Only Palestinians are allowed to invoke religion for nationalistic purposes

Arab leaders and pundits habitually warn, in English, that Israel is threatening to threatening to turn the conflict into a religious war. 

A recent example comes from Ramzy Baroud in Arab News, saying, 

What is currently taking place in Palestine is not a religious war, but some Israeli officials and political parties are keen on turning it into one. 

Though warnings against “religious wars” in Palestine — in fact, the entire region — have been mostly linked to Israel’s current “most rightwing government in history,” religious discourses have been the most dominant since the establishment of Israel’s founding ideology, Zionism, in the late-19th century. 

This is absurd to the extreme. 

This has been a religious war for decades, and it has been Palestinians making it one.

From their first leader, the Mufti of Jerusalem, their claims have been based primarily on religious themes and arguments. Religion suffuses everything they do - their words, their actions, their thinking - all the way back to the Mufti's claim that "Al Aqsa is in danger!" from Jews.

The Palestinian Arab armed forces in both the 1936 riots and the 1948 war were called the "Army of the Holy War."

The Palestinian constitution says, "Islam is the official religion in Palestine. ...  The principles of Islamic Shari’a shall be a principal source of legislation."

The Palestinian Authority has a Ministry of Religious Endowments.

Members of the PLO executive Committee marked Eid yesterday by laying a wreath on the grave of Yasir Arafat. 

Mahmoud Abbas' speeches - even to the UN - all begin with "In the name of God, the most gracious, the most merciful."

Abbas referred to rebuilding Gaza in 2016 as a "jihad."

Every Palestinian media outlet refers to those killed by Israeli forces as "martyrs," not "victims."

The religious aspect is so ingrained that a supposedly secular UNRWA is asking for Muslims to give it "zakat" (religious charity) funds, quoting the Quran. Do any other UN agencies ever quote any other religious texts?  (I found an exception that proves the rule.)

And, of course, Gaza groups like Hamas and Islamic Jihad are Islamic extremist groups which use Islam to justify attacking Jews. 

It isn't Israel that seeks a religious war. It is the Palestinians, and their own religious justifications are accepted without any objection by the world.

But whenever Jews assert their own religious desires in the land of the Torah, they are demeaned - not only by Palestinians - for acting in such a primitive, non-enlightened manner.

The Palestinians claim, and much of the world accepts, the idea that only Muslims have an unquestioned religious claim on the land and the holy sites that were all invariably Jewish holy sites 1500 years before Mohammed was born. 

Jewish religious claims are treated with scorn while Muslim religious claims are accepted without question. And part of the reason is exactly because religion is the major component of the Palestinian nationalist philosophy.

Disparaging the Jewish religious claims to the land - especially while not questioning the Palestinian Islamic-based claims - is another manifestation of the antisemitism that is accepted as normal nowadays.. 

---

---

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

Antisemitic Grand imam of Al-Azhar tells UN Security Council how to be tolerant

Egypt’s Grand Imam of Al-Azhar mosque, Sheikh Ahmed Al-Tayeb, spoke at the UN Security Council Wednesday about the importance of "human fraternity,"  tolerance and mutual respect in achieving world peace.

The UN summarizes his statement:

Ahmed Al-Tayeb, Grand Imam of Al-Azhar Al-Sharif and Chairman of the Muslim Council of Elders, rejected claims that Islam is a religion of the sword or war, insisting that war is only acceptable for self-defence.  Urging the international community to move away from pointless conflicts, he noted tragedies caused by wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.  In Syria, Libya and Yemen, ancient civilizations have been destroyed, and these lands have become battlegrounds forcing their people to flee. Highlighting efforts made by religious leaders to promote human fraternity, he said Al-Azhar Al-Sharif aims to identify shared responsibilities in addressing climate change and the escalating wars.

Tayeb actually spoke for about 12 minutes, and even when addressing the UN on tolerance, he proved his own intolerance.  As he railed against wars in Iraq, Syria, Yemen and Afghanistan, he added, "I am talking about my sanctities and your sanctities in Palestine, and the arrogance of power and the cruelty of the tyrant" - implying that Israel is violating Muslim and Christian holy places in Jerusalem. He deliberately excluded Jews when he said  "your sanctities" in Jerusalem, saying - for those willing to listen to his words carefully - that Jews walking on their holiest site are "tyrants." 

 To this UN icon of tolerance, Jews do not have any rights to their holy places in Jerusalem - only Muslims and Christians. 

Tayeb also insisted that violence is the exception and not the rule in Islam, and that Muslims only wage war for good reasons - self defense, land, and honor. No one will dare point out that waging a war for "honor" goes against what the UN stands for. And no one will point out that every Arab war waged on Israel was for "honor" far more than for "defending Palestinians" or "land."

This is only the hypocrisy within his speech. Tayeb has, in the past, shown his intolerance and rabid antisemitism in other contexts. You can trace over the past ten years how he switched from publicly railing against Jews to changing the term to  "Zionists."

In 2013, Tayeb was not so careful to distinguish between Zionists and Jews. He said, "See how we suffer today from global Zionism and Judaism, whereas our peaceful coexistence with the Christians has withstood the test of history. Since the inception of Islam 1,400 years ago, we have been suffering from Jewish and Zionist interference in Muslim affairs. "  He then went on to justify antisemitism with Quranic verses, and then said that people were justified in hating Jews because of their arrogance and behavior.

Tayeb soon changed his lyrics, but not his tune. In 2018, while claiming that there is no antisemitism in the Muslim world, he blamed all intra-Arab fighting and violence on the "Zionists," saying that they were behind all Muslim strife, and that if it wasn't for them the Arab world would be progressing. He then added that the Jews - sorry, "Zionists" - intended to march into Mecca and Medina and take over the holy mosques there. 

This is classic antisemitism with a word switch.

The hypocrisy doesn't end there. 

And while he emphasized to the UN Wednesday that the Quran says "there is no compulsion in religion," in 2016 he emphasized that Islamic apostates who refuse to repent should be killed. 

This is who the UN chose as the Muslim representative of tolerance and fraternity. 

If he was Christian or Jewish, the media would be digging under rocks to find anything negative to say about him, and any hypocrisy would be gleefully reported. But the media that saw this broadcast is still  hiding the antisemitism and intolerance he said within his speech at a UN Security Council meeting on...tolerance and fraternity.

---

---

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

Jewish and Islamic law in outer space are surprisingly similar

Saudi astronauts Ali al-Qarni and Rayyanah Barnawi

Muslim media is discussing how Saudi astronaut Ali Al-Qarni is doing his prayers on the space station. 

He made a video saying that he puts his feet in some sort of attachment so he can stand still and try to prostrate himself, although that is very difficult.

But he doesn't say whether he tries to face Mecca - which would be difficult, because the space station travels around the Earth every 90 minutes, and if prayers take ten minutes, Mecca will not be close to where it was when he began. Nor does he discuss how he calculates prayer times and whether he prays five times every circuit around Earth!

These are similar questions to what Jews have been asking about space flight since Apollo days.

I found a summary from Harvard's Divinity School of the general consensus on these topics, based on a fatwa by Malaysian scholars in 2007:

The scholars produced a fatwa, or non-binding Islamic legal opinion, intended to help future Muslim astronauts, which they translated into both Arabic and English. They wrote that in order to pray, Muslims in space should face Mecca if possible; but if not, they could face the Earth generally, or just face “wherever.” To decide when to pray and fast during Ramadan, the scholars wrote, Muslims should follow the time zone of the place they left on Earth, which in Dr. Shukor’s case was Kazakhstan. To prostrate during prayer in zero gravity, the scholars stated that the astronaut could make appropriate motions with their head, or simply imagine the common earthly motions. 

The bolded part is the same ruling that Jewish scholars have given for Jewish astronauts, specifically for the late Ilan Ramon's disastrous 2003 trip. It is based on a 19th century rabbinic ruling that a traveler who enters the Arctic Circle where there is no sunrise or sunset should use the same times as his point of departure.

Other opinions have been given, but this one seems to be the Jewish consensus, if there ever could be such a thing.

There are other questions for which Jews and Muslims diverge. For Jews, the question is when to observe Shabbat. The answer seems to be the same, to use the times for the place of liftoff. But i saw one opinion that as long as it is Shabbat anywhere, then the astronaut should observe it - which would lead to a 48 hour Shabbat, which does not seem practical. (Obviously any tasks she or he have that are critical for the mission would override Sabbath restrictions.)

For Muslims, the other major issue is Ramadan - whether to fast at all and if so, for which times during the "day"? The Malaysian scholars gave the same answer - the times of the place the astronaut left the Earth - but it seems to me that there might be exemptions for fasting altogether. For one thing, Muslims can make up missed fast days; for another, at least some have an exemption for travelers - and one cannot be much more of a traveler than someone going around the Earth 18 times a day.

A Jew in space for a major 25-hour fast day? I imagine they would have to fast using the same clock as the point of departure. 

---

---

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

The most important unwritten law in the West: Don't piss off irrational, extremist Muslims

It is important to examine two events in recent days, as they both severely limit the freedom of Westerners - and signal far worse things that could come.

The first is the visit by Israeli minister of security Itamar Ben-Gvir to the Temple Mount.

The second is the publicizing of the removal of an instructor at Hamline University for including depictions of Mohammed in his art history course.

In both cases, nobody did anything wrong by any reasonable metric: 

- Even though many would say that he has the right to pray on Judaism's holiest site, Ben-Gvir did not. He did exactly what tens of thousands of Jews and hundreds of thousands of Christians have done in 2022 and earlier - he took a quiet stroll on the Temple Mount, without even reporters. There was no violation of the (illusory) status quo. 

- In the case of Hamline University, the instructor told the class ahead of time - in both the syllabus and verbally - that two medieval images of Mohammed, painted by Muslims, would be shown to the class, and he gave any Muslims the opportunity to not look at them. 

In both cases, there is no consensus that even Islamic law was violated: 

- Noor Dahri, a religious Muslim and counterterrorism expert, tweeted, "The rule to allow only Muslims to pray in Makkah is conditioned by the Holy Quran, however such conditions dsn’t apply to the Temple Mount.  Islam doesn’t forbid Jews to worship at the Temple Mount, [just a] political agreement which is called “Status Quo”. It is nothing but racism and religious discrimination against the Jewish people. Jews can freely worship at the Temple Mount according to Islamic rules because the land belongs to them, not Muslims - it’s only holy to Muslims."

- Muslims have included Mohammed in their own artwork for centuries, and Shiites do it today. And while mainstream Sunni Islamic law nowadays is against Muslims creating such depictions, it does not (and cannot) say that non-Muslims cannot create or view such pictures.

In both cases, ignorant Westerners who should be supporting freedom and equality are in the forefront of quashing that exact freedom in order to avoid hurting the feelings of irrational, potentially violent Muslims:

- State Department spokesman Ned Price repeatedly said in response to Ben-Gvir's visit that the US supports the "status quo," implying that the visit violated it and was "provocative:" "We oppose any unilateral actions that undercut the historic status quo. They are unacceptable.... it’s absolutely critical that all sides exercise restraint, refrain from provocative actions and rhetoric, and preserve that historic status quo at Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount, both in word and in practice....We’re deeply concerned by any unilateral actions because – precisely because they have the potential to exacerbate tensions, or worse. "

- Hamline University issued a statement claiming, falsely, that what the instructor did violated Islamic law: "Students do not relinquish their faith in the classroom. To look upon an image of the prophet Muhammad, for many Muslims, is against their faith."  But it is not at all clear that Islamic law addresses viewing such depictions, only creating them. And as mentioned, the Muslim students could have chosen not to view them.

These are perfect examples of "proleptic dhimmitude," where Westerners act (often beyond what Muslims demand)  in fear of anticipated Islamic responses that had not even occurred.

This illustrates the real unwritten law that has increasingly dominated the West: "Don't piss off the Muslims." All of the moral posturing about "tolerance" and "status quo" are fig leaves to obscure the fact that Westerners live in fear of Islamic terror, and are willing and even anxious to give up on our own freedoms to pander to the most extreme Muslim positions, human rights be damned. 

By using the yardstick of banning anything that is "provocative," the West is allowing the most intolerant and violent Muslims to dictate Western behavior in all aspects of life. Because anything and everything can provoke Islamists. 

Because in both cases the dhimmified Westerners are giving a green light for extremist, potentially violent Muslims to expand their demands ad infinitum:

- Palestinians do not only claim that Jews are violating their feelings by visiting the Temple Mount, but the Western Wall as well - which they also consider part of the "Al Aqsa complex." In fact, every single Jewish holy site, from the Tomb of the Patriarchs to Rachel's Tomb to Joseph's Tomb and scores of others - are all claimed by Palestinians to be Muslim shrines. If Israel gives in to western pressure on abandoning Jewish rights, it wouldn't be the end - it would be only the start of the bigoted, antisemitic demands that Jews have no rights in Israel altogether.

- The same Islamic law against creating depictions of Mohammed also apples to every Muslim prophet.  This includes Abraham, Moses, David and Jesus and, according to many, Mary. Beyond that, depictions of Roman and Greek gods would similarly violate Islamic laws against idolatry. The exact same logic that caused Hamline to cave to Muslim intolerance can eviscerate every single art history course in the Western world. 

It isn't hard to picture that as only the beginning, not the end. Imagine a world where every website, every encyclopedia, every outing, every college course, every newspaper article and indeed every activity must be approved by extremist Islamic gatekeepers. We've already seen most Western media refuse to print the Mohammed cartoons from Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten in 2005, even though they are undoubtedly newsworthy and important to see to understand the story. But that and similar incidents are exactly what is driving today's cowardice: the fear of pissing off Muslims, because they might murder you. 

Jews will only write angry letters, so offending them is "free speech" and "brave." Muslims might kill you, so submitting to their dictates is twisted into "tolerance."

Unless there is serious pushback by those who still value freedom, this is where things are going. 

---

---

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

75 years ago: Jews in Arab countries in grave danger

Continuing looking at the newspapers from 75 years ago in the wake of the UN Partition vote.

From the Manchester Guardian, December 10, 1947:

From the Palestine Post, December 11, 1947:

Commentary magazine summarized the pogrom in Aden a few months later:

In the riots that broke out suddenly last December 2 after the decision of the United Nations in favor of partition in Palestine, and following an appeal of the Arab League for a three-day strike of protest in all Arab countries, over eighty Jews were killed and as many seriously wounded. Fourteen Jewish houses were burnt to the ground, and many more were looted. Of one hundred and seventy Jewish shops and stores, over a hundred were burnt or looted and the two Jewish schools were burnt out.

It is alleged that the greatest part of the casualties was caused by the military force, the Aden Protectorate Levies, which were called in by the civil authority when the police were unable to deal with the mob. The Aden Levies are composed of Arab tribesmen with British and Arab officers. It was apparently asking too much for them to take firm action against Arab looters attacking Jewish houses and shops. They soon turned to take an active part themselves in the looting and shooting of Jews.

---

---

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

When a Palestinian journalist @HosanSalemG says that all Palestinian journalists support terror, is he an anti-Palestinian racist?

A photo of Hosam Salem from his Facebook page

Yesterday, Gaza photojournalist Hosam Salem tweeted that his contract with the New York Times had been terminated. Here's his thread:

After years of covering the Gaza Strip as a freelance photojournalist for the New York Times, I was informed via an abrupt phone call from the US outlet that they will no longer work with me in the future. 

I began working with the newspaper in 2018, covering critical events in Gaza such as the weekly protests at the border fence with Israel, the investigation into the Israeli killing of field nurse Razan al-Najjar, and more recently, the May 2021 Israeli offensive on the Gaza strip 

As I understood later, the decision was made based on a report prepared by a Dutch editor - who obtained Israeli citizenship two years ago - for a website called Honest Reporting. 

The article, which the New York Times had based its decision for dismissing me, gives examples of posts I wrote on my social media accounts, namely Facebook, where I had expressed support for the Palestinian resistance against the Israeli occupation... 

... My aforementioned posts also spoke of the resilience of my people and those who were killed by the Israeli army - my cousin included - which Honest Reporting described as “Palestinian terrorists”. 

The editor later wrote an article stating that he had succeeded in sacking three Palestinian journalists working for the New York Times in the Gaza Strip, on the basis of us being "anti-Semitic”. 

Not only has Honest Reporting succeeded in terminating my contract with The New York Times, it has also actively discouraged other international news agencies from collaborating with me and my two colleagues. 

What is taking place is a systematic effort to distort the image of Palestinian journalists as being incapable of trustworthiness and integrity, simply because we cover the human rights violations that the Palestinian people undergo on a daily basis at hands of the Israeli army 

He doesn't link to the Honest Reporting article that shows that he praised the massacre of four rabbis and a Druze policeman in 2014, that he has repeatedly praised suicide bombers that killed 10 in 2004, and he has continued to explicitly support terror attacks even after starting his work with the Times:

On November 18, 2014, Hosam Salem again used Facebook to express his joy over the massacre of four rabbis and an Israeli-Druze police officer in a synagogue in the Jerusalem neighborhood of Har Nof.

Citing the Quran, he encouraged his followers to “smite the necks” of unbelievers, adding: “[This is the] summary of the Jerusalem operation [sic] today.”

There’s more. In 2015, Salem applauded two acts of terror (see here and here); a shooting at the Gush Etzion Junction that killed an American teenager, an Israeli man, and a Palestinian bystander; and a Jerusalem stabbing that killed three.

Some three years later, after being hired by The New York Times, Salem called for more violence following an attack that killed two IDF recruits in the West Bank. “Shoot, kill, withdraw: three quick operational steps…to bring peace to the hearts of sad people like us,” the inciting post read.

Finally, he has repeatedly eulogized Mohammed Salem and Nabil Masoud. The two were responsible for a 2004 suicide bombing that killed ten workers at the Ashdod port, Israel’s second-busiest harbor (see here and here).

(It is possible that suicide bomber Mahmoud Salem was a relative.)

Now let's look at Salem's words defending himself again. "I had expressed support for the Palestinian resistance against the Israeli occupation..." That is an admission that he considers praising murdering innocent people to be "supporting Palestinian resistance." 

And he concludes by saying that "What is taking place is a systematic effort to distort the image of Palestinian journalists as being incapable of trustworthiness and integrity..."

Salem is positioning his explicit support of terror as being a mainstream view among all Palestinian journalists. He says that exposing his praise of terror attacks is an attack on all Palestinian journalists. 

In other words, he is saying that his opinions are mainstream, not anomalous. 

If a Zionist would say that all Palestinian journalists cannot be trusted to be objective because they all support terror, the Zionist would properly be branded a bigot. Each journalist must be judged on their own merits and their own words. Stereotyping them is wrong.

But what does it mean when a Palestinian journalist insists that all Palestinian journalists like him support terror? When he claims that his noxious support for murdering rabbis and others is simply the same "covering human rights violations" that all reporters supposedly do? He isn't apologizing for his views - he is claiming that he, like all Palestinian journalists, is just covering the news. Praising the murders of Jews is indistinguishable from journalism.

He puts all Palestinian journalists in the same bucket as himself. (And so does Al Jazeera.)  Does that make him a racist? 

The reality is that support for terror is a mainstream Palestinian opinion, across multiple surveys for decades. Sometimes the majority support terror, other times is drops to less than 50%, but it is always an accepted, popular opinion. Assuming that all Palestinians support terror is indeed racist, but understanding that there is a high chance that a random Palestinian who is hired for a position at a major Western media outlet might indeed be a terror supporter is prudent. As the New York Times has learned, vetting one's social media posts before hiring anyone is essential.  

As far as the many who are claiming that Salem is the victim of anti-Palestinian racism, they are the ones who are racist - because they are claiming that all Palestinians support murdering Jews. 

---

---

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

Saudi cleric causes controversy by ruling one should be nice to Jews

A member of the Saudi Council of Senior Scholars and an advisor at the Saudi Royal Court, Sheikh Dr. Saad bin Nasser Al-Shathri, called on the Saudis to be kind to Jews who visit the Kingdom.

During a fatwa program on "Alif Alif" radio, a listener asked how a Muslim should treat a Jew who visits the kingdom.

Al-Shathri responded that “not every Jew is an Israeli, and a Muslim must approach God by kindness in dealing with all people,” warning against “being deceived by malicious propaganda and rumours.”

The cleric pointed out that Mohammed had good relations with some Jews.

“A person must draw closer to Allah by showing kindness to all people, of whatever religion they are,” he added.

"People must abide by these instructions and these etiquettes that were brought by Islamic Sharia, with regard to good logic and beautiful speech.. A kind word is charity, as the Holy Prophet said.”

He added the need to "provide assistance to others, whatever their religion, so that the Muslim can be a good model, and provide correct propaganda to introduce Islam." 

Although it appears that some Jews have managed to visit Saudi Arabia for business over the years, they have kept a low profile. Lately that has been changing, as Israelis have been allowed into the Kingdom as well under special circumstances. 

Even though the answer seems to say at the end that it is allowed to treat Jews well in order to ultimately attract them to Islam, the answer itself is pretty good. 

---

---

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