Showing posts with label beoz. Show all posts
Showing posts with label beoz. Show all posts

Thursday, June 22, 2017

  • Thursday, June 22, 2017
  • Elder of Ziyon
David Hazony wrote an excellent and in-depth essay for The Tower called "Israeli Identity and the Future of American Jewry."

Please read the whole thing, I would not do it justice in this brief summary.

Hazony's thesis is that the best way to counter rampant assimilation of American Jews is to introduce them to Judaism through the prism of Israeliness.

Israeliness is now a “thing,” as the kids say. More precisely, it is its own culture, its own way of approaching the world, its own habits of eating and socializing and innovating and building and raising children. It is distinctly Jewish, having been forged in a collective Hebrew experience, drawing from millennia of Jewish texts and experience, and clearly delineated from the American forms of Judaism, and it now has a century of development behind it and many millions engaged in it. It has its own powerful engines of capital. In some industries and arts, Israelis are among the dominant players—from defense and cyber to agriculture and water tech and autonomous vehicles to electronic music and original TV dramas and jazz and culinary arts. As Israel’s economy and population grow, its influence will only increase—not because every growing economy is culturally influential, but because of the unfathomable creative-intellectual disquiet that has always burned hard in the Jewish soul and continues to drive Israeli creativity.
The point of my whole argument, however, is not about how cool Israel is, because how cool it is has already begun to be discovered by an America forever looking for cool things. The point is that American Jews as a community risk missing a tremendous opportunity to fend off oblivion if they cannot see that Israeliness is not just interesting in its own right but specifically as a form of Jewish identity, exactly when a new form of Jewish identity is the only thing that can save them.

Hazony is saying that Israeliness is Jewish-infused culture that is bold, cool, unapologetic and that can be made attractive to American Jews, which could in turn help stem the tide of assimilation (as well as help Israel's reputation, especially among young people.)

Hazony makes a strong case, but I'm not so certain that it is a long-term solution. It might be good for a number of decades, which means it is worth pursuing, but I don't think it is a strategy for a religion that spans millennia. 

Hazony makes the very valid point that Judaism is more than a religion - it is a culture, a peoplehood and more. But his proofs of that, I think, undermine his argument for Israeliness being a long-term solution:

Can “Israeliness” really be considered a form of Judaism? 
It can, if we properly understand the forms Judaism has taken in the past. While in America we speak in terms of religion, religion itself is a category that has been imposed from without: Whenever we see a combination of theology, ritual, and houses of worship, we call it a religion.
Judaism never really saw itself this way, however. It had these, but it also had other things—a collective narrative and sense of “peoplehood”; an ethnic component; a metaphysical, spiritual path; a textual tradition and the practice of study; “secular” communal institutions alongside and intertwined with “religious” ones; a political worldview. It was a comprehensive way of life, centered not just in the synagogue but, no less so, in the home and the study house; and not just for the individual but for a self-defining collective, a “people,” as well. In biblical times, it included prophets and kings as well as the priests of the Temple. Throughout centuries of exile, a concept of halacha, the “way,” included not only ritual practice but everything from civil and criminal law to cosmology to medical advice. In most times and places across history, “Judaism” comprised many of the core institutions of government.
Fast forward to the nineteenth century. Enlightenment and Reform combined with rise of democratic nations to offer Jews of central and western Europe new ways of being Jewish that turned less on ritual, authority and faith, and more on autonomy and citizenship. To the East, socialism and Marxism offered a secular universal struggle, yet Jewish socialists continued to write and create in Yiddish, live as communities, and form their own labor unions—a culture that would later thrive for decades in the United States after waves of immigrants arrived in the late-nineteenth and early-twentieth centuries. Jewish publications like Forward and Algemeiner Journal were secular-facing, Yiddish-language newspapers for decades before launching English-language and online editions. (You can still read Forward online in Yiddish here.) Alongside Reform and Conservative Judaism, religious movements built around rabbis and congregations, a secular Jewish culture emerged that for many decades was thick with its own habits, food, music, and modes of living that mixed political activism (think workers’ rights, racial equality, Soviet Jewry) with a strong sense of “being Jewish” and, for a time, continued teaching its kids in Yiddish-language schools. Another stream, Reconstructionism, was promulgated by the thinker Mordecai Kaplan who envisioned Judaism not so much as observance and worship but as a “civilization,” a modern comprehensive approach to life. Communal institutions like the YMHA/YWHA (which lives on today, for example, in New York’s 92d Street Y) and Jewish Community Centers emerged to add further angles on delivering identity to the next generation of Jews in frameworks separate from religion.
In other words, the division of American Judaism into denominations, and the use of the word “Judaism” to describe only religious streams, has always been incomplete and even misleading. Judaism has many forms, and only some of them have anything to do with Sabbath or kashrut or prayer.
But what has happened to Yiddish culture in America? What has happened to Reform Judaism, and what is happening now to Conservative Judaism? What happened to the delis and the bialys and the labor unions? Why are the JCCs opening up to non-Jews in order to stay in business?

The Jewish culture that Hazony describes is a mere, fading shadow of Judaism.

Whether we like it or not, Jewish culture is not what keeps Judaism alive. Each example of Jewish culture Hazony mentions lasts a couple of generations and then disappears.

And, unfortunately, so would Israeliness.

There is value in Jewish culture, don't get me wrong. And there is great value in changing diaspora Jewish culture to be more in line with Israeli culture. But it is not the key to Jewish survival.

What is?

Hazony notes:
Oblivion knocks. The two obvious alternatives—aliya and Orthodoxy—require so radical a change in one’s lifestyle that they’re non-starters for most American Jews. If those were the only options, most would choose oblivion.
But I think that there is a possibility for the future of non-Orthodox to not only survive but to thrive. And a facet of that can be seen from Hazony's own brother Yoram, who wrote The Philosophy of Hebrew Scripture. I haven't read it yet (should arrive by Shabbat) , but it is an examination of the Tanach from the prism of philosophy - and from a secular perspective.

Judaism is a culture, sure. But since the destruction of the Temple,  the culture has been based on the twin pillars of ritual and the study of Jewish texts above all.

These are not the exclusive domain of the Orthodox. The vast corpus of Jewish literature - that spans law, history, parables, philosophy, poetry, ethics - is available to all. And any Jew can participate in Jewish rituals.

The reason non-Orthodox American Jews are disappearing is because they have abandoned these two basic tenets. How many Reform Jews build a sukkah every fall? What kind of impact would eating and camping out in a sukkah have on their children? Especially if they explain it in terms of Jewish texts, not watered-down "universal" values.

Yiddish culture in America was not a means to preserve Judaism, but a waystation towards abandoning it. Studying Yiddish culture today may be interesting but it has little to do with Judaism, no matter how much it is infused with Jewish ideas.

Israeliness would be the same thing. There is value in Israeli culture, and Israeliness can provide a welcome sense of pride and self-confidence that non-Orthodox American Jews lack. But the values of Israeliness are second-hand compared to the original values of Judaism, and the embrace of it as means of protecting Jewish culture is not hitting the bullseye. We should unapologetically push Jewish ideas and rituals as the means to preserve Judaism.

However, there is one very important lesson that American Jews do need to learn from Israel.

Practically all of the innovations in Jewish learning over the past few decades have come from Israel. Religious education in America has not fundamentally changed in a century - Israel is where the interesting and modern twists on Jewish learning are happening.

Non-religious Israelis (not enough, but a core) get together to study the ancient texts and to find modern meanings in them. Within and without the haredi and dati communities are multiple streams of educational theories and practices that are different than in the past. There are secular "yeshivas." David Hazony's own The Tower has covered the renaissance of Jewish study among secular Israelis.

Yoram Hazony has gone beyond the book I mentioned and has been championing work on a Jewish counterpart to the analytical (Christian) theology being taught in universities today. Why should St Thomas of Aquinas be studied but not Maimonides? This is the sort of innovation than needs to be done to revolutionize Jewish studies in America.

Jews have a hunger to learn. But they don't always have the appropriate tools. Israel is where these tools are being built, and those tools need to come to America and the rest of the Diaspora, along with the Hebrew knowledge that Hazony rightly advocates as a cornerstone of a revival of American Judaism.

I am not an expert on all the new streams of study happening in Israel but I know they are there. Israeliness as a culture will not be a long-term solution for American Jews, but Israel can lead the way in new methods of study and practice, way beyond the meaningless two-word mantra "Tikun Olam" that secular American Jews believe encompasses all of Judaism.

Every important ethical or moral issue of the day can be viewed through the lens of Jewish texts and thought and ritual. This is what young Jews must be taught. You can be liberal or you can be conservative - but derive your worldview based on your own people's rich heritage of ethics and study and practice, rather than shoe-horn your Judaism into a preconceived political or social consciousness bucket.

Jews who work at studying Judaism, who can appreciate the richness in real Jewish source texts, and especially who experience Judaism firsthand, are the ones whose children have the best chance to remain Jewish. "Israeliness" won't solve the problem - but Israeli genius at revamping how to teach Judaism can.





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.

Monday, September 26, 2016

  • Monday, September 26, 2016
  • Elder of Ziyon
There have been many articles about the student-designed course at UC Berkeley called “Palestine: A Settler Colonial Inquiry.”

But as far as I can tell, no one has addressed the main question: can Israel be considered colonialist?

It can't.
Colonialism is the establishment, maintenance, acquisition, and expansion of colonies in one territory, imposed by people from another territory. It is a process whereby the metropole, or parent state, claims sovereignty over the colony, and the social structure, government, and economy of the colony are changed by colonizers from the metropole. Colonialism is a set of unequal relationships between the metropole and the colony, and between the colonists and the indigenous, or native, population .

Zionism is not tied to a metropole/parent state. It is entirely based on the fact that Jews are returning to their homeland from which they never severed their emotional, religious or even physical ties. Zionism is anti-colonialist in that it fights against outsiders who invaded and colonized it over the centuries during the Diaspora.  It is not a colonial movement, it is a national liberation movement.

This should be obvious. All one needs to do is spend a few minutes researching the definition of Zionism and the writings of early Zionists to know that Zionism is about self-determination, not imperialistic extensions of European hegemony over parts of the Middle East. On the contrary, the Zionists consciously rejected their European past - they revived Hebrew as their language. Zionists didn't call any new villages "New Vilna."

Jews in Europe were treated as "the other." There is little nostalgia for the shtetl from the people who actually lived there.

Israel, on the other hand, was always considered home for Jews. Way before Zionism, Jews have made the trip to the Land. The yearning for Zion and Jerusalem has been a fixed part of Judaism and has been part of the daily prayers ever since the destruction of the second Temple. Zionism is

So why do some scholars insist that Zionism is colonialist?

The only way that it makes sense is if they deny that there is a Jewish people.

If the Jewish people exist, then it is obvious that they have the right to self-determination and national liberation in the land that they have considered their own for 3000 years.

But if Judaism is a mere religion, then Jews have no national rights and their desire to return to their homeland is twisted into "colonialism" - even without the metropole.

Arab nationalists originally agreed that there was a Jewish people but denied that their ties to the Holy Land was anything beyond religion. Here is how influential Arab nationalist George Antonious described it in the 1930s:


This was summarized and extended in Article 20 of the 1968 PLO Charter to denial of a Jewish people altogether:
Claims of historical or religious ties of Jews with Palestine are incompatible with the facts of history and the true conception of what constitutes statehood. Judaism, being a religion, is not an independent nationality. Nor do Jews constitute a single nation with an identity of its own; they are citizens of the states to which they belong.
Ironically, even the Quran refers to the Children of Israel as a nation (in many translations) in 2:47:
O Children of Israel! Remember My favor which I bestowed upon you, and that I favored you over all nations.
This explains why the Khazar theory is so popular among Palestinian Arabs. It only gained widespread currency after the PLO Charter was written but it becomes a perfect way for Muslims to reconcile their denial of Jewish nationality with the obvious assignment of such nationhood to Jews in the Quran.

This denial of Jewish peoplehood is an inherent part of the argument that Zionism is colonialism. And such denial is, in fact, antisemitic. It is an attempt to rip away a huge amount of Jewish identity from without and to minimize what it means to be a Jew.

The Berkeley course takes away all of Jewish history and only looks at "Palestine" through the lens of invented colonialism - meaning it denies up front that there are any Jewish ties to the land. So like all attempts to label Zionism as colonialism, it is inherently antisemitic.




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.

Saturday, October 24, 2015

  • Saturday, October 24, 2015
  • Elder of Ziyon
TOI reports:
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Saturday restated a pledge to retain intact the custom of not permitting non-Muslim prayer on Jerusalem’s Temple Mount, which has been at the center of a recent spike in unrest.

“Israel reaffirms its commitment to upholding unchanged the status quo of the Temple Mount, in word and in practice,” he said in a statement.

The compound, which houses the Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock, was the site of two ancient Jewish temples and is sacred to both Jews and Muslims. It was captured by Israel during the 1967 Six Day War.

“Israel will continue to enforce its longstanding policy: Muslims pray on the Temple Mount; non-Muslims visit the Temple Mount,” he said, following up on comments earlier by US Secretary of State John Kerry after meetings in Amman with Jordan’s King Abdullah II and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas.

Kerry said Israel had agreed on steps to calm tensions over the flashpoint site, including 24-hour security cameras, an idea not specified in Netanyahu’s statement.

The prime minister did confirm, however, that there would be “increased coordination between the Israeli authorities and the Jordanian Waqf, including to ensure that visitors and worshipers demonstrate restraint and respect for the sanctity of the area, and all this in accordance with the respective responsibilities of the Israelis authorities and the Jordanian Waqf.”

Tensions over Al-Aqsa have sparked a recent wave of violence that has seen knife and gun terror attacks by Palestinians against Israelis along with daily clashes between Palestinians and Israeli security forces.

Israel has repeatedly denied persistent Palestinian allegations to the effect that it seeks to change the arrangements at the site in order to allow Jews to pray there.
Bibi's' declaration to stop Jews from praying on the Temple Mount may be against international law.

It is time to expand a previous article of mine where I describe how international law supports Jewish worship on the Temple Mount - a point that you will never hear from "human rights" NGOs.

As far as I can tell, not only do Jews have the right to visit and to pray on the Temple Mount, but if they wanted to build a synagogue there I cannot find anything in international law that wouldn't support them wholeheartedly. 

The overriding consideration in international law is the right to be treated equally, and barring Jews from the Temple Mount is about as discriminatory as possible.

Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights says:
Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right shall include freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice, and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching.

In addition, Article 20 seems to prohibit the insults and incitement that Muslims engage in towards Jews on the Temple Mount:
1. Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law.

2. Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.

Moreover, the UN Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief is filled with articles that would prohibit banning Jews from the Temple Mount:
No one shall be subject to discrimination by any State, institution, group of persons, or person on grounds of religion or other beliefs.

For the purposes of the present Declaration, the expression "intolerance and discrimination based on religion or belief" means any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on religion or belief and having as its purpose or as its effect nullification or impairment of the recognition, enjoyment or exercise of human rights and fundamental freedoms on an equal basis.

Discrimination between human beings on grounds of religion or belief constitutes an affront to human dignity and a disavowal of the principles of the Charter of the United Nations, and shall be condemned as a violation of the human rights and fundamental freedoms proclaimed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and enunciated in detail in the International Covenants on Human Rights, and as an obstacle to friendly and peaceful relations between nations.

All States shall take effective measures to prevent and eliminate discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief in the recognition, exercise and enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms in all fields of civil, economic, political, social and cultural life.

All States shall make all efforts to enact or rescind legislation where necessary to prohibit any such discrimination, and to take all appropriate measures to combat intolerance on the grounds of religion or other beliefs in this matter.
From these articles it appears that Israel is obligated to allow Jews to visit and pray there, and to protect them from those who want to take away their rights.

Here is where the codification of bloacking Jewish religious rights on the Temple Mount runs afoul of this Declaration:

All States shall take effective measures to prevent and eliminate discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief in the recognition, exercise and enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms in all fields of civil, economic, political, social and cultural life.

All States shall make all efforts to enact or rescind legislation where necessary to prohibit any such discrimination, and to take all appropriate measures to combat intolerance on the grounds of religion or other beliefs in this matter.

Blocking Jews from worshiping in their holiest place while allowing Muslims to do so is discrimination by any definition.

It is true that this same declaration says:
Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.
But this clause is referring to cases where the practitioners of the religion are the ones who are a danger to others, not when the others are so intolerant that they threaten violence. To invoke this paragraph to deny Jews' rights to the Temple Mount (which I suspect human rights organizations would do if pressed) would make the rest of that declaration a mockery. It would give veto power by any religious group  over the rights of any other religious group by simply threatening violence. 

Perhaps one can try to argue that limiting non-Muslim worship on the Temple Mount is similar to not allowing non-Christian worship in Christian holy places or prohibiting non-Jewish worship in synagogues. But that argument does not apply where the site itself has inherent sanctity for the group that wishes to worship.

In this case, one could argue that it is even worse, because the entire reason that Muslims consider this a holy spot is a derivative of the Jewish temples that were there first. But no one is seriously demanding that Muslims be banned from their mosques on the Temple Mount, just that Jews be given equal rights.

You remember equal rights, don't you? This isn't only a legal issue, but a moral one as well. Denying the rights of one party because of the threats of violence of another party is not something to celebrate. It is capitulation to blackmail.

In summary, not only is it outrageous to deny Jewish worship on the Temple Mount for Jews who wish to pray there, it is against the principles of international law, basic freedom of worship and equal rights that would be defended in every other circumstance and for every other religion. 

Maintaining the "status quo" when the status quo is discriminatory is not a virtue. It is a travesty, and it gives justification and incentive for violence against those who fight for their religious rights. Those who are demanding equal rights are invariably described as extremists or worse. 

Of course, we will never hear Human Rights Watch or Amnesty or the UN dare to defend the Jewish right to worship on the Temple Mount. Because Jews who want to do so are not considered to be worthy of protection by international law. 



This blog may be a labor of love for me, but it takes a lot of effort, time and money. For over 11 years and over 22,000 articles I have been providing accurate, original news that would have remained unnoticed. I've written hundreds of scoops and sometimes my reporting ends up making a real difference. I appreciate any donations you can give to keep this blog going.

Monday, April 27, 2015

  • Monday, April 27, 2015
  • Elder of Ziyon
When you hate Israel, it can do nothing right
Evil Hasbara claim
Israel Derangement Response
Israel is tolerant towards gays
  • Israel has some homophobes, and therefore really hates gays (Richard Silverstein)
  • Israel is only pretending to be tolerant; it is engaging in “pinkwashing” to distract the world from its crimes (Sarah Schulman)

Israel has repeatedly offered peace and been rebuffed
  • Those “peace plans” were completely unacceptable to Palestinian society and therefore Israel didn’t offer enough (+972)
  • Palestinians accepted the idea of two states in 1988 and therefore cannot be expected to ever compromise on anything ever again (Robert Malley)

How could supposedly racist Jews consistently vote for non-Jews in TV reality polls?
  • They are still racist, they are simply practicing “tokenism” (Max Blumenthal)

Israel sends aid to help victims of natural disasters
  • Israel really wants to learn how to kill more effectively (Rania Khalek)
  • Israel wants to steal the organs of the victims (Jenny Tonge)
  • Israel is trying to distract the world from its crimes by pretending to do good (Ali Abuminah)

Hamas and Hezbollah are terror groups that Israel must defend itself from
  • Hamas and Hezbollah are “social movements that  are progressive” (Judith Butler)

Arab men beat their wives and engage in “honor killings”

The IDF has fewer reports of rape compared to other countries’ armies
  • They don’t rape because they consider Arab women too inhuman to even consider raping (Tal Nitzan)
  • IDF rabbis say rape is perfectly OK according to Yossi Gurwitz
  • Tasteless T-shirts prove Israel has a “rape culture” (David Sheen)


In short: If Israel does something bad, it is proof that Israel is evil. If Israel does something admirable, it is proof that Israel is evil. If Arabs do something bad, it is because Israel is evil.

Life is so simple for the simple-minded.

Sunday, January 04, 2015

  • Sunday, January 04, 2015
  • Elder of Ziyon
The list of war crimes enumerated in Rome Statute of the ICC includes a section that is directly aimed at Israel, and no one else.

From The International Criminal Court: the making of the Rome Statute : issues, negotiations and results by Roy S. K. Lee

Article 8(2)(b)(viii), on deportation and transfer of population, also generated extensive discussions. The provision now reads:
The transfer. directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies, or the deportation or transfer of all or parts of the population of the occupied territory within or outside this territory.
The grave breach of “unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful continement" is already reflected in Article 8(l)(a)(vii). The violation in Article 8(2)(b)(vii) is based on the broader provision in Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, now recognized as a grave breach in Article 85(4)(a) of Additional Protocol 1. The scope of these prohibitions is broader, as they govern not only the transfer of population of the occupied territory to other parts of that occupied territory or to places outside the occupied territory. but also the transfer by the occupying power of parts of its own civilian population into occupied territory. The latter aspect was politically controversial during the negotiations. Israel was not a party to the Additional Protocol l, largely because of this provision, and emphatically disagreed that this aspect was part of customary international law. It stood, however, rather isolated in this position and was supported, to a certain extent, only by the United States.

During the December 1997 session, this provision generated heated debates, as a result of which four options were submitted for discussion at the Rome Conference.‘°' At Rome, it soon became clear that a large majority of delegations preferred a provision based on the wording of the Additional Protocol. However. the Arab delegations wanted to adapt this language. in order to make clear that an occupying power is not only responsible for this act if it deliberately organizes the transfer of its own population into occupied territory, but also if it does not take effective steps to prevent the population itself from organizing such a transfer. After some negotiations, the words “directly or indirectly" were added to this provision.
In other words,the drafting committee caved to Arab demands to expand the scope of existing international law specifically against a single state - a state that most of them were technically at war with..

Just for context, here are other crimes that the Rome Statute considers exactly as heinous as the crime of allowing one's citizens to voluntarily move to disputed territory:

* Intentionally attacking innocent civilians
* Intentionally attacking official people involved in humanitarian or peacekeeping missions
* Killing people who have surrendered
* Intentionally attacking churches, hospitals or museums for no military reason
* Subjecting the enemy to medical experiments or mutilation
* "Committing rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy..."
* Intentionally starving civilians

Israel commented at the time:
Israel has reluctantly cast a negative vote. It fails to comprehend why it has been considered necessary to insert into the list of the most heinous and grievous war crimes the action of transferring population into occupied territory. The exigencies of lack of time and intense political and public pressure have obliged the Conference to by-pass very basic sovereign prerogatives to which we are entitled in drafting international conventions, in favour of finishing the work and achieving a Statute on a come-what-may basis. We continue to hope that the Court will indeed serve the lofty objectives for the attainment of which it is being established.
The deck is stacked against Israel at the ICC because its foundational document was partially the result of political, specifically anti-Israel move by her enemies.

A court whose rules are created not for the purposes of justice but for the purpose of revenge against a single state is flawed from the start.


Tuesday, December 30, 2014

  • Tuesday, December 30, 2014
  • Elder of Ziyon
  • ,
Here is a scan of a page from the New York Times Magazine this past weekend, using a Gaza child named Tala Akram al-Atawi ,who was killed over the summer, to symbolize all children killed in war:


From looking at this page, one would get the impression that except for South Sudan, more children were killed in Gaza than in any other conflict this year, and that over 20% of all child deaths - the very large-font  2,500 - were caused by Israel.

When you look a little closer, you see that the Times didn't bother to even estimate the number of children killed in Syria or Pakistan. Which is very interesting, given that this article was published soon after 132 children were brutally murdered in a Pakistan school in a single day. They weren't killed accidentally, not as part of a larger operation: they were targeted for death.

But none of those children merit having the New York Times write about the anguish of their families or their doctors.

The Syria Observatory for Human Rights counted 251 children killed in Syria - in October alone. Another 152 in November. From April through July, over 1000 children were killed. It seems a reasonable estimate of over 2500 children killed in Syria this year alone, making the "2500" graphic a joke. It is well over double that number just including Pakistan and Syria, and publishing even a low estimate would have made the story much more effective - if the goal of the story was to show how widespread children's deaths were.

UPDATE: The SOHR says that 3501 children were killed in Syria alone in 2014. (h/t Conormel)

While the 538 killed in Gaza is probably accurate and may even be high (there were some 17 year olds killed who were voluntary militants,) , the other numbers are ridiculously low. In South Sudan, between 50,000 and 100,000 people were killed this year - so chances are very good that far, far more than 600 children were killed. it is not out of the realm of possibility that closer to 6000 were killed.

In Iraq, some 16,000 civilians were killed this year. Historically, children have been about 9% of the civilian casualties. So it is reasonable to estimate that closer to 1500 children were killed this year in Iraq, instead of "416."

The NYTimes could have provided estimates, or even a low estimate, if the goal was to highlight how horrible the problem of children in war zones is.

It gets worse. Because the NYT only chose certain conflicts to bother to mention. The UN lists over 20 nations that have seen children killed or recruited as soldiers over the past couple of years - as opposed to the NYT's 8 nations.


So why would the New York Times put up this gigantic graphic of the number "2,500" when the actual number of children killed this year from war is probably closer to (and possibly much higher than) 10,000?

Here's a guess.

Anne Barnard had a great, tear-jerker of a story about a Gaza girl. She didn't want to highlight it in the end of year issue without any context because CAMERA would start a letter writing campaign about their anti-Israel bias. So the Times decided to do a half-assed job of pretending that Tala al-Atawi is somehow representative of the children who have been beheaded in Iraq and Syria, raped, and slaughtered in so many other countries.

No one, outside of Hamas and its supporters, is happy that Tala Akram al-Atawi was killed, She was not a target and Israelis don't celebrate her death.. If you are going to write a story about the horrors of war for children, in a world where children are being recruited as soldiers and targeted by crazed Islamists, she is a very poor example.

But if the real goal is to demonize Israel - and to make a half hearted attempt to hide that demonization from behind a flurry of artificially low casualty numbers from other conflicts - then the New York Times succeeded quite well.

(h/t DM and EBoZ)

Wednesday, November 26, 2014

  • Wednesday, November 26, 2014
  • Elder of Ziyon
This is a stamp from  British Mandate Palestine. It says "Palestine" in Hebrew, Arabic and English, but in Hebrew it adds the initials א.י.(E.Y.), for Eretz Yisrael, the Land of Israel, which is what Jews have always called the area.

In 1925, Arab leaders in Palestine were very upset over those two letters, so they went to court.

From the Palestine Bulletin, October 13, 1925:

As already reported, the Chief Justice, Sir Thomas Haycraft, and Mr. Justice Corrie, heard on Saturday last the complaint preferred by Mr. Jamal Husseini against the Palestine Government. The plaintiff demanded that the Court should oblige the Government to remove on "stamps" and other official documents the Hebrew letters "E-I" (being the initials for the Hebrew word, "Eretz-Israel," leaving only the word "Palestine" in Hebrew.

Counsel for the plaintiff based his prosecution on Article 22 of the British Mandate for Palestine that states that anything inscribed in one of the official languages must be transcribed into the other two languages. The initials "E-I" (Eretz Israel) were inscribed in Hebrew only, in contravention to the provisions of the Mandate. The Chief Justice asked Counsel whether he would agree that the initials "E-I" be also inscribed in Arabic and English. Counsel replied in the negative. Their Honours then pointed out that the initials "E-I" was the translation of Palestine. Counsel contended that "E-I" was not the right translation of "Palestine" their meaning being "The Land of the Jews." He said that "Palestina" was already inscribed, and that the affixing of the initials "E-I" was tautological. He was of opinion that their addition constituted a political point to prove that the land was that of the Jews. The Philistines and the Jews were two separate nations, existing at separate times, and the meaning of one did not apply to the other. He requested the Court therefore that: it should order the deletion of the initials "E-I" from stamps and other official documents in Palestine - or alternatively, to order the inscription of the words "Suria El Jenobia" (Southern Syria), Palestine's Arabic cognomen.
That last sentence says volumes.

Jamal Husseini, who was one of the architects of the 1929 massacres of Jews and remained a major Arab leader in Palestine through the 1940s, felt that in order to keep things equal, Arabs should be able to officially use their own name for Palestine just as the Jews were using Eretz Yisrael.

And what name is that? Southern Syria!

This is already several years after Arab leadership officially abandoned their desire to integrate Palestine into Syria, but it shows that Arab masses clearly still considered Palestine to be a mere district of a larger Arab nation, not a nation of its own.

Notice also that Husseini regarded the Arabs of Palestine at the time to have been descended from the Philistines, not the Canaanites, as today's Arab leaders pretend.

Also, Jamal Husseini admitted that the Jewish people are a nation - something strenuously denied by Palestinian Arab leaders today.

Today, Palestinian Arabs point to the stamp their leaders denounced as evidence that they were once an Arab political entity - and they erase the Hebrew altogether in school textbooks. They use the stamp as a tool to try to eliminate Jewish nationalism.

This little episode shows that Palestinian nationalism is a fiction. It only exists as a means to destroy Jewish nationalism, and if it wasn't for Zionism there would never have been any desire on the part of Arabs to have an independent Palestinian state.

It shows that Palestinian Arabs have changed their supposed history as a people in reaction to whatever the contemporary political climate allows.

There is one more lesson from this episode as well.

The Palestine Bulletin article was reproduced in the Macquarie University law school archives. But their version engaged in a little political correctness replacing the word "Philistines" with "Palestinians" and "Palestina" with "Palestine." Because it is not fashionable for modern Westerners to acknowledge that there were no "Palestinian" nation, ever. The idea that a law school would silently change the text of a 1925 newspaper article in order to align it with today's zeitgeist is but a tiny indication of how history itself has been distorted by today's universities for political purposes.

You can learn a lot from a stamp, if you are willing to keep your mind open.

(h/t Joe)

AddToAny

EoZ Book:"Protocols: Exposing Modern Antisemitism"

Printfriendly

EoZTV Podcast

Podcast URL

Subscribe in podnovaSubscribe with FeedlyAdd to netvibes
addtomyyahoo4Subscribe with SubToMe

search eoz

comments

Speaking

translate

E-Book

For $18 donation








Sample Text

EoZ's Most Popular Posts in recent years

Hasbys!

Elder of Ziyon - حـكـيـم صـهـيـون



This blog may be a labor of love for me, but it takes a lot of effort, time and money. For 20 years and 40,000 articles I have been providing accurate, original news that would have remained unnoticed. I've written hundreds of scoops and sometimes my reporting ends up making a real difference. I appreciate any donations you can give to keep this blog going.

Donate!

Donate to fight for Israel!

Monthly subscription:
Payment options


One time donation:

Follow EoZ on Twitter!

Interesting Blogs

Blog Archive