediately.

The basis of the complaints would be that Palestinian president Mahmud Abbas’s partnership in a consensus government with Hamas makes him complicit in the militant Islamist group’s attacks from Gaza on civilians in Israel.

“These lawsuits, which are backed up with evidence, documents and affidavits, can be filed as early as tomorrow morning,” a high-ranking legal official told the paper.

Under an economic agreement between the sides signed in 1994, Israel transfers to the PA tens of millions of dollars each month in customs duties levied on goods destined for Palestinian markets that transit through Israeli ports.

The tax revenues make up around two-thirds of the PA’s annual budget, excluding foreign aid.

Web Site Designed and Hosted by Ceronex