A King in Israel

A King in Israel

In a provocative and profound essay in this magazine (“A King in Israel,” May 2010), the late Michael Wyschogrod proposed that the Jewish state define itself as a democratic, constitutional monarchy. Israel, Wyschogrod suggested, should rename its head of state—the president elected by its legislature, who already plays a largely ceremonial role—and give him or her the title “Regent of the Throne of David.” This would not, he wrote, involve changing anything about the Knesset and other aspects of the political process. Without redefining its democratic nature, “Israel nonetheless can be declared a Davidic monarchy without a reigning king.” This symbolic action, Wyschogrod argued, “would build into the self-understanding of the state of Israel the messianic hope of the Jewish people, while excluding a messianic interpretation of the present state of Israel.”

Excerpt by

Israel is a Jewish state but has not succeeded in defining just what that means in a national constitution. Although the 1948 Declaration of Independence called for the enactment of a constitution within months of the state’s inception, nothing has been achieved beyond a fragmentary “Basic Law.” Israel finds itself in the uncomfortable position of fighting for its status as a Jewish state without a clear vision of what that entails.

There appears to be an unbridgeable gap between three millennia of Jewish religious thought and the exigencies of modern governance. Yet Judaism’s defining concept, the covenant, is inherently political, and a proper understanding of biblical and rabbinic theology might identify a solution to Israel’s constitutional vacuum.

To discuss theological criteria for the constitution of a secular republic runs against the grain of modern political thought, even though constitutional restrictions on popular sovereignty imply reliance on an authority that is greater than human. In a republic the people are sovereign, yet the purpose of a constitution is precisely to restrict the power of any future majority. If popular sovereignty is absolute, what right has a constitution to frustrate a future majority by, for example, imposing some form of supermajority? In the extreme case, suppose a majority of the delegates to a constitutional convention enacts a constitution that forbids any change forever, or requires a 98 percent majority of the future legislature to enact any constitutional change.

This is no different in principle from the two-thirds supermajority that the United States requires for constitutional amendments. The only basis for a polity to accept severe restrictions on popular majority rule is the conviction that the founding constitution derives its power from a higher form of sovereignty than the voters in any given legislative session. Without such a theological foundation, a republic cannot feel bound by the rules laid down by its founders. A purely secular republic would self-destruct because it could not protect its constitution from constant amendment.

To propose a constitution, in other words, is to ask the question: What form of sovereignty is higher than that of the present voters? America’s Founders appealed to “nature and nature’s God.” Judaism has an answer to this question, elaborated in the oral and written Torah—however remote they appear, at first consideration, from the practical requirements of the state of Israel.

Judaism is founded on a covenant between God and Israel. Instead of unilaterally imposing his will on Israel, God enters into a relation of mutual obligations with a people. This relation is, in content, not only religious but political and legal, and it is understood in this fashion in the Bible and rabbinic literature, where God is called “the King of all Kings” perhaps more often than by any other appellation.

God, moreover, exercises his kingship through proxies. There are three religious institutions and persons in the biblical polity who are divinely sanctioned: the king, the prophet, and the high priest. But of these three offices, only the term king is routinely applied to human beings as well as to God. This is noteworthy because, of the three, the prophet and high priest hold religious functions while the office of king is largely secular. In the presence of a human king, the following blessing is recited: “Blessed are You, Hashem, our God, King of the Universe, Who has given of His glory to flesh and blood.” A human king thus participates in the glory of God. To see a human king is, in a sense, to see a proxy for God.


The crowning of an actual Davidic monarch today would require prophecy to select the proper person. In the absence of prophecy, this is impossible—and the sages of Israel declared almost two thousand years ago that prophecy was gone from Israel. Israel nonetheless can be declared a Davidic monarchy without a reigning king. This action would build into the self-understanding of the state of Israel the messianic hope of the Jewish people, while excluding a messianic interpretation of the present state of Israel.

The solution that I propose is by no means unusual for a constitutional monarchy. It is a common occurrence in monarchy that no king is present or that the present king cannot rule, for example, due to youth. In such situations, a regent is appointed as a placeholder for a king. Such a placeholder can either be appointed or elected. A regent safeguarding the Throne of David until such time that divine intervention identifies the rightful heir to the Davidic kingdom would thus assume the functions now performed by Israel’s president, the symbolic head of state.

It would be quite possible for Israel’s parliament to elect the regent who safeguards the throne just as it now elects Israel’s president. None of the other mechanisms of parliamentary democracy in Israel would need to change. What is important is not the specific mechanism by which the Israeli polity might choose a regent, but, rather, for Israel to understand itself as a monarchy, albeit one without a reigning king.

This would acknowledge God’s will that Israel be ruled by the House of David, and it would define the Jewish character of the Israeli state. If we concede that any constitutional constraints on popular sovereignty derive from an authority higher than the people, we must conclude that a constitution uniquely suited to a Jewish state should embody the political form through which this higher authority has been manifest in the Jewish concept of polity for the past three thousand years. To be a constitutionally Jewish state, Israel must understand itself as a monarchy temporarily without a king.

Such a constitutional monarchy is quite as compatible with modern parliamentary democracy as are the monarchies of Holland and England. But there would remain a fundamental difference between Israel and the European monarchies, which exist as a matter of historical happenstance. For Israel to establish its claim to be a Jewish state—the core issue of contention between Israel and many of its Muslim neighbors—it must do so in the unique way specified by the Bible and the undivided view of Jewish tradition.

Collateral benefits might ensue from such a declaration. For example, the fact that several Arab countries are monarchies (including Israel’s eastern neighbor) raises the prospect that a Davidic monarchy in Israel might elicit a certain degree of respect. The symbolic importance of acknowledging the House of David as Israel’s rightful ruler, moreover, would be a source of inspiration to many Christians who are favorably disposed towards the Jewish state.

The possible practical benefits, though, are incidental to the purpose of giving expression to the deep Jewish longing for Davidic restoration, expressed so frequently and with such deep emotion in the daily liturgy that Jews have recited for thousands of years, in which we beseech God to see a descendant of David on the throne of Israel.

Michael Wyschogrod is professor emeritus of philosophy at Baruch College of the City University of New York and the author of The Body of Faith .

Source: 2017 First Things. All rights reserved.

Posted in History, Israel, Jerusalem, Judaism, Mid East Policy, Peace Process, Rule of Law, Zionism | Tagged , , , | 1 Comment

King Abdullah of Jordan Needs to Abdicate

King Abdullah of Jordan Needs to Abdicate

I met Mudar Zahran, currently the Secretary General of the Jordan Opposition Coalition (JOC), some six years ago and have kept closely in touch with him over the years.  I watched the JOC being formed and take shape, just as I watched their plan Operation Jordan is Palestine (OJIP) take shape. The goal of the later is:

“To establish Jordan as the Palestinian homeland, in accordance with international law, where refugees will be settled within safe and secure borders, allowing Israel to become a fully recognized, sovereign state over all of its soil, including all land west of the Jordan River.”

To make this possible, King Abdullah needs to abdicate.

While I agree with this Plan, I never promoted it personally, at least not until Donald Trump was elected president. I believe that if President Trump is won over by the plan, he can (and will) make it happen. It will mean the end of UNRWA and the PA.

In April, in the hope of winning him over, I wrote The Ultimate Alternate Plan. I am currently lobbying for this plan in the US.

In June of this year, Zahran and his staff started the International Jewish Muslim Dialogue Center (IJMDC) together with Zionists in Britain, where he has lived for years, and the United States. He and his staff then went on to organize a Conference on the subject The Jordan Option – The ultimate alternate solution to be held in October in Jerusalem. I agreed to be the Chairman of the conference.

A couple of weeks after they started promoting this conference on social media, the excrement hit the fan.

King Abdullah had initiated a smear campaign against Zahran, the IJMDC, the Conference and me. We should have expected it.  But as Phineas T. Barnum, the 19th century American showman and circus owner once said, “There is no such thing as bad publicity.”

There was dead silence from the king’s regime for almost two weeks.  This changed on July 2, 2017 when the Muslim Brotherhood (MB), the Royal Family’s most diehard supporters and political partners, released a widely published public statement by the king’s media. The MB said:

 “The deal of the century was being plotted to turn Jordan into the alternative homeland and waste Palestine and the holy sites, and this plot is happening with the cooperation of some Arabs”.

On July 5, Hamas leader Ismael Haniyah, issued a similar statement that included the following line:

“Hamas would never give up resistance (against Israel) and would never accept Jordan becoming Palestine”. He then warned that “the deal of the century is about to take place under a Palestinian cover.”

The Office of the National Director of Intelligence (ONDI) in Jordan’s government in exile reports:

  1. Sources inside Jordan’s king Royal Court confirmed that the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) statement came upon a specific request from the king’s intelligence desk. The sources confirmed Jordan’s king’s cousin, Prince Firas Ben Raaed, who is also the intelligence desk’s director, commissioned the MB’s leader, Zaki Bani Rushied to prepare and release statements against the conference and also to reach out to Hamas to make similar statements.
  2. For those who don’t know it, Bani Rushied’s is very close to Hamas’s Gaza leader, Ismael Haniyah, and stands above him in the Muslim Brother hierarchy, in which Hamas is a mere component.
  3. According to inside sources, the MB’s Director (Zaki Bani Rushied) called Hamas’s Haniyah and requested that he make a statement against the conference. As such, a key phrase was coined — “under the cover of some Palestinians” was exactly in reference to the Palestinians and Jordanians taking part in the conference.
  4. An inside source close to Jordan’s king’s intelligence desk confirmed to ONDI that the regime is very afraid of the conference, but doesn’t want to come out in opposition to it for a variety of reasons, the largest being that if he speaks out, he will be recognizing that there is an actual opposition to his regime. The king is also afraid that if he recognizes it, he will be admitting that there are other options besides the destruction of Israel. The source confirmed the king had commissioned “several third parties” to do the talking for him.
  5. The king’s standard rhetoric with the West is that there is no organized opposition for him at all except for the Islamic terrorist group, the Muslim Brotherhood, which makes him the only reasonable option for ruling the country. Now the west knows the truth – terrorists who do not want peace in the Middle East, work with (and for) the King, and that there is an active opposition movement against his dictatorship.
  6. Jordan’s king urges supporters to wage proxy attacks. The regime’s proxy attacks didn’t stop with statements by its Islamist mouthpieces. On July 5th, Jordan’s king’s loyalist and self-described “opposition figure” Laith Shubilat posted the conference flyer on his Facebook page and said, “The alleged opposition wants to take the Jordan option for peace off the table, may they bury me.”
  7. A Journalistic source close to Shubilat opined: “The regime is suffocating to death and your Conference is the last thing it needs.”  He then went on to say, “the king wants to fight you but he is afraid of launching a campaign against you, so he is doing it by proxy. He is afraid that any campaign against you could (and would) give you more legitimacy not just before the leaders of the West, but his subjects, especially now that he realizes how popular and accepted the JOC and Zahran are by the Jordanian public and leaders in the west.”
  8. The King’s Jerusalem Operatives Are Smearing the Conference. The regime has also undertaken a smear and confusion campaign in Jerusalem through Arab Israeli Journalist Mr. X.   Several Israeli sources have confirmed to the JOC that Mr. X has been calling his contacts, telling them that “The event is fake” and that “Mudar Zahran is a fraud.”  Furthermore, Mr. X utilized two women who are very close to him to spread the same rumors; Ms. Y and Ms. Z.  Both women have been launching a campaign on social media smearing the conference, the speakers, and anyone who will be attending. Mr. X has sent several email messages to those involved in the conference telling them that the conference is “a sham” and that “it would hurt their reputation to be associated with Mudar Zahran.”
  9. Another example of lies that Mr. X, Ms. Y and Ms. Z are spreading is that some of the confirmed speakers were not attending at all. A journalistic source close to Jordan’s king’s royal media desk has confirmed that Mr. X has been asked to undertake this undercover operation by the king’s office. The source then added that Mr. X “would not be putting all this effort for free or just because he enjoys it”.

But the problems with the king predate this event.

In February, 2012, I published a report from the Jordan Times about a 21 year old blogger in Jordan who was stabbed multiple times by a “thug.”  Her family said the reason for this attack was probably because “Musallam wrote a statement in Arabic on her blog addressed to Prince Hassan, criticizing him for “underestimating the minds and abilities of the Jordanian people.”

The Public Security Department of Jordan vehemently denied this and proceeded to smear her. I took up her case and a telephone call was arranged. When I called her, it was obvious she had been visited and threatened. She told me that she doesn’t agree with me and that I shouldn’t bother her any more.

In 2012, Mudar Zahran wrote in Jordan Is Palestinian, published by MEFORUM,

”The unspoken truth is that the Palestinians, the country’s largest ethnic group, have developed a profound hatred of the regime and view the Hashemites as occupiers of eastern Palestine—intruders rather than legitimate rulers. “

He went on to describe the discrimination and oppression the Palestinians were subjected to by the King.

JPOST reported in Feb 2014, that Mudar “was sentenced in absentia last week in the Hashemite Kingdom to jail with hard labor” perhaps for 15 years. As a result, he applied for and was granted, asylum in Britain, where he currently lives.

In Sept 2015, Mohammed Btaibet in “Jordan’s king promotes anti-Semitism” explained why Jordan’s king is not an ally of the State of Israel and how the Jordanian media routinely promotes anti-Semitism in order to prevent the people within the country from rallying against the regime.

In October 2016 Zahran wrote in an article titled “Jordan’s King Abdullah: Threatening the World.”

“Last month, Jordan’s King Abdullah addressed the world from the UN Podium, directly warning Israel that it could “be engulfed in a sea of hatred in a region of turmoil.”  These threats were not “just talk” as some of his few remaining Western cheerleaders would like to claim, but in fact, the king was making a threat, which he has executed into actions that could bring the world one step closer to another war in the Middle East.

“What’s most alarming about this whole situation is this: the king clearly handed the parliament to Islamists whose agenda is to radicalize the public, cause instability in the region, and spread hatred against the West, USA and Israel.

“In total, at least 35 members of the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) are now in the parliament (Almost 27% of 130 seats) 15 members come from the Islamic Action Front Party, 10 from the Centrist Islamic Party and 10 MB affiliates who are not official members of the Brotherhood..

“..  making their vigorous return to the parliament evidence of a much-rumored “handshake” deal between the MB and the king.”

So, just at a time when the Gulf States have declared the MB a terrorist organization and the US is considering doing the same, the king empowers them.

In Jordan’s King Supports ISIS,

“,,,, you will see, with documented evidence, that Jordan’s king has been supporting ISIS, at best, with his recklessness and incompetence, or at worst; he empowers ISIS on purpose for reasons that will be explained here.”

In 2016, the New York Times reported in C.I.A. Arms for Syrian Rebels Supplied Black Market, Officials Say,

“Weapons shipped into Jordan by the Central Intelligence Agency and Saudi Arabia intended for Syrian rebels have been systematically stolen by Jordanian intelligence operatives and sold to arms merchants on the black market, according to American and Jordanian officials.”

The US State Department published Jordan 2015 Human Rights Report. In it they threw the book at Jordan.

In May 2017, a Jordanian attacked and stabbed an Israeli officer in Jerusalem. The officer neutralized him and a very shocking video of the incident shows the attacker was relentless in trying to kill the Israeli. Nonetheless, Jordan’s government shocked the world by blaming Israel for what happened.

Mudar Zahran wrote, “Jordan’s king’s close advisor and his spokesperson, Mohammad AlMomani, said what happened was a “heinous crime” and “Israel is to blame because it is the occupying force”.

This has driven the Israeli Prime Minister to forgo his silence about Jordan, officially making a statement himself: ”It’s time Jordan stopped playing both sides of the game,” he said. Adding that: “It is outrageous to hear the Jordanian government’s speaker support the terror attack which occurred today in Jerusalem’s Old City.”

As it happens, a year earlier another Jordanian killed four people in a restaurant in Israel. The prosecutor confirmed, “He was exposed to ISIS teachings while in Jordan.”

In fact, a recent congressional report confirmed more than 4,000 Jordanians were fighting with ISIS.

Zahran advises “The problem with Jordan is the fact that radicalization in Jordan is manufactured, incited, aided, and promoted by the regime itself.” And then explains how.

Our conference will take place as planned and hopefully our plan, The Ultimate Alternate Solution, will be adopted by Pres Trump and brought to fruition.

The Palestinians who comprise 75% of the population in Jordan need to be liberated from such an oppressive regime.

King Abdullah needs to abdicate.

Posted in Jordan, Mid East Policy, Palestine, Peace Process, Refugees, Rule of Law | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Sukkot – The Feast of Tabernacles

G-D said, “Be Happy”

G-d Said, ‘Be Happy‘: Wisdom at the Western Wall

Gutman Locks filmed during Sukkot, (The Feast of Tabernacles) at the Western Wall, visitors to Judaism’s holy site show what it looks like to perform the mitzvah of being happy.
Joy of a Mitzvah, Four Kinds
Posted in Judaism, Zionism | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

Wisdom at the Kotel With Gutman Locks

Wisdom at the Kotel With Gutman Locks



1K 177 Share

Published on Jun 6, 2010

Gutman Locks answers fundamental questions about Judaism for Pastor Joel Kramer.
About Gutman Locks
Also affectionately known as “Guru Gil” – has been a fixture in the Old City of Jerusalem for two decades. He is the author of several books and musical tapes.

Gil has penned five books. He compiled a book on Gematria, (The Spice of Torah) the numeric mystical meaning of the words of the Torah. His autobiography, “Coming Back to Earth,” is an entertaining recollection of his spiritual journey, especially informative for seekers ensconced or entranced by Eastern paths, as are his other works, “Taming the Raging Mind” and “There is One.”

Gil is well-known at the Western Wall’s Chabad Tefillin Booth.

Source: <http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/959313/jewish/The-Guru-Jew.htm&gt;

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Mudar Zahran : The Pay for Slay Program

The Pay for Slay Program ———————————– Why Abbas, Hamas and Jordan’s king want our people to kill Jews and become martyrs while they are enjoying life in Amman and Ramallah? Our Secretary General explains

Watch Mudar Zahran Jordanian Opposition Coalition

Secretary General

Jordanian Opposition Coalition

About Mudar Zahran:

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Picture of Mudar Zahran in Jerusalem

Mudar Zahran (born 19 April 1973) is a Jordanian Palestinian writer and the secretary general of the Jordanian Opposition Coalition. In 2010, Zahran moved to live in the United Kingdom. In 2014, Zahran was indicted by a Jordanian military court for four separate charges against him.



Born on 19 April 1973, Zahran is a Jordanian national opposition writer of Palestinian origin.[1] Zahran’s parents were born in Jerusalem, and moved to Jordan during the period when the West Bank was under Jordanian control (1950–1967).[1] He has two master’s degrees and was reported in 2012 to have been completing a Ph.D in finance.[1] Before seeking asylum in the UK, Zahran was serving as assistant policy coordinator at the United States Embassy in Amman.[1]

In 2010, Zahran wrote an article in The Jerusalem Post that described Jordan as an apartheid state in its treatment against Palestinians,[2] he also claims the Jordanian state resembles that of South Africa‘s former apartheid.[3] The article provoked an uproar of criticism by both Jordanians and Palestinians alike.[4] Shortly after the article was published, Mudar sent a letter of apology through Ammon News after his father Adnan Zahran threatened to cut off relations if the former wrote anything else and considered Mudar’s continuation of writing as “ingratitude” on a personal level against his father, and as an “ungratefulness” towards Jordan.[2] The father described Mudar’s writings as far from truth and reality.[2] Mudar vowed through the letter dating 26 July 2010 to “not publish any articles or reports in any language related to Jordanian domestic or foreign affairs.”[2] He continued: “This decision comes because of I have sensed clearly that my articles are being misunderstood and exploited by some against my precious country whether by ill intention or misunderstanding.”[2]

After leaving Amman to live in the United Kingdom in 2010, a local gazette published an announcement on 31 May 2011 by Amman’s Magistrates’ court calling on Mudar to present himself at court for a lawsuit filed against him by the HSBC bank branch in Jordan.[5] The announcement said he was called for failing to repay the bank amounts totaling up to 47,000 Jordanian Dinars (about $66,000).[6]

He told The Times of Israel in 2012, “The King (Abdullah II) is not going to survive, it’s out of the question… I give him until next summer, more or less. And even if I am wrong, I can’t see the King making it to 2014 by any stretch.”[1]


In December 2013, Zahran was charged by a Jordanian military court and scheduled to be tried in absentia for four separate charges against him: “inciting hatred against the regime, sectarian strife and insulting the king as well as security services.”[7] According to the Jordanian newspaper Al Ghad, “Zahran’s social networking sites carry articles and phrases offensive to Jordan and his own people (Palestinians).”[8] In February 2014, The Jerusalem Post reported that Zahran had been convicted and sentenced in absentia to jail with hard labor.[9] The reports concerning the length of his sentence differed, with AFP reporting earlier that he might face up to 15 years.[9]

Personal life

Zahran lives in London and has two daughters and a son.[1]


Ben Solomon, Ariel (16 February 2014). “Jordanian Palestinian who writes for ‘Post’ sentenced by Jordan to jail with hard labor”. Jerusalem Post. Retrieved 28 June 2016.


Posted in Conflict Resolution, Israel, Jordan, Judea and Samaria, Mid East Policy, Palestine, Peace Process, Refugees, Rule of Law | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

US Ambassador to Israel Causes Ruckus After Saying Judea and Samaria Part of Israel

Breaking Israel News

By Adam Eliyahu Berkowitz September 30, 2017 , 10:43 pm

“Deceit is in the minds of those who plot evil; For those who plan good there is joy.” (The Israel Bible™)

New American Ambassador to Israel, David Friedman, meets with Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the PM’s office in Jerusalem, on May 16, 2017. (Photo: Haim Zach/GPO)

The U.S. Ambassador to Israel, David Friedman, caused a major ruckus on Thursday when he explained in an interview that the U.N. Security Council Resolution 242  intended for Israel to retain most of the land Israel conquered in the Six-Day War.

In an interview with the Hebrew-language Walla! news outlet, Friedman, who was a successful lawyer, explained his interpretation of the resolution.

“I think the settlements are part of Israel,” he said. “I think that was always the expectation when [United Nations Security Council] Resolution 242 was adopted in 1967. . . It was and remains today the only substantive resolution that was agreed to by everybody.”

“The idea was that Israel would be entitled to secure borders,” he said. “The existing borders, the ‘1967 borders’ were viewed by everybody as not secure, so Israel would retain a meaningful portion of the West Bank and it would return that which it didn’t need for peace and security.”

“So there was always supposed to be some notion of expansion into the West Bank, but not necessarily expansion into the entire West Bank. And I think that’s exactly what, you know, Israel has done – I mean they’re only occupying two percent of the West Bank. There is important nationalistic, historical, religious significance to those settlements and I think the settlers view themselves as Israelis, and Israel views the settlers as Israelis.”

The interviewer, Yaakov Eilon, asked Friedman, “At least part of the settlements will have to go down as part of the deal. True or false?”

Ambassador Friedman answered cryptically, “Wait and see.”

Friedman also told Walla! that the concept of a two-state solution “has lost its meaning, or at least has a different meaning for different people.”

Ambassador David Friedman (center), Oded Revivi (Left) and Envoy Jason Greenblatt (right) at the Salomon shiva.
(Courtesy Yesha Council)

Oded Revivi of the Yesha (Judea and Samaria) Council praised Friedman for his statements.

“Ambassador Friedman should be commended for using facts to describe the reality in Judea and Samaria,” Revivi said in a statement.

“All of the Israeli towns and cities plus all infrastructure, including roads, adds up to less than two percent of what is described as the West Bank,” he said. “For decades the international community has been eating up Palestinian propaganda without checking the reality on the ground.”

“Peace is about two peoples living side-by-side and was never about ethnically cleansing Jews from Judea,”  Revivi added.“This Yom Kippur, it’s time the world atones for their past sins and acknowledges that our communities, where Jews and Palestinians live, drive and work alongside each other, are in fact the key to lasting peace.”



Revivi is mayor of the city of Efrat, a religious city south of Jerusalem that employs hundreds of Palestinians from neighboring villages.

The U.S. State Department was not as supportive of Friedman’s use of facts. Later on Thursday, Spokesperson Heather Nauert told reporters that the ambassador’s comments should “not be read as a shift in US policy.”

“I just want to be clear that our policy has not changed,” she added. ”I want to be crystal clear .”

Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) secretary general Saeb Erekat reacted angrily to Friedman’s statements.

“Israel is internationally recognized as the occupying power over 100 percent of Palestine, including in and around occupied east Jerusalem,” Erekat said on Friday, according to AFP.

He said that Friedman’s comment was “not only false and misleading but contradicts international law, United Nations resolutions and also the historical U.S. position”.

“It is not the first time that Mr. David Friedman has exploited his position as U.S. ambassador to advocate and validate the Israeli government’s policies of occupation and annexation,” Erekat stated.

Posted in Conflict Resolution, History, Judea and Samaria, Mid East Policy | Tagged , , , , | 1 Comment

Hamas leader’s son blasts Palestinian Authory leadership at UN

Mosab Hassan Yousef, the son of a Hamas leader and militant-turned-Israel-activist, took the floor at the United Nations on Wednesday to criticize the Palestinian Authority.

Watch Yousef https://youtu.be/c2NaiX-hvVQ

“Where does your legitimacy come from? The Palestinian people did not elect you, and they did not appoint you to represent them,” he began.

He alleged that the PA and its security forces kidnap and torture Palestinians, and, as such, are the chief architects of Palestinian suffering.

“If Israel did not exist, you would have no one to blame.”

Yousef also suggested that the PA was misleading its own people, violating their human rights, and abusing its own power.

Yousef was speaking on behalf of UN Watch, a watchdog group that monitors the United Nations for supposed anti-Israel biases. He left Hamas in the 1990s to work for the Shin Bet, Israel’s internal security agency, and has since moved to the United States.

The Green Prince is an autobiographical documentary of Yousef’s life, released in 2014.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment