If the ADL’s head, Jonathan Greenblatt’s purpose was to write an opinion piece to rebuke Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s video deploring the Palestinian’s “ethnic cleansing,” he has not only missed the mark, but has instead fallen down the rabbit hole into a land of fantasy rather than reality — a land where up is down, backwards is forwards and wrong is right.

Instead of attacking the Palestinian leadership for their-oft stated policy of not allowing any Jews in their so-called future state, he essentially decided to attack the Israeli prime minister deeming it ‘inappropriate’ to even bring up this official Palestinian policy.

Bibi ignores the complexity of the settlement issues, says Jonathan.

However, it is not Bibi who ignores the complexity, but rather Jonathan who ignores the simplicity of it all. And it is simple. For while Jonathan Greenblatt has decided that “ethnic cleansing” is an inappropriate term, one has to ask how any other term, other than “ethnic cleansing” could be considered more appropriate?

For the Palestinian goal is quite simply to ensure that not one Jew remains in their fictional state — dead or alive. Just as their fellow Arabs in the Jordanian army destroyed and desecrated Jewish sacred places, including graveyards, after the 1948 War of Independence, does one doubt it would be much different today as it was back then should the Arabs somehow get complete control of Jewish Holy sites?

The evidence is damning. When Israel left Gaza in 2005, the Palestinians destroyed all signs of Jewish presence. They destroyed the successful green houses that Israel has left them. They took torches and hammers and set synagogues ablaze, leaving buildings in rubble and ruin.

In Judea and Samaria in 2013, Arab rioters attacked Rachel’s tomb in an attempt to destroy it, including reportedly throwing grenades at it. They also torched Joseph’s Tomb in 2015, the same site they had attacked years earlier. And in Jerusalem, the Jerusalem Islamic Waqf continue to destroy Jewish antiquities on the Temple Mount with impunity — a crime against not only humanity, but against all of history itself.

Coupled with the support of anti-Semitic groups like UNESCO, who deny Jewish history in Israel, their goal becomes clear to any reasonable minded person: they want to destroy and remove the memory of any Jewish history, Jewish culture and Jewish presence, from the distant past to the current day. Put simply, they want to wipe out thousands of years of Jewish history and “cleanse” the area of Jews — a term commonly known as “ethnic cleansing.”

For Jonathan Greenblatt to deny the very actions the Palestinians have publicly stated and have carried out is not only insulting to any Jew who cares about their history, it is also grossly negligent on his part as the leader of an organisation that is supposed to fight against discrimination. So why not fight against this discrimination against Jews?

It’s not that the Palestinian attempt at “ethnic cleansing” is just another issue, one of many, of their leadership — it’s the central issue of it. For to eliminate the Jewish presence in Israel is to eliminate the meaning of Israel as a Jewish state.

Many continue to somehow link “settlers” as an incongruous force with the Palestinian “demand” for a “two-state solution,” but it’s all a farce, a ruse. For while they are talking politics and two states as a roadmap to a so-called peace, the Palestinian leadership continue to laugh at their naivety, all the time continuing their EU and UN-funded Palestinian Authority broadcasts that deny Jewish history and call Jews thieves.

Rather than Benjamin Netanyahu “distorting” the term of “ethnic cleansing” for “political ends,” as Jonathan Greenblatt suggests, it is he, with his head buried so deep into the political sands of a delusional desire, who is ignoring reality, perhaps for his own political gains.

He would be well served to remove the looking glass through which he peers, leave the wonderland in which he resides, and pop his head out the rabbit hole he fell into to see the reality of the situation for what it is, rather than the distortion of what he may want.