Right after two Lebanese ministers proudly videoed themselves hurling rocks towards the border with Israel, Palestinian Media Watch found this news story about the Palestinian Museum in Ramallah, where there is a new interactive "intifada" exhibit.
Director of The Palestinian Museum’s Information and Communication Technology Unit Nasri Shtayyeh: “The user can choose one of these interactive stories. The first story is the intifada, and they have a kind of emotion, because the moment [the museum visitor] enters the story he needs to respond, since he is entering an environment of intifada that could contain throwing rocks, it could have road closures, it could have vehicles entering.”
…
Official PA TV host: “Let’s try it.”
Nasri Shtayyeh: “It’s really nice, and it’s interactive.”
[Official PA TV, At the Museum, Aug. 24, 2022]
We always wondered what a Palestinian museum would include. Now we know - it glorifies terror, the major Palestinian accomplishment.
Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism today at Amazon!
Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.
A Google employee who became the most visible opponent of a company contract with the Israeli military said on Tuesday that she would resign after claiming Google had tried to retaliate against her for her activism.
The employee, Ariel Koren, a marketing manager for Google’s educational products arm who has worked for the company for seven years, wrote a memo to colleagues announcing her plan to leave Google at the end of the week.
She spent more than a year organizing against Project Nimbus, a $1.2 billion agreement for Google and Amazon to supply Israel and its military with artificial intelligence tools and other computing services. Ms. Koren, 28, helped circulate petitions and lobby executives, and she talked to news organizations, all in an effort to get Google to reconsider the deal.
Then, in November, she said, came a surprising ultimatum from Google: Agree to move to São Paulo, Brazil, within 17 business days or lose your job.
Ms. Koren marketed educational products to Latin America and was based in Mexico City before moving to San Francisco during the pandemic. But, she said, there was not a clear business justification for the mandated move or its urgency, and a supervisor in Brazil told her that employees in São Paulo were working from home because of the pandemic.
But then we see this lone sentence:
Google and the National Labor Relations Board investigated her complaint and found no wrongdoing.
The NLRB dismissal letter shows that Koren's entire complaint is baseless - because Google's decision to move her role to Brazil came before she started her complaints about Israel and Project Nimbus: (I inserted her name in the redacted area.)
(I was skeptical at first, but this is definitely the correct dismissal letter, since that case number was linked in an article about Koren's complaint in March.)
The New York Times not mentioning this important fact is journalistic malpractice. It upends the entire point of the article.
Koren and the BDSers have been masterful at gaining outsized publicity since the Project Nimbus protests started.
The number of Google employees who protested the project is minuscule, but they still got their open letter published in The Guardian.
Then the BDSers pretended that there was a "shareholder revolt" which was similarly grossly exaggerated - but it generated a headline at The Intercept.
After that fizzled, the BDSers asked US students to sign a "pledge" that they will not accept internships at Google and Amazon, and again very few signed - but it was enough for them to trumpet it as a victory.
Koren's false claim that Google is retaliating against her was chapter four in this monomaniacal attempt to demonize Israel and pressure Google. Since there have been a number of similar retaliation complaints against Google in recent years, this one has received more publicity than the others did. Check out this March Los Angeles Times headline:
Koren's quitting Google is chapter five. After all, if her work environment was so toxic, she would have left Google long ago. But she wanted to squeeze out one more wave of anti-Israel articles - and the New York Times is happy to do its part.
I'll bet that Koren has been job searching for months and has another position lined up - but is framing her changing jobs, among Silicon Valley's constant employee turnover, as a principled decision to resign from Google.
(Resolution 2650 of) the Security Council requests the LAF and the UN Secretary General set out precise benchmarks and timelines for the effective and durable deployment of the Lebanese Armed Forces in southern Lebanon and in the country’s territorial waters. ...
The Council reiterates that UNIFIL does not require prior authorization or permission from anyone to undertake its mandated tasks, and that it is allowed to conduct its operations independently. It calls on the parties to guarantee UNIFIL’s freedom of movement, including by allowing announced and unannounced patrols. The Council condemns the harassment and intimidation of UNIFIL personnel, as well as the use of disinformation campaigns against peacekeepers. It further requests the mission to take measures to monitor and counter disinformation.
The Council also expresses concern in the resolution about some developments along the Blue Line. It notes the recent installation of containers that restrict peacekeepers’ access to, or ability to see, parts of the line. It also condemns the presence of unauthorized weapons controlled by armed groups in UNIFIL’s area of operations.
That last sentence is a condemnation of Hezbollah by the UN Security Council. But it refuses to name Hezbollah!
That is cowardly. While it is obvious that this resolution is meant to condemn Hezbollah, by not saying their name, they are letting them off the hook.
The resolution actually condemns two unnamed groups - both of which are Hezbollah.
The "containers" it mentions are from an NGO called "Green Without Borders" that is a Hezbollah front. Its leader is aligned with Hezbollah, outposts they build are used by Hezbollah, and these "containers" just happen to be right on the Blue Line, which seems awfully coincidental and political for an environmental group.
Palestinians use "human rights" NGOs to hide terror activity. Hezbollah uses "environmental" NGOs to do the same.
Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism today at Amazon!
Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.
In the context of the ongoing armed conflict between Russia and Ukraine, Amnesty International (AI) recently issued a report, dated August 4, 2022, entitled “Ukrainian Fighting Tactics Endanger Civilians.”1 This report names Ukraine responsible for the deaths of Ukrainian citizens caused by Russian bombardments. The report accuses Ukraine of violating international humanitarian law and endangering its own civilians “by establishing bases and operating weapons systems in populated residential areas, including in schools and hospitals…” and thereby turning civilian objects into military targets, generating Russian strikes in populated areas thereby causing civilian fatalities and destruction of civilian infrastructure.”
There can be no doubt as to the centrality and essential nature of those humanitarian requirements set out in the internationally accepted and recognized instruments of international humanitarian law, requiring the protection of civilians and avoidance of military attacks against civilian concentrations and objects. Such instruments include the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, Geneva, 12 August 1949,3 and the Protocol Additional relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977.
To maintain credibility and dignity as a bona fide human rights watchdog, Amnesty International must carry out its duty impartially and without the slightest indication of political partisanship.
The choice of Amnesty International to direct the bulk of its criticism against Ukraine and to hold Ukraine partly responsible for the deaths of Ukrainians attacked by the Russian military has become the subject of considerable international criticism.5 This is especially true since the report implies that Ukraine may be committing war crimes and that its soldiers’ actions might be interpreted as using civilians as human shields.
Much of the criticism revolves around serious flaws and clumsy and negligent methodology used by Amnesty International researchers and the fact that the organization chose to publish its findings despite a lack of solid facts and without taking into due consideration pertinent constraints generated by the context of the Russian offensive.6
Nevertheless, one cannot avoid drawing a comparison between Amnesty International’s demonstrated and justified concern for the protection of civilians and civilian centers in Ukraine and its demonstrated and unjustified lack of concern about the actions of Palestinian terror groups in the Gaza Strip.
While Amnesty calls out Ukraine for allegedly “establishing bases and operating weapons systems in populated residential areas, including in schools and hospitals, thereby turning civilian objects into military targets,” it curiously refrains from addressing precisely the same phenomenon employed by the Palestinian terror groups Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad.
Such an apparent double standard is incompatible with Amnesty International’s core principles and stated mission.
Amnesty appears to ignore or minimize blatant violations of international humanitarian law committed by these Palestinian terror groups in using the local Palestinian public in the Gaza Strip as human shields and in flagrantly directing thousands of rockets against Israeli civilian targets, including towns, villages, agricultural centers, schools, and hospitals.
Gorbachev hadn’t come into office as an advocate for human rights, economic liberalism or freedom for the captive nations that languished under Soviet control. Nor was he known for his love of the Jewish people. Had he been any of those things, he never would have been elevated to the head of the Communist state. But his ability to see the weakness of the Soviet state and, unlike his predecessors, his lack of any real prejudice against Jews led him to a series of decisions that would lead to the end of the regime and the opening of the gates to a million Jews who chose to leave for Israel and the United States.
Still, none of that would have happened had the West continued to be led by weak leaders like President Jimmy Carter, or realists like President Richard Nixon and Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, who were so overawed by the facade of Soviet strength that they chose a policy of détente that essentially accepted it rather than seeking to resist it. Though hailed in the 1970s as astute foreign policy, détente helped prop up and preserve the Soviet Union. Reagan and Thatcher chose a different path, which eventually created the circumstances that led Gorbachev to concede that the Soviets couldn’t beat the West.
Equally important was the resistance to Soviet tyranny on the part of dissidents like nuclear physicist Andrei Sakharov and refuseniks like Sharansky, who inspired not just the movement to free Soviet Jewry but a spirit of revulsion against the Soviets in Western opinion that buttressed Reagan’s stand.
Sadly, Gorbachev’s failure to preserve the Soviet Union set an example that other tyrants aren’t likely to forget. In 1989, most people were sure that the Chinese Communist state would suffer the same fate as the empire of Lenin and Stalin. But the Chinese Communist Party had no intention of being merely shoved aside as their Soviet counterparts had been. It liberalized its economy, allowed massive investment from the West, and made it richer and stronger. Still, its leaders never loosened up their authoritarian instincts, repressing freedom of speech and all dissent even as they legalized free enterprise, albeit with the state always having the option to step in and take what it wants.
The Iranian regime understands that same fact and unleashes its Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps to massacre dissidents in the streets whenever protests arise.
The demise of Christianity in Palestinian-controlled areas is part of a more general pattern of Christians disappearing in the Middle East and North Africa.
In 2019, a UK-commissioned report laid bare the scale of the problem, describing their dwindling numbers as “coming close to genocide.”
“Forms of persecution ranging from routine discrimination in education, employment and social life up to genocidal attacks against Christian communities have led to a significant exodus of Christian believers from this region since the turn of the century,” the report said.
“In countries such as Algeria, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Syria and Saudi Arabia the situation of Christians and other minorities has reached an alarming stage. In Saudi Arabia there are strict limitations on all forms of expression of Christianity including public acts of worship. There have been regular crackdowns on private Christian services,” the report concluded.
The crisis currently facing Christians is not unique to the region — it is part of a grim pattern that started with the mass expulsion of Jews over 70 years ago.
As HonestReporting has detailed, approximately one million Jewish residents of Arab countries were forced to flee their homes following the rejection by Palestinian and Arab leaders of the 1947 UN Partition Plan.
Although Jews had lived in North Africa and the Middle East continuously for thousands of years — long before the advent of the Islamic faith — their presence has, except for in Israel, effectively been eliminated.
Christians living under Palestinian rule and in the region as a whole now face the same future. This, while church leaders fail to denounce the root cause.
New York, September 1 - Museums, schools, libraries, and other repositories of the collective wisdom and artistic-intellectual output of the preceding generations have embarked on a program to render all such materials into indistinct, vague masses lest anyone experience negative emotional responses to an encounter with anything resembling an assertion.
Leading cultural institutions resolved this week to protect the fragile psyches of humans by turning all textual, visual, tactile, and acoustic media into blobs of undiscernible nothingness, in keeping with the burgeoning trend of avoiding offense wherever and however possible. Representatives of the institutions announced the initiative following an incident last week in which a visitor to the Metropolitan Museum of Art called all attempts to examine, study, learn from, analyze, or explain anything that came from another culture "exploitation" and "appropriation." The complaint prompted museum officials and colleagues throughout the cultural and academic world to "do better" by removing all content that could insult, or be interpreted to insult, marginalized communities.
"Our entire collection or objets d'art excludes the visually-impaired," observed Neffer Gudenov, a curator at the Met. "So we're going to get rid of it all. I understand that the New York Philharmonic will now only perform or commission works that contain no audible notes, so as not to violate the sensibilities and sensitivities of the hearing-impaired. This is a welcome change in the cultural world, a long time in coming."
The New York Times will eliminate its print and online presence, except the braille edition, an editorial announced Thursday. "We will begin to phase out our visual media - articles, photos, caricature, illustrations, advertisements, anything visual," the editorial stated. "For too long, the literate and seeing demographics have, ironically, not seen those among us who cannot see or read. Even the braille edition will come to an end by mid-2023, since the use of braille requires literacy, and that discriminate against the literacy-impaired."
The Museum of Modern Art considers itself ahead of the curve on this cultural matter. "Art went conceptual ages ago," explained Putin Yuan, a docent at MOMA. "Even some of our visual exhibits only exist temporarily, by design. We're uniquely placed to lead this evolution of empathy."
Activists hope the phenomenon expands beyond cultural output. "We can eliminate uniqueness of shape, style, color, comfort, or any indications of difference from, from example, cars," suggested one activist. "It's hurtful to the have-nots when someone else can afford more than they can, and seeing such a car, or hearing an ad for it, or somebody mentioning it, causes trauma. I don't even need to mention the exclusion of color-blind folx. If things go according to plan, we can live in a society of total equality where no one lives in an easier-to-find or easier-to-reach place than anyone else, and no one has any reason to live more than anyone else."
Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism today at Amazon!
Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.
Iran has been waging war non-stop on the West and its allies in the Middle East since the Islamic Revolution in 1979. Appeasing Tehran by endorsing its nuclear program and handing it billions of dollars from sanctions relief will empower and encourage the ayatollahs to even greater aggression.
The mantra of the apologists for President Biden's attempt to revive President Obama's failed agreement from 2015 that paved the way to an Iranian nuclear bomb is "a bad deal is better than no deal." Well, no, it is not. The argument is that it buys time for the West, with optimism that "something will turn up." But optimism is not a strategy and certainly not for dealing with a violent revolutionary regime dedicated to the destruction of the Jewish state, which it sees as the proxy of its ultimate enemy, America.
The "buying time" argument only works if you do not understand Iran and are naive enough to believe the regime will honor what it agrees to. The reality is that the regime in Tehran will ignore constraints imposed by the deal that it does not like. That is what it did with the original JCPOA and its other international undertakings including the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty that it has frequently breached.
Tehran will continue to develop its nuclear capability - deal or no deal - at the speed it wants until it is physically stopped from doing so. The $100 billion a year it will receive as a result of lifted sanctions will enable Iran to speed up its nuclear program, including development of ballistic missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads to Europe and the U.S. Iran's regional aggression will shift into overdrive with the massive cash injection.
The issue of the Temple Mount becoming a geopolitical flashpoint between Israel and its neighbors has robbed us of the opportunity of speaking about it religiously and historically. The increasing numbers of Israelis supporting a Jewish presence on Temple Mount, and the growing number of Jews ascending to Temple Mount – most famously the recent visit by conservative political commentator Ben Shapiro – demand that we ask ourselves: where is this all heading, and what would we like to see happen on the Temple Mount?
If the White House, Saudi crown prince Mohammed bin Salman, Jordan’s Abdullah, China’s Xi Jinping, and the Secretary General of the UN all called and told the Israeli government that they would be delighted to see Israel take full control of Temple Mount, what would we do next?
Differing Jewish views on the matter
To answer this, we must note the different positions among the Jewish people on this matter. The overwhelming number of Orthodox rabbis and the Chief Rabbinate would ask that the area be fenced in and that no one be allowed at the site known as Har Habayit until the messiah miraculously arrives.
On the other side of the spectrum, there is a fringe group of religious Jews who have been anticipating such a moment and would like to engage in a complete reconstruction of the Temple, build the Third Temple, and bring daily sacrifices and offerings so that “the offerings of Judah and Jerusalem shall be pleasing to God as in the days of yore and in the years of old” (Malachi 3).
In fact, in 1962, five years before the Six Day War, the IDF’s chief rabbi, Shlomo Goren, published an article saying that if Israel were to take over Jerusalem, we would be obliged to rebuild the Beit Hamikdash.
These two sides of the spectrum are irreconcilable. Those who believe in fencing the area off until the messiah arrives are not neutral on the matter – it is their belief, and they are the majority. To them, building the Temple and offering sacrifices – or even going up there today – is a far worse problem than the current status quo.
Unpacked: The Secret Agreement That Shaped the Middle East | History of Israel Explained
It was 1916 and World War I was raging. Countries were fighting for resources, land and power and the Ottoman Empire was on its deathbed.
With all eyes on the Empire’s territories, the secretive Sykes-Picot agreement was created to decide who would get control over what would become Syria, Lebanon, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, and Iraq, as well as parts of future Saudi Arabia and Turkey.
However, in 1920, representatives at the San Remo Conference tossed these secret plans out in favor of “mandates'' AKA territory temporarily governed by an Allied power. This led to the British Mandate over Palestine, and the eventual establishment of Israel as a legal national home for the Jewish people.
CNN Arabic quotes an episode in Jared Kushner's book Breaking History that I couldn't find in any English-language articles. The quotes are obviously translated from English to Arabic and back, so they will not be exact quotes from the book.
The President was scheduled to meet with the president of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas, in the West Bank. Abbas came to the White House in May, told the president he was ready to negotiate, and expressed confidence in Trump as an arbiter of a peace agreement between the Palestinians and Israel. We were impressed, but we were still waiting to hear more. Just before we left, Ambassador Friedman showed Trump a video of Abbas making serious threats towards the Israeli people.
Friedman's message was clear: Be careful with Abbas - he tells you he's for peace in English, but look carefully at what he says in Arabic. Tillerson saw what was happening in the video and got angry, claiming he was dishonest. Friedman replied: ' Are you saying he didn't say these things?' Tillerson had to admit that they were Abbas's words, but he was angry that he was losing control. It was important for the president to see all sides of the issue, especially since he was hearing from so many respectable businessmen that Abbas was a serious man who genuinely wanted to make peace.
During the bilateral meeting in Ramallah, Abbas recited the same talking points he had used during his last visit to the White House. It was as if the first meeting never happened. He failed to show any progress on the issues he and Trump had previously discussed. Trump was disappointed. He was furious and did not mince his words: 'You pay those who kill Israelis. This is official government policy. You have to stop this. We can make a deal in two seconds. I have the best players on it. But I want to see some action. I want to I see it quickly, I don't think you want to make a deal.'
Abbas became defensive and complained about Israeli security. Trump replied: 'Wait: Israel is good at security, and you say you're not going to take security from them? Are you crazy? Without Israel, ISIS can take over your territory in about twenty minutes. We're spending so much on the military. Everyone in this region spends a fortune on security. If I can get high-quality security for free to America and save the cost, I'll take it in a second'.... After witnessing Abbas' stubbornness, I understand better why 12 former presidents tried and failed in reaching a peace agreement.
This sounds like Trump - and Tillerman, and Friedman, and Abbas himself. It is consistent with what Friedman wrote in his memoir about the meeting with Trump. The Jerusalem Post said that the businessman who had tried to convince Trump that Abbas was peaceful was Ronald Lauer, which is sort of amazing - he used to be a Netanyahu supporter but had a falling out, but to hate Netanyahu so much as to tell Trump that he should accept Abbas as a peaceful statesman is almost beyond belief.
CNN Arabic contacted the Palestinian foreign ministry to comment with no response.
It is interesting that this was not reported in English-language CNN. Apparently, criticizing Abbas in English does not fit the narrative.
Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism today at Amazon!
Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.
Israel-hater and antisemite Roger Waters is in the midst of a North American tour. The Times of Israel writes about the concert and the protesters outside his New York show on Tuesday.
Waters puts political messages on a massive screen, and among them are messages about how awful "occupation" is.
Waters became a spokesperson for BDS in 2011, so it is safe to say that he held these opinions for over a decade.
If all that is true, then how come he performed Pink Floyd's "The Wall" in 2013 - in Istanbul, Turkey? You know, the country that occupies part of Cyprus?
Waters, in his own words, must endorse the Turkish occupation of Northern Cyprus.
Which means Roger Waters, human rights activist, endorses occupation.
Lebanese ministers were filmed hurling rocks across the country's border with Israel during a visit to Lebanon's southern border on Tuesday.
A report broadcast by Lebanon's Al Jadeed TV showed Minister of Energy Walid Fayyad and Minister of Social Affairs Dr. Hector Hajjar throwing several rocks across the Blue Line, which marks the country's southern frontier with Israel.
The ministers were accompanied by several other members of Lebanon's cabinet.
Video of the event was widely shared - and widely mocked by Lebanese.
1. "It's so sad... They are literally throwing my future away..."
2. "Before finding the time to throw stones, how about you work on providing me with electricity."
3. "[The ministers] prevent us from ever progressing out of the Stone Age..."
4. "(Dear) Minister of Energy, you can't even turn on a light bulb, and you want to wipe Israel off the face of the earth by throwing a stone (at it)?"
5. "They took a group of idiots and made them ministers..."
6. "Echoes of explosions of laughter heard yesterday coming from the Israeli settlements..."
7. "How do you want us to have electricity when the "Minister of Darkness" is an idiot, and the "Minister of Diapers" is even more idiotic than him?
Others say the Energy Minister is trying to cut off electricity to Israel since he has experience in that area, or that the ministers are bombing Lebanon with the newest missiles.
Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism today at Amazon!
Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.
The past and present danced together on Monday night in Basel, Switzerland. It wasn’t just due to the black-bearded, top-hatted Theodor Herzl impersonator, who gave stunningly relevant answers by quoting Herzl’s writings to questions about various contemporary issues today. It wasn’t just due to the moving appearance of the great-granddaughter of the falsely accused French army captain, Alfred Dreyfus, in the Stadt Casino where 208 delegates gathered 125 years ago in 1897 to launch the formal Zionist movement.
And it wasn’t just due to the brave speeches of various Swiss leaders who owned up to the ugly Swiss tradition of antisemitism – during Herzl’s and Hitler’s eras. The choreographer-in-chief that night, who harmonized the history of yesterday with the wonders of today before 1,400 people, was Israel’s president, Isaac Herzog.Wisely speaking in Hebrew, even though much of the 125th anniversary of Herzl’s First Zionist Congress this week transpired in English, Herzog was at his best. The setting was sublime, oozing with Herzl’s essence, with the nervousness, excitement, and ultimately, the miraculous, epic transformations triggered by that one game-changing meeting decades ago in Basel. Using Herzl’s words, dreams and achievements as launching pads, Herzog challenged us all to reclaim Zionism. Zionism, he explained, was not an evolution but a revolution – a radical, brave, break from the past to save the Jewish people.
It was bold, modern and democratic, yet rooted in Jewish tradition. Ultimately, Herzog explained, Zionism’s greatest gift to the Jewish people was delivering independence after millennia of toxic dependence on others.
Today, when we are so used to Jewish independence, our challenge is to keep dreaming and keep building. Without being heavy-handed, without finger-pointing or guilt-tripping, and without being partisan, Herzog articulated a renewed liberal-democratic Herzlian vision of understanding that nationalism is the most effective vehicle for finding meaning in life individually and improving the world collectively. “Zionism,” Herzog explained, “is not just a shared fate, but a shared mission.”
Israeli President Isaac Herzog and Prime Minister Yair Lapid joined international leaders on Wednesday in eulogizing former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, who died on Tuesday at the age of 91.
“Mikhail Gorbachev was one of the 20th century’s most extraordinary figures,” Herzog said in a statement. “He was a brave and visionary leader, who shaped our world in ways previously thought unimaginable. I was proud to meet him during his 1992 visit to Israel. Heartfelt condolences to his family and friends.”
Lapid issued a statement saying that “Mikhail Gorbachev, the last leader of the Soviet Union, passed away yesterday at the age of 91. He was a brave leader and great statesman, who contributed greatly to the rehabilitation of relations between his country and Israel, and opened the gates of the Soviet Union for the great wave of Jewish immigration to Israel in the 1990s.”
Russia’s Central Clinical Hospital in Moscow said in a statement on Tuesday that “Gorbachev passed away tonight after a serious and protracted disease.”
Gorbachev was instrumental in helping to end the Cold War between the Soviet Union and the United States without bloodshed but failed to prevent the Soviet Union from collapsing, Reuters noted in a report on Tuesday.
He secured armament reduction treaties with the U.S. and alliances with Western powers to lift the Iron Curtain that had divided Europe since World War II and bring Germany back together, the report said.
However, his internal reforms contributed to the Soviet Union’s demise, which Russian President Vladimir Putin has described as the “biggest geopolitical calamity” of the twentieth century.
Former refusenik and prisoner of Zion Natan Sharansky said on Wednesday that the late leader of the Soviet Union Mikhail Gorbachev would never have released Soviet Jewry had it not been for the global pressure campaign to do so.
Sharansky’s comments came following the death of Gorbachev at 91 on Tuesday.
The former Israeli cabinet minister and chairman of the Jewish Agency said that for Gorbachev, the heavy cost the Soviet Union paid due to its political repression was what convinced him to relax policies toward Jewish practice and emigration, not any particular sympathy he had for Soviet Jews.
Sharansky, who spent almost nine years in a forced labor camp, was the first Soviet political prisoner to be released by Gorbachev after the latter assumed the leadership of the Soviet Union in 1985.
“Gorbachev strongly believed in communism and believed that the ideas of Marx and Lenin were truly what was best, but also realized that the system wasn’t working for the Soviet Union,” Sharansky told The Times of Israel.
“He understood that there was a need to give some freedom to people,” such as greater civil rights and economic opportunity.
“What he didn’t understand was that if you give a little freedom, the people will demand a lot of freedom,” he said.
The anti-Israel crowd likes to insist that Israel can’t be “home”
for a Jew, because the Jews were gone for thousands of years. The Arabs, they say,
have a more recent claim. But what about the Arabs who live in Jordan, comprised of 80 percent of the British Mandate for Palestine? How can they “return” to “Palestine”
when they are already IN Palestine—Mandate Palestine. Aren't they already home?
The Right of Return in the eyes of the world applies only to Arabs, never to Jews. The "key of return" has come to symbolize the hope of Arabs to boot out the current residents of homes their ancestors fled in 1948. Why is it not equally valid for Jews, with their own symbol of hope, the mizrach sign that points to Jerusalem and denotes the direction of prayer, to return to the Jewish homeland? Does it matter where they lived after expulsion? What is the expiration date on reclaiming a home and who gets to determine this date?
An Arab woman holds a symbolic "Key of Return"
Framed mizrach with the word מזרח on the wall (Jan Voerman, De treurdagen 'the sorrowful days', c. 1884)
A more basic question might be: Where is home? Is it the place where your grandparents lived or the city of your birth? Because if you tell me that I should go back to Pittsburgh because I was born there, isn't it the same for those who were born in Amman, Lebanon, Syria, and the many other countries to which Arabs fled in 1948? They had children and grandchildren born in these countries. And of course, those who fled to Jordan never really left. They just moved to a different part of "Palestine."
As did those who fled to Syria.
Veteran (now dead) White House Correspondent Helen Thomas once
suggested that “Jews Get the Hell out of ‘Palestine’” and “go home” to Poland
and Germany. Thomas covered the White House through ten presidential
administrations, from Kennedy to Obama. But telling Jews to go back to Poland
and Germany, as it turns out, was considered beyond the pale. Because everyone knew that
it was in Germany and Poland that Jews, not so long ago, had been
systematically gassed and burned in the millions. Thomas, in essence, wasn't sending Jews home, but to their deaths.
Even those who agreed with Thomas' sentiment probably would have
wished her more circumspect. Thomas had allowed the veneer of the professional journalist to slip, revealing her hate. The optics were not good. As a result, Thomas was
forced to retire in disgrace, a victim of her own loose lips. At 89, she was
still in full possession of her mental faculties, the verbal fart
notwithstanding. She knew exactly what she was saying. She just hadn’t known
she would not get away with it.
I remember Thomas often, though not with fondness. She comes to mind when I respond to comments on Twitter or Quora suggesting I have forfeited the right of return. Not
long ago, for example, when I spoke of returning to my homeland, Mary-Lee Lutz
commented, “If everyone returned to the place where their ancestors lived
thousands of years ago we’d all live in Africa,” and “Your home is in
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA. Come home. You will be welcomed back.”
Lutz says Pittsburgh is my home, because this is
where I was born and raised. This business of others defining "home" for Jews in exile, has become part of the anti-Israel, really antisemitic narrative. Jews are often told that Europe is “home," as in the aforementioned case of Helen Thomas. If we follow this logic, how then do we account
for Sephardim and Mizrachim—Jews who were not in Poland and Germany? How do we
account for the continuous, though sometimes minority Jewish presence in Israel? And as was
alluded to earlier, how do we account for the Arabs who were not born in the
State of Israel, for example, most of the over 80% of the Arab population of Jordan
that calls itself “Palestinian?”
The creation of Transjordan was meant to placate the
Arabs. They were angry after the Balfour Declaration declared British government support for the creation of a Jewish national home in British Mandate Palestine.
The Arabs wanted their own national home in British Mandate Palestine. So the British carved
away some 80 percent of the Mandate from land they’d promised to restore to the Jews, and
gave it instead to the Arabs.
There, one might reasonably say to the Arabs of Jordan. There is your state. Your Palestine. Your home. Return your keys to the new owners after your relocation to a different part of the same country.
Because if you are in Jordan today, and call yourself “Palestinian,” you are more likely to have been born in Jordan as opposed to what is today, the State of Israel. Jordan and Israel both exist within the confines of the British Mandate for Palestine. Does it matter who is sovereign or where your grandparents lived? And if “Israel” is really “Palestine,” why isn't Jordan?
If you live in Amman, Jordan is your most recent home, no matter how long your family lived in Haifa or Jerusalem. Why then do you insist that you are not, in actual fact, at home?
This 1949 Jordanian stamp picturing King Abdullah, bears the label "Palestine" in both English and Arabic.
This 1964 Jordanian stamp bears the likeness of King Hussein and depicts Mandate Palestine as an undivided territory comprising all of modern day Israel and Jordan.
In 1948, King Abdullah declared, “Palestine and Jordan
are one,” and in 1981, his son King Hussein said, “The truth is that Jordan is
Palestine and Palestine Jordan.”
Why should we not believe them? Are these kings of “Palestine”
somehow not sufficiently authoritative? Rabbi Joe Katz offers a fuller picture of reality:
[About] seventy-five percent of Palestine's "native
soil," east of the Jordan River, called Jordan, is literally an
independent Palestinian-Arab state located on the majority of the land of
Palestine; it contains a majority of Palestinian Arabs in its army as well as its
population. In April 1948, just before the formal hostilities were launched
against Israel's statehood, Abdullah of Transjordan declared: "Palestine
and Transjordan are one, for Palestine is the coastline and Transjordan the
hinterland of the same country." Abdullah's policy was defended against
"Arab challengers" by Prime Minister Hazza al-Majali: “We are the
army of Palestine.... the overwhelming majority of the Palestine Arabs ... are
living in Jordan.”
Although Abdullah's acknowledgment of Palestinian identity
was not in keeping with the policy of his grandson, [King Hussein], Jordan is
nonetheless undeniably Palestine, protecting a predominantly Arab Palestinian
population with an army containing a majority of Arab Palestinians, and often
governed by them as well. Jordan remains an independent Arab Palestinian state
where a Palestinian Arab "law of return" applies: its nationality
code states categorically that all Palestinians are entitled to citizenship by
right unless they are Jews. In most demographic studies, and wherever peoples
are designated, including contemporary Arab studies, the term applied to
citizens of Jordan is "Palestinian/Jordanian."
In 1966 PLO spokesman Ahmed Shukeiry declared that “The
Kingdom of Palestine must become the Palestinian Republic.”
Yasser Arafat has stated that Jordan is Palestine. Other
Arab leaders, even King Hussein and Prince Hassan of Jordan, from time to time
[affirmed] that "Palestine is Jordan and Jordan is Palestine."
Moreover, in 1970-1971, later called the "Black September" period,
when King Hussein waged war against Yasser Arafat's Arab PLO forces, who had
been operating freely in Jordan until then, it was considered not an invasion
of foreign terrorists but a civil war. It was "a final crackdown"
against those of "his people" whom he accused of trying to establish
a separate Palestinian state, under Arab Palestinian rule instead of his own,
"criminals and conspirators who use the commando movement to disguise
their treasonable plots," to "destroy the unity of the Jordanian and
Palestinian people."
Indeed, the "native soil" of Arab and Jewish
"Palestines" each gained independence within the same two-year
period, Transjordan in 1946 and Israel in 1948. Yet today, in references to the
"Palestine" conflict, even the most serious expositions of the problem
refer to Palestine as though it consisted only of Israel -- as in the
statement, "In 1948 Palestine became Israel." The term
"Israel" is commonly used as if it were the sum total of
"Palestine."
I am reminded of a necklace
I wear, a gold silhouette of the map of Israel. More and more, Arabs
are marketing this necklace and other items taking this shape, as if it were the
map of “Palestine.” If it were really the map of “Palestine,” would it not
then include Jordan, established as the national Arab home in
Palestine in 1922, and declared as such by so many Arab luminaries in subsequent years? And why, if you
were born in Amman, are you not already home—I would posit more
so than if you had been born in Pittsburgh, Warsaw or Berlin?
Because Pittsburgh is not in Palestine, but Jordan is. To what then are you returning? And why should anyone leave home?
Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism today at Amazon!
Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.
The Hassan II Mosque in Casablanca is one of the largest and most magnificent mosques in the world. This mosque was built half on the sea and half on land. Unlike Al-Aqsa Mosque, there is no restriction on visiting and praying there by Muslims, Jews and Christians. The concept is generous and broad: a house of prayer is meant for everyone. That's why Jews also visit the mosque and pray with their neighbors, out of closeness to others and love of people.
The financing of the construction of this mosque, which lasted eight years, was imposed on all Moroccan residents regardless of religion. During Ramadan, the King of Morocco, his son and his government ministers pray at the Hassan II Mosque, and the event is broadcast on Moroccan television networks and other media. 80,000 believers can enter and pray in the prayer hall. Usually, it is an impressive event that is covered by the media and is also appreciated by people of culture.
During one of my visits to this mosque, during the MIncha prayer, a Jewish Israeli stood next to me, who put a kippa on his head and prayed quietly. At the end of his prayer, a Muslim Arab approached him and greeted him in Arabic: "God will accept your prayer."
This is the face of tolerance in Morocco. In Morocco I have often been asked why there are Muslim Arabs who oppose the visit and prayer of Jews at the Temple Mount: after all we are all monotheists, believe and pray to one God. I answered that I perceived everything to be the fault of Moshe Dayan, who did not establish arrangements for the visits of Jews, but gave the keys of al-Aqsa to the people of the Waqf, and here they are the ones who determine almost everything that happens on the Temple Mount.
Since then we have been witness to the cries of "Al-Aqsa is in danger" and come across documents of the Waqf trying to erase every archaeological trace that confirms the Temple. Today, there are archaeologists whose job it is to sort the debris from the Temple Mount sites, and there are archaeological finds that have been discovered in this debris.
He isn't wrong, although it is interesting that he blames Moshe Dayan for the intolerance of Palestinian Muslims - as if one cannot possibly expect tolerance from them.
Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism today at Amazon!
Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.
The State Department will not say if it is considering any repercussions for the Palestinian Authority after the authority's president, Mahmoud Abbas, accused Israel of committing "50 Holocausts," comments that sparked an international diplomatic scandal.
"We recognize that President Abbas today has, quote, reaffirmed that the Holocaust is ‘the most heinous crime' in modern history, and we reject any attempts to draw false equivalencies or to minimize Holocaust atrocities," State Department spokesman Ned Price told reporters who questioned him about the administration’s response to the scandal.
Abbas during remarks in Germany earlier this month claimed that Israel has committed "50 Holocausts" against the Palestinians since its creation in 1948. Distortion of the Holocaust remains heavily restricted in Germany, making Abbas's comments as he spoke next to the German chancellor unprecedented. While Germany quickly condemned the remarks, the Biden administration's State Department attempted to play defense for Abbas, telling reporters that the Palestinian president later apologized.
The State Department also would not answer a series of Washington Free Beacon inquiries about how it is responding to the issue and whether it is considering any type of diplomatic penalties for Abbas's comments, such as downgrading relations or withholding aid money to his government. Republican foreign policy leaders in Congress and Jewish community officials say the State Department's reaction is providing cover for Abbas as the Biden administration supplies his government with millions of dollars in U.S. taxpayer aid. The Trump administration froze that aid due to the Palestinian government's promotion of anti-Semitism.
"The Palestinians are so emboldened to make abhorrent statements like these because the Biden administration has made clear that the U.S. will continue to hand them money and carry water for them diplomatically no matter what they do," Sen. Ted Cruz (R., Texas), a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, told the Free Beacon.
A State Department official would not say whether it addressed the issue with Abbas or other top Palestinian government leaders. The department also would not say if it is considering imposing diplomatic penalties on the Palestinian Authority for the comments.
Rep. Lee Zeldin (N.Y.), a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee and one of two Jewish Republicans in Congress, said Abbas maligned the memories of more than six million Jews while standing in the country that perpetrated the crimes.
"To accuse the Jewish state and the only functioning democracy in the Middle East of committing '50 Holocausts,' while standing in Germany, is something that only someone with as little character and sense of morality as Abbas could rationalize," Zeldin said in a statement. "Six million Jews and millions of others were brutally murdered during the Holocaust. There has been absolutely no equivalence to that at any time anywhere in the world."
Two statements made this past week by Israel’s current Defence Minister– Benny Gantz – could see his run for Israel’s next Prime Minister ended after it has just started.
Gantz told Kan Reshet Bet:
"Those who, in a clear left-wing position, consider 'two states for two peoples' as a solution are living in an illusion, and those who, in a radical right-wing position, think of a state without Arabs in the 'West Bank', are living in a greater illusion,"
Gantz has apparently not heard of or read the 2022 Saudi Peace Plan published on 8 June – which provides for the merger of Jordan, Gaza and parts of the 'West Bank' into one territorial entity to be called The Hashemite Kingdom of Palestine.
Implementation of the Saudi plan in the 'West Bank' could possibly see:
- The State of Israel – sovereign in about 30% (designated green and yellow) on this leaked map - where 1% of the 'West Bank' Arab population live.
- The Hashemite Kingdom of Palestine – sovereign in about the remaining 70% (designated red) - where 99% of the 'West Bank' Arab population resides:
Constructing a network of tunnels and roads will enable this subdivision.
Gantz committed an even bigger gaffe - telling 103 FM Radio: "I repeat and insist that Jerusalem is the unified capital of the State of Israel ... And I do not see how we can continue towards an arrangement [with the Palestinians] in the coming years, but we must begin by initiating processes to reduce the conflict and strengthen security ... There are villages in the east that the Palestinian [Arab]s call Jerusalem, and they are not in the metropolitan area of Jerusalem. It is possible to define them as a capital."
In a recent opinion piece for The Washington Post, noted Israeli activist and journalist Gershom Gorenberg referred numerous times to the Green Line as “Israel’s border.” Gorenberg is far from being the only one to refer to the line that separated Israel from its Arab neighbors between 1948 and 1967 as a “border” (see here and here). Even the European Union, in determining which Israeli entities are eligible for EU funds, refers to Israel’s “pre-1967 borders.”
However, the term “border” is a misnomer, connoting an agreed-upon permanent demarcation between two sovereign entities.
In actuality, the Green Line came about as the result of an armistice agreement between the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) and Arab armies at the conclusion of the 1948 War of Independence.
In this piece, we will take a look at the history of the Green Line, its status after the Six Day War in 1967, and what it means for any future peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority (PA).
As the War of Independence was coming to a close in early 1949, Israel and its belligerent neighbors (Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon) entered into ceasefire talks in an effort to end hostilities and establish armistice agreements.
Between February and July 1949, Israel finalized armistice agreements with each of its neighbors. As part of these agreements, armistice lines were established, delineating the territory that separated Israeli military forces from the armed forces of its neighboring Arab countries.
These armistice lines ultimately became known as the “Green Line” due to the color of the pen that was used to mark these lines on the map.
However, at the insistence of Egypt, Jordan and Syria during the ceasefire negotiations, each of the armistice agreements features clauses that state unequivocally that these lines are not official borders and will not prejudice any future territorial claims made by any country.
The armistice agreement that was signed between Israel and Jordan states that “The Armistice Demarcation Lines…are agreed upon by the Parties without prejudice to future territorial settlements or boundary lines or to claims of either Party relating thereto.”
It also states that the agreement is “dictated exclusively by military considerations” and would have no effect on a future peace settlement.
Similarly, the armistice agreement between Israel and Egypt reads “The Armistice Demarcation Line is not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary.”
Interesting to see that al-Sheikh has since deleted the tweet. J Street is too Zionist for the PA, despite being almost single-mindedly dedicated to getting Israel out of the West Bank. https://t.co/KoykL3Vvqd
Mahmoud Abbas told Wafa News Agency that he plans to tell the world how heroic the terrorists who are in Israeli prisons are in his address to the UN in September.
"The presidency affirmed that the Palestinian people and their leadership stand with the heroic prisoners in their battle in which they defend the dignity and sanctities of their people," the statement said.
The statement went on, "President Mahmoud Abbas is constantly following the suffering of the heroic prisoners in the prisons of the occupation, and that their issue is at the top of the agenda along with the right of return, the state and self-determination. ...These prisoners are heroes and symbols of the Palestinian people. We are proud of them and their steadfastness and adherence to the justice of their cause."
Palestinian immorality is so entrenched, so much a part of their ethos, that no one blinks at the demand that terrorists be released so they can attack Jews again. So much so that Abbas knows he can say this to the entire world without criticism.
Notice that releasing the prisoners and the fictional "right of return" to destroy the Jewish state are listed before statehood in his list of demands. Because killing Jews and destroying Israel are higher priorities for the "moderate" Abbas than actual statehood.
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.
The BBC busted with terrorist supporters, AGAIN.
-
Written by David Collier Abed Abubaker is a terrorist supporter. He
publicly celebrates the murder of Jews and justifies the slaughter of
civilians. His....
The BBC busted with terrorist supporters, AGAIN.
-
Written by David Collier Abed Abubaker is a terrorist supporter. He
publicly celebrates the murder of Jews and justifies the slaughter of
civilians. His....
Iraqi nuclear site was mainly owned by Jews
-
It was on 7 June 1981 that the Osirak nuclear reactor was bombed by the
Israeli airforce. Despite initial international condemnation, the
destruction was...
The Lions of Judah
-
[image: Dry Bones cartoon, Jews, War, Palestine, Arabs, Israel, IDF, Gaza,
Oct7, Hamas, Hezbollah, Mr. History,]
It's time to unleash our forces and win th...
The Open Borders University
-
When Biden announced that he would limit border invaders to 2,500 a day or
nearly 900,000 a year, the first lawsuit filed against the move came from a
U...
The BBC busted with terrorist supporters again!
-
Abed Abubaker is a terrorist supporter. He publicly celebrates the murder
of Jews and justifies the slaughter of civilians. His immediate family
supports...
Avishai Raviv and the Israel Media, 1997-98
-
The following article was submitted for publication to the Jerusalem Post
in November 1997 but was not accepted. A second article on the subject "The
Com...
Trump Said “Palestinian” as a Pejorative
-
He tweeted, “Trump just throwing around ‘Palestinian’ as a pejorative.
Brazen anti-Palestinian racism has been normalized in America.” Here’s what
Trump sa...
Hamas and the Nazis: Disturbing Parallels
-
Fathom just published a shorter version of the article I post below. At the
time it accepted the piece it dropped some of the specific criticism of
Omer Ba...
An Excess of Democracy
-
The State of Israel is more endangered today than at any time since 1948,
including 1973. She is tied down in Gaza while her enemies wait their turn
in Leb...
Yom Hashoah 5784 – 2024
-
Israel’s Yom Hashoah began at sundown this evening with the annual ceremony
at Yad Vashem with torches lit in memory of the 6 million Jewish victims of
the...
Closing Jews Down Under Website
-
With a heavyish heart I am closing down the website after ten years.
It is and it isn’t an easy decision after 10 years of constant work. The
past...
‘Test & Trace’ is a mirage
-
Lockdown II thoughts: Day 1 Opposition politicians have been banging on
about the need for a ‘working’ Test & Trace system even more loudly than
the govern...
Friday, September 02, 2022
Elder of Ziyon
New York, September 1 - Museums, schools, libraries, and other repositories of the collective wisdom and artistic-intellectual output of the preceding generations have embarked on a program to render all such materials into indistinct, vague masses lest anyone experience negative emotional responses to an encounter with anything resembling an assertion.
.jpg)
.jpg)
