Pages

▼

Wednesday, November 30, 2022

11/30 Links Pt2: Bari Weiss: Bibi's Back; The Temple Mount: Whose Is It?; Genocidal antisemitism is conquering American campuses; 3,000-year-old scarab found in Israel during school field trip

From Ian:

Bari Weiss [PodCast]: Bibi's Back: A Conversation With Israel's New Prime Minister
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu—or Bibi, as he’s known to just about everybody—is a polarizing figure. For some, he’s the ultimate defender of the state of Israel, a man who’s been willing to be unpopular to make the choices necessary to safeguard his vulnerable nation. For others, Bibi symbolizes everything that’s wrong with 21st century Israel: the state’s increasingly rightward turn and its never-ending conflict with the Palestinians. Bibi supporters chant “Bibi King of Israel” at rallies, while his enemies call him “crime minister.”

Bill Clinton said of Bibi: “you should never underestimate him.” Barack Obama called him “smart, canny, tough” but also said that they “did not share worldviews,” which is a bit of an understatement. Donald Trump called Netanyahu “the man that I did more for than any other person I dealt with” but then later, infamously, “f— him.”

But there’s one thing that everyone can agree on: Benjamin Netanyahu is the reigning master of Israeli politics.

Despite being ousted just over a year ago, Bibi is back, and is now on the cusp of his third stint as prime minister of Israel.

Why is Benjamin Netanyahu the man that Israelis just can’t quit? And what does it mean for Israel that he's attempting to form a government with some of the most far-right parties in the country—parties that, until recently, were at the very fringes of Israeli politics?

I spoke to Prime Minister Netanyahu on the eve of his return to power and on the occasion of the publication of his book, Bibi: My Story, an autobiography about his evolution from soldier to statesman. We only had an hour together—he squeezed this in between coalition talks—so there were lots of things we couldn’t get to. But we talked about why he’s been elected for a third time; how he draws moral lines as a leader; Trump’s dinner with Kanye; the prospect of peace with the Palestinians; the Abraham Accords and if Saudi Arabia could be next; China; his message to Jews in the West facing antisemitism; and how he plans to uphold Israel’s delicate balance between Judaism and democracy as he steps in to lead his country once more.

I highly recommend listening to the conversation, but a rush transcript follows just below.
The Temple Mount: Whose Is It?
There was a time in decades past when Muslim Arabs recognized the Jewish connection to the Temple Mount. Consider these two examples among many:

A nine-page English-language tourist guide entitled “A Brief Guide to al-Haram al-Sharif [the Temple Mount] was published by the Supreme Moslem Council in 1925. It states that the Temple Mount site “is one of the oldest in the world. Its sanctity dates from the earliest times. Its identity with the site of Solomon’s Temple is beyond dispute.”

Some 25 kilometers southwest of Jerusalem in the village of Nuba is found the Mosque of Umar, which bears an ancient inscription that dates to the 9th or 10th century CE. It says that the mosque is an endowment for the Dome of the Rock and Al-Aksa Mosque (see below for more on these). What is noteworthy is that the Dome of the Rock is referred to in the inscription as “the rock of the Bayt al-Maqdis” — literally, “The Holy Temple.”

What we are seeing then is a startling turn-around: Once Muslim Arabs recognized the Temple Mount as having an incontrovertible connection to the Jewish people. But today any Jewish presence on the Mount is pronounced illegitimate by them; they maintain that Jews have no historical, religious connection to the Mount. Jews on the Mount are occupiers, usurpers, defilers.

What has happened?

The State of Israel is what happened.

Muslims are offended by the presence of a Jewish state on what they believe to be Muslim land.

It is a mainstream belief – drawn from Sharia (Islamic law) and embraced by many Muslims – that all non-Muslims, including Jews, are forbidden from becoming rulers over Muslim territory. For many centuries, this was not an issue: The Middle East was controlled, successively, by a number of Muslim empires: Jews, as well as Christians, were assigned second-class status and presented no threat to the ruling order.

In this regard, the founding of the modern State of Israel has created a religious crisis for Muslim Arabs. This simply was not supposed to happen.

We see this belief reflected in the Hamas Charter, which asserts that “the Islamic Resistance Movement [Hamas] regards Palestine as an Islamic Wakf [religious endowment] consecrated for future generations until Judgement Day…neither it, nor any part of it, should be squandered: Neither it, nor any part of it should be given up…Palestine is an Islamic Wakf land consecrated for Muslim generations until Judgement Day (Article 11)

The Palestinian National Charter (PLO) considers political aspects as well as religious, but carries forth the same theme.

In 2018, Sheikh Muhammad Hussein, the Palestinian mufti [Islamic legal authority] of Jerusalem, issued a fatwa [an Islamic religious edict] decreeing that the land of “Palestine” is wakf – an inalienable religious endowment in Islamic law – and thus it is prohibited to sell, or facilitate the transfer of any part of it to non-Muslims.


The true story of the first Zionist - It's not who you think
You ever wonder who the real first Zionist was? Ask different people you will get different answers. Such as Leon Pinsker-a, a late 19th century Zionist, Was the founder and leader of Hibbat Zion (Hebrew: חיבת ציון,) the Lovers of Zion movement. Theodor Herzl, who created the World Zionist Organization. Ze’ev Jabotinsky-Zionist philosopher and the creator of Revisionist Zionism. You may also hear names like Chaim Weizmann or even David Ben Gurion.

All those names are wrong. The first Zionist was a guy named Abram, who was born in 1948. Not 1948 in the secular calendar. Centuries ago, sages figured out Abram (later Abraham) was born in the Jewish year 1948, or 3835 years ago. Sadly, even after Abram was born, those sages still wrote 1947 on their checks.

The Abram story is in the Torah, the book of Genesis. Abram comes into the narrative in chapter 12. In case you were wondering, he doesn’t become Abraham until chapter 17. God changed his name to an acronym standing for Av Hamon Goyim, the father of many peoples

But the rumor was he broke some of his dad’s idols, and the idol-worshipping zealots were after him, and by Chapter 17, he changed his name so the idol zealots would have a harder time finding him.

Back to Chapter 12 and Zionism. Abram was 75 years old when he first heard from the real God.
Unpacked: Did Israel Take Over Palestine?
The land of Israel has been referred to by many different names throughout its history- Canaan, Judah, Judea, Israel and Palestine. Each of these names has deep historical significance based on the inhabitants or conquerors of the land.

Though modern day Israel was established in a land known as Palestine, named by the Romans who took control in the Second Century CE, its inhabitants have been historically Jewish since biblical times. No matter where Jewish people live across the world, the land of Israel continues to be their homeland. (h/t MtTB)
at

Tadasa Tashume Ben Ma’ada: Killed Not for the Color of His Skin but for His Jewish Faith (Judean Rose)



Tadasa Tashume Ben Ma’ada died of his wounds three days after an Arab terrorist set off a bomb at the bus stop where Ben Ma’ada stood, awaiting his bus. Ben Ma’ada was murdered because he was a Jew, and he was buried as a Jew. But you might not have read about him in your newspaper. That’s because Ben Ma’ada doesn’t fit the CRT narrative of the Jew as white and privileged.  Privileged he was, as a Jew who “came home” to Israel from Ethiopia 21 years ago, but white he was, of a certainty, not. 

Not that it matters even one little bit. A Jew is a Jew is a Jew. It’s not that we “don’t see color.” It’s that we don’t care. Ben Ma’ada died al Kiddush Hashem, in sanctification of God’s name, because he was murdered precisely for belonging to the Jewish nation. That makes him holy. In Hebrew, in fact, martyrs are referred to as kedoshim, holy ones.

Ben Ma’ada wasn’t one of those “we are the real Jews” like Kyrie Irving, Ye West, or the Black Hebrew Israelites, but an actual real Jew who had zero interest in a trinity, or even Malcolm X.

Ben Ma’ada, after undergoing the Jewish purification ceremony, was buried in his tallit, his Jewish prayer shawl, like every other Israeli Jew. Those who paid their final respects, wore kippot, yarmulkes. 


The Black Hebrew Israelites, on the other hand, during their recent march on New York in support of Kyrie Irving distributed leaflets that left no doubt as to their religious affiliations, reading in part:

“The biblical Israelites are targeted and accused of hate day and night without rest. Our knowledge of our heritage and laws has been systematically removed from us through the monstrous holocaust known as the trans-Atlantic slave trade. They may lie to the world and deny us of our birthright, yet Jesus the Christ, our Black Messiah, confirms the truth of who we are. We are not antisemitic, we are Semitic.”

To the Black Hebrew Israelites, it is Black Christians who are the real Jews, a nonsensical idea. Because the Jewish belief in one God, a belief certainly shared by the Jewish martyr Ben Ma’ada, is the diametric opposite of a belief in a trinity. For a Jew, it’s simple: God cannot be both dead and alive, nor is he a son of himself, while somehow a father, all at one and the same time. These ideas are not consonant with Jewish thought and practice, and would not have resonated with Ben Ma’ada, because he was a Jew like any other Jew.

Ben Ma’ada’s belief system blows a gargantuan hole into the theory of African American/Arab intersectionality. From Eunice G. Pollack, a retired U. of North Texas professor of history and Jewish studies:

Decades before the current embrace of “intersectionality,” Black political and cultural militants promoted the narrative of the commonality of the oppression of African Americans and Arabs—both colonized by White/racist Jews. Convinced by the Arab League and the Organization of Arab Students, its army on the campus, that in contrast to Israel, which discriminated against people of color, the Arab states were racially egalitarian and that supporters of Israel were “accomplices of colonialism and imperialism,” they sought to forge an alliance with their brown brothers.

The Black Hebrew Israelites are not alone in speaking of Jews as “white” and “racist,” and Arabs as people of color. A foundational belief of the Nation of Islam, founded in the 1930s and associated today with Louis Farrakhan, is according to Pollack, “the delegitimization of Judaism—and the denigration of ‘white Jews.’” Meanwhile, the Black Lives Matter Movement speaks of the “racist” Jewish State, and the “struggle for freedom” of the “Palestinian” people of color.

Several Women’s March co-chairs were not only tied to Farrakhan but endorsed and amplified his antisemitic views. In 2016 and again in 2017, the co-chairs informed Jewish organizers that “You people hold all the wealth,” and that “Jewish people bore a special collective responsibility as exploiters of black and brown people” (McSweeney & Siegel, 2018; Pollack, 2019). It must be said that Tamika Mallory later clarified that they only meant “white Jews.”

Would Mallory have given Ben Ma’ada a pass as the “right kind” of Jew being that he was the “right kind” of color? Or would she have seen him as an accomplice “of colonialism and imperialism?” It certainly is confusing. You can see why it was just easier for the mainstream media not to say all that much about the murder of Tadasa Ben Ma’ada, who was not white, and could not, by any stretch of the imagination, be seen as oppressing people of color, being that he was, himself, a person of color AND a Jew. Not the fake kind of “Jew as Christian” Jew, but the real deal, born into the Mosaic faith.

But of course, these things are all in the eyes of the beholder. White supremacists hate Jews just as much, if not more than any BLM or NOI activist. Pamela Paresky notes this fact with some irony: “In the critical social justice paradigm, Jews, who have never been seen as white by those for whom being white is a moral good, are now seen as white by those for whom whiteness is an unmitigated evil.”

Paresky continues:

The subtlety is that, instead of targeting Jews directly, the target of critical social justice is “whiteness.” But this does nothing to protect Jews. In 2018, when Hasidic Jews were victims of a wave of violent attacks — a precursor to another cluster of bloody attacks to come a year later — Mark Winston Griffith, the executive director of the Black Movement Center in Crown Heights, told The Forward that some black Americans see Judaism as “a form of almost hyper-whiteness.”

You could have fooled the white nationalists who gathered in Charlottesville, Virginia to protest the removal of a statue of Robert E. Lee from a city park. “Jews will not replace us,” they chanted, looking like nothing so much as gleeful, blood-lusting Nazis at a Hitler rally. Here the word “replace” refers to the Great Replacement, known also as the white replacement or white genocide theory. In this conspiracy theory, in which white supremacist ideology is rooted, Jews promote mass immigration, intermarriage, and other phenomena that could lead to the “extinction of whites.”

And of course, Caryn Elaine Johnson, who adopted the insulting stage name “Whoopi Goldberg” called Jews and Nazis, “two white groups of people.” “If you’re going to do this, then let’s be truthful about it . . . these [Jews and Nazis] are two white groups of people.”

Would Goldberg Johnson have referred to the bombing that took Tadasa Tashume Ben Ma’ada’s life as two brown groups of people fighting it out? Likely not. In fact, it is more than likely that Goldberg Johnson has never had the chance to meet a “real Jew” like Israeli Jew Tadasa Tashume Ben Ma’ada, may Hashem avenge his blood. Which may be the real lesson in all of this, which is that, as Paresky says, “Jews should never again accede to being defined and divided in racial terms.”

Nor should we ever again be driven off our land by people who pretend to inherit what God gave to the Jews—real Jews like Tadasa Tashume Ben Ma’ada, killed not for the color of his skin, but for his Jewish faith.

Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424. 

Read all about it here!
 

 



at

More good (delusional) news from Iran!



Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Nasser Kanaani said Wednesday, that "the false advocates of human rights have been supporting the racist, terrorist Zionist entity for decades."

Really? 

He apparently tweeted, "The false claimants of human rights support a racist, terrorist and occupying entity for more than 7 decades, which not only commits gross violations of human rights, but also commits genocide against the Palestinian people!”

Sadly, he didn't identify which human rights groups or advocates support Israel. We would all love to know. 

I'd also like to know his definition of "genocide," given that Iran has killed more innocent civilians in the past two months than Israel has in years.




Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424. 

Read all about it here!
 

 

at

11/30 Links Pt1: Murdering Jews Should Be as Unacceptable as Murdering Druze; Biden Rewards Palestinians for Terrorism, Incitement; UNRWA Finds ‘Man-Made Cavity’ Under Gaza School

From Ian:

Israel’s UN ambassador: Mideast Jews were victims of the ‘real Nakba’
Israel’s Ambassador to the United Nations Gilad Erdan inaugurated an exhibit on Tuesday highlighting the expulsion of Jews from Middle East countries, calling the story of these Jewish refugees the “real Nakba.”

The Palestinians have long used the Arabic term “Nakba,” or catastrophe, to describe Israel’s creation and the resulting displacement of some 700,000 of Palestinian Arabs during the 1948 war initiated by Arab nations to destroy the nascent Jewish state.

Marking the 75th anniversary of the U.N.’s adoption of a resolution to create Israel, Erdan said that “those who really suffered from ‘Nakba’ following the decision were Jews—almost a million were expelled from Arab countries and Iran. Since the vote [on Nov. 29, 1947,] which the Arabs rejected, the United Nations has been telling a completely false story about the ‘disaster’ the Palestinians brought upon themselves,” he added.

While the vast majority of Jewish refugees from Arab countries were absorbed into Israel, the United Nations, by contrast, created the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) to tend uniquely to Palestinian refugees. Today, the organization recognizes some 5 million Palestinians as “refugees,” having effectively transformed the status into a hereditary trait applicable only to Palestinians.

“A day after the [partition] decision, Jews were violently and cruelly expelled from Arab countries and Iran. This year, after a long struggle, we managed to place an exhibition with photos that document the story of the real Nakba. I will continue to fight for the truth and against the false narrative that the Palestinians and their supporters spread,” said Erdan.


at

HRW "Apartheid" report destroyed by NGO Monitor



Although it took way longer than I would have liked, NGO Monitor released a thorough, line by line debunking of the Human Rights Watch 2021 report that accused Israel of "apartheid."

No unbiased person can read the NGOM report and end up concluding that the HRW report has a shred of intellectual honesty.

The HRW report is not just filled with errors. That is an understatement. When they cherry pick parts of an article that support their thesis, and ignore the parts that debunk it, it is not an error - it is willful lying.

I could make 200 blog posts out of the lies listed here. Here is a very minor example that illustrates the whole, perverted attempt to paint Israel as an apartheid state:

HRW cites disparity in playgrounds in one location as evidence of apartheid 

HRW consistently cherry-picks statistics, misrepresents data, and makes broad claims of Israeli evil based on minor incidents and minutiae. This example discusses charges of “playground apartheid.” HRW claims: “Israeli authorities sharply discriminate in the provision of resources and services between Palestinians and Jewish Israelis in Jerusalem” (p. 115). The first specific evidence to back this charge is the fact that in 2016, there were two playgrounds in the Arab Jerusalem neighborhoods of Shuafat and Beit Hanina with a combined population of 60,000, compared to nearby Jewish neighborhoods with a playground for every 1,000 residents. HRW cites an article in Haaretz discussing how the Jerusalem District Court ordered the construction of playgrounds in response to a lawsuit filed by two East Jerusalem residents in these specific neighborhoods. The rest of the news story reveals key information that HRW ignores. The Court acknowledged the contention by the City that one could not compare older Arab neighborhoods to newer, planned neighborhoods that incorporated space for playgrounds. Indeed, it was shown that playground density in Arab neighborhoods was similar to ultra-Orthodox Jewish neighborhoods, contradicting the notion of “playground apartheid” favoring Jews over Arabs. The municipality also demonstrated efforts to build playgrounds in these Arab neighborhoods but explained “that most of the appropriate land for such playgrounds is in private hands, and arrangements must be reached with the owners.” Despite these explanations, the Court ordered the City to build playgrounds in these two Arab neighborhoods, evidence that the government-run courts consistently apply laws that contradict apartheid.
HRW cited a Haaretz article that showed there was no difference between how Israel treated Jewish and Arab neighborhoods - and extracted half-truths to make it look like the opposite.

This is only one of hundreds of similar, egregious misreporting of facts. 

Another tiny example: HRW says that it takes hours for Palestinians to cross the Qalandiya checkpoint, citing an article from 2017. This is used as evidence of how badly Israel treats Palestinians. But Israel overhauled the checkpoint in 2019 - at great expense - and now it takes only minutes for Palestinians to cross. Is it remotely possible HRW is not aware of that overhaul, which was widely reported?

Or HRW's assertion that the very concept of a Jewish state is evidence of apartheid, ignoring the many states that are officially Christian or Muslim. 

The sheer number of these clearly purposeful omissions, double standards and outdated facts is overwhelming, but all of them point to the same conclusion: HRW decided that Israel was guilty first, and manufactured the evidence afterwards, secure in the knowledge that very few people would fact check them - and by the time it happens, they have already gotten their message out.

Put it this way: Public trust in the media is at near an all time low.  The media, however, often corrects mistakes. Human rights NGOs never correct the mistakes in their reports. 

Which means that human rights NGOs are less trustworthy than the media is.



Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424. 

Read all about it here!
 

 

at

The Buraq Wall was never where the Kotel is

Palestinian routinely claim that the Kotel, or Western Wall, is really a Muslim shrine - the Buraq Wall, where Mohammed supposedly tethered his flying steed during his miraculous "night journey."

It turns out that most Muslims never believed that until the 1929 riots and after Israel built the plaza in front of the Kotel in 1967.

The Shaw Commission report of 1930, about the riots that started at the Wall in 1929, describes the competing religious claims to the wall - and does not mention the legend of the Buraq at all, only that it is part of the Haram esh Sharif like all the other walls. 

One of the Holy Places in connection with which it has not infrequently been necessary to give rulings of the character indicated above is the Western or Wailing Wall; in Jerusalem. This Wall; forms part of the western exterior of the ancient Jewish Temple; being the last remaining vestige of that sacred place it is regarded with the greatest reverence by religious Jews, whose custom of praying there extended back to at least the Middle Ages. ....The Wall is also part of the Haram-esh-Sherif, which is an Islamic place of great sanctity, being reckoned next to the sacred cities of Mecca and Medina as an object of veneration to Moslems.

If the Kotel was considered the holy "Buraq Wall" by Muslims at the time, certainly that would have been mentioned here. Although it must be mentioned that the testimony included the idea that the Muslims had exaggerated the importance of the Buraq Wall:
Merriman introduced part of Chancellor’s statement to the Permanent Mandates Commission in July, in which he stated that the Moslems are trying to invest El Burak with a sanctity never before attached to it. Merriman implied that the Government was as skeptical as the Jews regarding the sacredness of the pavement to the Moslems.
Wikipedia points to an obscure German source from the 1860s that appears to say that the Muslims claimed the entire Western wall of the Temple Mount to be the Buraq Wall. 

A 1932 academic paper in the Journal of Biblical Literature, by C. D. Matthews, discusses the topic of where Muslims believe Mohammed tied the steed and entered the Temple Mount:

Among the orthodox who maintain the legends of Islam as historic truth, the famous "Night-Journey" of the Prophet sanctifies, as could nothing else, Jerusalem as a city of Muslim shrines, especially the Rock itself, from which Mohammed ascended into Heaven, and the Wall of al-Buraq, where Gabriel, the angelic conductor, tied up the divine steed on the arrival at the "further mosque" from Mecca.  Unfortunately, this last spot is identified as the same as the "Wailing Wall," involving a clash of religious sentiments which has often led to tragic results. Of course, the factious can always find factors. But is the Wall of al-Buraq the same as the Wailing Wall? The spot of contention is the southern end of the western wall of the Haram area. Muslim tradition is now well established that this is the holy station of their Prophet. Some accounts of the Night-Journey, as for instance our own author, say that Mohammed entered through a "gate through which the sun and the moon incline"--or shine at setting. This would indicate, of course, a western or southwestern gate. It agrees with the ordinary identification as the now walled-up Bab an-Nabi underneath the Gate of the Moors, Bab al-Maghribah, just south of the Place of Wailing, in the western wall of the Haram. 
He's saying that the Muslim consensus in Jerusalem was that the Buraq was tethered to the south of the Kotel, under the Mughrabi Gate - not where the Kotel is, north of the gate.

But that's just the beginning:

Further, Ibn al-Fakih (903) says the place of the tying up of al-Buraq is in the angle of the southern minaret-which was at the southwest corner of the Haram. And Ibn 'Abd Rabbih (913) says it is under the corner of the masjid-which Le Strange (in his book Palestine Under the Moslems) takes to mean the Aqsa but which can as well refer to the entire Haram and therefore Aqsa, mean the same as the statement of Ibn al-Fakih. 
But Muqaddasi (985), a citizen of Jerusalem and a most careful writer, speaks of the "two gates" of the Prophet, in such terms as positively to identify his choice as the ancient double gate in the south wall of the Aqsa. There used to run here a large entrance which is still a subterranean opening from within the mosque. The location of the former double gate is just as near the southern minaret on the southwestern corner as is the Gate of the Moors in the southern portion of the western wall. 

Further, Nasir I Khusrau (1047), despite the earthquake which came between Muqaddasi and him, resulting in changes of structure and name, still speaks of this gate under the Aqsa as the gate of the Prophet. He says (as quoted by Le Strange, P. M., pp. 178-9): "The gate of the Prophet... which opens toward the kiblah point-- that is, towards the south... The Prophet... on the night of his ascent into heaven, passed into the noble sanctuary through this passageway, for the gateway opens on the road from Makkah." It is only when we come to Mujir ad-Din, as late as 1496, an author whose work was almost entirely of secondary material, that we have a definite change of reference to the southwestern gate in the western wall as the gate of the prophet; and even here the author is speaking mainly of the Gate of the Moors over the walled-up gate which he says incidentally is also called Bab an-Nabi. (See Le S., p. 182.)

Finally, Le Strange (p. 182), who had studied thoroughly all the Arab geographers and historians on Palestine, takes the gates of the Prophet as named (not in order) by the two earliest writers Ibn al-Fakih and Ibn 'Abd Rabbih, to be identifiable with those named in the southern wall by Muqaddasi and Nasir. This places the weight of testimony on the western portion of the southern wall of the Haram area, not the southern portion of the western wall, as the proper Wall of al-Buraq of Muslim tradition.   
The blue section is where the Kotel is, the green is where the Buraq Wall was accepted as Muslim tradition as of 1932, possibly at the southern corner, and the orange outline covers areas where the original Muslim traditions placed the Buraq Wall.


So when Palestinians today claim that the Western Wall is really a holy Muslim Buraq Wall, they are lying. And it is a lie about Muslim tradition itself, meaning that they are willing to change their own history and legends just to take away any Jewish claim in Jerusalem.

That is what hate looks like. 


Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424. 

Read all about it here!
 

 

at

IfNotNow fundraising email makes up a lie about the founding of AIPAC

IfNotNow sent an email to its mailing list asking for money - by making up a lie about AIPAC.

This is a lie.

AIPAC was founded in two stages. The first was in 1951, as a lobbying arm of the American Zionist Council. It was essentially a one-man operation run by Isaiah (Si) Kenen to strengthen the Israel/American relationship. He immediately went to work on getting funding from Congress for resettling Jewish refugees in Israel. He had great relationships with many members of Congress - but the State Department was notably hostile to Israel. 

In 1953, he had some heated battles, mostly over Israeli access to water - Israel and Syria strongly disagreed over allocating water from the north and Syria wanted to ensure that Israel wouldn't get enough. Israel in turn started a project to create a canal/hydroelectric station, which angered the Eisenhower administration and the State Department. Later in 1953, the Qibya incident occurred, and there was more pressure on Israel from the US. 

But the AZC lobbying arm had nothing to do with that, and it wasn't "founded  to justify this massacre." That is absurd. It is not a hasbara organization. 

In 1954, it was decided to spin off the lobbying group as its own separate organization with its own funding, supported by a larger base of Zionist organizations, as the battles in 1953 were time consuming (Congress reduced its funding of Israel in 1953 by about 25%.)  Kenan headed the American Zionist Committee for Public Affairs, registered in March 1954.

That group was renamed the American Israel Public Affairs Committee in 1959.

All of this can be read in Kenen's 1981 book, "Israel's Defense Line: Her Friends and Foes in Washington."

As usual, Israel's enemies rely on lies - even (especially) to fundraise.  Because they know that very few people will bother to research the truth. 

(h/t Kweansmom)

Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424. 

Read all about it here!
 

 

at

Tuesday, November 29, 2022

11/29 Links Pt2: What happened to the 1947 UN Partition Plan?; The Failed British Double-Cross of Israel; Kanye walks out of interview after being questioned about antisemitic beliefs

From Ian:

What happened to the 1947 UN Partition Plan?
Today, Nov. 29, 2022, is the 75th anniversary of the 1947 UN Partition Plan – UN General Assembly resolution 181 - which divided the geographical area to the west of the Jordan River, into two states: A Jewish state and an Arab state. In its essence, the Partition Plan was a fundamental breach of the 1922 League of Nations Mandate for Palestine, which placed that entire area under the governance of Great Britain, for the sole purpose of creating a Jewish state on all of the land.

The 1922 Mandate for Palestine had already taken the entire geographical area then referred to as “Palestine” and divided it in two: The eastern part of Palestine - the Arab country - was placed under the rule of the Hashemite family and changed its name to the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. The western part of Palestine was to become the Jewish state.

Despite the breach of the Mandate, the Jewish leadership of the day – represented by David Ben Gurion - accepted the plan. The Arab leadership and countries, on the other hand, rejected the plan and immediately started planning how to eradicate the Jewish state before it even came into existence.

75 years later, speaking at the UN, Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas has now decided to accept the plan and even demand its implementation:
“Therefore, I present today to this UN organization, the title of international legitimacy in this world, with a formal request to implement General Assembly resolution 181, which formed the basis for the two-state solution in 1947…”

[WAFA, English edition, Official PA news agency, Sept. 23, 2022]

In making this demand, Abbas ignores a number of fundamental realities.

First, Abbas is demanding the implementation of a plan that has been defunct for 75 years. Living up to their promises, even before the British Mandate came to an end on May 14, 1948, the Arab countries attacked the nascent Jewish state.

[Boston Evening Globe, May 1, 1948]

While Israel managed to survive and expand in a war in which 6.000 Israeli men, women, and children were killed, a full 1% of the population most of the areas allocated for the Arab state - Judea, Samaria and the Gaza Strip - were occupied by Jordan (which was not yet recognized by the UN as a state) and Egypt, respectively.

In its original charter from 1965, the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), which is now headed by Abbas, disavowed its connection to the areas provisionally allocated for the Arab state openly declaring:
“This Organization [The PLO] does not exercise any territorial sovereignty over the West Bank in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, on the Gaza Strip or in the Himmah Area”.

Indeed, while Egypt controlled the Gaza Strip and Jordan controlled Judea and Samaria (which it renamed “The West Bank”), from 1948 to 1967, they and the other Arab countries refrained from creating what could have been the “Palestinian” Arab state.
The Failed British Double-Cross of Israel
When the warrior poet Avraham “Yair” Stern founder and leader of Lohamei Herut Israel (Lehi, “Fighters for the Freedom of Israel”) who believed that the British had to be forced out with assassinations and bombs and would never leave voluntarily, was killed after being captured and handcuffed by British detectives on Feb. 12, 1942, no Jew could celebrate his death.

But the leaders of the Jews of British Mandatory Palestine, already then led by David Ben-Gurion, viewed Stern’s death as a gain for the national cause rather than a loss—and not only because the poet and his followers were reckless political dilettantes: Some fantasized alliances with Mussolini, even the Nazis, as well as Arab nationalists in a common anti-British cause.

At a time of maximum danger—Rommel seemed to be on the verge of conquering Egypt, with Palestine next—Ben-Gurion and his allies doggedly pursued cooperation with the British in spite of bitter disappointments. Perhaps the worst of these was the May 1939 White Paper which limited the immigration of Jews to 75,000 over five years, sentencing countless European Jews to death at the hands of the Nazis. Yet Ben-Gurion believed, and rightly so, that the British were the least-bad allies the Jews could have.

Nor did Ben-Gurion have much choice. The Americans had refused to enter the war even after the Germans had conquered most of Europe. They still refused to act when the Germans seemed on the verge of defeating Russia, which would soon mean Britain’s defeat, too. On Dec. 2, 1941, German tanks were 14.7 miles from Moscow’s Red Square. America was only at war when Stern died in 1942 because the Japanese had attacked them.

It was unimaginable that the Americans would intervene on behalf of the Jews in the distant Middle East—indeed the U.S. only lifted its total weapons embargo on Israel in August 1962!—to allow the sale of defensive antiaircraft missiles, seven years after the Soviets had agreed to deliver bombers to Nasser’s Egypt (part of a huge Soviet weapons gift package misrepresented as “Czech” at the insistence of the CIA to avert hostility from their own man Nasser: That always-wrong agency was betting on Nasser’s mighty Arab nationalism rather than on seemingly puny Israel).

When Avraham Stern was killed, the communists still gave all their loyalty to Stalin. According to Ben-Gurion and the majority of Jewish leaders in Palestine, Churchill was still the best bet the Jews could have, even after the exposure of his crass duplicity toward the Yishuv. Having vehemently condemned the May 1939 White Paper to please his Jewish benefactors while out of office and short of ready cash, Churchill refused to change the policy once he became prime minister—thus denying escape from death to millions, and incidentally preventing my father, mother, two brothers, and myself from leaving Arad, Romania, to reach safety by a comfortable Orient Express ride to Istanbul and thence Haifa. A 5-inch-by-2-inch Palestine entry slip was enough to obtain Bulgarian and Turkish transit visas, but the British refused to issue them, even in 1944—by which point detailed eyewitness accounts and impeccable documentation of the operation of every part of the Nazi killing machine had reached London and Washington.

In spite of all that, on the evidence available at the time, Ben-Gurion was still mostly right and Avraham Stern was still mostly wrong. The British did eventually, and very reluctantly, agree to the U.N.’s termination of their mandatory rule on May 15, 1948, thus allowing the Jews to fight for their state. The qualifier is necessary because a factor in the British decision was the terrorist attacks inspired by Stern, including the July 22, 1946, bombing of the British headquarters in the King David Hotel whose 91 killed set a deadliest-attack record that lasted for decades.
I Was Robbed of 70% of the Land of Israel
Jordan ruled over Judea and Samaria, Egypt ruled over Gaza and Syria ruled over the Golan Heights. For those that do not understand the importance of the sentence above, it means that all the lands that the Arabs call “occupied” were under Arab control between 1948-1967! Was there peace?

It was Jordan, Egypt, and Syria that built the refugee camps and stuck their own Arab brothers and sisters in them to create a refugee problem in order to bash Israel. If creating a new State called Palestine was the goal and all the Arab countries are in favor of such a State, why didn’t Jordan Egypt and Syria help the “Palestinian” Arabs start a State during those 19 years (1948-1967).

Israel liberated Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, Gaza and the Golan from Arab States occupation and it has nothing to do with an Arab people who call themselves (since 1964) Palestinians. We never occupied an Arab place called Palestine and there never was an Arab place called Palestine before Israel that could have been occupied.

You are probably saying this is enough to completely destroy the anti-Israel propaganda, but it gets much better (or worse). Today, Jordan is ruled by a king.

Over 75% of Jordan’s population are Arabs who call themselves “Palestinians”! So why hasn’t the majority of “Palestinians” taken over? Because Jordan does not give them full rights!

In fact, Jordan has the largest “Palestinian” refugee camps!

Where is the UN? Where is UNWRA? Where are the SJWs? Where are all the Leftists who care about Human Rights?

Just to sum up, Jordan sits on 77% of British Palestine and has a majority of over 75% of Arabs who call themselves “Palestinians”. Why aren’t the Arabs, who so want to create a Palestinian State, not fighting over 77% of the Land where they are a 75% majority? Why are they fighting over a small sliver of 23% where they are the minority? The answer is simple.

This has never been a struggle to build a new state called Palestine, it’s a struggle to destroy the one called ISRAEL.

Now, can we start fighting for truth and stop giving into false diplomacy that is based on lies?


at

Cartoon of the Day: Jews Welcome!




Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424. 

Read all about it here!
 

 


at

Beyond parody: Anti-Israel groups try to get LGBTQ, feminist orgs to support Palestinian gay bashers and misogynists

From The Left Berlin:

Here we reproduce two draft e-mails which have been suggested by the European Citizens’ Initiative (ECI) coordination team of the European Coordination of Committees and Associations for Palestine (ECCP). ECCP is a network of 43 European organisations, NGOs, trade unions and solidarity groups from 18 European countries,  dedicated to the struggle of the Palestinian people for freedom, justice and equality.

We find that this attempt to link different struggles – to show that Palestinian rights are indivisible from the rights of women and LGBTQI+ people – is an important development in building an international movement to support the Palestinians. We therefore urge you to support the ECI initiative and to send these mails to any relevant organisations with which you are in contact.

In particular, the mails ask for support for the ongoing ECI to #StopSettlements and stop EU complicity with the oppression of Palestinians. An ECI is more than just a “normal” petition. If the initiative receives one million validated signatures, the EU Commission is legally obliged to respond to the demand for a ban on illegal trading with the occupied territories.
The cynicism is almost beyond belief. Even the language they use shows that they know that this has nothing to do with reality. 

But they know that they must "link" the "struggles." And, as a result, Palestinian women and gays remain imprisoned by laws that are explicitly against them, because their natural allies in the West are being told to concentrate their efforts against the most liberal, pro-gay, pro-woman state in the Middle East.

The draft letters are even more of a joke. For the pro-women's groups:

As Europeans fighting for gender equality, and against sexism and the patriarchal system in our countries, we bear a responsibility to support our sisters’ fights abroad. Including in Palestine where Palestinian women resists the Israeli apartheid regime and demand the fulfilment of Palestinian rights. Our Palestinian sisters are not only confronted with gender violence, femicide but also Israeli settler colonialism which constitutes a gender violence in itself. Israeli occupation and colonisation add another layer of oppression and contribute to gender-based violence within Palestinian communities.
That last sentence translates to "Palestinian men beat their wives and daughters, and we blame Israel."

For the pro-LGBTQ groups:
The Palestinian struggle is deeply committed to addressing gender violence, feminicide, queerphobia and settler colonialism, which are co-constitutive of each other. The State of Israel and its supporters use Pinkwashing as a strategy to cynically exploit LGBTQIA+ rights in order to project a progressive image of Israel while concealing its occupation and apartheid policies oppressing Palestinians.

Awareness that queer and trans-liberation cannot be separated from Palestinian liberation is growing. As Europeans fighting against sexism, patriarchy, queerphobia and all systems of oppression in our countries, we must support Palestinian people in their struggle for their rights and against the Israeli settler colonial system.
If you really support Palestinians and LGBTQ/women's rights, you would protest Palestinian policies, not Israeli policies!

Fully one out of every three married Palestinian women suffer physical violence by their husbands. Initiatives like these tell these women, sorry, you aren't important. 

By prioritizing protesting Israel over the Palestinian Authority and Hamas that have laws against gender equality and gay rights, these groups are showing that their hate for Israel takes priority over their love for their fellow LGBTQ and women in the territories!

That is the nature of antisemitism, both new and old - the hate is so powerful, that people are eager to throw their own purported allies under the bus just to have a chance at hurting Jews. 

(h/t DL)

Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424. 

Read all about it here!
 

 

at

11/29 Links Pt1: The Palestinians had a great Thanksgiving; Israel not so much; Female Israeli soldier wounded in West Bank car ramming attack; Israeli Children Attacked by Terrorists in Hebron

From Ian:

The Palestinians had a great Thanksgiving; Israel not so much
Over Thanksgiving week, the administration announced the creation of a special representative post focused solely on the Palestinians. This will be an enormous upgrade in relations. A State Department official said, "As the president reiterated in Israel and the West Bank, we remain committed to reopening our Consulate General in Jerusalem and to the vision of a two-state solution."

While the Palestinians are cosseted and rewarded for intransigence and violence, the Biden administration is attacking Israel by upgrading Israel's enemies, undermining its ability to defend itself and calling its democratic bona fides into question.

First, the administration called the Abraham Accords "normalization agreements," rather than the historic peace accords they are. But that was a minor slap compared to the gifts Israel's chief nemesis Iran received. The administration lifted sanctions on Iran's proxy terror organization, the Houthis. It pressured South Korea to free up more than a billion dollars in frozen Iranian funds. It provided sanctions waivers that allowed Iran to sell more oil to China – a boon for both countries.

And the administration did all of this while the US sat outside the room in Vienna where talks on reviving the 2015 nuclear accord are underway. The US, in other words, acted like the pariah Iran should be, and allowed Russia, China and the EU to offer Iran "inducements" to rejoin an agreement Iran has been violating for years. There has been no penalty for stealing US technology, putting it in Iranian drones and exporting the drones to Russia in violation of U.N. sanctions.

In addition, Iran's proxy Hezbollah was gifted with a maritime gas agreement between Israel and Lebanon brokered by the US The Biden administration put heavy pressure on Israel's outgoing government to reach a deal before the Israeli elections. Worst of all was that Israel received unspecified American "security assurances" should Hezbollah attack. This undermined Israel's decades-long policy that it would "defend itself by itself" and not ask the US to provide American soldiers for its security.

The administration also undermined Israel's position as a democratic ally by announcing the opening of an FBI investigation into the battlefield death of an Al Jazeera journalist, having previously accepted the findings of Israeli and Palestinian investigations and declaring the case closed. The announcement brought cheers from the PA, which demanded that the case go to the International Criminal Court.

The only saving grace was that US Ambassador Thomas Nides and President Joe Biden later said they had no idea such an investigation had been ordered by the attorney general. Really? President Biden didn't know? The US has a rogue attorney general?

The Palestinians had a very good Thanksgiving week. The Israelis much less so. Most Americans were too busy to notice.
A Book of Psalms saved a victim's life in Jerusalem terror attack
A man who was seriously injured in Tuesday’s Jerusalem bombing was spared from what could have been a fatal fate by none other than his book of Psalms – or Tehillim in Hebrew – which blocked a shard of debris from piercing his body, said Shaare Zedek Medical Center.

The victim, a 62-year-old man, arrived to Shaare Zedek hospital in serious condition and underwent a series of operations to remove shrapnel from his body.

While the man was recovering, visitors were stunned to discover that he had a book of psalms in his possession that was pierced almost entirely through by a shard of debris resulting from the explosion. The shard hit the back cover of the book and penetrated nearly all the way through – though stopping just short and potentially saving the man’s life.

Coincidence or divine intervention?
The shard penetrated the book up to the 124th chapter of the Psalms before stopping at the line: "Our soul is like a bird that escaped from a box of hardships."

The psalm that the shrapnel stopped is obviously very notable, as the message in the psalm is about being saved from hardship. The bus station bombing in Jerusalem on Tuesday killed two, including a 16-year-old boy, and wounded 18 others – including the fortunate man who had this book of psalms with him.
The IDF’s Judea and Samaria challenge: A spike in attacks and anti-terror raids
‘A synergy of explosive factors can produce a new intifada’
According to Col. (res.) David Hacham, a senior research associate at the MirYam Institute and a former adviser on Arab affairs to seven Israeli defense ministers, the dramatic rise in terrorist incidents is linked to a number of factors.

He detailed the first two as follows: “A rise in violent clashes between the IDF, as well as Israelis in Judea and Samaria, and Palestinians, often leading to casualties. A rise in tensions surrounding the Temple Mount and ongoing Palestinian incitement encouraging violent passions around this issue based on claims that Israel is changing the status quo. This can form a big potential for escalation because it plays on very sensitive strings.”

Terror factions led by Hamas have been promoting murderous incitement on social media using the Temple Mount issue as a key theme to call for attacks on Israelis.

A third factor, said Hacham, is the ongoing and escalating succession battle within Fatah over who will succeed Abbas. “The combination of these elements leads to an atmosphere filled with gasoline fumes, and can lead to an explosion and a new intifada, he warned.

“Other factors include the sense among Palestinians of a lack of any progress in the diplomatic process with Israel and the sense that the PA is unable to make Israel budge here. The Palestinians fear the formation of a new right-wing Israeli coalition that will promote the building of settlements, legalize outposts, build new bypass roads, and create an obstacle to the establishment of a future Palestinian state,” said Hacham.

“They fear the next government will not take the Palestinians into account at all. On the Palestinian side, Abbas, 87, is tired and sick. He is trying to prepare the ground for his chosen successor, Hussein al-Sheikh, whom he appointed as PLO Executive Committee secretary-general in May 2022,” he continued.

Israel has to keep its finger “closely on the pulse of every event in Judea and Samaria, which is at the gates, inside our home. It has to be able to detect and move to prevent negative events such as a Hamas takeover,” Hacham stressed.

Al-Sheikh, unpopular on the Palestinian street, would only acquire legitimacy if he won elections like Abbas did in 2005 to become PA president. “Here, there is an Israeli, Jordanian and Egyptian interest to prevent a civil war between Palestinians and to avoid a scenario in which the militias of the candidates fight each other, which could be dangerous for us,” Hacham added.
at

Jerry Seinfeld's idea of fighting antisemitism is a bit flawed

Jerry Seinfeld went on the Today Show last week and spoke about antisemitism. 

Well, not really.

He praised his wife for putting out a generic Instagram message, "I support my Jewish friends and the Jewish people," adding to the graphic, "If you don't know what to say, just say this in your feed."



Seinfeld is not a confrontational comedian, and his comments were that his wife found a non-aggressive way to say what needs to be said. OK. 

But then Seinfeld said that most of those types of statements  "is going to trigger someone, is going to inflame - we are so quick to inflame, right? Both sides of any debate - women, gender, everything - this is the culture we live in: Flashpaper. Instant, violent, verbiage."

Not to nitpick here, but is being against Jew-hatred a matter of "debate"? 

Yes, people will instantly jump on you if they believe that your opinions on abortion or Trump or pronouns are wrong, but most things have reasonable people on both sides disagreeing. To throw being against antisemitism in the same bucket as those issues is saying that supporting Jews as having equal, human rights is controversial. And when one crafts a message of support for Jews it must be done in such a way as to not upset the antisemites.

I'm certain he didn't think this through, but the idea that support for Jews is something that needs to be wordsmithed, to be carefully thought out before saying it publicly, is a tacit admission that the Jew-haters have a valid point, too, and we must not offend them.

We wouldn't say that we must not offend racists or misogynists. Why, with Jews, is there a subtext that support must be nuanced to avoid backlash?


Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424. 

Read all about it here!
 

 

at

Former Jordanian PM warns new Israeli government wants to take over Jordan and the Arabian Peninsula



Former Jordanian Deputy Prime Minister Mamdouh al-Abadi, speaking at a symposium held by the Middle East Institute for Media and Political Studies,  said, “A clash is inevitably coming between the Jordanian state and the new Israeli occupation government.”

Speaking Sunday night in Amman, al-Abadi said,  “The Israeli right-wing program has become clear....The first clause in the charter for the establishment of Greater Israel is the subjugation of Transjordan."

He continued,  “The Likud party, after occupying Jerusalem, is now trying to subjugate Amman, and its ambition is to control Medina, and thus the Arabian Peninsula.” 

Al-Abadi then uses his incredible powers of prediction to say, "When the Palestinians are displaced, and the West Bank is emptied of its people, the Jordanian decision-making circles will find, at some point, nothing but the option of clash and confrontation, with all its political and military meanings. I suggest starting to prepare the current and future Jordanian generations for this historical inevitability.”

When we hear insanity like this, the J word cannot be too far away. And indeed, in 2020, al-Abadi said, "I insist that our relations with the Israelis and Jews in this region is existential and not just a border dispute."

This isn't a random columnist or social media commentator. He's a former deputy prime minister. This is deep seated delusion, and a frightening indication of how hate twists even basic information gathering in many Arab countries. News sites and history books only teach what the authorities want to hear.


Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424. 

Read all about it here!
 

 

at

75 years ago today: An Arab declaration of war against the Jews. Not Zionists - Jews.



In the hours before the UN voted to partition Palestine into a Jewish and Arab states, the Secretary General of the Arab League, Abdul Azzam Pasha, warned that such a decision would result in a war of genocide against Jews in the Middle East.

This is the most complete text I can find of what he said, as the representative of the entire Arab world. speaking in English to a Western audience. 

It is worth studying, because it is a blueprint for virtually every Arab statement about Israel since then, including those of Mahmoud Abbas today. 

The speech is a combination of threats, bullying, fearmongering, hyperbole and incitement to genocide against Jews. 

From the International News Service, November 29, 1947:

Arab Official Says Partition To Mean War Against Jews
Abdul Azzam Pasha. secretary general of the Arab League, warned today that a United Nations decision to partition Palestine could mean only one thing for Arabs —war against the Jews." 

In a statement made as the UN general assembly prepared to vote on the explosive issue he declared: 

"Such a decision would mean the end of the first phase of the Arab struggle to have Palestine become an independent Arab state. The second phase of the struggle will now begin . . . the Arabs will have a long run of victories even it it takes us until 1950 or 1960.

"We have justice. time and numbers on our side—everything but arms— and we shall get them too." 

He said that tribesmen in Iran. Iraq and Saudi Arabia are "itching to fight." 

Azzam Pasha. just back from a six-weeks' tour of Arab states. said a meeting of the Arab League is scheduled for the near future. He added: "There is no question of the Arab countries leaving the United Nations or severing diplomatic relations with nations which vote for partition." 

The Arab spokesman said that if Haganah. army of the Jewish agency for Palestine. tries to enforce a partition decision after the British leave and Palestine Arabs seek the help of other Arab states "we shall not hesitate."

He declared: "Every Arab from Morocco to Afghanistan would rise in answer to the call of their Arab brethren." 

He forecast "disturbances" and "persecution" of Jews in neighboring Arab countries "in an atmosphere of hatred and animosity which will prevail in case of trouble." The spokesman added: 

"Palestine Arabs will not stop to find out who is Zionist and who is not. They will be fighting one enemy--Jews." 

Azzam Pasha said it is impossible to estimate the strength of Arab volunteers who would fight for Palestine. 

He explained that Arab men will not rally in great numbers if the Arabs are victorious from the start but that "if we suffer any defeats in the beginning then the Arabs will rally in huge numbers because it will be a question of racial pride."
Let's analyze this.

"The Arabs will have a long run of victories even it it takes us until 1950 or 1960" - As always, Arab predictions are wrong - but the intent behind them has not changed. Arab media today, outside of those from the Abraham Accords countries, still has the subtext that Israel is an aberration that will be wiped out as soon as the Arabs can get their act together. Instead of saying Israel will be destroyed in a decade, they often point to the Crusades, where it took about 200 years to reverse the Christian control of Jerusalem, saying that they are equally patient as their ancestors were. 

 "We have justice. time and numbers on our side—everything but arms— and we shall get them too." The theme of "justice" has been taken up by the Left against Israel, even though in this speech we see what it means - the total destruction of Jews in the Middle East. It is brilliant rhetoric meant to obfuscate genocidal intent.

 "There is no question of the Arab countries leaving the United Nations or severing diplomatic relations with nations which vote for partition." This was a baseless threat, but Arabs can engage in hyperbole in threatening the West without consequence. And the Western world still remembers the oil shock of the 1970s: when the Arab nations had the power to use economic means to seriously threaten Western support of Israel, they did so. The repercussions, combined with the threat of Palestinian terror in Western cities, continue today. 

"Every Arab from Morocco to Afghanistan would rise in answer to the call of their Arab brethren." This entire speech is part of  pattern of the past 150 years where Arabs and Muslims take advantage of Western perceptions of them as irrational savages. The spectre of hordes of Arabs, willing to die for their cause, brandishing scimitars under a flag of jihad, is one that the Arabs have played to the hilt - and the West still falls for it. 

But there is a grain of truth to it. Most Arabs just want to raise their families in peace, and have little interest in fighting wars for "Palestine." However, decades of antisemitic incitement in their media and schools results in a small percentage who swallow that narrative. These are the ones who join ISIS and Islamic Jihad and Hamas. This is useful to the Arab leaders, as Pasha continues:

"He forecast 'disturbances' and 'persecution' of Jews in neighboring Arab countries 'in an atmosphere of hatred and animosity which will prevail in case of trouble.'" The Arab leaders may not support the fanatics, but they are quite willing to keep them around for a game of good cop/bad cop. Their consistent message is that if world doesn't do what they demand, they cannot stop the crazies (or the "Arab street") from doing horrible things. If the fanatics slaughter the Jews, the Arab leaders who incite that slaughter in Arabic cannot be blamed - it is the West's fault for not listening to their sage advice. 

"Palestine Arabs will not stop to find out who is Zionist and who is not. They will be fighting one enemy--Jews."  Pasha is again pretending to distance himself from the Palestinian Arab fanatics when Arab leaders were directly inciting exactly such a bloodbath in Arabic. And note how he tries to manipulate the West in the aftermath of the Holocaust: his message is that "you didn't protect the Jews for the past decade, if you want to avoid another Holocaust you should do what we demand."

"It will be a question of racial pride" - this is what passed for politically correct antisemitism in 1947. Of course Arabs cannot accept Jews in positions of power, for racial reasons. He is saying that Arabs are a racial group and Jews are considered inferior - it would be an insult to Arab pride to accept Jews as equals. 

This Nazi ideology made some inroads into mainstream Arab thought, and Abdul Azzam Pasha was still comfortable enough after World War II to evoke that same ideology. 

In the end, though, it wasn't Nazi racial theories that animated this speech. It was age-old antisemitism.

When Mahmoud Abbas threatens that there will be worldwide terror unless Palestinians get their demands met, he is engaging in exactly the same threats that Pasha did. When Arab leaders pretend that Western capitulation to their demands will weaken, rather than embolden, Islamist terrorists, they are using Pasha's playbook. When an Arab leader like King Abdullah only yesterday threatens the West with more "escalation, violence, and extremism" unless Palestinian demands are met, he is copying Pasha's tactics.

The Arabs keep using that methodology because it works.

As mentioned, the predictions by Arab leaders are often way off, but the intent behind these threats are not. And that is a problem the West continues to ignore.

The Western reaction to these kinds of genocidal threats haven't changed in 75 years. There is no direct response, but the message becomes accepted. The myth of "linkage" of the Palestinian issue to every other Middle East problem comes from statements like Pasha's, and the West never called the Arab world on it. Instead, they believed it. 

These statements are threats and incitement, and the Western world should respond with outrage, not meek acquiescence and winks that "they don't really mean it." 

Finally, the other thing that hasn't changed in 75 years is that the "anti-Zionism"stated here was indistinguishable from antisemitism. The threats were of genocide against Jews, both within and without Palestine, with barely a pretext of the coming bloodbath being about Zionism. 

Apologists will keep trying to draw a tortuous line between the two, but they are the same thing. And they always have been. 



Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424. 

Read all about it here!
 

 

at