Jewish relations with Muslims in Palestine in the 1850s

I just found an intriguing book called "Stirring Times: Or, Records from Jerusalem Consular Chronicles of 1853 to 1856" written by the British consul to Jerusalem at the time. While there are many travelogues from that time period, all of those are necessarily dependent on information from guides and others. This book, however, is really source material on how things were at that time.

The author, James Finn, devoted a chapter on the Jews of Jerusalem and other towns, and it is fascinating in its detail and uncovering facts that are little known today. This post will focus on what Finn has to say about Jewish/Muslim relations at the time.

It is hardly the harmonious pre-Zionist existence that Muslims will have you believe.

In times gone by these native Jews had their full share of suffering from the general tyrannical conduct of the Moslems, and, having no resources for maintenance in the Holy Land, they were sustained, though barely, by contributions from synagogues all over the world. This mode of supply being understood by the Moslems, they were subjected to exactions and plunder on its account from generation to generation (individuals among them, however, holding occasionally lucrative offices for a tune). This oppression proved one of the causes which have entailed on the community a frightful incubus of debt, the payment of interest on which is a heavy charge upon the income derived from abroad.

...In the same year I was again obliged to interfere on behalf of the Jews. Solomon Aglai, a Jew, was on his way to Jaffa by night, accompanied by a Moslem muleteer, and both were robbed and murdered on the highway ; both were Turkish subjects, and a considerable stir was made in the matter. A report from some malicious quarter reached the Pasha that the Chief Rabbi had instigated the crime for reasons of his own ; in consequence the Jewish official dragoman was seized and imprisoned for some hours till further particulars should come to light. This caused a great panic among the Jews, who implored my help, and considerable excitement among the Moslems. Having satisfied myself that it must be a false accusation, and aware that it was dangerous to let the idea gain ground that the Jews had had a Moslem murdered, I applied to His Excellency, representing my instructions from home. The charge against the Chief Rabbi was then dropped, and no more was heard of it. The excitement subsided as quickly as it had arisen.

...Notwithstanding these glimpses of honorary distinction the Jews are humiliated by the payment, through the Chief Rabbi, of pensions to Moslem local exactors, for instance the sum of 300£. a year to the Effendi whose house adjoins the ' wailing place,' or fragment of the western wall of the Temple enclosure, for permission to pray there; 100£. a year to the villagers of Siloam for not disturbing the graves on the slope of the Mount of Olives ; 50£ a year to the Ta'amra Arabs for not injuring the Sepulchre of Rachel near Bethlehem, and about 10£ a year to Sheikh Abu Gosh for not molesting their people on the high road to Jaffa, although he was highly paid by the Turkish Government as Warden of that road. All these are mere exactions made upon their excessive timidity, which it is disgraceful to the Turkish Government to allow to be practised. The figures are copied from their humble appeals occasionally made to the synagogues in Europe. Other minor impositions were laid upon them which they were afraid to discontinue to pay, such as, to one man (Moslem) for superintending the slaughtering of cattle by themselves for food, to see that it is performed by the Sephardi Eabbi who has purchased his license to do it. Periodical presents likewise of sugar, etc., to the principal Moslems at their festivals.

Besides the Jewish British subjects and proteges already described, there were some of both these classes in Hebron and in the other Holy cities ; there were also in Hebron a few Tuscans and Dutch subjects, who had by permission of their own Consular authorities in Beyroot placed themselves under British protection. Thus the British Consulate was always kept busy in transacting the business brought before it by the Jews ; not only by the Jews in Jerusalem, but by those from Safed, Tiberias, Caifa, Nablus, and Hebron. It was distressing to behold the timidity which long ages of oppression had engendered. Many times a poor Jew would come for redress against a native, and when he had substantiated his case, and it had been brought by the Consulate before the Turkish authorities, he would, in mere terror of future possible vengeance, withdraw from the prosecution, and even deny that any harm had been done him ; or if that was too manifest, declare that he could not identify the criminal, or that the witnesses could not be produced. Still, even then, the bare fact that some notice had been taken had a deterrent effect upon criminals who had hitherto regarded the defenceless Jews as their special prey.

The Hebron Jews were more exposed than even those in Jerusalem to rough usage from the natives, and they had suffered greatly from the tyrannies of the brutal ' Abderrahhman el 'Amer.

Those living in Safed, in Galilee, however, were of a different stamp, and much better able to hold their own. There was, on one occasion, an affair in that town of some rioters breaking for plunder into the houses of some Jews who were British proteges, and we had caused five of the offenders to be imprisoned. They were soon, however, allowed by the Governor to be at liberty again, and my protege's went down at once to demand justice from the Pasha in Acre, at the same time writing to acquaint me with the circumstances. This was not the only occasion in which I had to observe the manly spirit of the Jews in that mountain town, compared with all others of their nation throughout Palestine. Yet, whenever their independence was shown in an unjust cause, as sometimes happened, their behaviour had to be treated accordingly. The Galileans of Josephus's wars were a hardy and a stubborn people.

Not that things were better between Jews and Christians in Palestine, as we shall see.

Read More

New Iranian mortars more deadly than Qassams

From IMRA:

Israel Television Channel Two Correspondent Ronnie Daniel reported lastnight that the mortars fired from Gaza on Tuesday were 120mm Iranian mortars.

They have a range of 8 kilometers and can do considerably more damage than Qassam rockets.

Daniel said that many of the protective reinforcements that have been placed in order to shield Israelis from Qassams do not provide protection from these mortars. In addition, the Iranian made mortars travel at a speed that makes the warning system that gives Israelis a few seconds to duck for cover from the slower Qassams meaningless.

This is a huge escalation, and it proves that the policy of simply fortifying Negev communities is a waste of time.

And perhaps it is far worse, as this YNet op-ed by Uzi Landau states:

A policy calling for fortification poses a risk for Israel's safety. With the exception of strategic facilities the likes of hospitals and schools, townships should not be fortified.

Fortification carries a destructive message, suggesting Israel is willing to stand for its citizens to be living under fire, cementing in world view a reality legitimizing terror organizations targeting civilians as a starting point for any negotiation.

We've brought this predicament on ourselves. From the moment we allowed populated area to be hit without launching an immediate response, making it abundantly clear we will not stand for it, the following has happened: Our enemies have concluded hurting Jews is allowed; our friends – and naturally our foes – around the world have come to the same conclusion; and worst of all – so have we.

Our own failure to respond has made us accustomed to the targeting of civilian populations, especially away from Tel Aviv. What other way is there to explain our measly response to the hundreds of Qassam rockets fired on the Gaza vicinity communities in the two-and-a-half years since the Gaza pullout?

Ariel Sharon made them a dramatic promise at the time: If even one rocket is fired, he said, Gaza will tremble and the world will understand. The only thing trembling so far, are kindergarten walls.

Olmert was right. We cannot fortify ourselves senseless. But he cannot reiterate that without providing kindergarten children with the proper defense and for the kindergarten walls to stop trembling he cannot avoid the decision to enter Gaza. Not because we want to, but because we have no other choice. We learned that lesson six years ago, when Operation Defensive Shield was forces on us, after months of upholding a "strength in restraint" policy and dozens of bloody terror attacks.

The terror ceased only when we raided its hubs in Jenin and Nablus. The only reason it is still emanating form Gaza is that we were hesitant to go in; and the more hesitant we are, the more resolved Hamas and Hizbullah get. They see Sderot as a test-case and unless crushed there, the next war will see the tens of thousands of missiles they have – and the thousands more they will undoubtedly get – launched at our larger cities right off the bat.

But a mass offence is not enough. Thing must have a conclusive end. Our response must be so disproportional the enemy would realize it's just not worth the effort. A conclusive end is a must simply because anyone firing on Sderot and Ashkelon already knows Ashdod, Rishon Lezion and Tel Aviv are within reach.

Our victory in the Gaza fort must be overwhelming not only for Assaf and his neighbors, for the grocers in Sderot, or for the Dichter family in Ashkelon. They must be defeated so that kindergarten walls in Tel Aviv will never tremble.

The earlier part of the op-ed contrasts Israel's zero-tolerance policy towards attacks on its civilians in the early days of the state with the relative indifference shown now. This acceptance of terror emboldens the jihadists and is ultimately counterproductive.

Israel, due to its tiny size, cannot hope to win any wars of attrition. By allowing the terrorists to dictate the rules of the war, Israel is placing itself at a severe disadvantage.

It is time to change the rules.

Read More

New Zealand sending woman to her possible death in Iran

Stuff (New Zealand) reports:

A last-ditch attempt to stop the deportation of an Iranian Christian has been rejected by Associate Immigration Minister Shane Jones.

Mr Jones will not overrule an Immigration New Zealand decision to deport 25-year-old Birkenhead resident Bahareh Moradi.

His decision writes off the last chance Miss Moradi had to stay in New Zealand.

Her three brothers live in New Zealand. All have refugee status.

The Moradi family had applied for the deportation to be put on hold until after a High Court judicial review of Miss Moradi’s case in July.

That request was turned down by the High Court in March.

As the North Shore Times went to print, Miss Moradi was waiting to be sent to Iran by immigration officials.

It is feared going back to Iran could be dangerous because she has become a Christian.

Under Sharia law, converting from Islam to Christianity is a sin and can be punished by death.

Not only can apostasy be punished by death in Iran, but they are considering making it the mandatory punishment. From the Christian Post last February:

The Iranian parliament is reviewing a new law that would impose a death penalty on citizens who leave Islam, a human rights group alerted recently.

In the past, the death penalty for apostasy was one of many possible punishments, including imprisonment and hard labor, for renouncing Islam, But the new law proposes to make death the sentence for all apostates, according to the Institute on Religion and Public Policy (IRPP).

“This is not something new, they just want to be more harsh towards those who are leaving Islam,” an Iranian pastor told the persecution watchdog Compass.

The death sentence was approved by the Iranian Cabinet a month ago, and appears to have the needed parliamentary support to pass, according to an Iranian Christian.

Many victims of the “apostasy” law are Muslims who convert to Christianity, but victims also include liberal thinkers and members of Iran’s Baha’i religious minority.

It appears that New Zealand questioned the sincerity of her conversion. She can only hope now that Iran is equally skeptical.

Read More

Arabs see through Pali bull

Qatar hosted a formal debate on the motion, "This House believes that Palestinians risk becoming their own worst enemy".

It wasn't even close.

DOHA • A crushing majority of the participants at Qatar Foundation's Doha Debates yesterday expressed the view that the destructive feud between Palestine’s Hamas and Fatah factions has cast a doubt on the Palestinians’ ability to create a unified sovereign state in the West Bank and Gaza.

The motion “This House believes that Palestinians risk becoming their own worst enemy” was carried with a resounding 70.9 per cent votes against 29.1 per cent votes.

Among the panelists, Dr Munther Dajani, Dean of the Faculty of Arts at Al Quds University in Jerusalem and Akram Baker, political analyst and co-founder of the Arab Western Summit of Skills (AWS), supported the motion.

"Israeli occupation in Palestine is a fact. The Palestinian movement lost its focus. The enemy is really occupying the land. If we cannot help ourselves no one else can help us. What Palestinians need is a genuine government. The Palestinian Authority should be dissolved today, not tomorrow", Baker said.

Supporting the motion, Dr Dajani said Palestinians must show the guts to grab real freedom from 'the mouth of the lion'. "The leadership is steeped in corruption and nepotism. We failed to build roads, hospitals and other basic infrastructure. We ourselves are our worst enemies" Dr Dajani said.

"Those who were holding the war responsible for Palestine's poor development must remember that there was no war in the mid '90s. We failed because the leadership was not able to put up institutions and infrastructure. There was no transparency and accountability. Now we are at the end of the tunnel", he said.

Why can Qataris see obvious truths that Western liberals are blind to?

Read More

The hunger artists

From The Independent (UK) comes a familiar-sounding article:

'Gaza is a jail. Nobody is allowed to leave. We are all starving now.'

Gaza is dying. The Israeli siege of the Palestinian enclave is so tight that its people are on the edge of starvation. Here on the shores of the Mediterranean a great tragedy is taking place that is being ignored...

A whole society is being destroyed. There are 1.5 million Palestinians imprisoned in the most heavily populated area in the world. Israel has stopped all trade. It has even forbidden fishermen to go far from the shore so they wade into the surf to try vainly to catch fish with hand-thrown nets....

There are signs of desperation everywhere. Crime is increasing. People do anything to feed their families....

"It is the worst year for us since 1948 [when Palestinian refugees first poured into Gaza]," says Dr Maged Abu-Ramadan, a former ophthalmologist who is mayor of Gaza City. "Gaza is a jail. Neither people nor goods are allowed to leave it. People are already starving. They try to live on bread and falafel and a few tomatoes and cucumbers they grow themselves."

What makes this article interesting is when it was written - in September, 2006.

That's right - the Gazans have been starving to death for at least 19 months, yet no one can point to a single person who has yet died of starvation.

The "starvation" meme is so prevalent that reporters don't even bother to check out the facts, they just mindlessly repeat lies. But this article makes it appear that the reporters are sometimes the people who make up the lies to begin with. In fact, in the two months after this article, many more "starving Palestinian" articles were published, as I showed in November, 2006.

Just as the "most heavily populated area in the world" meme refuses to die, and just like the "humanitarian crisis" soundbite - now at least 15 years old - will forever be with us, so will we have to live with the "starving Gazan" absurdity, thanks to "reporters" like the Independent's Patrick Cockburn.

But in case you have forgotten, here is what a starving person looks like:
And here is what Gazans looked like earlier this week, after years of poverty and starvation:

You can hardly tell the difference!

Read More

Our friends in Dubai

From the NYT (h/t EBoZ, who reads it so I don't have to):

Roadside bombings of American troops in Iraq were occurring with unnerving regularity when military investigators made a disturbing discovery: American-made computer circuits sold to a trading company in the United Arab Emirates had turned up in the bomb detonators.

That finding set off a clash with Washington last year when the Bush administration cited the diversion of the computer circuits to Iran, and eventually Iraq, as proof that the United Arab Emirates were failing to prevent American technology from slipping into the wrong hands. Administration officials said aircraft parts, specialized metals and gas detectors that have a potential military use had also moved through Dubai, one of the emirates, to Iran, Syria or Pakistan.

The diplomatic face-off, which drew little public attention, prompted the United States to threaten tough new controls on exports to the United Arab Emirates, an ally. The nation had invested billions to become a global trading hub and had begun a campaign to burnish its image in the United States after the uproar in 2006 over a proposal to allow a Dubai company manage some American port terminals.

The administration backed down only after the emirates promised to pass their own export control law. But it is unclear that much has changed nearly a year after the confrontation.

...American officials have been increasingly alarmed about trade in the United Arab Emirates since 2002, when the Commerce Department sent an inspector, Mary O’Brien, there. From her spot checks of factories, freight forwarders and other companies that had ordered American products subject to export controls, Commerce officials say, it was clear that dual-use goods, including computer equipment, were being diverted on a grander scale than imagined.

An entity said to be a woodworking shop, for example, had ordered a sophisticated American machine for making metal parts. The device, Ms. O’Brien knew, could also shape components for a missile system. The supposed factory contained almost no sawdust, and the few employees could not explain how they intended to use the machine.

“This is not right,” Ms. O’Brien said she had said to herself, convinced that she had turned up her first “briefcase business”— open for inspection, but closed for good as soon as she walked out.

She pressed a Dubai pistachio wholesaler on why he had bought an American infrared camera, which can detect living objects in the dark, and where it had gone. Later she found he had arranged its return from Iran, where it had apparently been diverted, while stalling a follow-up inspection.

In nearly 40 percent of her inspections in four years, she found that regulated items were missing or that the recipient would not cooperate. Many of those companies were placed on a list, warning American exporters to be careful when selling to them.

“This was a huge sieve,” said Lisa A. Prager, a former top Commerce export control official. “Almost nothing that said it was going to U.A.E. was staying in U.A.E.”

Read the whole thing. It is an increasingly rare example of real reporting, even if it comes a couple of years after the fact.

Read More

More Gallup dishonesty

The authors of "Who Speaks for Islam? What a Billion Muslims Really Think" continue to produce articles with bits and pieces of their worldwide poll of Muslims with furious spinning to make Muslims look as much like Westerners as possible. This is not surprising - co-author John Esposito has written a number of apologetic books for Islam, including "Islam: The Straight Path", and the other author Dalia Mogahed is Muslim herself. The idea that this book would be objective is laughable, and I've already shown some dishonesty in how the authors present their findings.

A new op-ed by the authors in the Los Angeles Times illustrates their dishonesty as well:

For instance, Gallup found that 72% of Americans disagreed with this statement: "The majority of those living in Muslim countries thought men and women should have equal rights." In fact, majorities in even some of the most conservative Muslim societies directly refute this assessment: 73% of Saudis, 89% of Iranians and 94% of Indonesians say that men and women should have equal legal rights.

Notice the sleight-of-hand - changing the question from one of "equal rights" to one of "equal legal rights" when asking people in Muslim countries. When Muslims are referring to legal rights, they are not thinking about religious rights. Which means that if you would ask Muslims whether women should be able to have up to four spouses as men are allowed to, the answers would not be the same as to the question they asked. Yet if they really supported equal rights as Esposito and Mogahed claim, then they would by definition support polyandry as much as polygamy.

What about Muslim sympathy for terrorism? Many charge that Islam encourages violence more than other faiths, but studies show that Muslims around the world are at least as likely as Americans to condemn attacks on civilians. Polls show that 6% of the American public thinks attacks in which civilians are targets are "completely justified." In Saudi Arabia, this figure is 4%. In Lebanon and Iran, it's 2%.

Again, in this case it appears that how the question is asked is far more important than the supposed answers. Since the authors show that 7% of Muslims condoned 9/11, and other polls show that a far higher number condone attacks on Israeli civilians, the cherry-picking of the answers from Saudi Arabia, Lebanon and Iran proves only that the people answering the poll are more likely to support individual, real world attacks against civilians than some abstract concept of attacking civilians. The fact that there are no Americans publicly celebrating Muslim deaths is proof enough that the methodology for this question was flawed.

Looking across majority-Muslim countries, Gallup found no statistical difference in self-reported religiosity between those who sympathized with the attackers and those who did not.... On the other hand, not a single respondent who condoned the attacks used the Koran as justification. Instead, they relied on political rationalizations, calling the U.S. an imperialist power or accusing it of wanting to control the world.

The authors create a division between politics and religion that is nonsensical in much of the Islamic world. Islam is more than just a religion; it is also a political movement, and the absence of Koranic justification for 9/11 does not necessarily indicate one way or the other that terror-supporters are less religious.

In other words, all that the poll indicates is that the level of religiosity does not indicate a propensity to terror. The implication from the authors that the more religious tend to be more against terror attacks is not borne out, based on the limited information given here.

If most Muslims truly reject terrorism, why does it continue to flourish in Muslim lands? What these results indicate is that terrorism is much like other violent crime. Violent crimes occur throughout U.S. cities, but that is no indication of Americans' general acceptance of murder or assault. Likewise, continued terrorist violence is not proof that Muslims tolerate it. Indeed, they are its primary victims.

This is astonishingly dishonest. Terrorism, by definition, is political, and can only thrive when the political environment - in this case, the Muslim and Arab cultures that permeate these lands - allow it. Comparing it to violent crime is an incredible distortion, and one that has absolutely no basis in any of the polling numbers given here - it quite literally made up.

Read More

Saudi mufti a bit miffed at idea of inviting Jews to kingdom

Last week, Saudi King called for dialogue between Christians, Jews and Muslims to much publicity.

Moderate Arab commentators complimented the move, but it was clear that "dialogue" to them was a one-way street:

Saudi newspaper commentaries suggested the king's motives were addressing militant violence inside Muslim countries and tension between Muslims and the authorities in Europe.

"The dialogue could clear up some facts about our religion, far from the distortions that extremists and fanatics have caused," wrote Saudi daily newspaper al-Jazirah, referring to militant violence in Saudi Arabia and the region.

Nothing about learning anything about other religions, only about lecturing about Islam. As usual, to Muslims, "dialogue" means the same thing as "Islamic indoctrination."

Now,the Saudi mufti has made it very clear that the idea of having rabbis in Saudi Arabia is pretty sickening to him:

Saudi Arabia's grand mufti Abdelaziz al-Sheikh has rejected an attempt by the government to open interreligious dialogue with Jewish rabbis.

According to a report by the official Kuwaiti news agency Kuna on Wednesday, the mufti refused to accept any visit by rabbis to a conference on interreligious dialogue, expected to be held in the kingdom's capital Riyadh.

I guess no Jews will be visiting their old digs at Khaybar anytime soon.

Read More

Today's Gaza news you won't see anywhere else

The Palestinian Arab press has been increasing in its reporting of corruption and strong-arm tactics by Hamas in Gaza lately, seemingly to increase its revenue (beyond the $150 million a month that the PA provides to Gaza.)

Today, Palestine Press Agency reports that Hamas is involved in drug trafficking and car thefts in Gaza. In addition, they report that Hamas is levying arbitrary fees on auto-repair shops in ways that look more like protection racket payoffs than taxes. Its court systems are adding large fees for judgments. In addition, Firas Press reports that Hamas is adding "tolls" on roads, pretty much stopping people and asking for money, a different amount each time.

The impression is that Hamas is building a police state with its terrorists doing whatever is necessary to extort money from the citizens it pretends to care about.

Read More

Hamas apparently is taking credit for Mercaz HaRav massacre

Hamas released a statement announcing its accomplishments for March, 2008:

Military Communiqué

Al Qassam statistic for March,2008

34 martyrs ; 89 Qassam rockets ; 534 mortar shells towards Zionist targets ; 12 Zionist were killed; other 79 were injured

First: Al Qassam martyr :

Rafah	Khanyounis	Gaza	North strip	South-Gaza	Total
5	3	10	14	2	34

Second: Resistance activities:

Qassam	Mortars	R.P.G	Bombs	Fire	Sniping	Clashes
89	534	18	7	21	8	22

Third: Zionist losses:

losses	injures
12	79

Day and date	The Zionist losses
Saturday 1st of March,2008	4 Zionist were killed
Thursday 6th of March,2008	8 Zionist were killed

Settlement	Rockets	Settlement	Rockets
Sederot	36	Natif Eitsra	4
Meftahim	10	Nahal Oz	4
Kissufim	2	Eirtz	10
Nir Eishaq	5	Zionist vehicles	18

And Islamic Jihad came out with their own numbers:
18 killed versus 2 "Zionists"
216 rockets and mortar shells

Hamas' rocket numbers are low if you assume that they are taking credit for all groups' rocket attacks, so they must only be talking about their own rockets - the total Qassam count for March was over 200.

Which implies that they are taking credit for only the Israelis killed by Hamas as well.

And since they list 8 "Zionists" killed on March 6, this means that Hamas is taking credit for the Mercaz HaRav massacre (they denied initial claims of responsibility and the only group to officially take credit was the unknown "Galilee Freedom Batallions".)

Of course, this report includes out and out lies - four Israelis weren't killed on March 1, and the total number of Israelis killed in March was 11 (they might be including the Qassam victim from February 27.)

Still, this is apparently the first official, if backhanded, claim of responsibility for the massacre.

Read More

UN Human Rights Council's corruption is complete

One of the bedrocks of human rights is the right of free speech. The UN recognizes this and its old Commission on Human Rights as well as its newer Human Rights Council has appointed a "Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights on the promotion
and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression."

This job includes:

a) to gather all relevant information, wherever it might occur, of discrimination against, threats or use of violence and harassment, including persecution and intimidation, directed at persons seeking to exercise or to promote the exercise of the right to freedom of opinion and expression as affirmed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and, where applicable, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, taking into account the work being conducted by other mechanisms of the Commission and Sub-Commission which touched on that right, with a view to avoiding duplication of work;

b) as a matter of high priority, to gather all relevant information, wherever it might occur, of discrimination against, threats or use of violence and harassment, including persecution and intimidation, against professionals in the field of information seeking to exercise or to promote the exercise of the right to freedom of opinion and expression;

c) to seek and receive credible and reliable information from governments and non-governmental organizations and any other parties who have knowledge of these cases; and to submit annually to the Commission a report covering the activities relating to his or her mandate, containing recommendations to the Commission and providing suggestions on ways and means to better promote and protect the right to freedom of opinion and expression in all its manifestations.

This past Friday, however, the UN's Human Rights Commission added a new job responsibility to this Special Rapporteur:

To do the exact opposite.

The amendment passed by the UN Human Rights Council in its rush to adjourn Friday told its expert on freedom of expression to report on people who abuse their free speech rights to espouse racial and religious discrimination.

The measure, proposed by Egypt and Pakistan, passed 32-0 with the support of Islamic, Arab and African nations. European nations and some other countries abstained.

This Special Rapporteur is now expected not to defend free speech, but to defend those who try to stifle free speech. It is amazing that he hasn't yet suffered from whiplash.

Now, what does the UN Human Rights Council consider "abuse" of free speech?

The previous day, the same UNHRC passed (21-10) a resolution urging states to prohibit the "defamation of religions" in a resolution that referred specifically and repeatedly to Islam and no other religion.

We all knew that the UNHRC was a corrupt joke of an organization, but at least up until now it could at least pretend to be guided by principals, even as it applied them in a ridiculously biased manner. Now the perversion is so complete that it is demolishing its very own basis.

Read More

Hamas seizing Fatah members' land in Gaza

The Palestine Press Agency (Arabic) is reporting that Hamas has decided to start "taking inventory" of the land and other property that belonged to Fatah members who had to flee for their lives during the Hamas coup, as a first step to formally seizing them.

Hamas has already taken over many PA-run organizations and offices in Gaza, such as the court system and finance offices.

Apparently, taking land is not considered "ethnic cleansing" when Arabs do it to other Arabs.

Read More