Showing posts with label history. Show all posts
Showing posts with label history. Show all posts

Tuesday, December 06, 2022

I saw once again today the assertion, in an academic paper, that Arabs and Jews lived quite well together in the late 19th century in Palestine. I looked at the footnote and it refers to a 2014 paper by Menachem Klein, which brings an impressive amount of evidence for cooperation between the  Jews of Palestine and the Arabs, including Arabic words that became part of Palestinian Yiddish and Yiddish words that became part of Arabic, as well as evidence of the groups working together, even politically, in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

Whenever I read this sort of thing, I wonder how this jives with anecdotal evidence of derision and insults from Arabs to Jews in the 19th century. For example, John MacGregor published in 1870 that "Men in Palestine call their fellows 'Jew' as the very lowest of all possible words of abuse."  

In an 1824 letter from Rev. W. B. Lewis to the London Society, he writes, "Jerusalem is truly miserable, groaning under the tyranny of the oppressor. Jews...are subject to daily insults, and are shamefully and inhumanly oppressed." He then gives page after page of examples of Muslims treating Jews like garbage, stealing from them, the Ottoman authorities falsely accusing Jews and their Rabbinic leaders of petty crimes and torturing them and extorting obscene sums of money as fines. (See below)

James Finn, the British consul to Jerusalem from 1846-1863, says that Jerusalem Jews were forced to bury their dead at night: - "the usual practice is to pay the gate-keeper to let them out of the town in the middle of the night, and this from fear of having the dead disinterred by Moslems or Christians."

There were pogroms against Jews in 1834 in Hebron and Safed, in 1837 in Safed again, and in 1847 a Jewish boy was accused of a blood libel in Jerusalem.

How can we reconcile the stories of Arab abuse of and attacks on Jews in Palestine with the academics who claim that Jews and Arabs lived so cooperatively?

It appears that before the 1840s, the Jews were indeed treated like dirt. Then things started changing. The reason is that the increasing number of European Jews could appeal to their own governments for protection, starting in that decade. Different European powers even competed for influence in the Ottoman Empire and protecting Jews gave them more power. Oddly, in 1848 the Russians told their Jewish subjects that they would no longer be protected, and the British consul stepped in to be their protector. This protection made it much harder for Jews to be routinely harassed by the Arabs - being backed by European powers suddenly gave the Jews powers they hadn't had beforehand.

Only after the Jews came under the protection of European states did the Arabs start to treat the Jews with more respect. The Ottoman leaders were no longer able to mistreat most of their Jewish subjects out of fear of creating an international incident.

It is an old story: Arabs respect power. When Jews were powerless, Arabs treated them like garbage. Only when they had some protection did the Arabs start to "live with them together in peace." Did the Arabs suddenly become philosemitic? Of course not. But they were practical: The Jews couldn't be attacked with impunity anymore.

And that is the story of Israel in a nutshell. When Israel acts weak, it invites Arab (now, Palestinian) derision and attacks. Acting strong is the only formula for peace. It isn't a peace based on love or friendship, but a peace based on respect. 

It is no different now than in was 200 years ago.

(Some information here comes from Arabs and Jews in Ottoman Palestine: Two Worlds Collide, by Alan Dowty.) 

___________________________________

Here are excerpts of the 1924 letter from W. B. Lewis with many examples of Arab oppression of Jews, most first-hand:


PROCEEDINGS OF THE LONDON SOCIETY. 
PALESTINE. . 
LETTER PROM THE REV. W. B. LEWIS. THE Rev. W. B. Lewis in a letter dated Aintoura, February 23d, 1824, gives the following statement of the present condition of the Jews at Jerusalem :—

 Jerusalem is truly miserable, groaning under the tyranny of the oppressor. Jews...are subject to daily insults, and are shamefully and inhumanly oppressed. Their firmans are disregarded, and they know not where to apply for relief or protection, for the power of the consul does not extend to Jerusalem, and the European ministers at Constantinople are at too great a distance to protect them ; but I will describe some of their grievances more particularly. 

Those Jews who endeavour to obtain a livelihood by the work of their hands, are frequently forced to give up their time, and to work for the ungrateful Turk without payment. Sometimes a mere trifle is thrown to the Jew, but in either case if he attempts to reason with the Turk, he is threatened with the bastinado, and I know not what. 

Rabbi Solomon P ** is an engraver of seals. In the open street he was accosted by a Turk, who produced a large stone, and told him to cut out a seal. Solomon replied it was not in his power, for he only knew how to engrave, not to cut and prepare the stone ; the Turk thereupon laid hold of him by his beard, drew his sword, kicked him, and cut and struck him unmercifully. The poor man cried, but there was no one to assist him. Turks in the street passed by unconcerned, and the wounded Jew afterwards sought redress in vain from the officers of justice. 

Rabbi M. Bolter (now dead) with three or four of the Sephardim Jews, was thrown into a dungeon under pretence of their having sold wine to a Turk ; for Jews and Christians are not allowed in Jerusalem to make wine for Turks, but only for their own private use. Although the charge could not be proved, instruments to bastinado and to torture him were produced, to force money out of him for the governor; the man in his fright, and not able to speak Arabic, made a sign with three fingers, meaning to signify, as he said afterwards, that he would give three hundred piastres to be released, but the governor interpreted the sign as a promise to give three burses (or fifteen hundred piastres,) and he demanded that sum accordingly from each of the other Jews in prison for the same pretended crime, and ordered the house of the foreign Jew to be rifled, and himself detained until the sum was paid. The man was not in possession of half the money, and when he had been in confinement for some time, and dragged about the streets among his brethren as a criminal with a chain round his neck, an order was sent to the chief of the Askenazim Jews to appear before the governor. The old Rabbi was ill in bed, but this was no excuse, he was compelled to rise, and was placed on the back of an ass, supported by two men; the governor told him that he should be considered responsible for the money due from the Jew in prison, and on the Rabbi's remonstrating, he told him that he should likewise be sent to prison. The young man who accompanied the Rabbi as interpreter, said, that it was contrary to the Turkish laws, thus to imprison the chief Rabbi, upon which the young man himself was ordered to prison, put in chains, and kept with his brother Jew in a dark, dirty dungeon, until the avarice of the governor was satisfied. 

The Jews at Jerusalem, (I speak even of European Jews) are liable to be stopped by the lowest of the country, who, if he pleases, may demand money of them as a right due to the mussulman ; and this extortion may be practised on the same poor Jew over and over again in the space of ten minutes.

The Jews are fond of frequenting the tombs of their forefathers, especially on particular days, to read their prayers of remembrance of the dead. Here advantage is taken of them again. They are rudely accosted and pilfered, and if resistance is made, they are beat almost to death, and this not by common highwaymen or Bedouin Arabs, but by men they may have been in the habit of seeing and talking with every day. 

The Jew is always known by the manner in which he wears his hair. In my visit to Hebron, I was accompanied by a Jew, the same now with me in Amtoum ; I had the utmost difficulty in protecting him on the road, as well as in the neighbourhood of Jerusalem ; the Turks would have forced from him the chaphar, though under the wing of an Englishman. This same young Rabbi on his way to me one morning in Jerusalem, was laid hold of by soldiers, who were going to yoke him with another Jew to one of the heavy cannons they were drawing out against Bethlehem. Had he not been fortunate enough to escape, 200 piastres which he was bringing to me for Hebrew Scriptures, would, in all probability, have been seized upon by the soldiers, as well as a gold watch which I had desired him to get repaired for me. 

Rabbi Israel, also a foreign Jew, and chief Rabbi of the Parushim in Safet, was setting out for that place from Jerusalem, when the animals he had hired for the journey, and which he had actually paid for, were taken sans are-monis., for the use of the Cadis of Mecca and Cairo, who were to proceed to Damascus in a few days. This is a common Turkish trick, and it may afford a good picture of despotism, united with fanaticism, and in full exercise. Horses, camels, mules, &re. are considered as made for the exclusive use of the haughty followers of Mahomed, as well as the inferior animals of the man kind, so that he may seize and use or torture them at his will. But to add to the unpleasantness of the trick in the present instance, the Turkish muleteer refused to return the money paid by the Rabbi for the journey, and in vain the Jew asked for justice, until having applied to me, I interfered and succeeded in obtaining for the Rabbi his money through Omar Effendi. 

I formed this man's acquaintance through the means of Achmet Bey of Damascus, who gave me a letter of introduction to him, and he (Omar Effendi) made high professions of friendship. He desired me to apply to him as often as I stood in need of his services, and I was punctual. in doing so as often as I wished to interfere in behalf of the European Jews. This shows very strongly the necessity of an European resident protector in Jerusalem, and I am more and more confirmed in the persuasion that the residence there or in Damascus, as headquarters, of a person entrusted with the authority of consul, and who could feel for the suffering Jews as well as Gentiles, would be productive of great advantage. 

The facts I have mentioned may be substantiated, if necessary, by documents from the Jews themselves ; and to shew more fully the nature of Jewish grievances in Jerusalem, I might accumulate many such instances of barbarity on the part of the Turks of all classes, towards this people. One instance more of -shameless barbarity must suffice, and I will state it fully although I may be tedious, as it took place very lately, and will serve to shew how the governors and rulers in this part of the world manage their business without law, judge, or jury, and without respect to age, country, learning, or religion. The name of Mendel is well known to the Committee through the journals of Mr. Wolf, he is chief Rabbi of the Askenasim Jews in Jerusalem, an European, and an inoffensive old man. He is considered the most learned of the Jews in Syria, and in his religion lie lives in the strictest sense a Pharisee; he has a zeal for God, we must bear him record, though not according to knowledge. He was in bed, when, at a late hour of the night, he was disturbed by a loud knocking outside his door; he returned no answer, supposing robbers had entered. In a few moments the door was burst open, and in rushed a large party of soldiers. They approached the Rabbi with drawn swords, and seized and teal-treated the poor old man. His wife screamed, and the other Jews in the house came up. Young Rabbi Isaac, who speaks Arabic, demanded the cause of their unexpected visit. It is because the street door was found open, replied the soldiers, and one of you must go down to the governor, who is below. The young man accompanied the soldiers to the passage, and the governor asked him why the door was left open. Isaac said that Rabbi Mendel's daughter was near her confinement, that according to the custom of the country at this particular time, they had received company, and he supposed one of the visitors had forgotten to close the outward door. This was a simple answer, and the governor affected to be satisfied, and the Rabbi concluded the affair was over, excepting that they might be expected to pay a few pares, (about one penny English money,) usually levied upon houses where the street door is found open at night. 

In the morning, however, they were surprised by the appearance of soldiers, who informed them that the governor desired to see both the old and young man at the palace : they went accordingly, and on the way were joined by two other Jews, Rabbi Nathan, a native of Austria, and Rabbi Jacob, of Prussia, but of English parentage or connexions, as I understood. These were likewise under an escort, and repairing to the for they were also charged with the crime of leaving the outdoor of their house open ; but Nathan and others assured me this accusation was unfounded. However, the four Jews were ushered into the presence of the governor, and of Omar Effendi, &c., and being accused of the crime in question, they attempted to make a defence; but no defence would be taken ; the governor said he heard the old Rabbi (Mendel) exclaim that be had a firman, and feared not the governor. It was answered that the Rabbi was unable to speak the Arabic. " Will you say then," replied the governor, " that I tell you an untruth?" The Jews were therefore obliged to be silent, and after a short time were told to go away. They thought to direct their steps homewards, but no, they were ordered to walk into another room, and were decoyed under various pretences from one chamber to another, until they found themselves at one of the dungeons. Here they were shut up in darkness, and told they must pay the governor ten burses, and that unless this money was forthcoming, hot irons would be applied to their heads the following day, and sharp nails driven through the palms of their hands, &c., modes of torture, amongst others, used, as I am told, in Jerusalem to extort money from these unhappy people.

The Jews without, soon heard the sentence which had been passed on their afflicted brethren in confinement; they lost no time therefore in doing every thing possible to hasten their deliverance, and though they succeeded with the governor in bargaining to pay four and a half burses instead of ten, still these poor people were obliged to strip even poverty itself to raise the sum required, and were even obliged to pledge their clothes. 

This affair may give the Committee an idea of the indigent and oppressed state of the European Jews residing in Jerusalem. For the pretended offence of two doors having been left open at night, a sum little short of £60 sterling was wrung from a few miserable people, whose existence is supported by pittances sent to them chiefly by their brethren in foreign parts: and this is not a story made up by the 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!

 

 

Friday, December 02, 2022

All from newspapers published on December 2, 1947. 










General overviews of the conflict often skip over the period from the Partition resolution to May 14, 1948, when Arab armies officially attacked. The threats and attacks on Jews in Palestine and throughout the Arab world are downplayed. But the media at the time documented it.



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!

 

 

Thursday, December 01, 2022

During the UN partition negotiations in 1947, the Arab side said they wanted a single Arab state. When that didn't fly, they said they wanted am Arab state that would protect Jewish rights. And when the partition vote passed, within hours, Arabs attacked Jews on the streets, showing how much they would have respected those Jewish rights. 

Meanwhile, as I reported this morning, the Arab states had no interest in a Palestinian Arab state - they were planning to divide up Palestine as soon as they could after the British left. 

And also, as always, the Palestinians themselves want their "refugees" not to help build their state - but to "return" to what they consider a criminal, apartheid, racist state. 

Of course, these same Arab states didn't say a word about an independent Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza when they controlled those areas. 

If the goal of Palestine is to have an independent state for Palestinian Arabs, why didn't they do it then?  If the goal is to give Palestinians rights, then why do Arab states not give them rights today? Why did they pivot between the ideas of a Palestinian state and none, and back again in 1968?

If we take the Arabs and Palestinians at their word, none of this makes sense. Their claims as to what they want - independence, freedom, justice - do not fit with their actions. Especially since they have rejected every plan that would have given them exactly that. 

There is only one consistent thread that explains all of this - the unifying theory of Arab attitudes towards Israel. And that is antisemitism. 

The goal has never been to build a Palestinian state. Even the Palestinians don't want that. They have had more time between Oslo and today than the Zionists had between the Mandate and 1948 to build the functioning apparatus of a state - and unlike the Zionists, they have had lots of aid and EU consultants  to do exactly that. Yet today their government is a joke, a dictatorship under the control of one person, with institutions that are corrupt or incompetent. It is all window dressing, not a serious attempt at building a real government. 

Two recent cartoons in Felesteen illustrate a great truth, especially on the 75th anniversary of the UN Partition resolution.



"Palestine" is not meant to be a state, and it never was. It is meant to be a weapon, a means to end the Jewish state. That's what it was in 1947 and that's what it is today. 

That's how Palestinian leaders look at it. That's how Jordan and Egypt and Syria still look at it. 



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!

 

 

During the UN debates before partiotion in November 1947, st the very same time that Arab leaders were at the UN insisting that they wanted an independent Palestinian Arab state, they were already planning on dividing the area up between themselves.

This article in the Palestine Post is from November 27, 1947:





There was a similar article in the Palestine Post on November 30, 1947, the day of the partition, from a completely different source.



ARAB STATES PREPARE TO FIGHT ABDULLAH
By JON KIMCHE, Special to The Palestine Post 

LONDON , Saturday  —Representatives of the Arab States here express serious disquiet following reports that King Abdullah's Arab Legion will occupy the Arab State sector of Palestine when the British withdraw. One British source normally very close to these representatives has stated , however, that what will happen, according to his information, is rather different .

The Arab Legion , together with a token force from Iraq, will occupy, he said, the central sector of the Palestine Arab State. Syria and the Lebanon will occupy the coastal stretch of the Arab State north of Acre, and Egypt, with a token Saudi Arabian force, will occupy parts of the Negev and the desert frontier area. What will _happen after such a "partition of partitioned Palestine", he added, is anybody's guess, but one thing is certain : that the Arab States will not accept Trans-Jordan taking over by itself, and that TransJordan will oppose Syrian and Lebanese inroads.
Literally hours earlier the Arab leaders were posturing in the UN about how dedicated they were to a Palestinian Arab state.

I once created this map of what "Palestine" would look like today if Israel lost in 1948. It was a guess, but it is in line with this article.








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

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424. 

Read all about it here!

 

 

Wednesday, November 30, 2022

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But that's just the beginning:

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

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

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


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

That is what hate looks like. 




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

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424. 

Read all about it here!

 

 

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

This is a lie.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(h/t Kweansmom)



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

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424. 

Read all about it here!

 

 

Monday, November 28, 2022

I am not at all a fan of "Reconstructionist Judaism" and its founder Mordecai Kaplan.  But he was a foe of Reform Judaism as well, and a hundred years ago he railed against it in a lecture in Brooklyn which has a lot of truth in it.

From the Brooklyn Daily Times, November 28, 1922:

KAPLAN SEES JEWS SEEKING NEW GODS 
"Let Us Not Become Too Worldly for Our Faith," Professor Says. 

"You claim it is hard for you to be a Jew, because. you don't know what real true Judaism is. After the present reformers have gotten through, not even a Jew ran recognize, his own traditions, customs and religion. " 

This statement wars made by Prof. Modercai Kaplan, well-known lecturer on Jewish topics, speaking at the weekly open forum conducted by the Jewish Centre, 667 Eastern Parkway, last night. His topic was "Spiritual Self-Adjustment of the Jew." 

In a discourse that was enthusiastically received Prof. Kaplan outlined in an interesting manner the trials of Jewish educators in this country.

"In this land of promise," he said, "with every opportunity. and freedom, educators find it hard to attract Jewish youth to their religion because reformers and theorists have eliminated everything that would attract the young mind. Instead they have substituted modern versions of the Bible which acts upon the young mind not as an incentive to study religion but as a poison." 

"Judaism is not a religion," he continued. "It is the art of living according to the norms and ethical laws extolled by our fathers. Jews claim that It is hard for them to practice their religion due to their activities of anti-semitism, but I think they arc mistaken. The anti-Semites are not at fault. The Jews are at fault; they are trying to enter Gentile clubs, and they are trying to become members of the Y. M. C. A. That is the reason why so much propaganda is aimed at them, for poaching on other people's property and pleasures.

 "If they cannot participate in foreign  activities without losing their consciousness of being Jews, let them stop attending these clubs. 

"Jews are losing their individuality trying to modernize themselves to extreme degrees. They do not realize that their individuality and sectionalism is one of the factors that keeps the great multitude in the ranks, and when the modern theorists minimize this, the Jewish youth drifts away, to the new-fangled religions, searching for some thing that will interest them in life, instead of finding it in our own religion as our forefathers did. 

"Let us not become too worldly in our faith. It is only when we cheapen our religion, nationalism, and customs, that we lose faith in them and they are of no more value to us than something that will take up our time on the Sabbath and holidays." 

Ending his address, he urged that the new schools being built should not be devoted only to gymnasiums and clubrooms but also have them include a "syllabus for the instruction of our language, customs, and faith." 

He gave the lecture at the Brooklyn Jewish Center, which was at the time a brand new building, a major hub for Jews in Brooklyn, with a banquet hall, synagogue, gym and swimming pool.

The Brooklyn Jews of Crown Heights ended up doing exactly what Kaplan predicted - they became less interested in Judaism and moved out of the neighborhood.

In 1982, the board decided to sell the building, but it was important for them to keep it Jewish, so they sold it for far less than its value to Chabad.

Today, the building houses Chabad yeshiva Ohalei Torah, and it is only a block from Chabad's headquarters.

Kaplan's warnings about Jewish assimilation were quite valid. His own movement has been a dismal failure at fighting it. 

Chabad has taken Kaplan's warnings about revitalizing the religion far more seriously than his own failed Reconstructionist movement has. While disciples have replaced religion with wokeness, Chabad is doing what Kaplan urged Jews to do, albeit not in the way he envisioned.

It is ironic that in the very spot where Kaplan warned about the future of Jews as a religious group and as a nation, the revitalization he demanded is actually happening - and leaving his own followers way behind.





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

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424. 

Read all about it here!

 

 

Monday, November 14, 2022

Oklahoma is starting to raise alarm bells for Jews.

Oklahoma Governor Kevin Stitt, who was re-elected last week, recently dedicated "every square inch" of the state to Jesus: "[With] the authority that I have as governor, and the spiritual authority and the physical authority that you give me, I claim Oklahoma for you."


Stitt's new secretary of education, Ryan Walters, also wants to orient the school curriculum towards Jesus.

Parts of what he says are good....

“Our kids need to know about the founding. They need to know this country was founded on Judeo-Christian values.”

“What we have to have is true history taught in schools. Our kids need to know about the founding. They need to know this country was founded on Judeo-Christian values. They need to know about the Constitution. They need to be inspired by heroes like George Washington,” Walters said.

At an Oct. 25 debate, Walters said: “We have to continue to stay vigilant as the far left has decided that they’re going to launch a war for our kids’ minds and convince our young people that they are racist. They’re going to inject this division into the classroom. They’re going to inject this hatred of the Constitution and the values this country was founded on.”
...But not everything.
The Norman Transcript reported that Walters wants to install a “God-based history curriculum” in the state’s schools, one that will highlight the role God played in the founding of America.  
There is no problem noting that the Founding Fathers believed in God and that their theology inspired their politics. But to say that God founded America is going a bit too far for a history curriculum.

And too often, the "Judeo-Christian" values that evangelicals claim to adhere to are really just Christian values. 

If the new government, and particularly school, makes people of other religions uncomfortable and unwilling to publicly espouse their own beliefs that might contradict those of the political leaders, then they are not much better than the woke that they are fighting against. 

The Boston Globe's Jeff Jacoby, in his email newsletter today, discusses Thomas Jefferson's attitudes towards religion in public life in America. "The surest way to prevent a society from igniting in religious strife, Jefferson argued, is not through the establishment of an official religion, but through a steadfast refusal to give any religious creed the endorsement of the state, let alone to dictate how Americans should worship or what faith they should confess."

That is the concern with Oklahoma in a nutshell. There is no reason to exclude God from American history, but there is very good reason not to dedicate a state to Jesus. 

It is entirely possible that the reporting on this issue is exaggerated and statements are taken out of context. I hope so. But if we don't want to let states like Oklahoma go down the slippery slope towards an explicitly and exclusively Christian viewpoint, now is the time to call it out. 



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!

 

 

Tuesday, November 08, 2022

Independent Arabia writes:
    
For years , the Israeli authorities have not stopped erecting what the Palestinians call “mock tombs” for settlers in the vicinity of Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem, as a means to confiscate the lands built over them on the grounds that they are old cemeteries , according to the residents of the area.

The Palestinians say that "creating fake graves is a way to confiscate the land, because it is not legal to object to that."

These "fake graves" are concentrated in the town of Silwan, which is adjacent to the southern wall of Al-Aqsa Mosque, especially in the neighborhoods of Wadi Al-Rababa and Wadi Hilweh in the town that the settlement associations are working to Judaize and expel the Palestinians from.

Witnesses said that "the Israeli authorities are working to create a hole 35 cm deep with a diameter of 40 cm, then pour cement over it, and an old stone is placed on top of it, surrounded by old dirt to suggest that the graves are hundreds of years old ."

The witnesses added that the Israeli authorities are currently working on creating hundreds of fake graves in the Wadi al-Rababa area in the town of Silwan.

However, an Israeli official in the Ministry of Jerusalem said that erecting these graves comes to "preserve the old grave [markers] that were removed by torrential rains and the ravages of time, or by Palestinians."

They've made this claim before, and once even put it in a draft UNESCO resolution.  

An left-wing Israeli NGO, Emek Shaveh, works against Israel taking over important archaeological sites. But it had a detailed page on the graves of the Valley of Hinnom/ Wadi Rababa area and how important they are to Jewish history. Excerpts:




The entire area served for burials over thousands of years. 

The area contains many tombs excavated into the rocks, where dozens of people were buried over different periods.   Burial styles and other findings allow us to date the earliest ones to the end of the Judean Kingdom (7-8th Century BCE), and show continuous burials up to the Byzantine period (4-7th Centuries CE).  Along the road that runs from Abu Tur to the valley one can see a number of graves from the Judean kingdom.  Additional graves from that period are found in privately-owned land belonging to residents of Abu-Tur.

In the course of digging in the Valley of Hinnom Shoulder/Ras a-Dabus, where the Begin Center is currently located, archaeologists unearthed a silver scroll dated to the 7th Century BCE with an inscription of a section from the Priestly Blessing, a prayer which was familiar in biblical times and is still recited in synagogues to this day.  This is a rare and unique find that testifies to the continuity of prayer traditions over thousands of years.

A set of excavated family tombs dated to the First Century CE are located near the [Onuphrius] convent.  These are luxury tombs composed of several rooms with carved burial niches.  These structures and the ossuaries (sand-stone chests) within them are evidence of a burial style practiced by Jerusalem area Jews at the time of the Second Temple.  Inscriptions found on some of the tombs and the ossuaries support this claim.  The tombs’ wealth and their presence on this slope testify to the centrality of Jerusalem and of the temple.  Pilgrims from throughout the ancient world made their way to Jerusalem, and the rich among them invested a great deal of money to purchase burial grounds and build opulent family graves.[3]  The graves served these families over several generations.  Inscriptions found on some of the graves include names that appear to belong to families originating outside Jerusalem, such as the cave of the Ariston family, which was based in Apamea, Syria.

This article detailing the existence of hundreds of thousands of Jewish graves from as early as the 8th century BCE was written in 2013, so it pre-dates the claims that the graves are fake. 

Ironically, of course, Palestinians have themselves been caught red handed creating fake graves in Jerusalem. 




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!

 

 

Thursday, October 20, 2022

By Tomer Ilan

 

Recently, there’s a wave of demands from Palestinian Arabs to the United Kingdom to apologize for alleged abuses during the British Mandate period.

Munib al-Masri, a rich Palestinian businessman submitted a dossier of evidence alleging abuses by the British between 1917 and 1948. Masri is planning to present the file to the UK government later this year and is reportedly demanding a formal acknowledgement and apology.

Separately, a Palestinian Arab is seeking an apology from the Royal Ulster Rifles for a 1938 incident in Mandatory Palestine in which he alleged the British troops forced civilians to drive over a landmine after a roadside bomb placed by Arabs killed two British troops.

The Jews have a right to demand an apology from Britain as well.

The Jews deserve an apology from the British for systematically discriminating against the Jews, in terms of official policy against Jewish immigration and Jewish land purchase and settlement in contradiction to international law, namely the Mandate of Palestine. The British government was also deeply involved in the illegal Arab invasion of Israel in the 1948 war.

The first major anti-Jewish move by the British government came in 1922, when The League of Nations, at Britain’s request, modified the mandate by withdrawing Transjordan from the area intended to provide a national home for the Jews. With a stroke of a pen, the Jews lost 78% of the national home promised to them by Britain and the League of Nations.

Then, as a response to Arab violence, including the 1920 Nebi Musa riots and the 1921 Jaffa riots, Britain published a series of White Papers with new anti-Jewish policies that contradicted the legally-binding League of Nations Mandate for Palestine that Britain was supposed to follow.

The Mandate resolution (Article 6) requires Britain to “facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes”. The Mandate states that this shall be done “while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced”.

However, in a series of White Papers published between 1922 and 1939, the British Administration restricted Jewish immigration and settlement rather than “facilitate” and “encourage” it as required in the Mandate resolution.

Initially, the 1922 White Paper vaguely stated that Britain would limit future immigration to "the economic capacity of the country". The 1930 White Paper called for stricter controls to be placed on Jewish immigration and land purchase.

The worst White Paper was published in 1939, on the eve of World War 2, with millions of Jews trying to escape from the Nazi threat in Europe, the paper severely limited Jewish immigration to just 15,000 a year for 5 years and made subsequent immigration to require Arab approval. Jewish purchase of land from Arabs was forbidden in 95% of Palestine.

In effect, the White Paper prevented the escape of millions of Jews from Europe before and during WW2. Six million of those Jews were murdered by the Nazis in the Holocaust. If the British had not imposed the 1939 White Paper immigration restrictions, many of those Jews could have been saved.

The McDonald White Paper of 1939 was explicitly racist and openly discriminated against Jews. Jewish immigration was severely restricted, while Arab immigration was not. Jewish land purchase was forbidden in 95% of the land, while Arab land purchase was allowed in 100% of it. The language of the White Paper was explicit and racist: “Transfer of land save to a Palestinian Arab prohibited” (see map).

In today’s terms, it would be called an “apartheid” White Paper. Anti-Jewish apartheid.



British Land transfer Regulations of 1940 based on the White Paper of 1939

 

Starting from 1939, the British Authorities also restricted Jewish settlement on Jewish-owned land in direct contradiction to the Mandate resolution requiring them to “encourage close settlement by Jews on the land”. The Jews, however, found a way to establish new settlements anyway, the famous “Tower and Stockade” method.

In the 1948 War of Independence, Britain was deeply involved in favor of the Arab side. The Arab Army of Transjordan, more commonly known as the Arab Legion, was financed by Britain and commanded by British officers. The Legion was armed, trained and commanded by British officers and was considered the most effective Arab force in the 1948 war.

The British-backed Arab Legion illegally invaded Palestine in 1948 and helped Jordan illegally occupy eastern Jerusalem and Judea and Samaria between 1948 and 1967.

In 1948, Britain had dominant influence over Egypt, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon as well. Those countries would not invade Palestine to fight the Jews, without British involvement.

This is confirmed by Dr. Ezra Nishry’s research. His 2016 doctoral thesis (English Abstract – p. 510) based mainly on the documents of the British National Archives (as well as Israeli and American documents and previous research literature) confirms that the British organized, armed and pushed the Arab countries to invade Israel in the War of Independence.

Nishry shows that the British government used covert action and pushed for the Arab invasion that was actually carried out on May 15, 1948. According to British sources quoted in the research, the senior British leadership in London determined the end date for the evacuation of the British forces from Palestine, brought it forward, and returned to the original date according to the changing needs of the invasion plans which changed according to the circumstances on the ground. There was a direct connection between planning the timing of the Arab invasion and planning the timing of the British evacuation.

His findings were published in a book “The British Trojan horse in the Israeli War of liberation : 1947-1948”.

In many cases during the 1948 war, the British troops themselves helped the Arabs.

One of the worst incidents was at Radar Hill (near Jerusalem) on 23 April 1948. A Jewish force who tried to evacuate wounded Jewish troops in the Many Jewish fighters were killed and wounded in the Nebi Samuel battle, encountered British fire from Radar Hill which killed and wounded a number of Jews. The wounded Jews were collected by the British and handed over to the Arabs who murdered them.


A sign at Radar Hill mentions the battle on 23 April 1948 in which British troops handed wounded Jewish troops to the Arabs who murdered them.

 

Another example of British involvement against the Jews was in the Etzion Bloc. On 4 May 1948, the Arab Legion aided by the British and by a large number of local Arabs launched a major attack on the Etzion Bloc in which 12 Jewish defenders were killed. A few days later, the Kfar Etzion Massacre was committed and the Bloc was ethnically cleansed from Jews until it was resettled in 1967.

Great Britain should apologize to the Jews for:

  • ·         Giving 78% of the Jewish National Home to the Arabs in 1922
  • ·         Restricting Jewish immigration just before WW2, preventing the escape of millions of Jews from the Holocaust
  • ·         Imposing anti-Jewish “apartheid” laws restricting land purchase by Jews in most of Palestine
  • ·         Opposing the establishment of new Jewish settlements on Jewish-owned land.
  • ·         Britain backing the Arab Legion in 1948 leading to the illegal Jordanian occupation the Old City of Jerusalem and Judea & Samaria until 1967.
  • ·         Britain pushing other Arab states to invade Israel an attempt to annihilate her in 1948.
  • ·         British troops fighting against the Jews in the 1948 war.

These British policies and actions went against their commitment to the League of Nations and against the Mandate for Palestine, i.e. against international law.

The British have more reasons to apologize to the Jews than they do to the Arabs.




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!

 

 




Friday, September 30, 2022

By Martin Ostrow 


Ken Burns’s advance interviews for his new Holocaust film provided much material for public discussion. Now that PBS has broadcast the six-hour series, how does the film measure up?

The answer, unfortunately, is that it’s a disappointment. “The U.S. and the Holocaust” misrepresents some key historical issues and entirely omits crucial information. Ultimately, Ken and his producer partners, Sarah Botstein and Lynn Novick, have failed to deliver the kind of film that we would have expected, given their track record. 

I write not as a historian, but as the producer and director of a previous PBS film on America’s response to the Holocaust, “America and the Holocaust: Deceit and Indifference,” which first aired in 1994. 

Inevitably, both my film and Ken’s cover some of the same ground. We both describe the context in which America’s response to the Holocaust evolved, such as the racism, isolationism, and antisemitism in the United States in the 1930s. Ken handles those themes and the unfolding of the Nazi genocide quite well, worthy moments of Holocaust education.

It is one thing, however, to acknowledge the disturbing trends in public and congressional opinion in those days; it is another to make it seem as if President Franklin D. Roosevelt was captive to them, as Ken does. FDR, after all, was a masterful leader. When he cared about an issue, he knew how to fight for it. But he made no real effort concerning the plight of Jewish refugees, not even to let them stay temporarily in a U.S. territory such as the Virgin Islands.

One might argue that Ken’s series is so broad and complex that it’s easy to lose Roosevelt in its massive story. Perhaps that was his intention. Ken certainly has the skill to render his subjects with vivid three-dimensional effect. Yet in this vast work, FDR is at times ghost-like—a hapless, impotent figure. The film offers excuses for the president’s inaction and shifts almost all the blame to Assistant Secretary of State Breckinridge Long. Viewers could easily forget who actually hired Long, and who could have fired him if he had wanted to. Long served at the pleasure of the president, not the other way around.

It's a shame the series brings nothing new to understanding Roosevelt’s troubling decisions and motivations. Ken had a major advantage in making this new film. He could have drawn on significant information scholars have uncovered in the past two decades about FDR and America’s response to the Holocaust. I’m puzzled and disappointed he did not.  For example:

— FDR’s Private Feelings About Jews. Historians have uncovered more than a dozen private statements made by Roosevelt in which he disparaged “Jewish blood,” advocated quotas on Jews in various professions (and college admissions), and even accused the publishers of the New York Times of using a “dirty Jewish trick” to gain a tax advantage. While President Roosevelt’s private feelings about Jews may or may not offer a clue to his policies concerning Jewish refugees, they at least need to be part of the conversation. Yet they are not mentioned in the film.

— The James McDonald Diaries. The discovery of the diaries of the late refugee advocate and diplomat James G. McDonald shed new light on his efforts to help the Jews—and the refusal of the Roosevelt administration to assist him. Remarkably, McDonald is not even mentioned in the film.

— The George McGovern Interview. In a revealing 2004 interview with filmmakers Chaim Hecht and Stuart Erdheim, George McGovern, the former senator and presidential nominee, recounted his experiences as a World War II pilot who bombed the oil factories in the slave labor section of Auschwitz. McGovern’s eyewitness recollections about the feasibility of bombing the railways leading to the camp tell us much more than Ken’s commentators, who offer confusing speculations about why neither the railways nor the gas chambers were ever bombed.

Admittedly, a disadvantage Ken suffered was that in the decades since my film, some of the remaining principal figures in the story passed away. For example, unlike Ken, I had the opportunity to personally interview John Pehle, the first director of the War Refugee Board. 

Recalling the British-American conference on refugees held in remote Bermuda in 1943, Pehle told me it was “a conference set up to not accomplish anything, and the people who represented the United States there were given those instructions.”  Yet the Bermuda meeting, a crucial event in the history of the U.S. response to the Holocaust, was not even mentioned by Ken. 

Regarding the failure to bomb Auschwitz, Pehle says in my film, “After we recommended to the War Department that the extermination facilities at Auschwitz be bombed, we were told [that] this would involve bombers being sent from England…and therefore, it was not possible to do this. Later, perhaps after the war, we discovered at the very time we were recommending this, bombing all around Auschwitz was going on from Italy, and we had been misled.” Pehle’s powerful words should have been in Ken’s film. They are not.

As with every Ken Burns film, "The U.S. and the Holocaust” includes affecting cinematography, touching moments, and memorable music--although the decision to appropriate the precise Bach violin concerto passage from the most poignant moment of my film, is certainly questionable. 

But the film's strengths do not make up for the fact that this Burns production stumbles when it comes to the most important parts of the historical record. Ken promised "The U.S. and the Holocaust" would answer many of the lingering questions about our nation’s response to the Nazi genocide. But after watching all six-plus hours of the film, I can only imagine that many people are still asking the same questions. They certainly should be.

[Martin Ostrow has been an award-winning documentary producer, writer and director for public, commercial and cable television for more than 30 years.]



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

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424. 

Read all about it here!

 

 

AddToAny

EoZ Book:"Protocols: Exposing Modern Antisemitism"

Printfriendly

EoZTV Podcast

Podcast URL

Subscribe in podnovaSubscribe with FeedlyAdd to netvibes
addtomyyahoo4Subscribe with SubToMe

search eoz

comments

Speaking

translate

E-Book

For $18 donation








Sample Text

EoZ's Most Popular Posts in recent years

Hasbys!

Elder of Ziyon - حـكـيـم صـهـيـون



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

Donate!

Donate to fight for Israel!

Monthly subscription:
Payment options


One time donation:

subscribe via email

Follow EoZ on Twitter!

Interesting Blogs

Blog Archive