Why does Israel Insist on Recognition as a Jewish State?

This may be one of the most misunderstood issues facing Israeli-Palestinian Peace. Most question this insistence by asking:

Why should it matter if the Palestinians recognize Israel as a Jewish State?

Is Israel just insecure?

Whether or not the Palestinians say Israel is a Jewish State should have any effect on peace, so why does Israel stick on this point?

With these as the base, most people then conclude that Israel raises this issue for two reasons: 1. To create another problem to prevent peace and 2. to make it impossible for the Palestinians to get the Right of Return.

In order to understand why this point is so important, and why these conclusions are false, we must first establish what "recognition" means.

In this context, recognition doesn't mean they want President Abbas to say in a speech that Israel is Jewish or to just sign a declaration to that effect (though that would be a good step).

Recognition means that the Palestinian Authority must change its education system and teach its children that Jews have a right to live in Israel.

But Matt, you're saying, if the PA does that, it's as though they are saying that they don't have a right to live in Palestine!

Not so. There is no legitimate reason why two peoples can't have a claim to the same land. The Palestinians don't need to renounce their own claim. They need to teach their children that Jews have just as much a right to live there as they do, no more, no less.

If the Palestinians don't agree to this recognition and a peace agreement is signed without these changes, the peace is doomed to fail. Why would the average Palestinian accept an agreement with a state they believe has no right to exist? If Palestinian children continue to be taught from childhood that Israel is a colonial usurper, forced on the Middle East by imperialist powers, it doesn't matter what their leaders agree to on paper, they will continue to fight against Israel. The Palestinians must confront their rejectionist narrative and accept Israel as a legitimate partner.

This also means that Israel should be required to recognize an eventual Palestinian State as the nation-state of the Palestinian people. Israel will have to confront its own narrative and teach its children that Palestinians do exist and have just as much right to a state as they do. There has already been progress on this front in Israel, however, so far this has been mostly in universities.

For peace to be strong and lasting, it must be between people not just governments. That is what the issue of recognition is all about.

Curveball of the Week: Gadhafi Positions Himself as Israel's Protector

Colonel Muammar Gadhafi has been trying to convince the world that Al-Qaeda is behind the uprising against him. Clearly he wants to make the West think that it would be better to have him in charge despite his many, many faults than have it turn into a stronghold for radical Islamic terrorism.

Pictured: A clearly mentally stable dictator

But, probably the biggest surprise move he has made is play on the West's support for Israel in order to make it work for his own advantage. He has warned that if Libya falls, the terrorists will seize North Africa up to Israel's border.

"If al-Qaeda manages to seize Libya, then the entire region, up to Israel, will be at the prey of chaos... The international community is now beginning to understand that we have to prevent Osama bin Laden from taking control of Libya and Africa,"

Gadhafi has gone from being the champion of Palestinian rights and guardian of the PLO to Israel's best hope in containing an Al-Qaeda onslaught! He is basically saying, "Save me and I'll save Israel!" The sheer amount of mental acrobatics it takes in order to make this seem logical is just astounding.

If there is any one leader who completely embodies the term Mashriq Madness, it has to be Muammar Gadhafi!

Mashriq Madness: America Edition

Every now and then, the politicians in the US give the dictators in the Mashriq a run for their money as far as crazy legislation is concerned. Sadly this seems to be happening more often than usual.

The great state of Tennessee's State Sen. Bill Ketron, R-Murfreesboro, and state Rep. Judd Matheny, R-Tullahoma, have introduced a bill to criminalize Sharia Law. You may remember hearing about the town of Murfreesboro due to the battle to prevent Muslims from building a mosque there. A fight that included spray painting "Muslims go home" and "Not welcome" after the site was burned to the ground. What a wonderful bastion of tolerance, but I digress.

So what is Sharia Law? CNN almost explains it properly:

Many Muslims consider Sharia law to outline basic tenets of living a moral life.

Not exactly. It isn't just about morality - though it is a big part - it is also about making sure one lives according God's will.

So what's the problem with outlawing Sharia?

Sharia law is Islamic Religious Law. It is all encompassing, covering complicated matters like inheritance or more simple things like making sure children don't urinate in your water supply (yes, that's in there, look it up). That means that if Sharia is illegal, it is illegal to be a Muslim!

You heard me. This law makes being Muslims punishable by up to 15 years in jail (where ironically people are converting to Islam in record numbers, but that's a different story).

But Matt, you say, Sharia makes it legal to for men to beat their multiple wives and kill infidels!

Well, no. Yes, some Muslims do interpret Sharia that way, but certainly not all do.

And even if they did, it's besides the point. Why? Because spousal abuse, polygamy and murder are already illegal under American and Tennesseean law.

So why would anyone bother making a law like this?

Two words: Fear Sells

Why bother to build up a political platform when you can scare people into voting by using an Arabic word? Sure, all the things that the Sharia of radical Muslims are already illegal, but this lets bad politicians score points.

Laws like this won't make anyone safer, get anyone who's unemployed a job or help in the war on terror, but it sure does a good job of scaring people.

Madness at the Arab League

Yesterday, March 2, 2011, during a meeting of the Arab League, the representatives "stood in silent respect for protesters killed while demonstrating against governments across the region." While this moment is certainly touching, the fact that all of these ambassadors come from countries with similarly detestable dictators exposes this for the ruse it really is.



Here is a list of the member states of the Arab League, along with their heads of state and their current system of government:

Algeria, President Abdel Aziz Bouteflika, since 1999 (Parliament with rigged elections, near dictatorship)


Bahrain, King Hamad bin Isa al-Khalifa, since 1999 (Constitutional Monarchy, a Sunni King ruling a majority Shia population currently in the early stages of revolution, near dictatorship)


Comoros, President Ahmed, Abdullah Mohamed Sambi, since 2006 (Federal Republic with one peaceful transition of power)


Djibouti, President Ismail Omar Guelleh, since 1999 (One Party Republic, read: DICTATORSHIP)


Egypt, transitional since the 18 Day Revolution (Former Dictatorship)


Iraq, President Talabani since 2005, PM al-Maliki since 2006 (US-Sponsored Parliamentary Democracy, Former Dictatorship)


Jordan, King Abdullah II since 1999 (Hashemite King ruling over a majority Palestinian population, somewhat elected Parliament, all major positions - PM, FM - appointed by royal decree, near dictatorship)


Kuwait, Emir Sabah el-Ahmad el-Jabar as-Sabah, since 2006 (Constitutional Emirate with supreme authority resting with the Emir, DICTATORSHIP)


Lebanon, President Suleiman since 2008 (sectarian Democracy)


Libya, Colonel Muammar Gadhafi since 1969 (DICTATORSHIP in the late stages of revolution)


Mauritania, President Mohamed Ould Mohamed Laghdaf, since 2009 (Islamic Republic following military coup in 2008, DICTATORSHIP)


Morocco, King Mohammed VI since 1999 (Constitutional Monarchy with wide reaching powers resting with the King, near dictatorship)


Oman, Sultan Qaboos bin Said al-Said, since 1970 (Islamic Absolute Sultanate, DICTATORSHIP)


Palestine (the Palestinian Authority), President Abbas since 2005, PM Salam Fayyad since 1007 (Currently serving a term that expired in January 2009, Hamas PM Ismail Haniyeh rules Gaza since 2006)


Qatar, Emir Hamad bin-Khalifa al-Thani, since 1995 (Absolute Monarchy, DICTATORSHIP)


Saudi, King Abdullah, since 2005 (Absolute Islamic Monarchy, DICTATORSHIP)


Somalia, President Sharif Ahmed, since 2009 (Warlords/Anarchy)


Sudan, President Bashir, since 1993 (Currently under investigation by the ICC for genocide, DICTATORSHIP)


Syria, President Bashar al-Assad, since 2000 (Allawi "President" ruling over a majority Sunni population, DICTATORSHIP)


Tunisia, transitional since the Jasmine Revolution


UAE, President Emir Khalifa bin Zayed al-Nahyan, since 2004 (Federation of Absolute Monarchies with an (unofficially) inherited presidency, DICTATORSHIP)


Yemen, President Ali Abdullah Saleh, since 1990 of united Yemen, 1978-1990 of North Yemen (DICTATORSHIP, currently in the early stages of revolution)


Of the 22 member states of the Arab League, 15 are dictatorships (11 outright, 4 near), 1 is in a state of anarchy and fought over by warlords, 1 is not yet a state and is already divided into two questionably-democratic entities, 3 are somewhat democratic and 2 have just been overthrown by revolutionaries.


That means that this moment of silence on behalf of the martyrs of the Tunisian and Egyptian Revolutions against dictatorship was held primarily by the emissaries of other dictators.


If you can think of a definition that fits this situation better than Mashriq Madness I'd love to hear it!

Libya Is Suspended from the UN Human Rights Council, Finally

Today, the UN General Assembly voted to suspend Libya from the Human Rights Council.

Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said this of the suspension:

"These actions send a strong and important message -- a message of great consequence within the region and beyond -- that there is no impunity, that those who commit crimes against humanity will be punished, that fundamental principles of justice and accountability shall prevail," Ban said.


This is an important move but it makes one wonder why it was that Libya was approved to be on the council to begin with. The only difference between what Gadhafi is doing now and what he was doing before the revolt began is that his massacres are now being done in public.

Gadhafi and his sons have been imprisoning, torturing and killing his own people for over 40 years now. The fact that Libya was ever appointed to the UN Human Rights Council is indicative of the laughable nature of the UN as a whole.

Having Libya on a human rights council is like having Saudi Arabia on a women's rights council or Iran on a gay rights council. It completely undermines the council's - and the United Nations' - reputation and exposes them both for the frauds they really are.

The fact that this is a mere suspension and not a permanent expulsion sheds even more light on the ridiculousness of this situation. It shows that even now - when Tripoli's streets are covered in blood - the UN cannot even bring itself to take a minimum of real action.

Mr. Ban is right, this action does send "a message of great consequence within the region and beyond," but it isn't the message of deterrence and justice that he claims. Its real message is that in order to be a respected member of the UN and its human rights council, the only thing a leader needs to do is keep his nation under control and keep their rights abuses - no matter how well known - behind closed doors.

Keep it Classy UN! You add a whole new level of Madness to the Mashriq!