Jerusalem, above all joys
Forest Rain
January 25, 2017
1267
Share This:

The debate about moving the American embassy to Jerusalem emphasizes, once again, the lack of comprehension of the importance of Jerusalem to the Nation of Israel.

The destruction of the Jewish Temple meant the destruction of the most holy, pivotal location to the Jewish religion, culture and people. Destruction of the Temple was an attempt to destroy the Jewish nation – take out the cultural linchpin, the one element that ties everyone together and everything will fall apart.

It is written:
As the navel is set in the centre of the human body,
so is the land of Israel the navel of the world…
situated in the centre of the world,
and Jerusalem in the centre of the land of Israel,
and the sanctuary in the centre of Jerusalem,
and the holy place in the centre of the sanctuary,
and the ark in the centre of the holy place,
and the Foundation Stone before the holy place,
because from it the world was founded.
(Roman-Era Midrash Tanchuma)

It is believed that the Foundation Stone is the foundation God used to create the world. Around this stone the Temple was built and within the Temple, on the Foundation Stone, the Ark of the Covenant was placed. This is the source of the holiness of the Temple and its importance to Judaism.

The image people around the world today have of the Temple Mount is that of the golden domed mosque which was built on the ruins of the Temple in 691 C.E. Since that time the Dome of the Rock has been a holy place for the Moslem people – although not central to their religion. Considered the third holiest location in Islam, it is not mentioned a single time in the Koran.

It was once common practice for a conquering people to build holy sites on top of existing holy places. Historically this was a successful way to both show domination of the location as well as a way to incorporate the local population in the new religion.

The Temple has been central to the Jewish people since the construction of the first Temple (957 B.C.E.). To this day, Jews around the world pray facing the direction of the site of the Temple Mount.

The Kotel is the Western Wall of the Temple which remains standing (an external supporting wall). The wall is so important that it has become in Jewish consciousness THE Wall. It needs no other name. Millions of Jews come to the Kotel every year, it is always open and people can be found there, every day, 24/7, around the clock. The Kotel is never empty and it is in fact one of the most frequented locations in the world, seeing approximately 11 million guests each year.

Jews in exile in Babylon are described in Psalm 137 as stubbornly remembering the full glory of Jerusalem, explaining to their captors that they would always look towards the holy city: “May my tongue cleave to my mouth, if I ever think not of thee, if I ever prize not Jerusalem above all joys!”

To this day, in Jewish weddings, before the couple is formally married, the groom proclaims this statement before the guests and breaks a cup with his foot to symbolize sorrow for the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem.

On what is supposed to be the happiest day in the life of the couple, they stop, putting sorrow and longing for the Temple first. This is a powerful statement.

The 9th day of the month of Av (Jewish calendar) is the day when both the first and second Temples were destroyed, the first by the Babylonians in 586 B.C.E.; the second by the Romans in 70 C.E. It is a day of fasting and mourning for religious Jews around the world.

Thinking about the meaning of Tisha B’Av, the day of mourning, I am beginning to see, (or maybe feel is a better word) that this is symbolic of all our problems – Israel’s and those of the world.

The Foundation Stone of the world, the site of the Temple mount, is dominated by a mosque. It is known that active destruction of antiquities has been occurring since the Waqf was given control of the Temple Mount. Dr. Mordechai Kedar, (Department of Arabic, Bar-Ilan University) explains: “These actions are being carried out in the context of a practice known in Arabic as Tams al-ma’alem, an expression that means ‘erasing the signs’ in the sense of destroying the relics of all cultures that preceded Islam.”

Jews are allowed to enter the site of the Temple but ironically are not allowed to pray there. In fear of Moslem rioting, to avoid violence, Jews who enter the Temple Mount must not be heard praying or show any signs of prayer. If they bow to the Holy of Holies, they are escorted out of the site.

Imagine having other people in your home who, because they had been there for so long, you do not attempt to evict, but only request to share the space with them. Imagine being told that you are allowed to stand outside the back door, outside the cellar, that you can watch while others enter and leave, doing as they please in your home…

Secular Jews do not fast on Tisha B’Av and though most Israelis have visited the Kotel, only a minority has actually ascended to the Temple Mount. The drifting away from putting Jerusalem above all other joys has significance that surpasses religion, encompasses history and has direct influence on our future.

The spiritual explanation says that ramifications of being disconnected or even barred from the source of the holiness of the world deeply impacts not only on the Jewish people but the entire planet as well.

History says that the cultural significance of Jerusalem and yearning for the Temple was a key factor in keeping the Jewish people intact over the centuries. When other nations rose and fell, the Nation of Israel remained, stubborn in their focus, insisting on returning to Israel and to Jerusalem – no matter how long it took or how much suffering was experienced along the way.

The Temple is what ties us to Jerusalem and Jerusalem is what ties us to Israel. Without either of these, we risk losing all.

This is an issue of priorities, of belonging, respect and freedom. These are magnified to extreme intensity here, at the navel of the world, but they have direct impact on the lives of all people, everywhere.

America under Obama, with the support of the UN and their latest anti-Israel resolution has done much to damage Israel’s connection to Jerusalem. America under Trump can help amend this. Moving the US embassy to Jerusalem is a good start.
Share This:

Outrage on the Eve of International Holocaust Remembrance Day over German Funding of Anti-Israel NGO
Orit ben Tzvi
January 26, 2017
751
Share This:

Im Tirtzu CEO Matan Peleg: “Dishonors the memory of the 6 million Jews who perished in the Holocaust”

Ahead of International Holocaust Remembrance Day that will be marked worldwide on Friday, January 27, the Zionist organization Im Tirtzu released a new report documenting the German government’s funding of Zochrot, an Israeli NGO that works to “decolonize” Israel by promoting the “right of return” for Palestinian refugees.

Zochrot’s vision, according to its official website, is to “promote acknowledgement and accountability for the ongoing injustices of the Nakba, the Palestinian catastrophe of 1948 and the reconceptualization of the Return as the imperative redress of the Nakba.”

According to the official details from the Israeli Corporations Authority’s non-profit registrar cited in the report, from 2012-2016 the Government of Germany has provided over 1,100,000 NIS (290,000 USD) to Zochrot via two German foundations, Misereor and Rosa Luxemberg Stiftung, which are heavily funded by the federal German government.

Zochrot utilizes this extensive funding to engage in an array of controversial activities, including screening its “Film Festival on Nakba and the Right of Return” on college campuses during Israeli Apartheid Week, promoting an “iNakba” smartphone application, and defaming Israel on the world stage with slanderous language like “ethnic cleansing.”

In 2014, Zochrot CEO Eitan Bronstein and other of the organization’s officials participated in the production of a radical video that dubbed the Holocaust “the best thing that ever happened” to the Jewish people.

In response to the findings of the report, Im Tirtzu sent a letter to Germany’s ambassador to Israel Dr. Clemens Von Goetze demanding the secession of German funding to Zochrot.

“What gives the Government of Germany the right to undermine the character of another democratic and sovereign nation?” the letter reads. “We are calling on your government to immediately cease all funding of ‘Zochrot.’ This funding makes a mockery of any and all efforts to find a peaceful solution to any Israeli-Palestinian issues.”

The German Embassy has yet to respond to Im Tirtzu’s letter.

Germany’s funding of Zochrot also sparked outrage among the children of Holocaust survivors.

Noah Klein, the son of two Holocaust survivors, said: “As a child of two Holocaust survivors I appreciate that despite the horrors of the Holocaust, Germany has been a great friend and supporter of Israel. However, it is very painful to me that Germany is funding an anti-Israel NGO whose goal is the destruction of the Jewish State. The remnant of my family lives in Israel, and Germany’s funding of such an organization that seeks to destroy their future must stop.”

Lori Fagelston, also the daughter of Holocaust survivors, noted: “This funding is a disgrace like no other. Only a few generations have passed, and Germany is again committing another grave injustice against the Jewish People by funding this anti-Israel organization. This needs to stop immediately.”

Im Tirtzu CEO Matan Peleg said: “The idea that Germany in 2017 is funding an organization that brazenly seeks to destroy the Jewish character of the State of Israel is a disgrace. This funding is not only dishonors the memory of the 6 million Jews who perished in the Holocaust, but is anti-democratic at its core. This is another painful example of foreign governments working to impose their unwanted policies on the State of Israel via anti-Israel NGOs from within.”
Share This:

Now that Trump is President Can Israel Seize the Moment?
Martin Sherman
January 27, 2017
645
Image Source: Trump- Gage Skidmore
Share This:

There is a tide in the affairs of men,

Which taken at the flood, leads on to fortune.

Omitted, all the voyage of their life is bound in shallows and in miseries.

On such a full sea are we now afloat.

And we must take the current when it serves, or lose our ventures.

– William Shakespeare, in Julius Caesar, Act IV, Scene 3.

If I am not for myself, who is for me?…And if not now, when?

– Hillel the Elder, Ethics of the Fathers, Ch. 1:14.

In his first few days of his presidency, Donald Trump has acted with remarkable resolve to promote a number of his more strident campaign pledges, and to dismantle much of the edifice his predecessor had hoped to leave as his “legacy”.

Robust resolve

Thus, Trump moved to withdraw the US from the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement, which the New York Times dubbed “Obama’s signature trade achievement”.

Similarly, he instigated measures to begin rolling back “Obamacare”, the centerpiece of Obama’s domestic policy; approved the construction of two large oil pipelines (Keystone pipeline between the US and Canada, and Dakota Access Pipeline), which Obama had vetoed; cut funding of charities providing abortion services abroad, reinstating a 1984 Bill, which Obama had rescinded; and ordered a freeze on hiring federal government workers (apart from the military) in an “effort to reduce government debts and decrease the size of the federal workforce.”

Then, later this week Trump “signed directives to begin building a wall along [the] US border with Mexico and crack down on US cities that shield undocumented immigrants ….”

Likewise, he is reported to be drafting directives to be implemented “in the coming days [that] would…suspend the entry of any immigrants from Muslim-majority Middle Eastern and African countries Syria, Sudan, Somalia, Iraq, Iran, Libya and Yemen while permanent rules are studied”

So, regardless of whether one commends or condemns these policy decisions, they certainly reflect a firm—indeed, a seemingly unswerving—commitment to his campaign pledges no matter how controversial or contentious—with one notable exception.

Rare reticence

Indeed, to date, there seems to be only one central pre-election commitment, on which the new administration appears uncharacteristically hesitant in embracing: the promise to transfer the US embassy to Jerusalem.

Readers will recall that in October 1995, the US Congress passed a law (The Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995) with broad bi-partisan support—including from Obama’s vice president Joe Biden and Secretary of State John Kerry—that, in effect, recognized Jerusalem as the undivided capital of Israel, under Israeli sovereignty and explicitly called for the relocation of the US Embassy to the city by May 1999. The bill, however, included a proviso, permitting the president to issue a waiver holding up the relocation of the embassy should he deem it in the US national interest. The waiver is renewable every six months and since the legislation of the bill, every president—both Democrat and Republican, since Bill Clinton—has exercised the waiver option. Indeed, 36 such waivers have been issued in the past, eight by Obama, the last of which was in December 2016, and is due to expire in June 2017.

Accordingly, all Trump really needs to do to fulfill his pledge to relocate the US embassy to Israel’s capital is, well…nothing. Indeed, he need take no proactive measures at all! He does not need to build a wall, lay a pipeline, pass new legislation, or sign a contentious executive order. All he need do is let the current waiver lapse, and allow the existing 1995 legislation to take effect.

Yet for some reason, it is precisely on this issue that the new administration is displaying rare reticence in moving briskly forward to deliver on its clear commitments.

Disturbing lack of enthusiasm…from Israel

Of course, not all this regrettable reluctance can be blamed on the Trump administration. After all, the Israeli government itself has not been overly enthusiastic in promoting the embassy relocation.

Indeed, reflective of Israel’s lack of fervor in applauding Trump’s pledge was Defense Minister Avigdor Liberman’s offhand apathy in addressing the prospect at the recent Saban Forum in Washington last month. When asked by the moderator, CNN’s Jake Tapper, what he thought of Trump’s declaration that he would move the US Embassy in very short order to Jerusalem, Liberman was distinctly dismissive, indicating that he was skeptical as to the prospect: “you know, [what] we see before in every election is the same promise to remove the Embassy to Jerusalem. But I think that we will wait and we will see…”

Then, virtually providing the administration with the justification to renege on its commitment, or at least significantly postpone it, he stated: “… we have many other issues…. We have enough challenges all around Israel. I think that it will be a mistake…to take the Embassy as the focal point…we have many items on our common agenda. I think that maybe the Embassy will be one of the points…”

With such lethargic endorsement from the Israeli government, there would be little room for surprise if the new commander-in-chief does not push his proffered relocation vigorously forward.

Plethora of invalid arguments
A plethora of bad reasons have been advanced for not moving the US embassy to Jerusalem. Typical of such baseless arguments was the one articulated by an Op-Ed piece in Haaretz, in which the writer warned: “Relocating its embassy to Jerusalem would mean the U.S. taking a partisan stance on a central and sensitive issue, a source of controversy between Israel and the Palestinians, and between Israel and the international community.”

But of course, quite the opposite is true. By not relocating the embassy even to the western portion of Jerusalem, the US is, in fact, taking a partisan stance against Israel! For, in effect, this endorses the Palestinian/Arab position disputing Israeli sovereignty over any part of the city, including the portion that was under Israeli control prior to the 1967 War. After all, if the US does not dispute Israeli sovereignty of the city within the pre-1967 lines, surely there should be no reason to refrain from establishing the embassy there. Or am I missing something here?

After all, the western portion of Jerusalem is, undisputedly, the functioning capital of Israel, in which the national parliament, the prime minister’s office, all the government ministries (apart from agriculture), and the Supreme Court are located. Thus, any demand that the Palestinians have a legitimate claim to any part of it, would immediately torpedo the chances of an agreement. Accordingly, by implicitly sustaining grounds for such a claim, abstaining from relocating the embassy in western Jerusalem, in effect, constitutes a partisan pro-Palestinian stance.

By contrast relocating the embassy would send a strong even-handed message that the US will not tolerate exorbitant and unreasonable Palestinian territorial demands.

Invalid arguments (cont)

But perhaps the most common argument advanced for not relocating the embassy is because the Arabs and Muslims will get really mad! The threat of uncontrollable rage due to grievous insult (which would not provoke any other segment of humanity to similar conduct) has frequently been raised as reason to avoid offending Muslim sensibilities. It has already almost completely curtailed free speech in much of Western Europe and Scandinavia, where Muslim thugs are free to ravage the domestic population in the name of moral relativism and cultural diversity.

Clearly, giving into to Arab/Muslim extortion because of threats of violence is a slippery slope. Once you capitulate on one issue, there is little reason not to capitulate on another.

Indeed, if the menace of Muslim mayhem can coerce nations to forgo free choice, what is to prevent further far-reaching demands—such as universal application of Shariah law, the discrimination against females and the persecution of gays?

Accordingly, rather than constituting a reason for refraining from establishing the US embassy in Israel’s capital, the threat of violence is precisely the reason to do so—and to convey to the Arab/Muslim world that brandishing “uncontrollable rage” is an unacceptable—and counter-productive—mode of conducting international relations.

Respite not redemption

The election of Trump was a huge stroke of good fortune for Israel. Indeed, just how dire its position might have been, had Hillary Clinton been elected to continue the Obama legacy is vividly conveyed by two recent incidents.

The first is the surreptitious transfer of almost a quarter billion dollars to the Palestinian Authority by the outgoing president in the final hours of his incumbency, in defiance of a congressional hold on the funds.

The second was a jarring disclosure made last week by former director-general of Israel’s ministry of foreign affairs, Ambassador Dore Gold, of an astonishing admission by Obama’s National Security Adviser Susan Rice, that “even if Israel and the Palestinians reach an agreement, it is possible that the United States would oppose it” – because it might not do justice to the Palestinians.

These disturbing revelations starkly expose the blatant pro-Palestinian proclivities of the outgoing Obama administration and of the designated surrogate successor Clinton-administration. Accordingly, Israel can be excused for feeling a huge sense of relief at the outcome of the November elections. However, a word of caution is called for. For all the potential advantages entailed in the Trump victory, it is, for the moment merely a respite, and still far from redemption. To attain that, there is yet much work ahead.

Catalyst or constraint?

Indeed there can be little doubt that the Trump victory harbors the potential for great opportunity for Israel. For not only is the incoming administration free from innate malice and anti-Israel bias that characterized the manifestly Islamophilic propensities of the previous one, but much of Trump’s inner circle are unabashedly pro-Zionist, and together with the wider Republican Party, are unshackled to the failed “two-state” paradigm.

At last, after almost a quarter century, Israel has a real chance of being able to free itself of the deadly debilitating tentacles of this pernicious paradigm–and to choose a new path that will allow it to extricate itself from the perilous cul-de-sac into which it has been led—and allowed itself to be led.

The question now is whether the Israeli political class can rise to the occasion, and grasp the opportunity that destiny has provided it. Will the nation’s leaders display the intellectual daring and the ideological resolve that the hour calls for? Will they be able to cast off the prevailing constraints of political correctness and forge new and sustainable paradigms for the conduct of the nation’s affairs, taking advantage of the new benign winds in Washington? Or will they, as it seems, remain captive to old molds of thought—and thus prove to be a constraint, rather than a catalyst, impeding rather than inducing the chances that the Trump administration may well afford them—if they were to strike out in a bold new direction?

“There is a tide in the affairs of men…”

More than ever before, Israel’s destiny is in its own hands. The outcome of the US elections has given it a real chance to shape its destiny. The crucial question now is whether it will seize the moment or let it slip away?

Almost six months before the Trump inauguration, shortly after the Republican Party had removed its endorsement of a two-state model, I published a column entitled What if the GOP wins?, in which I called on the Israeli “Right” to prepare for the possibility of a Republican victory and formulate a credible alternative to the discredited two-state prescription.

However, I cautioned that haste to discard this failed two-state formula should not lead to the proposal/ promotion of alternatives that are no less inimical than the ideas they were designed to replace.

Accordingly, I urged that to reap the potential benefits that the Trump phenomenon entails, “Israel must prepare. It must formulate a cogent, comprehensive paradigm to replace the two-state folly, which addresses both its geographic and demographic imperatives for survival—lest it promote a proposal that threatens to make it untenable geographically or demographically—or both.

“It must be a proposal that ensures that Israel retains its vital geo-strategic assets in Judea-Samaria and at the same time drastically reduces the presence of the hostile Arab population resident there—preferably by non-coercive means such as economic inducements…which, of course, is what brought the bulk of the Arab population here in the first place.”

This is now becoming an urgent imperative, lest we miss the flood tide and find ourselves “bound in shallows and in miseries” that such a lapse will inevitably entail.
Comments

Donald Trump US Congress US Embassy
About The Author
Martin Sherman
Martin Sherman

Dr. Martin Sherman (www.martinsherman.net ) is founder and executive director of the Israel Institute for Strategic Studies (www.strategicisrael.org)

https://youtu.be/1LkeP2aO6XU

[watch] Bibi Netanyahu and Donald Trump Agree: America Needs a Wall
Micha Gefen
January 29, 2017
1145
Share This:

Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu came out in support of President Donald Trump’s initiative to build a wall on America’s Southern border.

The Prime Minister said the following: “The wall I built all along Israel’s southern border stopped the illegal immigration from that direction. Good luck, it’s a great idea.”


https://youtu.be/A7ijjat3ayU

Salon’s Attack on Trump’s Plan to Move US Embassy to Jerusalem is FAKE NEWS
Micha Gefen
January 30, 2017
746
Image Source: Treump - Gage Skidmore
Share This:

This past Sunday, Salon ran a piece titled: “Moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem is a bad idea for everyone — except Israeli hard-liners and their American friends,” in which the author focused on three main points in an attempt to craft an argument for not moving the US embassy to Jerusalem.

The author does this by way of creating a hypothetical meeting between two Arab leaders. The King of Saudi Arabia and the King of the UAE.

“When the two most influential leaders in the Arab world, Saudi Arabia’s Mohammed bin Salman and his counterpart from the United Arab Emirates, Mohammed bin Zayed, get together to discuss how Washington can demonstrate its renewed commitment to regional allies, it is a safe bet that moving the U.S. Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem is not on their list.”

The author uses the above “pretend meeting” to set up a false narrative where a move of the US embassy to Jerusalem reignites the “Israeli-Palestinian” conflict as well as tearing apart the “normally quiet” Middle East.

The move he insists, is being pushed by Trump to soothe his “radical base” as well as supported by Israel’s “hardliners.”

The above could not be further from the truth.

Let’s set the record straight: President Donald Trump does not view the Two State Solution or the splitting of Jerusalem as necessities in solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The fact is, most Israelis support an Israel with a united Jerusalem as its capital. Given these facts, why does it matter if the Palestinians are erked? Why are their grievences necessarily assumed to be equal to Israel’s?

Furthermore, the author wants to make the case that the Middle East will fall into chaos if the US moves its embassy to Jerusalem. Perhaps the author has forgotten about the chaos that flows from Iraq to Syria to Yemen. Let’s face it, the Middle East is about as chaotic as it can get.

As for his assertion that Saudi Arabia or the UAE would care? So what. They are not going to do anything about it. They both need the USA and Israel to hold off Iran. The most they will do is throw a public fit in order to appease their wound up street, which deep down inside doesn’t care anyway.

Here are some facts:

Jews have been the majority in Jerusalem since the 1880s
Jews are the nationality to have a continuous presence in Jerusalem for 3000 years
Jews are the only people to have an established capital in Jerusalem 3 times

In light of these, why wouldn’t the US move its embassy to Jerusalem? In fact, if one truly wants to make a point of ending the conflict once and for all, taking Jerusalem off the table will bring the “Palestinians” to their knees and yes bring peace faster than leaving the conflict simmering the way it is now.

President Trump and the majority of supporters of Israel as well as the US Congress are completely justified and correct in wanting to move the US embassy to the historical and political capital of the only Jewish State.

The author ends his article with this:

“Rather than demonstrating American resolve and commitment, moving the embassy to Jerusalem actually has the potential to strengthen Iran, weaken Israel’s ties to the Arab world, and sow violence between Palestinians and Israelis. This should all be abundantly clear, but when it comes to U.S. policy in the Middle East, illogical arguments often reign.”

This final statement is the hubris which Middle East policy has been driven through for the last 5 decades. It is the author who has made a series of illogical arguments. These arguments and mentality are about to be bulldozed into the dustbin of moral relativism and Arabist apologetics by the 45th President.

[watch] Netanyahu: “Jerusalem is The Capital of Israel, US Embassy Should Be Here”
Gavriel Dan
January 29, 2017
1678

In an attempt to deflect criticism that it is Israel delaying the US Embassy move Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu said the following:

“I’d like to mention again that our core alliance is with the United States”, Netanyahu said at the opening of the weekly government meeting, “there is no substitute for this alliance. Our relations are strong and getting stronger.

“At this opportunity I’d like to state unambiguously that our opinion has forever been and is today as well, that the US Embassy should be located here in Jerusalem.

“Jerusalem is the capital of Israel and it is proper that not only the US embassy move here, but that also all embassies should move here. I believe that as time goes by, most will come here to Jerusalem.”

In the same statement, the Prime Minister addressed the Regulations law that retroactively legalizes many of the Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria.

“Tomorrow we will present the Regulation Law to the Knesset. This law is meant to normalize, once and for all, settlement in Judea and Samaria and prevent repeated attempts to hurt Jewish settlements.”

Comments

Bibi NetanyahuUS Embassy
About The Author
Gavriel Dan
Gavriel Dan

Gavriel Dan spent a number of years covering social movements in Israel, the wider middle east and Europe. He is considered an expert in embedding himself with various groups and causes in order to get accurate and rich information.


https://youtu.be/4AfbYJ73TbQ

TRUMP’S BAN ON REFUGEES: The Real Reason Why Saudi Arabia and Egypt Were Not Included
Allan M. Coleman
January 30, 2017
5758
Image Source: Sisi - Kremlin | Trump - Gage Skidmore
Share This:

Just like everything else surrounding Donald Trump’s first 10 days as President, the subterfuge by the main stream media in giving false pretext to Trump picking 7 Arab countries to ban refugees, travelers, and visa holders from entering the United States has reached ridiculous levels. On one hand the elite media has claimed Trump’s executive order is inherently racist because it singles out majority Muslim countries and on the other hand the same media asks why the President didn’t include Egypt and Saudi Arabia in the ban. Their answer?

It must be business interests.

Let’s put aside the obvious conflicting outrages that have been vomited out by the elite media and deal with the idea that Trump did not include Egypt and Saudi Arabia on the list because of business interests. The same people arguing that he is taking it lightly on Egypt and Saudi Arabia fail to mention that he is far more business interests in China. No one has accused Trump of “letting China off the hook.” In fact it is the opposite. Critics have rushed to claim President Trump has been to tough on China. If Trump really was implementing policy based on business interests then he should be treating China with kids gloves. He is not.

So what is the real reason why Egypt and Saudi Arabia were not included in the immigration ban?

It is no secret the current administration is looking to build a coalition to take on both radical Islam and the growing threat from Iran. To do this Donald Trump is looking to build a non-traditional alliance between Russia, the moderate Sunni states, and Israel. Sources have already pointed to a possibility that Russia will push Iran out of Syria in order to make it easier for the Trump administration to work with them against ISIS. Furthermore, the countries Trump picked are all worn torn areas split between the competing interests of Sunni and Shiite armies. Although Egypt is known to have a large Muslim Brotherhood network, Sisi, the President of Egypt is sincere in his campaign to destroy them. Sisi also has a close working relationship with Israel. While Saudi Arabia produced most of the hijackers for the the September 11th attacks, the new King and his administration are known reformers and have pushed to loosen of the network Wahhabi institutions. Is it perfect? No, not at all, but both countries’ willingness to reform and crack down should not be minimized at this point.

Essentially, the new order arising in the Middle East weighed heavily on which countries President Trump included in the ban. If the elite media decided to look at events with open eyes they would see that the President and his advisers are building a robust coalition to once and for all destroy radical Islam and stabilize the region that has been most volatile in modern times.