Showing posts with label 1982. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 1982. Show all posts

Wednesday, January 18, 2023

From Ian:

Meir Y. Soloveichik: Moshe Dayan’s Tragic Blunder
There is an argument to be made for permitting wider access and the right to pray for Jews at the site of the biblical Temples. In part, this argument charges that defense minister Moshe Dayan, in electing not to fully realize Israel’s sovereignty over the Mount immediately after its breathtaking capture in the 1967 war, helped facilitate the resonant Palestinian lie that the Jews have no connection to our ancient homeland—for surely, if the Temple Mount was historically ours, religiously ours, we would not have handed it back to them.

Dayan self-evidently thought otherwise. Anxious to avoid a full-on confrontation with the entire Muslim world, and utilizing the halachic argument that Jews should not set foot on the Mount for fear of defiling the sacred ground where the Temple and its Holy of Holies once stood, he allowed Jordan’s Muslim Waqf to continue to administer the compound’s holy places.

Netanyahu, Horovitz continued, had “wisely” adopted Dayan’s approach previously, but now the prime minister had “sanctioned” an act of “potential pyromania.” Horovitz’s account leaves out the fact that the decision of the ardently secular Dayan was founded on total disregard for what the Temple Mount meant to religious Jews.

After his paratroopers broke through Jordanian lines in 1967 and reached the site, Mordechai Gur exultantly exclaimed that “the Temple Mount is in our hands.” Dayan, in contrast, infamously reflected, “What do I need this Vatican for?” As the Israeli journalist Nadav Sharagai has documented, Dayan’s actions were based in the presumption that the Temple Mount is not of any religious significance to Jews at all:
Dayan thought at the time, and years later committed his thoughts to writing, that since the Mount was a “Muslim prayer mosque,” while for Jews it was no more than “a historical site of commemoration of the past…one should not hinder the Arabs behaving there as they do now and one should recognize their right as Muslims to control the site.”

But of course the Temple Mount is more, for Jews, than a commemorative locale of the past: It is the holiest site in Judaism, the one toward which Jews pray all over the world, because they believe that God dwells there in a special way. Dayan’s decision did indeed facilitate Palestinian claims, rampant today, that no Temple ever stood in Jerusalem and that the entire Jewish connection to Jerusalem is a fabrication. This is why more and more religious Jews are realizing that visiting the site is essential. It is not only far-right figures who are visiting the Mount. Entering certain sections of the Mount in a manner sanctioned by Jewish law is becoming more and more mainstream among Orthodox Jews. And that is why opposition to Jewish access to the Mount is growing more and more frantic by the day.

All this points to a profound irony. The return of Netanyahu has been met with the journalistic gnashing of teeth and the rhetorical rending of garments by writers and public figures about the danger that the (democratically elected) government of Israel poses to democracy. And yet it is these very critics who are often so dismissive of the most elemental of democratic injustices: denying Jews in Israel the right to visit, and to pray at, Judaism’s holiest place. Perhaps, when it comes to the history of the democratic liberties of mankind in the eyes of those who piously intone on the subject, it is only the rights of religious Jews that do not matter.
Mahmoud Abbas’ Dissertation
On Feb. 1, 1972, the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union issued a directive “On further measures to fight anti-Soviet and anti-communist activities of international Zionism.” The social sciences section of the Soviet Academy of Sciences soon established a permanent commission for the coordination of scientific criticism of Zionism, to be housed at the academy’s prestigious Institute of Oriental Studies. Over the next 15 years, the IOS would serve as an important partner in the state’s fight against the imaginary global Zionist conspiracy that Soviet security services believed was sabotaging the USSR in the international arena and at home. In 1982, the IOS would grant the doctoral status to one Mahmoud Abbas, upon the defense of his thesis The Relationship Between Zionists and Nazis, 1933-1945.

Abbas’ dissertation has been a subject of considerable interest over the years. The thesis isn’t publicly available: By all accounts, it is kept in an IOS special storage facility requiring special authorization to access. But if one visits the National Library of Israel in Jerusalem, one can easily get the Palestinian leader’s so-called avtoreferat—an extended dissertation abstract. Written to the standards of the Soviet State Commission for Academic Degrees and Titles and authored by the candidate, the 19-page document outlines the dissertation’s relevance, methodology, main arguments and unique contribution to the field. It also provides a literature review and lists the individuals and institutions that were involved in shepherding the work through to completion. It therefore offers a peek not only into Mahmoud Abbas’ academic accomplishment, but also into the system that produced it.

Using the social sciences to support political and ideological agendas set by the Communist Party was a matter of course in the USSR. Entire academic disciplines had been established to grant scholarly legitimacy to the state’s guiding ideology. “Scientific atheism,” for an example, was tasked with proving scientifically that God did not exist and that religion was the opiate of the masses. “Scientific communism” was supposed to supply scientific proof that communism was the superior stage of social and economic development and would supersede both Soviet socialism and global capitalism. When, instead, capitalism superseded Soviet socialism and the cushy budgets that sustained these disciplines vanished, they, too, quietly dissolved.

As a field, “scientific anti-Zionism” never took root in the Soviet academy as broadly as the other two subjects. Like them, it died as soon as its primary client—the Soviet state—disappeared. Soon a million Soviet Jews resettled in Israel and the newly independent former Soviet states restored diplomatic relations with the country.

I grew up in Akademgorodok—a suburb of the Siberian city of Novosibirsk that was home to the Siberian Division of the Academy of Sciences. Adults around me lived and breathed science—real science, like physics and biology. It was well-known that portions of the academy were corrupted by ideological agendas. The antisemitism in its math division and elsewhere was a fact of life. Humanities and social sciences in particular were ruled by ideological priorities. But seeing the intellectual corruption that is evident in the story of Abbas’ dissertation is disturbing nonetheless.
Why Israel’s enemies will hate the Louvre
The Palestinian Authority and its supporters have a new enemy: the Louvre.

The world’s most-visited museum, the famous French institution that holds some of the greatest works of art and antiquities, is likely to find itself on anti-Israel boycott lists around the world.

This is because among the Louvre’s storied collections is a slab of stone with an inscription that affirms the ancient connection of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel.

The stone, known as the Mesha Stele, was first discovered in 1868 near the Dead Sea, but its inscription, written in the language of the ancient Moabites, was only partially understandable due to centuries of wear and damage. The inscription recounts a war between King Mesha of Moab and the Jews—the same conflict described in the third chapter of the Book of Kings. In addition, the words “House of David” appeared to be included in the inscription, but damage to the artifact meant this could not be proved conclusively.

Linguists and historians associated with a University of Southern California research project recently analyzed the artifact with a new technology called Reflectance Transformation Imaging that “takes digital images of an artifact from different angles and then combined to create a precise, three-dimensional digital rendering of the piece,” according to an article by two of the researchers, André Lemaire and Jean-Philippe Delorme, in the latest issue of Biblical Archeology Review.

This allowed the damaged section of the stele to be read. As was long suspected, it indeed referred to the “House of David.” So, once again, archaeological discoveries have affirmed what was already written long ago in the Hebrew Bible.

Do you know what is not mentioned in the inscription? “Palestine” or “Palestinians.”

Wednesday, July 27, 2022


                                                     Interview with Isser Coopersmith


Yamit was the first expulsion of Jews by Jews in the Jewish State. That is what a lot of people forget when they point to Gush Katif and say that at least now we have proof that the land for peace formula doesn’t work. Gush Katif, it is true, was a massive, outsized event, with 8,600 Jews expelled from their homes, while “only” 2,500 Jews had been forced from their homes in Yamit, 23 years earlier. Expulsion in either case proved traumatic, resulting in spiraling statistics for suicide, divorce, and bankruptcy.

Isser Coopersmith

Just as right wing Israelis flocked to Gush Katif to strengthen the people in the run-up to Disengagement, so too, they came to Yamit in 1982, ready to fight. One of those who rushed to join the 2,500 Israeli Jews of Yamit was Isser Coopersmith, an American immigrant to Israel who had settled in Shilo. He was ready to do anything to help prevent the evacuation.

Coopersmith was 25, and no stranger to showing his loyalty to the Jewish State. After making Aliyah in 1979, Isser helped to build a settlement and a kibbutz, then joined the IDF in 1980, serving in a combat unit. After the evacuation of Yamit, Coopersmith went on to serve in the reserves during the First Lebanon War.

Isser has worn many hats in his professional life: shepherd, goldsmith, chef, house painter. It’s the way of many of us expats. You do whatever is in your capacity to make things work and be part of the project that is Israel, the first Jewish state in the Holy Land. Today, forty years after Yamit, Coopersmith has a 33-year-old son, and is married and living in Maale Adumim.

Ruti and Isser Coopersmith

Here is the story of the evacuation of Yamit, as experienced by Isser Coopersmith:

Coopersmith as a young reservist based on Yamit, 6 months prior to the evacuation.

Varda Epstein: How did you come to live in Yamit? When did you settle there?

Isser Coopersmith: The year was 1982. I had just finished my army service and there was turmoil in the country because the government was going to return Sinai to the Egyptians and destroy the settlements. Most of the residents took compensation and left. A number of people from around the country organized fishing boats to try and break the naval blockade and reach Yamit. We left in the middle of the night from Michlelet Herzog near Massuot Yitzchak and drove to the Tel Aviv Marina where we set sail on a number of vessels. We were followed and hounded by the navy along the way but reached the shore and descended into Zodiacs and paddled to the beach where hundreds of residents and the army waited. It was like out of a scene from the movie Exodus. We mixed in with the people so the army couldn’t nab us.

"We rented a fishing boat and 6 or 7 pleasure boats and met at the Tel Aviv Marina, hoping to get into Yamit."




“We labeled one of the boats ‘Al tefanena,’ [“Don’t evacuate us,” V.E.]  which of course is an allusion to the Altalena.”


Isser on one of the rented pleasure boats





Here you can see the navy, flanking us, trying to deter us from getting any closer. When I got off the boat, I realized I was going to be in Yamit for the long haul, and knew I needed to get back out of there to get more supplies. I managed to get out of Yamit, and on my way back, met with a convoy at Kfar Maimon. In the middle of the night we drove off-road and traveled through sand dunes to get back into Yamit. 


Varda Epstein: What was it like, being part of Yamit during that time? Can you describe a typical day?

Isser Coopersmith: In one way it felt like we were on a holy mission to keep our land. In another way it felt tense because we knew the government was going to try and evict us any day. A typical day was eating sleeping, davening [praying, V.E.], setting up barricades, and going to the beach.



Bunker in Yamit



"Here you see, from right to left, Baruch Marzel, Rav Ariel, andAvi Farhan, standing outside the bunker. Avi Farhan was one of the original inhabitants of Yamit, and one of the ones who refused to leave."




"Here you have the chief rabbis, Ovadia Yosef and Shlomo Goren, trying to talk the Kachnikim [followers of Rabbi Meir Kahane, V.E.] out of the suicide bunker. I was guarding the doors of the bunker for a while, so Geula Cohen and my rav [rabbi, V.E.], Rav Elhanan Bin Nun from Shilo, tried to talk me out of there.

"At some point, a reporter from the NY Times asked me a question: Do I have anything to tell the world?

"I said, 'Tell Laura I love her,' and I heard people saying, 'Who’s Laura?'

"Like, nobody got it." 



An evacuation soldier outside the bunker. Soldiers attempted to pry open the bunker door with a wooden board, at center



The "suicide bunker." The army tried to get in with an acetylene torch.


"From guarding the bunker I went to a rooftop of a villa, which we barricaded. We put all kinds of like, fencing and things down the staircase, so people couldn’t get to us. I was in the villa with Levi Hazan and Misha Mishkan who tried to self-immolate, which we prevented him from doing. Baruch Marzel was on the second floor, fighting off like ten or 12 soldiers by himself—he weighed like twice as much in those days."


Rooftop in "Schunat HaIksim," Yamit


"They tried getting us off the roof with ladders. We pushed the ladders off of the building. They finally got us off the roof by shoving us into cages--the foam is to put out the fires."




"When I was cuffed I kept my wrists facing up so it was wider. When I twisted my wrists together I was able to slip out of the cuffs, opened a window on the bus and escaped to another rooftop. I was arrested again. They sent us to Kela Ashkelon [Ashkelon Prison, V.E.]. I managed to escape from the bus the first time, but they caught me again. Other people, there were some famous people who went to Kela Ashkelon, but because they were famous, they got out early. Benny Katsover and Hanan Porat and Rav Kahane, but we were stuck in jail for a few days."

Varda Epstein: What was the demographic makeup of Yamit? What was the flavor of the neighborhood? Did you feel comfortable with the people you met there?

Isser Coopersmith: By the time I settled in, most of the people were Dati Leumi [National Religious, V.E.]. There were lots of settlers from other settlements and also yeshiva boys. We gave each other strength.

Varda Epstein: Can you tell us about some of the hardships you experienced while on Yamit during the evacuation?

Isser Coopersmith: Well, as a single guy I relied on the families for food. We slept in vacated apartments. All the municipal systems were turned off. Water wasn’t flowing to the local flora of the city.

Varda Epstein: What is your best memory of Yamit?

Isser Coopersmith: The camaraderie of the people, the natural beauty of the area.


Typical street scene, Yamit

Varda Epstein: Most of the Gush Katif settlers refused to believe the expulsion would happen. They didn’t pack or otherwise plan for the eventuality. They believed until the end that a miracle would happen and that they could stay. How was the purge of Yamit similar to and how did it differ from the banishment of the residents of Gush Katif?

Isser Coopersmith: Well, we didn’t believe it would happen. When it did, we thought it would be so painful that the government wouldn’t ever do it again. Of course, the people in power have no heart.

Varda Epstein: Did you do anything to fight against being evicted from Yamit?

Isser Coopersmith: We set up barricades, stocked up on food, and fought the soldiers who came to take us.

Varda Epstein: Where did you go after Yamit? What was your emotional state? How long did it take for you to get back to normal?

Isser Coopersmith: I returned to Shilo. I was emotionally depressed, but two months later I was called up for the war in Lebanon so I had to readjust to the new situation.

Varda Epstein: Looking back, is there anything anyone could have done to stop the evacuation of Yamit? What would you personally have done differently? Conversely, what are you most proud of in relation to your part in the Yamit story?

Isser Coopersmith: I doubt there is anything we could have done to prevent the destruction of Yamit. Maybe if tens of thousands of people had joined us, the army wouldn’t have had the manpower to make it happen. I was proud that I made a stand for my beliefs.

Varda Epstein: What can we learn from Yamit?

Isser Coopersmith: Never trust the government.



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!

 

 






Wednesday, July 20, 2022


By Daled Amos


President Biden likes to recount his face-to-face confrontations with world leaders and how he gave them a piece of his mind.

Biden says that just this past week, he gave Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman a tongue lashing that he will not soon forget:

President Biden said he confronted Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) directly Friday about the 2018 murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi, telling him in a “straightforward and direct” way that the killing was unacceptable and “making clear what I thought of it at the time and what I think of it now.”

The crown prince, who is the de facto ruler of Saudi Arabia, “basically said that he was not personally responsible for it,” Biden recounted. “I indicated that I thought he was.”

That account is from The Washington Post, which then goes on to quote Princess Reema bint Bandar bin Sultan, Saudi ambassador to the US, who confirmed that Biden did in fact bring up Khashoggi's murder, though not in as confrontational a way as Biden claimed:

It was candid, it was honest, it was open. And what I found profoundly refreshing is the president said, "I just need to be clear and direct with you," and the crown prince said, "I welcome you being clear, candid and direct, because that’s the way that we move forward.”

But Fox News quotes the Saudi Minister of State for Foreign Affairs Adel al-Jubeir that Biden did not bring up the topic of Khashoggi at all:

"I didn't hear that particular phrase," al-Jubeir said. "The President mentioned that the US is committed to human rights because since the founding fathers wrote the constitution and he also made the point that American presidents -- this is part of the agenda of every American president."

So -- did Biden directly confront MBS face-to-face on Khashoggi's murder or not?

Writing for The New York Times, Peter Baker writes about Biden's collection of stories about how he has confronted dictators

Mr. Biden is by nature a storyteller with a penchant for embellishment. He has often told the story of meeting President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia in 2011 as vice president and telling him, “I’m looking into your eyes, and I don’t think you have a soul.” Others present at the time had no memory of that specific exchange.

Mr. Biden has similarly described an unvarnished confrontation in 1993 with Slobodan Milosevic, the Serbian nationalist leader who unleashed an ethnic war in the Balkans. “I think you’re a damn war criminal and you should be tried as one,” Mr. Biden, then a senator, related having told Mr. Milosevic, according to a 2007 memoir, “Promises to Keep.” Some other people in the room later said they did not recall that line.

Mr. Biden likes presenting himself as standing up to dictators and crooked figures. Another favorite story stemmed from a meeting with President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan in 2008, when the Afghan leader denied that his government was awash in corruption. Mr. Biden said he grew so irritated that he threw down his napkin, declared, “This dinner is over,” and stormed out. 

Often, others in the room for such sessions say that some version of what Mr. Biden has described did take place, only not with quite as much camera-ready theatricality.

So when he claims he did not hear Biden berate MBS to the degree the president claims, al-Jubeir is in good company.

Actually, Baker may have forgotten an example.

Here is Biden speaking at the Foreign Affairs Issue Launch on January 23, 2018, talking about his time as vice president when he warned that he would cut off $1 billion in aid to Ukraine:

And I was supposed to announce that there was another billion-dollar loan guarantee. And I had gotten a commitment from Poroshenko and from Yatsenyuk that they would take action against the state prosecutor. And they didn’t.

So they said they had—they were walking out to a press conference. I said, nah, I’m not going to—or, we’re not going to give you the billion dollars. They said, you have no authority. You’re not the president. The president said—I said, call him. (Laughter.) I said, I’m telling you, you’re not getting the billion dollars. I said, you’re not getting the billion. I’m going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours. I looked at them and said: I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money. Well, son of a b***h. (Laughter.) He got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time. [emphasis added]

Here too, all we have is Biden's account of events -- and Biden is actually being modest about the pressure he put on Ukraine. According to Tablet Magazine, a highly placed source confirmed that it was also Biden who pressured Ukraine into voting 'yes' on UN Resolution 2334 which declared that Jewish settlements in the West Bank (including the Old City of Jerusalem) were in violation of international law.

But in fact, we have an example on the record when Biden actually did angrily confront a world leader -- Menachem Begin, prime minister of Israel.

The Begin Center Diary blog has the full text of an article in The Jerusalem Post by Moshe Zak, written on March 13, 1992, describing how Biden, when he was a Senator, lost his temper with Israeli PM Menachem Begin during a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing:

During that committee hearing, at the height of the Lebanon War, Sen. John Biden (Delaware) had attacked Israeli settlements in Judea and Samaria and threatened that if Israel did not immediately cease this activity, the US would have to cut economic aid to Israel.

When the senator raised his voice and banged twice on the table with his fist, Begin commented to him: "This desk is designed for writing, not for fists. Don't threaten us with slashing aid. Do you think that because the US lends us money it is entitled to impose on us what we must do? 

We are grateful for the assistance we have received, but we are not to be threatened. I am a proud Jew. Three thousand years of culture are behind me, and you will not frighten me with threats. Take note: we do not want a single soldier of yours to die for us." [emphasis added]

But ironically, in this case, where there is a clear example of Biden giving an ultimatum to a world leader, Biden himself is eager to deny that it ever happened. Sarah Honig of the Jerusalem Post writes:

Back 1982, Senator Biden (D-Delaware) threatened to cut off aid to Israel. In subsequent years he hotly denied this but Prime Minister Menachem Begin’s late right-hand man Yechiel Kadisha’i unequivocally confirmed Biden’s bullying in many conversations we held. [emphasis added]

News reports at the time seem to confirm the ultimatum. On June 23, 1982, The New York Times reported Mood Is 'Angry' As Begin Meets Panel Of Senate

The bitterest exchange was said to have been between Mr. Begin and Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr., Democrat of Delaware, who told the Israeli leader that he was not critical of the Lebanon operation but felt that Israel had to halt the policy of establishing new Jewish settlements in the West Bank. He said Israel was losing support in this country because of the settlements policy. [emphasis added]

There is no mention of threats from Biden about the settlements, just anger. According to this account in The New York Times, instead of threatening to take action, Biden was warning Begin about the prospect that Israel would lose support in the US.  

But on the very next day, on June 24, The New York Times reported further details:

Reporting on his meetings with the members of Congress, Mr. Begin said one of the senators had threatened to cut off aid if Israel continued creating settlements in the West Bank. The senator is reported to have been Joseph R. Biden Jr., Democrat of Delaware. [emphasis added]

So which was it: did Biden warn that Israel was facing the prospect of losing support or was Biden threatening that he, himself, would see to it that aid would be cut off?

Time Magazine also recounts the confrontation between Biden and Begin:

Senator Joseph Biden, a Delaware Democrat, jabbing his finger at Begin, warned that U.S. support for Israel was eroding. Begin shouted back: "Don't threaten us with cutting off aid to give up our principles! [emphasis added]

The Time Magazine account allows for the possibility that Biden was not actually warning that he would cut aid. He was pointing out that US opposition to the settlements could lead to the loss of US support. Begin saw Biden's comments, made in anger, as an ultimatum to cut aid.

Begin's own account of what happened also seems to indicate that Biden's "threat" was less than explicit. Yisrael Medad quotes on his blog My Right Word the now-deleted page from the website of Israel's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which gives Begin's own account of the incident in his own words:

He [Biden] hinted - more than hinted - that if we continue with this policy, it is possible that he will propose cutting our financial aid. And to this I gave him a clear answer: Sir, do not threaten us with cutting aid.

There is no record of what Biden actually said, but even according to Begin there was no explicit threat. But whatever Biden said, it apparently hinted that more than just an erosion of support was at stake. And that Biden himself could have a role in it.

So to recap:

o  Moshe Zak article: Biden "threatened that if Israel did not immediately cease this activity, the US would have to cut economic aid to Israel."

o  The New York Times (June 23, 1982): Biden "said Israel was losing support in this country because of the settlements policy."

o  The New York Times: (June 24, 1982): "Mr. Begin said one of the senators had threatened to cut off aid if Israel continued creating settlements in the West Bank."

o  Time Magazine: Biden "warned that U.S. support for Israel was eroding. Begin shouted back: "Don't threaten us with cutting off aid to give up our principles!"

o  Menachem Begin: "He [Biden] hinted - more than hinted - that if we continue with this policy, it is possible that he will propose cutting our financial aid. And to this I gave him a clear answer: Sir, do not threaten us with cutting aid."

Even according to the Moshe Zak article, which seems to be the main source usually cited, the warning was that the US would cut off aid -- not that Biden would personally see to it.

Even according to Begin's personal account, whatever it was that Biden specifically said, it only hinted at the loss of aid -- it was not an explicit threat.

According to Time Magazine, whatever Biden said about the erosion of US support led Begin to understand it as a threat and call it that on the spot in front of everyone.

Based on The New York Times article from June 24, it seems that reports of the "threat" are based on Begin's account to the media.

Whatever actually happened, Biden could have responded immediately when it was clear that Begin understood what he said as an ultimatum. He could have assured Begin in from of everyone that he was not making any threat. Biden did not do that. Nor did he seem to respond immediately in the press to Begin's account of what happened.

Without a transcript of what transpired, there is no way to be sure what exactly Biden said, whether it was said as an ultimatum, and what exactly he was warning would happen. But it does seem possible that under the pressure of the moment, Begin responded to something that was not an explicit threat.

Which is not surprising.

As Moshe Zak himself pointed out:

And not only with Carter, but at all his meetings with heads of state and government, Begin customarily replied with direct, frank words against anything he perceived as harming Israel's interests or honor. [emphasis added]






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!

 

 

Monday, January 01, 2018


There is a refreshingly honest Twitter account devoted to promoting the otherwise appallingly deceptive campaign to #FreeAhedTamimi. Among the recently posted tweets is one declaring: “Israel is dreading that Ahed is the next Leila Khaled, they will try to break her in anyway or shape. But what they forgot is to see the fierce and fearless & determine look through her blue eyes. #FreeAhedTamimi #FreeGeorgesAbdallah.”

It isn’t all that important if this Twitter account is really an “official” account sanctioned by the Tamimi family, because the images attached to the tweet are clearly real – and truly worth a thousand words.





So let’s recall who Leila Khaled and Georges Abdallah are.

Leila Khaled, with whom Ahed posed for a photo, is a member of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP). The PFLP is notorious for having “pioneered such terror tactics as airline hijackings” and perpetrated “hundreds of terrorist attacks.” As Wikipedia puts it without a trace of irony, Leila Khaled “is credited as the first woman to hijack an airplane.”

If Ahed Tamimi wants to be “the next Leila Khaled,” we can only wonder and worry what pioneering acts of terror she will once be “credited” with.

Now let’s turn to Georges Abdallah, for whom Ahed campaigned alongside her father Bassem Tamimi: Abdallah is “a Lebanese militant” who “was arrested in 1984 and sentenced to life in prison in 1987 for the 1982 murder of Lieutenant Colonel Charles R. Ray, who was an assistant US military attaché and murder of Israeli diplomat Yaakov Bar-Simantov outside his home in Paris on 3 April 1982, as well as involvement in the attempted assassination of former American consul in Strasbourg Robert O. Homme.”

As explained in a subsequent tweet, the photos showing Ahed and her father Bassem Tamimi campaigning alongside a terrorist for another terrorist are “from the conference on the role of women in the Palestinian popular struggle Sep 2017 and international days of resistance to Free Georges Ibrahim Abdallah Oct 2017.”

So let this sink in: just some three months before much of the mainstream media dutifully promoted fact-free propaganda about the wonderful Tamimis and their noble “non-violent” struggle, daddy Bassem and his famous daughter were all too happy to show that their idea of “non-violence” includes murder and airplane hijackings.

What’s beyond satire is that the “conference” promoting terrorism was hosted by two far-left Spanish members of the European Parliament. According to a report in the European Jewish Press, pioneering airplane hijacker Leila Khaled used the prestigious platform at the European Parliament “to praise extremist violence and demonize Jews.  She glorified terrorism and trivialized the Holocaust. ‘Don’t you see a similarity between Nazi actions and Zionist actions in Gaza? … While the Nazis were tried in Nuremberg, no one has ever tried the Zionists,’ she said.”

The outcry resulting from this travesty eventually prompted the European parliament to endorse a proposal “to systematically deny access to all persons, groups, or entities involved in terrorist acts.”

Better late than never, I guess – though it remains amazing to see that terrorists like Leila Khaled and outspoken terror supporters like the Tamimis can apparently travel freely to Europe.

Now let’s look at one other gem from the #FreeAhedTamimi Twitter account: this tweet manages to summarize the Tamimis’ agenda in just one word when it describes a photo of Hebrew graffiti praising Ahed as a “hero” as having been taken in “occupied Tel Aviv.”



So next time the Tamimis tell credulous reporters that they’re fighting “the occupation,” know that they’re surely mightily amused and pleased that everyone prefers to ignore that as far as they are concerned, Tel Aviv is just one more occupied Zionist settlement.

And if everything goes well for the Tamimis, Ahed – “the next Leila Khaled” – will once be credited for her pioneering terror strategies to liberate occupied Tel Aviv.






We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

AddToAny

EoZ Book:"Protocols: Exposing Modern Antisemitism"

Printfriendly

EoZTV Podcast

Podcast URL

Subscribe in podnovaSubscribe with FeedlyAdd to netvibes
addtomyyahoo4Subscribe with SubToMe

search eoz

comments

Speaking

translate

E-Book

For $18 donation








Sample Text

EoZ's Most Popular Posts in recent years

Hasbys!

Elder of Ziyon - حـكـيـم صـهـيـون



This blog may be a labor of love for me, but it takes a lot of effort, time and money. For over 19 years and 40,000 articles I have been providing accurate, original news that would have remained unnoticed. I've written hundreds of scoops and sometimes my reporting ends up making a real difference. I appreciate any donations you can give to keep this blog going.

Donate!

Donate to fight for Israel!

Monthly subscription:
Payment options


One time donation:

subscribe via email

Follow EoZ on Twitter!

Interesting Blogs

Blog Archive