60 years ago: A conference to ensure US Jews remain Zionist

In June, 1962, the American Jewish Congress sponsored a conference in Jerusalem about maintaining the relationship between American Jews and Israel, which they were afraid would fray within 10-20 years.

American Jews remain overwhelmingly Zionist even 60 years after those dire predictions.

Not to say we should be complacent, but it is interesting to see what the perspective was then,

---

---

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!

 

Read More

Of Course Anti-Zionism is Antisemitic (American Zionism)

 

Once the exclusive domain of the far-right and far-left, the expression “anti-Zionism is not antisemitic” has crept into the mainstream. We hear it all the time on social media from athletes to politicians, from journalists to “influencers.” Most surprising is that the expression has even made its way into the vernacular of liberal, progressive Jews, going so far as to claim that not only is anti-Zionism not antisemitic, but “conflating Zionism and Judaism” is what’s really antisemitic, disregarding that Zionism is a core belief for the vast majority of Jews around the world. So, is anti-Zionism antisemitic, or isn’t it? Before we can answer that question, we need to define what antisemitic means and what anti-Zionism means, two concepts that are far more complex than they appear.

If you ask most people what antisemitic means, they would answer that it is the hatred of Jews, and they would be correct...if you were talking about a person doing the hating. A person can hate Jews. But when you are talking about an idea, hatred of Jews doesn’t make much sense. Ideas don’t hate, people hate. For example, if there was a law that Jews could not attend school, the law does not hate Jews. The law discriminates against Jews. So, when we talk about ideas, and anti-Zionism is an idea, antisemitic means “discriminatory against Jews.”

Antisemitic – Discriminatory against Jews.

The terms Zionism and anti-Zionism are much more difficult to define. Many people who claim to be anti-Zionist struggle just to explain what Zionism is. You will hear definitions that are all over the place. Nearly all of them are wrong, and many of them are downright offensive. To understand Zionism, let’s consider the Israeli national anthem, Hatikvah or The Hope, which was inspired by a Jewish poem from the 19^th century titled Tikvatenu by Naftali Herz Imber and revised by Dr. Yehuda Leib Matmon-Cohen. Hatikvah proclaims that that the two-thousand-year hope of the Jewish people is “to be a free nation in our home,” with home meaning the ancestral homeland of the Jewish people, the Land of Israel. That is the essence of Zionism. To put it more simply, it means the Jewish nation is afforded the same rights as any other similar nation of people, which includes a right to a home, just like Indians have a home, and Poles have a home and Arabs have many homes. Anti-Zionism denies that right to the Jewish nation and only the Jewish nation – to live as a free people in their nation state. Since the state of Israel already exists, it also means seeking the destruction of the nation state of the Jewish people while not seeking the destruction of any other nation state of any other people. When is the last time you heard a large section of the population lobby for the destruction of a country other than Israel – not a government but an entire country?

Anti-Zionism - denying the Jewish nation the same rights as any other similar nation of people

Even with those definitions, it can still be hard for some people to wrap their heads around how anti-Zionism is antisemitic. To better understand, let’s look at another instance where a group of people are denied a right not denied to a similar group of people – gay marriage. For a long time, the homosexual community was denied the right to marry (and in many places they still are) - a right granted to the heterosexual community. A person may oppose same sex marriage for any number of reasons, religion being the most common. The person may not hate gay people, but the idea is surely anti-gay. It’s hard to argue that not allowing gay people to marry when straight people are allowed to marry isn’t discriminatory against homosexuals. Ironically, the very same people that will argue anti-Zionism isn’t antisemitic will be the ones who shout loudest that denying same sex couples the right to marry for any reason is anti-gay.

You may be saying to yourself, “Wait a second, I hear liberal Jews all the time identify as anti-Zionist and say that anti-Zionism is not antisemitic. Gay people never opposed gay marriage.” That’s not true, actually. During the height of the gay marriage debate in the early 2010s, you could hear or read many stories of gay people who opposed gay marriage for one reason or another. Here are two examples: The Gay People against Gay Marriage and I’m Gay and I Oppose Same-Sex Marriage. It’s important to note that those in the gay community who oppose gay marriage don’t necessarily hate homosexuals (although they might), but there can be no doubt that their position on gay marriage discriminates against homosexuals and that opposition is anti-gay. In the same way, Jews who oppose Zionism and want to see the dissolution of the state of Israel don’t necessarily hate Jews (although they might), but there can be no doubt that opposing the right for Jews to have a state like all other similar nations of people is discriminatory against Jews and that position is antisemitic. The same rationale applies to all people who are anti-Zionist. The person may not hate Jews, but the idea is discriminatory against Jews and thus antisemitic (a large portion of people who identify as anti-Zionist also happen to be anti-Semites or at least hold antisemitic views which drives their anti-Zionism).

What about the argument that “conflating Zionism and Judaism” is antisemitic? First, let’s define Judaism. Judaism put simply is the religion of the Jewish people. It is not the religion of every single Jew, some Jews do not practice Judaism while others may be atheists, but rather the religion of the nation of Jews. It can also be called an ethnoreligion.

Judaism – the religion of the Jewish people.

Considering the definition of Zionism – the longing to be a free nation in the Jewish home – and Judaism – the religion of the Jewish people – it is hard to see how longing to be a free nation in the Jewish home in anyway discriminates against the religion of the Jews. It seems to be quite the opposite. In order for the Jewish people to be a free nation in their home it would imply that part of that freedom would include the ability to practice their religion openly and safely, something that has not been the case throughout Jewish history in nearly every land where they lived as a minority. Even when replacing Judaism for a Jew, an idea for a person, it is still hard to see how Jews longing to be a free nation in the Jewish home is hateful to any Jews or discriminatory against that Jew. No one is forcing them to live in that home. Is it because the home founded by Jews, made up of a majority of Jews, and who are able to live free of religious & ethnic persecution as Jews, uses the word “Jewish,” as in Jewish state, that they think discriminates against them? Is the website Christian Mingle anti-Christian? Because some Christians do not want to date other Christians does that mean the site is discriminating against them because the site uses the word Christian? Since they don’t see a need for Christian Mingle, and they themselves are Christian, does it mean the site has no right to exist? The answer to all those questions is clearly no. But would trying to shut down Christian Mingle for any of those reasons, while having no problem with JDate or BlackCupid or Muslima, be anti-Christian? Sure. So why is okay for so many people when they apply the same exact logic to Jews and Israel?

The argument that “by conflating Zionism and Jews you are causing antisemitism” really tells more about the people that “become” antisemitic than the relationship between Zionism and Jews. Notwithstanding the fact that the people who make that statement have to jump through many hoops and unquestioningly accept many far-fetched stories to feel that the policies of the state of Israel are irredeemable, even if they were true it would still be wrong to hate people that have nothing to do with those actions, other than sharing an ethnic background and feeling a connection to that land. And that response is not applied to any other people on the planet. It is exclusively reserved for Jews. People do not say “by conflating Iran and Iranian-Americans you are causing anti-Persian racism.” Have you heard of anti-Persian racism in America based on the actions of the Iranian government? Have you heard of anti-Persian racism in America at all? For a person to hate an Iranian because something the Iranian government did thousands of miles away, they would have had to hated Iranians before those actions. The actions become an excuse to justify their hatred. You don’t see that with Iranians, or any other people. You only see that with Jews. Has there ever been an anti-Israel protest that did not include antisemitism? Let’s look at an example were the actions of a distant government were the catalyst for creating hate for an ethnic group. Consider America during World War 2. After Pearl Harbor, discrimination against Japanese Americans increased, including against many people who were born in America and had no direct connection with Japan. Was conflating Japan and Japanese Americans what caused the racism? Of course not. Was the racism any more legitimate because of the actions of the Japanese government? Would anyone say that Japanese Americans caused the racism or brought it upon themselves by being proud of their Japanese heritage or even having a Japanese flag? Racism caused racism, nothing else. Conflating Zionism and Jews does not cause antisemitism. Antisemitism causes antisemitism.

So, is a person who is an anti-Zionist necessarily an anti-Semite? No, but they most likely are. Their anti-Zionism, however, of course is antisemitic.

Hatikvah (The Hope)

As long as in the heart within,

The Jewish soul yearns,

And toward the eastern edges, onward,

An eye gazes toward Zion.

Our hope is not yet lost,

The hope that is two thousand years old,

To be a free nation in our land,

The Land of Zion, Jerusalem.

Read More

The Forgotten Pogrom–Tiberias, 1938 (American Zionism)

The Forgotten Pogrom

@AmericanZionism

Author Note: Please follow @americanzionism on Twitter

Abstract

A major pogrom took place in the city of Tiberias in Mandatory Palestine on October 2, 1938 during the height of the Arab Revolt. Tiberias had a significant Jewish majority and a diverse population of both Mizrachi and Ashkenazi Jews, Muslims, and Christians. Although this massacre is not as well knows as the massacres in Hebron, Safed, or Jerusalem, it was nevertheless one of the most disturbing and brutal events that took place during the British Mandate period.

Keywords: Israel, Mandatory Palestine, Arab Revolt, Tiberias, Pogrom

The Forgotten Pogrom

1938 was an especially violent year in the Holy Land. It was the midst of the first de facto Intifada of the Jewish/Arab conflict, a violent nationalist uprising called the Arab Revolt of 1936-1939. Lead by the father of Arab nationalism in Palestine, Jerusalem Mufti Haj Amīn al-Ḥusaynī, the Arabs founded the Arab High Committee and set three key demands – end all Jewish immigration, ban all land sales to Jews, and give Arabs control of 100% of Mandatory Palestine, leaving them to deal with the Jews. A steady stream of incitement in schools, Arab press, and houses of worship ensued, along with a call to boycott Jewish products. It did not take long for the incitement to turned into violence. In April 1936, Arab terrorists attacked a Jewish bus and killed two. This event unleashed a Pandora's box of tit-for-tat violence which saw the death of many Jews and Arabs. This latest wave of Arab attacks on Jews and the unrealistic demands of their leadership led the British to establish the Palestine Royal Commission in 1937, known colloquially as the Peel Commission. The Peel Commission concluded that the Jews and Arabs in Mandatory Palestine simple could not live together and “Partition offers a chance of ultimate peace. No other plan does.”¹ They recommend partition of the land into an Arab state and a Jewish state, with the Arabs receiving the bulk of the land between the Jordan river and the Mediterranean Sea and the Jews receiving a sliver of land on which they were the majority (Exhibit 1). The secretary of the Arab High Committee al-Ḥusaynī made it clear that the Arabs would not accept any partition. He testified “The Arab case in Palestine is one which aims at National independence.” ² In the commission’s final report in July 1937, in the midst of this wave of violence against the Jewish community, the commission noted that “The only solution of the problem put forward by the Arab Higher Committee was the immediate establishment of an independent Arab Government, which would deal with the 400,000 Jews now in Palestine as it thought fit.” ³ Given the Mufti’s association with Hitler, his role in founding a Bosnian unit of the Nazi SS and planning for an Einsatzgruppen in the Middle East, and his direction of the Arab Revolt, it is not hard to imagine the tragedy that “as it thought fit” would have meant. The Arabs ultimately rejected the Peel Commission’s recommendation for partition. The Jews accepted a less than ideal and far from equitable agreement.

Tiberias

Tiberias was a predominately Jewish city for much of its existence. It is located on the western shore of the Sea of Galilee, in Northern Israel, and is surrounded by hills. It is one of the four holy cities in Judaism. It holds such an import place for Jews that Maimonides, the most famous of Medieval Jewish rabbis and philosophers, loved and respected by Jews as well as gentiles, asked that after his death in 1204 Jews take his remains to be buried in Tiberias. His tomb remains to this day.

In the 1896 comprehensive census done by geographer and orientalist Vital Cuinet, the population of the city of Tiberias was 7,433 with 5,700 Jews (77%), 1,400 Muslims, and 330 Christians, and the greater Tiberias district has a total population of 10,052, with 6,700 Jews (67%), 2,259 Muslims, and 1,093 Christian.⁴ Similar demographic proportions existed before the Cuinet survey, and afterwards. This was a quintessentially Jewish area in the Holy Land. Of note is that the Tiberias Jewish population was made up of many Mizrachi (Middle Eastern) Jews including those whose families lived in the Holy Land for innumerable generations.

The Pogrom

There were many violent attacks in Tiberias on Jews during the Arab Revolt of 1936-1939. The one that stands out for both its brutality and organization is the Massacre of Jews in the city of Tiberias on October 2, 1938. There were other attacks in Tiberias in 1938 before the Pogrom. In May, a Jew was killed in by an explosion, and in September three Jews were murdered, and a Jew and an Arab were wounded by four Arab terrorists.⁵ Dozens of similar attacks like these occurred all around Mandatory Palestine that year. But the Tiberias massacre in October was different. Its ruthlessness had not been seen since the violent attacks in Safed and Hebron in 1929.⁶

On October 2^nd, an Arab terrorist cell occupied the hills surrounding Tiberias.⁷ It is not exactly clear how many terrorists were involved in the attack, but it must have been anywhere from many dozen to over 100. They waited for the cover of darkness to begin their well-planned operation. At 9pm, the terrorists cut the telephone lines into Tiberias so that the victims could not call for assistance. Two terrorist cells hiding in the hills tactically entered city from the north and south (exhibit 2). Five minutes later, the terrorists remaining in the hills sounded a shrill whistle loud enough so both cells could hear it. This signaled the beginning of the attack. The small local police force was taken by surprise. The terrorists first hit the office of the British district commissioner, the police station, and the quarters where British police were housed hoping to weaken or eliminate any defenses. Tiberias was a poorly defended city with only a couple dozen British police officers and a small number of supernumerary Jewish constable called Notrim or Ghaffirs. In a harbinger of what the future could hold for Jews in Israel in a single bi-national state where Jews no longer have sole control over their security, just three months before the attack, Moshe Sharett (Shertok), Head of the Jewish Agency at the time, had petitioned the British government to arm additional Jews. He also asked for mobile patrols around Tiberias and other Jewish towns and cities. Both requests were rejected by the British and the concern by the Jewish Agency was deemed “exaggerated.”

After attacking the police and government offices, in stereotypical pogrom style, the attackers went to the central synagogue and set it on fire. The caretaker of the synagogue Ezekiel Katz, 42, was trapped inside and burned to death. The terrorists also burned down the local post office before making their way to the Jewish neighborhood of Kiryat Shmuel, north of the old city, armed with bombs, rifles, daggers, and torches. That is when the “systematically organized and savagely executed”⁸ carnage began. Even children were not spared. The terrorists set fire to several Jewish wooden homes. They entered the house of Joshua Ben-Arieh where he, his wife Shoshanna, and one of their sons, Arieh, were stabbed to death and then set on fire. There younger son Moshe, only 18 months old, was shot to death. Visiting the Ben-Arieh family were three siblings –Chaim age 12, Rivkah age 10, and Ezra age 8. The terrorists stabbed and burned to death all three children. While Shimon Yochanan Mizrahi was on patrol in another part of town, terrorists stormed his house and killed his wife Rachel, 26, and all five of their children ages 12, 5, 3, 2, and 1. The terrorists also attacked a third house, the home of Menachem Kabni, 60, and his wife Dora, 40. Both were American citizens. Mr. Kabni had been the beadle of a synagogue in New York for 30 years. Rabbi Asha Werner, who had been visiting Tiberias at the time, reported that the terrorists stabbed the couple to death and burned their bodies.⁹ Miraculously, Mr. Kabni’s sister Esther managed to escape the execution. In total, the terrorists set six Jewish houses on fire and savagely murdered anyone they could find inside. Two supernumerary Jewish constables, Israel Bookman and Zvi Chatzkeleviz, and an additional Jewish man, Jacob Gross, died in a gun fight valiantly trying to stop the attacks. Several other Jews were seriously injured. All but four of the victims were stabbed to death¹⁰ and set on fire.

So diabolical and well planned was the attack that police and troop reinforcements did not arrive in Tiberias for 25 hellish minutes because the Arabs who had whistled from the surrounding hills fired on them on the road to the city. The first to arrive were the Trans-Jordan Frontier Force stationed in the village of Samakh. They managed to fight their way through an ambush and road obstructions set near the hot springs to the south.¹¹ The fighting and pogrom lasted until 11pm, two grueling hours, until the British police and armed forces, along with Jewish constables, were able to repel the terrorists. British troops then pursued the attackers to the nearby village of Lubya.¹² Fighting continued until morning and the terrorists suffered 50 casualties.¹³ When all was said and done, twenty-one Jews were murdered, including seven men, three women, and, as The Times (UK) reported on October 4^th, eleven “Jewish Children Butchered”.¹⁴

The massacre could have been much worse. A brigade of Jewish constables from a nearby Jewish village called Mizpah encountered a terrorist cell on their way to attack the city and engaged them. They managed to kill six of the terrorists and seized one German and four English rifles, along with ammunition.^{15 16}

Immediately after the Pogrom the British Mandatory government placed a curfew on the city. It was only allowed to be broken for a funeral procession for the victims that walked past the ruins of the still smoldering synagogue while the dead body and destroyed Torah scrolls lay inside.¹⁷ Chief Rabbis Dr. Isaac Herzog and Dr. Jacob Meir sent a joint appeal to British secretary Malcolm MacDonald, “Palestine Jewry is deeply horrified at the Tiberias massacre and sacrilege. In G-d's name, we appeal to you to end the terror.”¹⁸ The Jewish Agency’s Mr. Sharett would add, “The murders were a terrible price to pay for arousing the authorities to take urgent measures.”¹⁹

Even after such a horrendous pogrom that saw infants shot, stabbed, and burned to death, the attacks on Jews did not stop. The Arabs did everything they could to make Tiberias vulnerable. They set rock barricades and other obstacles on the road to the city so that British reinforcements would have a difficult time arriving (exhibit 3). Less than a month later, on October 27^th, the Jewish Mayor of Tiberias Zaki El Hadef was shot to death by an Arab terorist in the middle of the old city, in broad daylight.²⁰ What was unique about Mr. El Hadef is that he presided over a council that consisted of four Jews, two Muslims, and one Christian. He came from an ancient Mizrachi family that settled in Tiberias in 1715. He spoken both Hebrew and Arabic fluently and was by all accounts loved by all the residents of the city. He was a man for all people who at the start of the Arab Revolt in 1936 managed to pass a motion in the municipal council appealing for peace. Nevertheless, like Sadat and Begin would suffer after him, he could not save himself from extremist violence (exhibit 4).

After the Pogrom at Tiberias, Moshe Sharett of the Jewish Agency, who would go on to become the second prime minister of Israel, sent a message to the Arab Palestine Defense Committee in Damascus, a message that would be repeated over and over by Jewish leaders but which always fell on deaf ears – that the Jews in Palestine extend a hand of peace and cooperation to the Arabs of Palestine, but if it is not accepted the Jews will not be intimidated and the Arabs should know that violence and murder will not deter the Jews from re-establishing their homeland in the land of Israel.²¹

“Zionism cannot be deterred by threats of killing, and the fact the Jews have stood in Palestine for 3 years against all onslaughts is an eloquent testimony that they cannot be intimidated. If the Arab neighboring countries ever resort to the practice of massacring Jews they would not prevent the realization of Zionism, but would only disgrace themselves, just as the killing and burning of women and children at Tiberias will only remain as a shameful stain on the record of the Palestine Arab. We see a possibility for a full and fruitful cooperation in Palestine embracing Jews and Arabs as well as neighboring countries for the good of everyone concerned, but on the essential condition that the basic rights of the Jewish people in Palestine are recognized. The realization of Zionism can only be to the benefits of the Arabs. The Jewish return to their ancient home is dictated by historical necessity, and no danger or threat would deflect the Jewish people from the path or stifle their surge for freedom.”²²

The word pogrom often conjures up images of poor Jews in Eastern Europe being slaughtered or of Kristallnacht. People do not often think of what happened to the Jews in Mandatory Palestine as pogroms, but that is exactly what they were. The massacre in Tiberias in 1938, both by virtue of not being as well known as the massacres at Safed and Hebron, and of not being thought of as a pogrom, an organized massacre of Jews, makes this the Forgotten Pogrom.

References

The Evening Star, Washington D.C. October 3, 1938

The Evening Star, Washington D.C. October 30, 1938

Jewish Telegraphic Agency News Bulletin, United States, Vol. IV, No. 154, October 4, 1938

REPORT by His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the Council of the League of Nations on the Administration of PALESTINE AND TRANS-JORDAN for the year 1938, United Kingdom, December 31, 1938

The Times, United Kingdom, October 5, 1938

The Times, United Kingdom, October 14, 1938

The Times, United Kingdom, October 31, 1938

The Times-News, Hendersonville, NC, October 4, 1938

The Times-News, Hendersonville, NC, October 18, 1938

Footnotes

1. “Palestine Royal Commission Report”, July 1937, p. 537

2. From “Palestine Royal Commission Notes of Evidence taken on Tuesday, 12^th January 1937”, p. 292

3. Ibid, p. 298

4. “Syrie, Liban et Palestine, géographie administrative, statistique, descriptive et raisonnée”, Vital Cuinet, p. 111

5. “REPORT by His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the Council of the League of Nations on the Administration of PALESTINE AND TRANS-JORDAN for the year 1938”

6. “Massacre at Tiberias, Jewish Children Butchered, Victims Burned”, The Times, United Kingdom, Tuesday, October 4, 1938, p. 14

7. Jewish Telegraphic Agency News Bulletin, United States, Vol. IV, No. 154, October 4, 1938
The Evening Star, Washington D.C. October 3, 1938

8. “REPORT by His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the Council of the League of Nations on the Administration of PALESTINE AND TRANS-JORDAN for the year 1938”

9. “U.S. Citizen and Wife Among New Holy Land Dead”, The Times-News, Hendersonville, NC, October 4, 1938

10. “REPORT by His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the Council of the League of Nations on the Administration of PALESTINE AND TRANS-JORDAN for the year 1938”

11. “Massacre at Tiberias, Jewish Children Butchered, Victims Burned”, The Times, United Kingdom, Tuesday, October 4, 1938, p. 14

12. Jewish Telegraphic Agency News Bulletin, United States, Vol. IV, No. 154, October 4, 1938

13. “REPORT by His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the Council of the League of Nations on the Administration of PALESTINE AND TRANS-JORDAN for the year 1938”

14. “Massacre at Tiberias, Jewish Children Butchered, Victims Burned”, The Times, United Kingdom, Tuesday, October 4, 1938, p. 14

15. Ibid.

16. Jewish Telegraphic Agency News Bulletin, United States, Vol. IV, No. 154, October 4, 1938

17. Ibid.

18. Ibid.

19. Ibid.

20. “Ambushed Mayor Dies”, The Evening Start, Washington DC, October 30, 1938.

21. “Jewish Reply to Arab Threats, Refusal to be Intimidated”, The Times (UK), October 14, 1938, p. 13

Exhibits

Exhibit 1

 

Peel Commission Partition Recommendation 1937

 

Exhibit 2

 

Topographical Map of Tiberias and the Kiryat Shmuel Neighborhood

 

Exhibit 3

 

The Times-News, Hendersonville, NC October 10, 1938

 

 

Exhibit 4

 

The Times (UK), Obituary of Zaki El Hadef, October 31, 1938.

Read More

The Myth of Anti-Zionism (by @americanzionism)

 

Hear me out. I know some of the things you will read will be hard for you to believe because you have been preprogrammed for so long to believe the opposite. But bear with me. There is no such thing as anti-Zionism, well at least not as you know it. There once was an intellectual movement called anti-Zionism, but that doesn't exist any more. In the days long before the founding of the State of Israel, when Jews were suffering terrible persecution, a modern school of thought emerged that believed the way to solve the anti-Semitism problem was for Jews to have their own land where they could live as Jew without being at the antisemitic whims of their hosts who persecute us, and the only just and acceptable place for that is in the Jewish homeland long taken from them but never forgotten. This movement became what we know of as political Zionism (and now simply Zionism). Almost as soon as Zionism emerged as a formidable political movement, anti-Zionism arose. Anti-Zionists believed that Jews did not need to have their own country to overcome anti-Semitism. There were two schools of intellectual anti-Zionism¹. The first was the anti-Zionist Jewish Labour Bund, a Jewish socialist movement, which believed that it was the class system that created anti-Semitism and that by aligning with non-Jewish socialist movements they could eliminate the class system and end anti-Semitism. The other were the Assimilationists. They believed that anti-Semitism came about because the Jews set themselves apart from their hosts. For example, If Jews talked like Germans (instead of the peasant Yiddish) and dressed like Germans (instead of like hasids), they would be accepted by the Germans.

The two schools of Zionism vs anti-Zionism existed at the same time on an intellectual level. No one knew who was right or wrong and because of that both sides could promote their viewpoint as the true one. But once the state of Israel was established, and a viable Jewish homeland realized, anti-Zionism ceased to exist. It is a world of difference going from "there shouldn’t be a homeland for the Jews because it will not solve anti-Semitism" to "I want to see the destruction of the homeland of the Jews." The first statement is anti-Zionism, but you can’t make that argument anymore. There is now a homeland for the Jews. Israel exists whether you like it or not. The second statement is not anti-Zionism. So while Zionism continued, and still continues, shifting from a theoretical, intellectual idea to a practical movement, anti-Zionism ceased to exist. Look at it another way. During the renaissance, there were two schools of thought that pondered our solar system, the geocentrist that thought the Sun and planets revolved around the Earth, and the heliocentrists who thought the Earth and the other planets revolved around the Sun. Until it could be proven, it was simple two opposing intellectual theories. The prevailing theory was geocentrism. But once Copernicus proved heliocentrism, it was no longer an intellectual battle. Sure some people still opposed it rejecting scientific reason (some still do) but it was really not up for debate. The Earth revolving around the sun was successfully proven. Heliocentrism won. In the same light, Zionism was proven to be correct. Zionism won. It did not solve antisemitism around the world, but it did solve it for those Jews that moved to Israel. Sure, they have people surrounding them that hate them for being Jews and want them dead, but inside of Israel they mostly live in blissful ignorance of the anti-Semitism Jews still experience in the diaspora. It is not uncommon for me to meet a young Israeli traveling outside of Israel for the first time who will find the concept of anti-Semitism foreign to them in that they have never personally experienced it themselves. It is amazing. Few Jews in the diaspora can say the same. It is the triumph of Zionism. To live as a free people in our own land not at the mercy of the antisemitic whims of others. Jews have never been safer, even with the constant threats of attack and the rockets and the terrorism, than they are today in the State of Israel. Zionism continued after the founding of the Jewish home, not as an intellectual concept but as a practical movement. How do we build the country, how do we defend the country, how do we feed the country? The viability of the country is no longer in question. It was a success. Zionism won. Not only was intellectual Zionism proven right, but intellectual anti-Zionism was proven false.

Of the the two main branches of intellectual anti-Zionism, the Bund system and the Assimilationist, both failed. The Jewish Bund folded around 1920 after the Bolshevik revolution. Many of the Jewish Bundists that remained in Russia and Eastern Europe joined the Soviet revolution. The revolution triumphed, but Jews did not. Antisemitism continued and eventually the Jews in positions of power or prestige in the Soviet Union were purged by Stalin in the 1930s. A remnant of the Bund survived in different places for a while but did nothing to eliminate anti-Semitism. The socialist system failed the Jews of the Soviet Union. The promise of ending anti-Semitism turned into the nightmare of increased anti-Semitism for Soviet Jews. One only need look at the disaster that was the Autonomous Jewish Oblast in Birobidzhan and the fate of its founders. Socialist intellectual anti-Zionism was proven false. Socialism did function on some levels for the Jews, but only in the Jewish homeland and only under the auspice of Zionism.

The other branch of anti-Zionists were the Assimilationists. They wanted to integrate fully into European society. They believed full integration was enough to end Zionism and a homeland wasn’t need. The Jews in Western Europe began to dress like Europeans, spoke like Europeans, acted like Europeans, and some ever stopped identifying with Judaism altogether. But they were never accepted as Europeans, even the ones who abandoned Judaism and identified only as members of their host country. The promise of the enlightenment failed the Jews of Europe, or at least skipped over them. Assimilation did nothing to allay the hatred of Jews in Europe. If anything, it made it worse. Theodor Herzl started as an Assimilationist but eventually discovered that is was a failed ideology and became a Zionists. Even with assimilation, anti-Semitism grew and grew and grew, culminating in the tragedy of the Holocaust, where renouncing Judaism did not save you and even having as little as 1/4 Jewish blood may have condemned you to death. Assimilationist anti-Zionism was proven false.

If Zionism is no longer an intellectual concept but a practical one, and if intellectual anti-Zionism no longer exists (because the Jewish home exists and is an overwhelming success) then what is left over? Is it practical anti-Zionism? Well, let's think about what practical anti-Zionism means. Practical anti-Zionism means the dismantling of the homeland of the Jews, a project that succeeded beyond its wildest imaginations, which achieve it's prime objectives. It means taking the Jews from a position of safety and self determination and putting them back where they were over 100 years ago, a nation without a land at the whims of an antisemitic host. In the diaspora we see antisemitism every day. Jews attacked, synagogues shot up, graves vandalize, students discriminated against, Jews accused of being responsible for creating and spreading diseases, the Jew as body politic unjustly demonized. The same lies, the same hatred of Jews that has existed since antiquity persists in the diaspora to this day, but not inside Israel. Reversing everything the Jews accomplished and setting Jews back 100 years isn't practical anti-Zionism. There is no relationship between saying “a Jewish homeland will not protect the Jews” and saying “Israel must be destroyed”. No one today can honestly say, “I am an anti-Zionist because a Jewish homeland will not protect the Jews” because that has been proven false. Not only is it not practical anti-Zionism , but it isn’t practical, period. Knowing now what Jews didn’t know prior, Jews will not accept returning to a time of hopelessness. Practical anti-Zionism doesn't exist. Intellectual anti-Zionism no longer exist. Anti-Zionism is a myth. What people call anti-Zionism today is really obfuscated anti-Semitism. You cannot have an intellectual conversation about anti-Zionism today any more than you can have one about geocentrism. Practical anti-Zionism would mean the reversal of something that has been proven to protect the Jews and benefitted the Jews more than any other event in modern history. What do you call that if not anti-Semitism? I’m not saying Israel is perfect. Far from it. Israel is flawed like every other nation. And that is good. That is the point. That is another triumph of Zionism, that the Jews can ba people like any other people in the world free to be flawed and not required to be perfect.

There is one form of intellectual anti-Zionism that does still exists, albeit with imperfections, and that is religious anti-Zionism. I'm not talking about the cult that carries signs and are the poster children for every Jew hater on the planet, that is anti-Semitism, but the real anti-Zionist ultra orthodox sects who oppose Zionism by interpreting sacred texts. They know deep down that Jews are safer in Israel but they oppose it on religious grounds. However, many members of those sects internally support Israel and almost all of them support their fellow Jews. Furthermore, what is often overlooked is that many ultra Orthodox groups support Israel for exactly the same reason, on religious grounds. They find the justification for Jews possessing the land of Israel in the same exact passages and texts as the other side uses justify Jews being prohibited from possessing the land. It is not a cut and dry issue. Incidentally, the ultra Orthodox sects that claim to be anti-Zionists are actually Zionists, it’s only an issue of timing. They believe when the Messiah comes all Jews will return to Zion. I'm not saying that religious anti-Zionism is correct, it is not, only that it is the only remaining viable anti-Zionism that exists.

You might be reading this and say "I don't want to see the Jews killed. I don't want them driven from the land. I am an anti-Zionist because I want every barrier to come down and to have one country with everyone together." The problem with that is two fold. First, again you are asking to undo everything that Jews have accomplished in the last 100 plus years and for the Jews, a historically oppressed minority, to go back to being at the whims of others. There have been areas where Jews were relatively autonomous, like the Pale of Settlements. But it was not true autonomy. Without their own land with their own defense and their self determination, they were constantly under attack and suffered terrible tragedies. Anything short of a Jewish homeland, one place in the world where Jews are not a minority and can defend themselves, is a danger to Jews. Second, and more importantly, this solution ignores hundreds of years of history that has shown that the two people can not live together as one. The British tried to build the Mandate as an area for both Arabs and Jews. Every street sign, every dollar, every government document had the language of both the Jews and the Arabs. Every government agency was made up of Arabs and Jews. The result was nobody was happy. The Arabs and the Jews fought worse than ever. It's like taking a married couple that is separated because they fought all the time, they continue to fight while separated, it is clear that they are not meant for one another, and telling them that the solution to all their problems is not to get a divorce, but to move in together. The only thing this solution would accomplish is a long civil war and eventually the end of any real presence of Jews in their homeland. If you still support this position, you are entitled to it, but don't kid yourself, that is not anti-Zionism, that's anti-Semitism.

For people that call themselves anti-Zionists because of any of the following "Jews are not from the Middle East", "You aren't the real or original Jews", "You are converts from Khazar", "It isn't your homeland", “It is against your Torah”, "You are conquerors, colonists, colonialists, supremacists, etc", "Israel has no right to exist because of Netanyahu, the government, policies, treatment of the Palestinians, you sterilize women, you sold babies, you steal organs, etc" and use that as a pretext to call for the destruction of Israel, well not only is that anti-Semitism, but you are an anti-Semite.

Now if you say, "Israel has a right to exists, but I also support a two state solution and for Palestinians to also have a country" that isn't anti-Semitism. But that also isn't anti-Zionism, so stop calling yourself an anti-Zionist and lets talk.

__________________________

¹There were other Zionist and anti-Zionist sub-movements. It is a complicated topic beyond the scope of this article. Even within sub-movements there were variations.

Read More

Dirty Politics on Twitter (American Zionism) - UPDATE

Guest post by American Zionism

On November 14, Hen Mazzig gave a speech at Vassar College. He was interrupted by members of the local chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine with chants of "from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free". They were intimidating and disrespectful to the people who went to hear him speak.

I know that Hen is open to dialogue with anyone and welcomes all questions, no matter how hard they may be. But the group was not there to hear him or engage with him, they were there to silence and humiliate him. They went to deny him his inalienable right to express his views regardless of what they may be. It also happens to be that his message was one of inclusiveness and reconciliation, and the protesters' message was one of bigotry and division. In following Hen for a number of years on Twitter and having seen him speak in person, I can tell you that he advocates for the national aspirations for the Palestinians. He has never once said that he denies them their rights. On the other hand, the chant "from the river to the sea" is a call to remove all the Jews from the Holy Land, dismantle the State of Israel, and replace it with a Palestinian state that will span from the Jordan river to the Mediterranean Sea. Make no mistake, this is a casus belli to push the Jews into the sea. They are no advocates of peace. They aren't even advocates of justice. And, they are certainly no advocates of a two-state solution. This is nationalism at its most extreme.

While Hen was being interrupted, he videotaped the disturbance and posted it on Twitter. Hen can be seen sitting silently waiting for it to end, and Jewish students in the audience can be seen sitting uncomfortably not knowing what to do, all the while SJP continued their harassment and their racist chant. As you can imagine, many Jews who were watching this unfold on Twitter were shaken and upset, myself included. Here Jews are once again are being denied the right to speak, and this denial is supported by many people who should know better. Where was the security? Where was the administration? This is not a free expression of speech. This is denying others their free expression of speech. Everyone, whether you agree with Hen or not and whether you like Hen or not, should have supported his right to share his story with those that had invited him to speak and who attended the event. But that is not what happened. In fact, the opposite happened. Having already faced abuse at the event, people chose this opportunity to attack him even further. That is where the Tweet by Abe Silberstein enters, which you can read below.

Mr. Silberstein does not attack Hen's arguments, but rather he attacks Hen himself, going so far as calling him a "low quality of speaker" and a "provocateur", all to justify SJP's harassment and attempt to silence him. If this isn't mean spirited and bullying - name calling and insulting to silence someone - then I don't know what is.

Mr. Silberstein is a journalist, who has written for many well-known publications. A journalist's defense of the first amendment is like a religious conviction. Otherwise, it is not journalism - it's propaganda. Journalists have been killed in defense of the free speech. Justifying the silencing of a speaker because someone perceives them as being lower quality is not only a violation of the First Amendment, but a sure slide towards fascism. At no point in his tweet did Silberstein refute anything that Hen talked about. He did not mention the content of his speeches. He stated that he is of "low quality", a "provocateur", and even asserted that Hen was pleased with getting interrupted, that it is part of some hidden agenda. He wrote, "Hen plays dirty". I challenge anyone to show me one thing in his tweet that was a "thoughtful and critical assessment of Hen at @Vassar." You can't, because this was a classic argumentum ad hominem, an attack on the person, rather than the stance. It is mean spirited, and it is bullying.

When I wrote my response to Silberstein, I did the opposite of what he did. Not once did I attack him personally, but rather his argument.

 

Whereas Silberstein stated Hen was of low quality, worthy of censure and ridicule, I responded to Silberstein's comments only. His comment was disgusting. His assessment was wrong and mean spirited. What he wrote was bullying. I did not call him disgusting, or mean spirited. I wrote it of his comment only. I stand by what I wrote and I challenge anyone to show me where I am wrong.

Besides the ad hominem attack on Hen, there is another point that is very troubling. Abe Silberstein notes in his bio that he is a writer for the Israel Policy Forum. If you look on their website, you will find his bio there listing him as a contributor.  The Statement of Principles of the Israel Policy Forum on their website reads:

They present themselves as "staunch supporters of the security and well-being of the State of Israel, the democratic nation-state of the Jewish people", with "the goal of a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, consistent with Israel's security needs." How can they support a safe Israel and push a two-state solution when they have someone writing for them who justifies chants of "from the river to the sea" which signals the destruction of Israel, and who bullies a person online that has consistently advocated for the two-state solution? I posted that question to them in my reply.

After my reply to Silberstein, he blocked me and I forgot about it, until a fellow Twitter user informed me that a director for the New Israel Fund (NIF) was slandering me.

Harry Reis is listed as the Director for Policy and Strategy on the NIF website. The NIF is a left wing organization, who's stated objective is:

"We work to shape the discourse and mobilize support among American Jewish leaders and U.S. policymakers for the realization of a viable two-state solution.  We do this by educating political and communal leaders on pragmatic policy ideas – developed by credible security experts. "

In his libelous tweet, he labels me as "pro-occupation right". This is a lie. He does not name me in the tweet but attaches an image of my tweet to Silberstein as reference. Anyone who knows me knows that I am not on the right, nor do I identify myself as right. I have conceptually and consistently maintained a position not dissimilar to the Israel Policy Forum of Israelis and Palestinians living side by side in peace as long as the security of Israel is maintained. To label me as a "pro-occupation", is an attack on my Twitter persona and what I try to accomplish.

He then says I "falsely + disingenuously" called Silberstein a bully. As, I have shown above, it was neither false nor disingenuous. He was bullying Hen, and my defense of him was genuine.

Reis then claimed that Silberstein's tweet about Hen was "a thoughtful and critical assessment". Insulting someone as "low quality", a "provocateur" and claiming that he secretly craves the protest to promote himself is not exactly a thoughtful assessment. It is garbage. Whether Silberstein is an "honest person of good character" I do not know and I never said otherwise. Before reading that tweet, I had never heard of him. But then Reis goes on to issue his own attack on Hen, claiming somehow what I wrote is proof that he "plays dirty". Great, now I’m part of a conspiracy - not only is Hen responsible for what other people write, but probably directs them to write it, according to Reis. Needless to say, there is nothing thoughtful or even truthful about his accusations.

His entire tweet was an attack on my character. It was filled with lies. It was damaging to my reputation. That he used a screenshot of my tweet but didn't have the decency to tag me in it so that I may defend myself speaks volumes of his character, not mine. Attached to his tweet was a string of replies attacking me with even more lies. I was even harassed directly because of his libelous tweet, called a "joke", a "troll", a "coward", and "garbage".

Another user, Rabbi Andy Kahn, parroted Reis words of "pro-occupation right", plus said I was a "shande (sic)" and a "bad faith actor".             

 Last I checked, before he blocked me, Reis' tweet has nearly 100 likes and several dozen comments, all bad mouthing me, an individual who dedicates his time to defending the very country Reis claims to care about. I may be anonymous right now, but that does not mean I plan on remaining anonymous forever. I chose to be anonymous at the moment for many reasons, including having received death threats. I have spent five years building a following on Twitter the right way. I do not spread hate. I do not discriminate. I spend hours doing historic research. The information I tweet is carefully checked and my reputation is important to me. The fact that he defamed me based on false information, and that has now spread through Twitter, is an attack on me personally, even if I am currently anonymous, and of my ability to one day accomplish the things I hope to.

The New Israel Fund is a large organization with dozens if not hundreds of employees, revenue and expenses in the millions, and very generous funding by some powerful people. It is Goliath. It is the proverbial 1%. I am sure Reis is well paid for his work at NIF. I on the other hand have a regular job completely unrelated to my advocacy. I defend Israel and do research on my own time. It is a labor of love. I have never made one penny doing it. In fact, in the times I have been published writing about Israel, I did not accept compensation and instead directed the editor to make a charitable contribution in my name. I am the David. I am the 99%. Here you have a powerful organization with millions of dollars at their disposal defaming with a libelous tweet the little guy, an individual whose Israel advocacy is balanced, thoughtful, and charitable. This is David versus Goliath. Many of the people that replied to Reis also blocked me, even as they continued to speak ill of me. It is not acceptable. I ask that the New Israel Fund and Mr. Reis issue an apology and retraction.

My tweet was in defense of Hen Mazzig. It was genuine. The tweets by Silberstein and Reis were mean spirited and filled with lies, which attacked people and not ideas. They were meant to silence us to advance only their point of view, one that is rejected by the vast majority of mainstream Jews. They were meant to humiliate. They were wrong, and yes, they were bullying.

UPDATE: Abe Silberstein sent me an apology for his tweet that he asked me to add to this article:

This past weekend, I published a tweet saying that pro-Israel groups should consider the quality of invited speakers amidst various campus controversies. I linked to a statement from Vassar College about a recent speech by Hen Mazzig that was interrupted by members of Students for Justice in Palestine with chants of "from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free." I also suggested Hen may have welcomed such a reaction.

I deeply regret sending this tweet, which I have since deleted. Hen was grossly mistreated at Vassar and most certainly did not take pleasure in what happened. I let my strong personal disagreements with Hen get in the way of my better judgment, and I apologize to him for that.

I am sorry that Hen endured anti-Semitism during his talk and did not mean to justify it, though I understand why some may have seen it that way. I wish him nothing but the best for the future. 

---

---

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.

Read More

Here is the Land, But Where is the Peace? Why Naharayim Matters (American Zionism)

Guest post by American Zionism

               

If the Arabs are trying to convince the Jews that giving up land will bring Israel peace, they are doing a poor job of it. Unilateral land for peace moves by Israel have been disastrous. The unilateral withdrawal of Israeli troops from Southern Lebanon in 2000, with nothing gained in return, strengthened the terror group Hezbollah, essentially collapsed Israel’s ally the South Lebanon Army, and did not bring peace with Lebanon or their de facto rulers Syria. Rocket attacks in the North continued and cross border attacks, including attempted kidnappings, amplified until 2006 when a war lead to a strong response on the side of Israel that served as a deterrent.

Gaza was always considered a quagmire for Israel and most Israelis were tired of sending their children to serve in the dangerous enclave. Many questioned Israel’s reason for being there. In 2005, Israel unilaterally withdrew from Gaza in the hopes that it would serve as a model for transitioning territory to the Palestinian Authority, short of a peace agreement. Israel uprooted 10,000 Jews and even left the Palestinians housing and a commercial greenhouse. It was a huge victory for the peace camp in Israel, who were certain that land is all it took to end the conflict. At the very least, it would earn Israel capital in the international arena. The Palestinians promptly destroyed the greenhouse and Israel’s South has not enjoyed a moments peace ever since. In addition, the international goodwill the peace camp was sure to follow never materialized. It seemed, in fact, that Israel was punished for the move. Two years later, there was a bloody coop in Gaza and the terror group Hamas gained power. The situation continues to deteriorate. Hamas is strengthened. Residents of the south in Israel endure thousands of rockets with little recourse. Unilateral land for peace has been a disaster.

But, what about bilateral land for peace? Surely that has worked. Look at Egypt. In 1979, Israel and Egypt agreed to an historic peace agreement. In exchange for peace, Israel gave Egypt the Sinai peninsula, captured in the 1967 war. By 1982, Israel completed a withdrawal from the entire peninsula, uprooting Jewish communities, and handing the keys to Egypt. On the surface it seems like a success. Before 1979, Israel and Egypt fought in four wars (1948, 1956, 1967, 1972), in addition to constant skirmishes. Since 1979, there have been no wars. The problem is that the peace has been cold. Incitement against Israel and Jews in Egypt, often sponsored by the government, continues. Most Egyptians do not accept Israel’s right to exist and by extension the peace agreement. The Sinai has become a hotbed of Islamist activity, with ISIS establishing a stronghold in the peninsula. Hamas has established smuggling tunnels into Sinai used to bring in weapons and materials to attack Israel and shoot rockets. There have been concerns from Israel that the peace could collapse. In 2008, Egypt conducted war game exercises against an imaginary Israel. At no time was the concern more acute than when Mohamed Morsi, a member of the extremist group the Muslim Brotherhood, an ally of Hamas, won the presidency of Egypt. If not for his overthrow a year later, it not hard to speculate that the peace would have fallen apart. It’s possible that Egypt’s largest motivator for maintaining the peace is the $1.3 billion in military aid that they receive from the United States. If that were ever to disappear, would peace persist?

And so we come to Naharayim. It was suppose to be the model of coexistence between the Jews and Arabs. On the heels of the first Oslo Accords, Israel and Jordan signed a peace agreement in 1994. It was suppose to usher in a Pax Romana in the Middle East. Israel and Jordan, two bitter enemies to that point, no longer had any territorial disputes. Jordan has ceded their claim to the West Bank, which they occupied in 1948 and then lost in 1967, to the Palestinians. With peace between Israel and the PLO, rebranded the Palestinian Authority, seemingly imminent, King Hussein and Israeli president Ezer Weizman shook hands near Eilat and the future seemed bright. That Hezbollah was still launching rockets into Northern Israel while the agreement was being signed seemed like a temporary problem.

Between Israel and Jordan lies an area called the Jordan Valley. Israel’s connection to the Jordan Valley is both historic but more importantly strategic. It is strategic because it offers a natural barrier between Israel and Jordan (and by extension other Arab countries to the East) and a strong defensive position. In the Jordan Valley is a small town called Naharayim, which in Hebrew means two rivers, because it is the junction between the Jordan River and the Yarmouk River. The land was purchased by a Jew named Pinhas Rutenberg, a staunch Zionist, who established the Palestine Electric Corporation and began building hyroelectic power plants to modernize Mandatory Palestine. One of those plants was located on the land that he would call Naharayim.

The problem with Naharayim is that even though it was legally bought by Jews and inhabited by Jews, it was on the other side of the Jordan river, the Jordanian side. The river forms a natural border between the two countries. So, when Israel and Jordan signed their historic peace agreement, Israel decided in good faith to give this small piece of land to Jordan. Land...for peace. However, there was an obstacle. Jews - Israelis - were living on the land for over 70 years. They had built kibbutizim, working farms, and made a living off the land. For several generations of Jews, it was the only home they knew. This was not in the West Bank but rather Northern Israel near Tiberias, one of the four holy cities in Judaism. Not wanting to displace the Jewish residents, Israel agreed to give up the land and Jordan agreed to lease the land back to Israel for 25 years, with an understanding that the lease would be renewed in perpetuity. It was the model of cooperation. So much so, that they built a park near by called the “Island of Peace”. It was suppose to usher in a new era of coexistence in the region. Both Jews and Arabs, Israelis and Jordanians, could enjoy the park. Land...for peace. But like so many things in life, things aren’t always at as they seem.

If the peace with Egypt was cold, the peace with Jordan was freezing. Incitement against Jews and Israel in Jordan continued. Not only could antisemitism be found in Jordanian media and schools, but in the Jordanian parliament itself. For example, Jordanian MP Yahya al-Saud supported terrorism against Israel, not uncommon in the parliament, but even publically called to “liberate our holy places from the plundering Jews”. Another MP, Khalil Attieh, went on Jordanian TV and railed, “It is an honor to incite against the Jews. It is a great accomplishment to provoke and incense them.” He also publically called Jews “descendants of apes and pigs” and stated “Hating the Jews is a great honor for me and it makes me walk with my head high because they are worthy of hatred...They are not decent people. Any man of honor should hate the Jews.” These are not isolated incidents. They often praise terror attacks against Israel in the parliament, including the Har Nof synagogue massacre in Jerusalem, where terrorists killed 5 worshipers with axes, knives, and gun. They have also blocked the extradition from Jordan to the United States of Ahlam Tamimi, the woman who helped carry out the Sbarro Massacre in 2001 at a pizzeria in Jerusalem where 16 were murdered, including eight children 18 or younger (two of which were toddlers aged 2 and 4). She often goes on Jordanian television laughing and praising her roll in the murders, saying “I admit that I was a bit disappointed, because I had hoped for a larger toll.”

But through all that incitement, the Island of Peace persisted as a symbol of cooperation. That is until 1997, three years after its creation, when a group of Jewish school girls aged 13 and 14 were on a school trip to visit this historic park - the park of peace. On that day, there was no peace. A Jordanian soldier named Ahmed Daqamseh decided he wanted to kill some Jews, went to the park now part of Jordan with no Israeli protection, and started shooting the children. He killed seven girls and wounded six others. Reviled by some, a hero to others, he was sent to prison in Jordan unrepentant, proud of what he did. His mother telling Al Jazeera, “I am proud of my son, and I hold my head high. My son did a heroic deed.” Why did he go to jail in Jordan? Because, the land has been handed over to Jordan three years earlier. It was no longer under Israeli jurisdiction. You would think that for the murder of seven children and near murder of six others one would spend more than ten years in jail, but the calls to release this national hero started in the Jordanian parliament shortly after his imprisonment. In 2017 he was release, not quietly, but with great fanfare. There were parades on the street. People handed out candy. The symbol of coexistence became the symbol of hate. A memorial exists to this day for those seven young girls. There are no parades for them. Only a lifetime misery for the families. No one hands out candy, only tears.

This brings us to 2019, the twenty-fifth anniversary of the historic peace agreement between Israel and Jordan, and the expiration of the twenty-five year lease to the Jewish farmers who live near the Island of Peace park, and who make a living from it - the automatic lease renewal in perpetuity. Except, it never happened. Jordan decided that they did not want to renew the lease. They stated that they never meant to renew in perpetuity. The problem is, they didn’t even renew it once. Jewish farmers be damned. On November 10^th, Jordan took back possession of the land. Jews who live and work there, some for multiple generations, on land bought by their ancestors, have an uncertain future. Even if the Jordanian government agrees to let them stay, how long will that last? When will they finally tell then to get lost once and for all? That is the problem with “Land for Peace”. Land is tangible and peace is intangible. Once you hand over the land the other side possesses it. You possess nothing in return. If the peace gets broken, the land does not get returned. Here is the land, but where is the peace? It’s a cautionary tale for the Israelis. I support a peaceful resolution between the two ethnic groups, Jews and Arabs, that share the tiny strip of land between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River. I’ve even supported land for peace. But it’s become increasingly harder to argue with those that say it doesn’t work. Israel’s neighbors are not helping with the argument. How can you convince an Israeli that exchanging land for peace will work or that it is the best solution when it has been so ineffective until now. It’s becoming apparent that for peace to work, something tangible has to be exchanged for something tangible. 

Disclaimer: This article is meant to highlight the potential pitfalls of theoretical, asymmetric land for peace deals only. It is not intended to criticize any peace deals Israel has signed with her neighbors nor oppose any future peace agreements. The author believes in negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians without preconditions.

---

---

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.

Read More

Arab/Muslim Immigration to the Holy Land (American Zionism)

I am pleased that the amazing tweeter American Zionism agreed to write an occasional article for EoZ.

_____________________________

Arab/Muslim Immigration to the Holy Land

Part 1 - Bosnia, Algeria, Morocco, and Egypt

We know a lot about Jewish immigration to the Holy Land because the Ottomans and then the British did such a good job at keeping Jews out that it became global news. But what about Arab/Muslim immigration to the Holy Land during the same period. The usual narrative you will read online is that the Jews arrived in the late 19th & early 20th century, but that the “Palestinians” had been there since the beginning of time. Is that true?

If you have ever spent time on social media talking about Israel, you may have come across this quote from Robert Kennedy

“The Jews point with pride to the fact that over 500,000 Arabs, in the 12 years between 1932-1944, came into Palestine to take advantage of living conditions existing in no other Arab state …”

Kennedy, a young, recent college graduate and wise beyond his years, made the remark after a trip to the Holy Land in March of 1948 -  after the UN partition of Mandatory Palestine and on the precipice of the Israeli War of Independence, which began in May. The quote appeared in the Boston Post, in a series of articles about his experiences on the trip. Kennedy was a supporter of the nascient state of Israel and of the Jewish people and it is what eventually lead to his assassination in 1968.

I’ve often thought about that quote. I’ve even referred to it on social media. But, I haven’t seen much in the way of  support for that statement. Did Arabs really immigrate to Palestine to take advantage of the improved living conditions thanks to the Zionists enterprises? Did they immigrate to Palestine at all? Could I find any proof of Arab/Muslim immigration to the Holy Land in the 19th or early 20th centuries?  I began studying historic documents to see if Jews were the only people that immigrated to the land of Israel or if they were joined by Arabs. As conditions in the Holy Land improved, Arabs/Muslims did indeed come from around the Mediteranean, other parts of the Levant, Egypt, and even from Europe at the same time as the Jews. They immigrated, built colonies, and eventually became a component of the people that would go on to call themselves Palestinians. Here are some of those stories. This article is part one of what I discovered.

A Bosniak Muslim Colony in Caesarea

Murray's Handbooks for Travellers were among the oldest and most respected travel guides in Europe. Their guides were well researched and revised as needed. Their first guide on Syria and Palestine appeared in 1858. In the 1903 edition, they report that a colony of Bosniak Muslims settled in the ancient seaside city of Caesarea in 1883 (page 202). Later it states that the Bosniak colonists were engaging in building operations (Page 205).

  It certainly doesn’t sound like they were planning on going anywhere. They were building a society. One question remains from the passage. Murray’s guide mentions that the colony was ravaged by malaria and that it might become extinct. Did it become extinct because of malaria?

If you have ever taken a tour in Europe or looked for a tour from Europe, chances are you’ve dealt with Thomas Cook. One of the most well known travel agencies in the world, dating back nearly 200 years, Thomas Cook is a name that people trust. They also happened to produce travel guides in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. In 1907, four years after the Murray guide, they published Cook's Tourists' Handbook to Palestine and Syria. In the section under Ceasarea, they also mention that Bosnian immigrants lived in Caesarea and “have houses among the ruins” of the ancient city ( page 169).

Baedeker is known around the world for their travel guides. They are so ubiquitous with international travel that the name Baedeker came to mean “guidebook” in the dictionary. In the 1912 edition of Baedeker’s Handbook for Travellers Palestine and Syria, on the section about Caesarea, they mention that “Bosnians have been settled here since 1884 and can supply rough nightquarters in case of need.” (page 237) This was nine years after Murray mentioned them and five years after Cook.

Not only were they still in Caesarea, but they were the only group mentioned that supplied sleeping arrangements in the city. Obviously, the Bosnian colony did not become extinct and most likely grew, eventually to be absorbed into the community that would go on to call themselves Palestinians.

Colonies from North Africa

The Maghrebins of Jerusalem

In the 1876 edition of Baedeker’s Handbook for Travellers Palestine and Syria, regarding the population of the city of Jerusalem, it states “Among the Muslim Arabs is also included a colony of Africans (Moghrebins).” (page 162) The Maghrebs are Muslim of North Africa, mostly Morocco, Tunisia, and Algeria, and are either Arabs or Berbers. They were previously referred to as Moors by Europeans. In the 1894 edition of Baedeker, eighteen years later, it repeats the same statement about the Maghreb colony and mentions that out of 40,000 residents of Jerusalem, 7560 are Muslims including that community. 

The 1907 edition of  Cook's Tourists' Handbook to Palestine and Syria it lists the population of Jerusalem at 50,000 with 12,000 Muslims and among them “a colony of African’s from Morocco”. (page 65)

The 1912 edition of Baedeker’s also mentions North African Maghrebins located near the Western Wall in Jerusalem, only this time they’ve graduated from a colony to residents of the city.

If the colony existed at minimum 36 years and the members were absorbed into the population at large, there is a good probability that they eventually became part of the future Palestinian people.

The Algerians of Palestine

Emir Abdelkader was an amazing man. He was an Algerian religious and military leader who staged a rebellion against the French occupation of Algeria in the mid 1800s. He eventually failed and was forced to flee with his supporters to Turkey and then eventually settled in Damascus, Syria where he lived out the rest of his days. In the 1907 edition of Cook's Tourists' Handbook to Palestine and Syria on Page 286, it mentions that part of the population of Safed in northern Galilee, one of the four holy cities of Judaism in Israel, contains a large number of Muslims, including Algerians who followed Abdelkader into exile after the failed rebellion. This episode is interesting for two reasons. The first is that we have written proof that there were North Africans who had a community in Safed. The second, is that since Abdelkader went from Algeria to Turkey to Syria, it would logically follow that those that settled in Safed came over from Syria. We know from history books and other travel journals that the Ottoman occupiers of the Holy Land restricted the number of Jews who could immigrate and live in the Holy Land, while the same restriction did not apply to other populations and the border was open to them. This entry supports that claim.

The 1907 Cook handbook lists two other Algerian colonies in the Galilee. The first was the village of Kafr Sabt, which is described as an “Algerian colony” (page 274). Kaft Sabt is often noted as a Palestinian village on the Internet, but in 1907 it was cleary a strictly Algerian colony.

The third reference to Algerians in the 1907 Cook guide can be found on page 287 and mentions an Algerian settlement near the village of Ain ez Zeitun.

So far the only references to Algerians immigrants is in the 1907 Cook guidebook. Are there any other references? In the 1912 edition of  Baedeker’s Handbook for Travellers Palestine and Syria, it references the village of Kafr Sabt as being “a village inhabited by Algerian peasants” (page 251) corroborating the account in the Cook guidebook.

That is at least three separate Algerian colonies in the Galilee that came from at least two different areas in the Middle East (North Africa and Syria) and were established in the late 19th century at the same time as Jews were settling in the area. We can draw some conclusions. The first being that the Algerian communities did not return to Algeria. There is no record to suggest it. They undoubtedly  became part of the Palestinian people. They were not a group of people who originated in the Holy Land and whose ancestors had lived there for thousands of years, but recent North African immigrants. The second is if it’s true that there were Arab/Muslim colonies established by Algerians at the same time Jews were establishing colonies, then if you call Jews “colonists” you have to also call the Palestinians colonists, since part of the Palestinian collective was composed of recent immigrants that estabilised colonies and settlements. As we will see, these weren’t the only Arab/Muslim colonies.

Gaza’s Egyptian Character and  the Galilee’s Egyptian Colony

In 2012, Hamas’ Minister of the Interior and National Security, Fathi Hammad, speaking from the Gaza Strip, declared on video that “half the Palestinians are Egyptians and the other Half are Saudis”. Was he just trying to get money from the Egyptian government when he said it, or did some Palestiians actually immigrate from Egypt? Gaza is on the border of Egypt’s Sinai peninsula and the connection between Egypt and Gaza goes back a thousand years or more, including the Egyptian Mamluk occupation of Gaza in the 14th century and Modern Egypt’s occupation of Gaza between 1948 and 1967. Gaza has served as a major stop in the trade route between Syria and Egypt, so it would make sense that over the long history of the two, Egyptians would have settled in Gaza. But do we have any historical proof to back it up?

In the 1894 edition of Baedeker’s Handbook for Travellers Palestine and Syria (page 156),  it gives a description of Gaza as having a “semi-Egyptian character”, that the veil of the Muslim women “closely resembles the Egyptian”, and that the bazaar too “has an Egyptian appearance.”

All three of those descriptions allude to the area being inhabited by people who came over from Egypt. The 1906 edition of Baedekers repeats the description of Gaza as having a semi-Egyptian character.

In the 1822 travel journal Travels Along The Mediterranean Vol.2 by Robert Richardson, a Scottish physician and travel writer, he writes that the southern half of Gaza below the town of Deir al Balah (Dair), including Khan Yunis (Hanoonis), pays tribute not to the Pasha of Acre or Jerusalem, but to the Pasha of Egypt (pages 195-196). Not only does it seem like Gaza was a distinctly Egyptian area in feel, but part of it may have actually been part of Ottoman Egypt.

That’s all fine, but it could be argued that the Gazan’s adopted the looks and customs of the Egyptian traders and that who they paid tribute to doesn’t reflect who they were. Even if they were Egyptians, who is to say they didn’t come over during the Mamluk conquest 500 years prior and remain? Is there any proof that Egyptians came as immigrants during the time Zionists were cultivating the land? In fact there is, and they didn’t only settle in Gaza.

In the 1903 edition of Murray's Handbooks for Travellers it states that Ibrahim Pasha established a colony of Egyptian peasants in the year 1840 in the ancient city of Bethshan now called Beisan (page 213). It even states that the village is almost exclusively made up of the Egyptian colony. What is interesting about this account is the location of Beisan. It is not located in Gaza or even along the coast. Beisan is in the Jordan Valley in the North close to the Jordanian border. 

The Odd Case of the Al-Simalni Tribe

The most fascinating story of immigration from Egypt might be the story of the Al-Simalni Bedouin tribe in the Galilee. In 1924 the Mukhtar of the tribe announced that they were secretly Jews and wanted to officially convert to Judaism. The British were skeptical and determined that it was probably not true and mostly likely motivated by economics. Whether or not they went through with the conversion is unknown at this time. What is known and more important in the context of this article is the background of the Al-Simalni.

On August 30, 1924, the Jewish Telegraphic Agency (JTA) ran a story about the Al-Simalni tribe, including an interview with their Mukhtar Shiekh Mustapha. When asked why they wanted to convert to Judaism, he explained that the founder of the tribe, Simlon was of Jewish origin and came to Palestine from Egypt 80 years ago. He married a woman from Transjordan (Jordan) and had six children. The tribe emerged from that union. What is not clear is whether he came from Egypt with other Bedouins or he came alone.

What is clear however is that it was a Bedouin tribe in the Holy Land that was not there since “the time of Abraham” as is often sensationalized in books and articles about the history of the region, but one that came from Egypt and Jordan in the mid 19th century! It’s always possible that they were descendants of a Jew. That we will never know. What we do know is they were Arab Muslims who came from Egypt and Jordan and became part of what is know known as the Palestinians.

The story of the Al-Simalni also appeared in the August 31, 1924 edition of the Louisville Courier-Journal.

This by no means is an exhaustive list of Arab/Muslim immigration to the Holy Land during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. These are just a few examples of Arabs/Muslims that settled in the Holy Land at the same time as Jews and who became part of the people we now know as Palestinians. These were not people who had lived on the land from the beginning of time or biblical time that converted to Islam as so many claim. These were immigrants who established colonies and built communities just like the Jews, whether for economic reasons to take advantage of the advances and technologies brought by the Zionists or for other reasons. You probably didn’t know about this wave of Arab/Muslim immigration because while Jewish immigration was restricted, Arab/Muslim immigration was not, so it wasn’t  noteworthy and rarely reported. Not all is as it seems in the news and social media. It is important to search deeper.

In Part 2, we will discuss more settlements of Arabs/Muslims in the land of Israel from the Middle East, including World War I refugees and unauthorized immigration. 

@americanzionism

---

---

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.

Read More