Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Monday, July 10, 2017

07/10 Links Pt2: Waking up to a world where political allies are enemies of the Jews; Lancet again levels false accusations against Israel.

From Ian:

Waking up to a world where political allies are enemies of the Jews

One such dreamer who may be slowly snapping out of it is ADL National Director Jonathan Greenblatt, whose recent article in TIME magazine carries the headline, “Anti-Semitism is Creeping into Progressivism.” But to claim that it is “creeping” into the landscape of the political left is shockingly ignorant. It has been an integral part of it for decades.
Unfortunately, many decent liberals have turned a blind eye to left-wing anti-Zionist agitation that is indistinguishable from anti-Semitism. Those who say they wish to deny Jews statehood, the right of self-defense or the ability to live in peace in their homeland are practicing discrimination against Jews. This is the definition of anti-Semitism. And it is on the left, not the right, where support for such hatred, whether in the form of backing for the BDS movement or cultural boycotts, is growing.
It isn’t alt-right internet trolls who are orchestrating anti-Jewish protests like those of Sarsour or efforts to boycott Israeli plays at Lincoln Center, where the appearance of even the work of a critic of the Jewish state like David Grossman was enough to generate protest from mainstream artists. Nor is it Trump who is responsible for turning universities into places where Jewish students no longer feel safe to express their Jewish identity.
But unfortunately, all too many liberals would still rather believe Trump—their main political foe—is the real reason anti-Semitism is growing.
It’s long past time for the Jewish community to understand that its best allies in this struggle are conservative Christians with whom they disagree on social issues, while it is their alleged friends on the left who are preaching intolerance for Jews. That doesn’t obligate them to abandon their political principles, but they need to understand the world is a complicated place where Jewish safety can be endangered by solidarity with the left.

New study reveals Europe’s rising anti-Semitism forces Jews to leave or hide

Why do half of French Jews want to leave France? The rise of violent anti-Semitism beginning around the turn of the century has made French Jews justifiably concerned about their personal safety.
A University of Oslo study published in June is one of the most methodologically sophisticated and comprehensive reports in dissecting the growth of Europe’s anti-Semitism problem.
Authored by Dr. Johannes Due Enstad of the Center for Research on Extremism, the study documents violent anti-Semitism from 2005-2015, analyzing seven countries based on comparable data for France, the U.K., Germany and Sweden, with additional non-comparable data for Norway, Denmark and Russia.
Since they feel unsafe as a direct consequence of violent anti-Semitism, one in five Jews in Sweden and the U.K., one in four in Germany, and as mentioned previously, half of the Jews in France have considered emigrating. But it is not just something that Jews think about. In 2015, 10,000 Western European Jews departed for a new life in Israel, the largest number leaving Europe since 1948.
There is no upward or downward trend in the period measured. There is a consistently elevated level of anti-Semitism compared to the 1990s.
French Jews are more likely than German, Swedish and British Jews to have personally experienced a violent attack in the final five years covered by the study. Although the incidence of anti-Semitism for France is the highest, responses about personal attacks during the study’s final five years from Swedish and German Jews is not far behind. The largest gap in anti-Semitism is between British Jews and Jews living in Norway, Denmark and Russia.

Fred Maroun: We Arabs are damn lucky that Jews do not behave like Arabs

When I see Arab hatred directed at Israel, such as the Palestinian Authority’s repeated attempts through UNESCO to deny Jewish history in Jerusalem, I shake my head in disbelief. The hypocrisy is astounding.
Arab countries, even Egypt and Jordan which have signed peace agreements with Israel, gag pro-Israel opinions and promote antisemitic fallacies, such as the Protocols of the Elders of Zion forgery. In Lebanon, it is a criminal offense to communicate with an Israeli for any reason.
If Jews behaved like us, Israeli media would ban any criticism of Israel and the Israeli government would disseminate lies about Arabs and Muslims. Instead, Israeli media and the Israeli parliament provide platforms for a wide range of opinions, including the most extreme anti-Israel opinions. In the Knesset, the Arab members who support Hamas, a terrorist organization openly calling for the killing of Jews, are free to speak just like everyone else. When Israel’s prime minister made a comment that was perceived as anti-Arab, he was widely denounced by other Israelis, including the Israeli president, and the prime minister later apologized.
During the Israel-Arab war in May 1948, Azzam Pasha, the General Secretary of the Arab League, announced, “This will be a war of extermination, a momentous massacre, which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades”. Before the Israel-Arab war of 1967, Syrian Defense Minister Hafez Assad boasted, “The time has come to enter into a battle of annihilation”, and Egypt’s President Abdul Nasser threatened, “Our basic objective will be the destruction of Israel”.

The Philosophy of Hebrew Scripture
Yoram Hazony
Cambridge University Press
2012

I was inspired to read this work as I responded to an article by David Hazony, Yoram's brother, on how to keep young Westerners interested in Judaism. Rather than concentrate on importing Israeli values into the West, which I believe is only a stopgap, I felt that there was a lot of intellectual appeal to Judaism that is outside the traditional Orthodox/yeshiva framework that has not been exploited, and I used this book as an example of how Judaism can be made relevant to the next generation.

But of course I needed to read it myself to make sure that what I said was true. And I am very glad I did.

Yoram Hazony's work here is a challenge to many basic beliefs and ideas that are widely held..

First of all, it is a challenge to traditional philosophy. In Hazony's telling, there has been a huge divide in Western culture between Scripture and classical philosophy and , the first being identified with "revelation" and the latter with "reason." For the last several centuries, "reason" has been elevated and "revelation" denigrated in academia.

Hazony demolishes this idea from two directions. He shows how some influential Greek philosophers framed their own ideas in terms of "revelation." But more importantly, he shows how Western thought has mistakenly conflated Christian Scripture, which indeed is revelation, and Hebrew Scripture, which Hazony argues is far more inclined towards reason. He gives many examples of how God punishes people for doing things that they were never explicitly commanded against, and rewarded for things they were never commanded to do, in stories such as Cain and Abel, the Tower of Babel, Sodom, Shifra and Pua and many others. In these cases it is expected by Hebrew Scripture that people would know what the right thing to do is by using only their own logic.

Hazony shows that Jeremiah holds his own against the Greek philosophers and indicates that the only reason he is not studied with the same attention as a philosopher is because of the idea that the entire Bible has nothing relevant to say about reason. He dedicates an entire chapter on Jeremiah's epistemology.

Hazony also writes a tour de force on the differences between how philosophers have understood truth up until recently and how the Biblical authors understood it, in a way that only now the Western world is catching up to. Very briefly, Hazony shows that from Aristotle onwards, "truth" has been defined as a quality of speech agrees with reality (correspondence theory.) But in Hebrew Scriptures "truth" is a radically different idea - "truth" applies not only to speech but to objects and ideas directly.

Hazony postulates that the Hebrew words normally translated as "truth" and "belief" (emet and emunah) are cognates of each other - something I am not yet convinced of - but he does make a strong case that both words in Hebrew Scripture are different aspects of trustworthiness or reliability. He masterfully hinges his proof that the Hebrew Scripture does not distinguish between word and object with the word "davar" which means both. "Devarim" (plural) are what can be true or false (sheker) , and the only way that a "davar" can be considered true is if it is found to be what it is supposed to be after time and circumstances allow one to see the big picture. (I hope this oversimplification is not inaccurate.)

Only in the last century has philosophy started ti question the idea of the independence of words and reality - yet Judaism always understood the two to be related if not identical.

Secondly, and in a related fashion, this book is a challenge to Christian thought. Hazony highlights the definition of "faith" created by early Church thinker Tertullian, who not only highlights the difference between faith and reason but exults in it, almost bragging that the basic ideas of Christianity are absurd to men of reason. "...You have discovered what they are will you find anything to be so foolish as believing in a God that has been born, and that of a virgin, and of a fleshly nature too, who wallowed in all the before-mentioned humiliations of nature? ... Other matters for shame find I none which can prove me to be shameless in a good sense, and foolish in a happy one, by my own contempt of shame. The Son of God was crucified; I am not ashamed because men must needs be ashamed of it. And the Son of God died; it is by all means to be believed, because it is absurd. And He was buried, and rose again; the fact is certain, because it is impossible."

Jewish Scripture does not think like Tertullian. There is no catechism in the Hebrew Scripture that describes everything that must be believed, as Christianity has. On the contrary, the characters in the Hebrew Scripture must work hard to understand the ways of God and even the best of them, Moses, could only glimpse a tiny aspect of them. God's wisdom described in the Hebrew Scripture, or at least a great part of it, is attainable by man through thinking.

Finally, this work is a challenge to traditional Orthodox yeshiva-type thinking. Hazony creates what can only be called a "hiddush" (novelty) in claiming that the Hebrew Scripture makes a distinction between shepherds, who symbolize creativity and even disobedience, with farmers/city builders who symbolize adherence and kingdoms, which the Torah is suspicious of. God instructed man to toil in the fields in his curse after the sin of Adam and Eve, but Abel chose to be a shepherd instead - and God preferred his offering over Cain's. The shepherds, from Abel through Abraham and Moses and David, are not shy about challenging God - and God likes them and rewards them for it. This is not a point that one will be taught in a yeshiva or seminary, but Hazony buttresses his argument well.

Altogether, this is a very important and challenging work. yet it is only meant as an introduction and framework for what hopefully will be a much larger field of philosophy (and, Hazony emphasizes, political theory) based on Hebrew sources.

My point that I made in my earlier article mentioning this book stands: Judaism can offer a great deal of knowledge and wisdom to non-religious Jews. This is, I believe, the key to making Judaism relevant again - the source material from thousands of years ago is relevant today and yet that aspect of it is ignored by most non-religious Jews (and plenty of religious Jews as well.)

For those who like to think, I highly recommend this book.

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

Linda Sarsour’s jihad – with all the context her fans prefer to ignore (Petra Marquardt-Bigman)

If you are a Trump supporter, Linda Sarsour is a dream come true: no matter how outrageous her views and statements are, the mainstream media will always rush to defend this leader of the “resistance” by dutifully echoing her self-serving claims that her critics are evil right-wingers motivated by Islamophobia and other vile resentments. In the process, being left-wing – let alone progressive – is redefined in ways that will be unpalatable to many reasonable left-leaning people (like me!). While few who identify as center-left might ever consider supporting Trump, the cult of Linda Sarsour will surely help many understand why a lot of Americans used their vote to express disgust with the liberal elites.

Sarsour’s latest achievement is making it somehow “progressive” to call on Muslims to engage in “jihad” against Trump and his administration. Calling for “jihad” these days is, as far as Sarsour’s apologists are concerned, an entirely harmless thing – after all, Sarsour just meant a “jihad” of political activism fueled by the perpetual outrage she so often advocates…

But we should actually all agree with Sarsour and her fans that the context matters, because tellingly, many of her defenders preferred NOT to link to the video that shows Sarsour’s relevant remarks in full. So let’s check out the truly shocking context of her call for “jihad” during her keynote address at a convention of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA).

Early on in her speech (at around 3.45), Sarsour emphasized her conviction that “we are on this earth to please Allah and only Allah.” She repeated this theme towards the end of her speech (after 20.00):

“Our number one and top priority is to protect and defend our community; it is not to assimilate and to please any other people and authority. […] And our top priority, even higher than all those [other] priorities, is to please Allah and only Allah.”

As Sarsour explained, she came to this insight thanks to her greatly admired “mentor, motivator, encourager” Siraj Wahhaj (who was in the audience). According to Wikipedia, Siraj Wahhaj is “an African-American imam of Al-Taqwa mosque in Brooklyn, New York and the leader of The Muslim Alliance in North America (MANA).” Born Jeffrey Kearse, Wahhaj converted to Islam as a young man and joined the Nation of Islam, where it was acceptable to voice his belief that “white people are devils.” He eventually became a Sunni Muslim and “has made statements in support of Islamic laws over liberal democracy.” He has endorsed sharia punishments such as stoning for adultery and mutilation for theft and has expressed the view that “Islam is better than democracy. Allah will cause his deen [Islam as a complete way of life], Islam to prevail over every kind of system, and you know what? It will happen.”

Given the admiration Sarsour professed to feel for Wahhaj and the fact that she indicated he also admires her, it’s perhaps time to wonder what exactly she means when she so often emphasizes that she is “unapologetically Muslim”.

Unfortunately, the small part of her speech that her defenders quote as the relevant context for her call to wage “jihad” against Trump and his administration is hardly reassuring given that Sarsour depicts the US as a country where minorities suffer terrible oppression under the cruel rule of “fascists and white supremacists and Islamophobes.”

Sarsour was no doubt delighted when her defenders rushed to post articles claiming that “the right freaked out” about her call for “jihad” because “they don’t know what it means.” The problem with the argument that Sarsour’s evil right-wing critics don’t know what “jihad” really means is that it focuses on complex and contentious theological debates among Muslim scholars while conveniently ignoring centuries of Muslim imperialism, starting with Islam’s founder Muhammad, who has been politely described as “Islam’s first great general and the leader of a successful insurgency.” Less politely, Muhammad has been called a “warlord” – and if you don’t like what Sam Harris has to say on the topic, you can turn to the immensely influential “Global Mufti” Yusuf Qaradawi, who once explained:

“Allah wanted Muhammad’s life to be a model. For instance, if we examine the question of marriage, he who has one wife can follow the Prophet Muhammed since most of the time Muhammad lived with one woman; whoever has more than one wife can also [follow Muhammad’s example]. He who marries a virgin, he who marries a non-virgin… He who marries a young woman, he who marries an old woman [all can follow Muhammad’s example]. … Similarly, Allah has also made the prophet Muhammad into an epitome for religious warriors [Mujahideen] since he ordered Muhammed to fight for religion.”

And the very first time Muhammad fought a bloody “jihad” for the religion he founded, he justified it with exactly the kind of threats that US Muslims face according to Linda Sarsour. Sarsour’s speech was full of alarming hints about the dangers threatening Muslims in America, where “fascists and white supremacists and Islamophobes [are] ruling in the White House.” She issued an impassioned call for Muslim unity in the face of threats from the “Islamophobia industry” (after 10.00) and even went so far as to assert: “Unity is about survival for the Muslim community.” She also invoked the scenario of “a potentially horrific time that could come if we as a community are not united as one ummah as we are supposed to be.” Sarsour insisted that Muslims were unprepared for “the potential chaos” that the Trump administration might inflict on them and asserted that Trump was determined to test how much US Muslims “can endure.”

It is also noteworthy that in the wake of the controversy that erupted after her call for “jihad” against the Trump administration, Sarsour tried to claim that “the majority of Muslims” and “experts” would not misunderstand what she meant when she encouraged “jihad”.

Unfortunately, this is a very shaky claim given that throughout Islamic history, the kind of threats that US Muslims face according to Sarsour have been used to justify “jihad” as understood by most of Sarsour’s critics. It is no coincidence that “the 199 references to jihad in the most standard collection of hadith, Sahih al-Bukhari, all assume that jihad means warfare.”

There seem to be very little reliable data on how “the majority of Muslims” nowadays understand jihad. Gallup once asked the question in a survey conducted in 2002 and admitted rather reluctantly that “a significant minority” of the responses “did include some reference to ‘sacrificing one’s life for the sake of Islam/God/a just cause,’ or ‘fighting against the opponents of Islam’” and that in some of the countries surveyed, responses like these even constituted “the single most identifiable pattern.”

But there are a lot of reliable surveys showing that hundreds of millions of Muslims around the world supported Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden and believe that “suicide bombing and other forms of violence against civilian targets are justified in order to defend Islam from its enemies.”

It is hardly encouraging that support for this kind of jihadi terrorism dropped most dramatically in countries where Muslims learned the hard way that they themselves could become targets when some of their fellow Muslims feel they are not sufficiently pious.

Moreover, given that Sarsour often emphasizes her Palestinian identity, it’s rather dismal to contemplate what kind of “jihad” was popular among the majority of Palestinian Muslims in the first years after 9/11.

Last but not least, it seems doubtful that there is much reason to cheer when it turns out that “only” eight percent of American Muslims think that suicide bombings targeting civilians in defense of Islam are often or at least sometimes justified, while another five percent feel they are “rarely” justified. To be sure, 81 percent of US Muslims told pollsters such acts of terrorism can never be justified, but if Sarsour is right and there are about five million Muslim Americans, the results from the cited 2013 survey would mean that 50.000 US Muslims think suicide bombings of civilians in defense of Islam are often justified; another 350.000 feel such acts of terrorism are sometimes justified, while an additional 250.000 see them as rarely justified.

Furthermore, given Linda Sarsour’s frequent efforts to mobilize young Muslims, the alarming results of a Pew poll published ten years ago are particularly noteworthy:

“the survey finds that younger Muslim Americans – those under age 30 – are both much more religiously observant and more accepting of Islamic extremism than are older Muslim Americans. Younger Muslim Americans report attending services at a mosque more frequently than do older Muslims. And a greater percentage of younger Muslims in the U.S. think of themselves first as Muslims, rather than primarily as Americans (60% vs. 41% among Muslim Americans ages 30 and older). Moreover, more than twice as many Muslim Americans under age 30 as older Muslims believe that suicide bombings can be often or sometimes justified in the defense of Islam (15% vs. 6%).”

Sarsour has worked as a Muslim community organizer for some 15 years, and as her rhetoric shows, she is encouraging the trend to more religiosity and less assimilation while studiously avoiding any criticism of the extremism that has been espoused by a not inconsiderable number of young US Muslims. Instead, she advocates enthusiastically for a convicted murderous terrorist like Rasmea Odeh and preaches perpetual outrage while calling for “jihad” without acknowledging what jihadist have wrought just in the 21st century.

Lee Smith put it best in a Tablet post:

“The reality is that the debate over Islamic semantics has already been resolved—not in American newsrooms or the partisan halls of US politics, but on the killing fields of the Middle East. The people who are cutting each other’s heads off on both sides of the sectarian divide across Syria and Iraq, crucifying civilians, making sex slaves of women and children, and indulging in other inhuman depredations, have justified the murder of their co-religionists and others according to the logic of jihad. By all means, feel free to challenge that particular interpretation of the word, but at least have the decency to acknowledge your intervention comes in the context of nearly half a million dead.”

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

07/10 Links Pt1: Interrogation of terrorist proves: PA payments motivate terror; Hebron Ties and Lies

From Ian:

PMW: Interrogation of Palestinian terrorist proves: PA payments motivate terror

Interrogation of Palestinian terrorist proves: PA payments motivate terror
Palestinian terrorist: "I've accumulated large debts... if my son wants a shekel, I have nothing to give him... I decided to do something serious, such as committing murder, something in which I will both kill and die, and then my family will get money (i.e., from the PA) and will live comfortably... If I'm not able to kill soldiers, I'll try settlers, guards - in other words any Israeli target - the important thing is that I will die and they will kill me, so that my children will receive a [PA] allowance and live happily"
[From transcript of Israeli Police interrogation of Palestinian terrorist]
In anticipation of the hearing this coming Wednesday in the US Senate on the Taylor Force Act, which would cut all US funding to the Palestinian Authority until it stops paying salaries to terrorists and allowances to families of terrorist "Martyrs," Palestinian Media Watch is releasing a transcript of the Israeli Police's interrogation of a Palestinian terrorist, which PMW received and translated from the original in Arabic.
The terrorist, Khaled Rajoub, was caught after an unsuccessful attempt to murder Israelis. During interrogation, he explained that his motivation for the planned murder was so he himself would also be killed and his family would then receive monthly payments from the PA. In his own words: "... any Israeli target - the important thing is that I will die and they will kill me, so that my children will receive a [PA] allowance and live happily."
Had Khaled Rajoub been killed by Israel during his terror attack, the PA would have declared him a "Martyr" and this would secure his family a monthly PA lifetime allowance of 2,800 shekels/month: 1,400 base pay, 400 for his wife and 200 for each of 5 children.
Khaled Rajoub's statements show that the PA's financial rewards to terrorists and "Martyrs'" families definitely constitute motivation for terror.
Throughout the interrogation, terrorist Rajoub kept emphasizing his determination to kill Israelis in order to receive PA allowances for his family:

How to Depoliticize Palestinian Refugee Status

In a bold reversal of longstanding Israeli policy, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu recently called for dismantling the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) and rolling its functions into the United Nations High Commission on Refugees (UNHCR), which handles the rest of the world's refugees. Previously, despite the multitude of failings of UNRWA, Israel has long cooperated with the group and hitherto opposed proposals to shut it down, fearing the humanitarian consequences and resulting instability.
"I regret that UNRWA, to a large degree, by its very existence, perpetuates — and does not solve — the Palestinian refugee problem," Netanyahu said, referring to UNRWA's expansive definition of a "refugee."
The prime minister's call was well-timed: UNRWA just used a picture of a Syrian child as propaganda, suggesting incorrectly she was a Gaza resident, and revelations of Hamas using UNRWA schools as cover for tunnels aimed at kidnapping and murder have flooded the news. While UNRWA was initially intended to resettle refugees, it has since dropped that task from its mission. Indeed, it resists resettlement and has continually changed its definition of a refugee to include people generations removed from the conflict, people who are citizens of new states, and people who are in their internationally recognized home of the West Bank and Gaza. No other organization uses a similar definition.
While the U.S. originally protested UNRWA's evolving definition, in recent years, the State Department has defended UNRWA's current definition. In practice, this means is that while there were about 700,000 refugees in 1950, there will be a projected 6.4 million faux "refugees" in 2020, even though most live normal lives for people in the region. An estimated 2 million are Jordanian citizens. This bizarre definition is purely political, aimed at protecting the so-called "right of return," a novel legal claim that people generations removed from the conflict have the right to return to a country their ancestral leaders tried to destroy.

JPost Editorial: Justice delayed

On January 27, 2013, Kirchner announced she had reached a nonbinding agreement with Iran to set up a “truth commission” that did not call to prosecute the suspects. This was her response to a nearly 300-page report Nisman had submitted to a federal judge two weeks before.
Its 60-page summary was released to the media, accusing Kirchner of “an aggravated cover-up and obstruction of justice regarding the Iranians accused of the AMIA terrorist attack.”
While Argentina simmered with conspiracy theories that blamed everyone else for Nisman’s death – the CIA, Mossad, even MI6 – Kirchner’s website first endorsed the “finding” that it was a suicide. Three days later, she asserted that he had been murdered in a plot to discredit her.
Since the Islamic Revolution, Iran has been involved in some of the most extensive terrorist activity around the globe. Before Kirchner announced the Iran agreement, Nisman’s staff had produced a 500-page report on Hezbollah and Iran’s terrorist infiltration in Latin America.
Jewish community leader Waldo Wolff eulogized Nisman for his 20-year crusade to provide justice to the victims of the AMIA bombing. His death, “and the macabre plot around his death,” Wolff told the mourners, allowed us “to see what actually lies underneath them: the dark labyrinth of power hidden in the most open parts of our society.”
Twenty-three years after the AMIA attack, it is not too late to bring Iran to justice. The 85 slain and the more than 300 who were wounded deserve this, but it is also an important message that even as time passes, crimes are not forgotten.
Terrorists will be hunted down and pay for their actions.

A couple of years back, I took enough interest in the Mennonite Church’s flirtation with divestment to pen this piece regarding some back-and-forth I had in the comments section of an editorial in a Mennonite newsletter regarding the subject.

The reason this church divestment debate didn’t generate the kind of obsession I developed over the Presbyterians’ decade-long fight over divestment is that (1) I never realized Mennonites still existed until this controversy hit my BDS radar; and (2) decisions by a tiny sect (there are currently between 75,000-80,000 Mennonites in the US – or a quarter of the number of number of Jews just in Massachusetts) don’t pack the same propaganda punch as votes by well-established (if also declining) churches whose members number in the millions.

The church’s historic eschewal of violence likely made them a tasty morsel for a propaganda campaign like BDS desperate to portray themselves as non-violent, despite the BDSers flipping between refusing to renounce and actively encouraging violence within the wider anti-Israel “movement.” So while it’s clear what the boycotters get out of owning the Mennonite “brand,” it’s still not particularly understandable what the Mennonites get out of such a deal.

Their desperation to join the BDS project, whatever the cost, is apparent in the “Third Way” concept they came up with in the two years between 2015 (when church support for BDS was tabled based on further contemplation) and 2017 when divestment was voted in nearly unanimously. This “Third Way” consisted of the church balancing its divestment decisions targeting Israel (and Israel alone) for financial punishment with a commitment to devote time and energy confronting the Church’s own history with regard to anti-Semitism, particularly, as it relates to the Holocaust.

Now I will admit that the Mennonite role in the attempted annihilation of every Jew in the world was unknown to me, but apparently church history during World War II does lend itself to some soul searching. Personally, I have no interest in tarring today’s Mennonites with things their forefathers said and did, but if current member want to spend some time probing those issues, more power to them.

Trouble is, what they claim to be a long-overdue confrontation with their own past (1) only began when they started talking about joining a project (BDS) dedicated to assaulting the most important Jewish project of the last century (the creation of the Jewish nation); (2) established as a “Third Way” the equivalence between the behavior of that Jewish nation and the murderous anti-Semitism of the last century; and (3) refused to even acknowledge any role for contemporary anti-Semitism in the conflict they’ve decided to threw themselves into.

A church that has supposedly dedicated years to contemplating the problem of anti-Jewish bigotry might, for example, notice that they are allying with traffickers in Jew-hating rhetoric as incendiary as those they condemn themselves for ignoring decades ago. To grasp such an obvious fact does not even require them to wade into the quagmire of defining where anti-Zionism ends and anti-Semitism begins. It just requires them to pay attention to the fact that Mein Kampf and the Protocols of the Elder of Zion are best sellers and staples of political discourse among the very societies today’s Mennonites are dedicating their entire historical reputation to support.

The rhetorical techniques to avoid these matters I saw in play during my brief foray into discussion with church members are always available to Mennonites to justify their morally unjustifiable behavior, as are the usual tricks of claiming Jewish support from marginal groups like Jewish Voice for Peace to “prove” divided Jewish attitudes towards their project.

But a genuinely moral movement dedicated to grappling with tough issues before lending their reputation for justice and non-violence to those actively supporting one side in a violent conflict would not rely such devices to avoid the moral conversation they simultaneously claim to crave.

While I have engaged with fewer Mennonites than I have with members of other Churches, I suspect as individuals they are no less intelligent and decent than the many religious men and women I’ve debated over the years on matters related to Israel and BDS. Which leaves open the question of how smart and honorable people could have come up with (and now celebrate) something as immoral and intellectually vacuous as their “Third Way.”

Once again, the drug of choice that inevitably leads to such intellectual and moral rot goes under the name of BDS.

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

An article in Ma'an by Dr. Ali Awar says that the Jewish connection to the Western Wall is a relatively recent phenomenon. He claims that in fact the Kotel is meaningless to Jews and Judaism, and uses (as proof!) that Yassir Arafat denied that there was any Temple in Jerusalem during Camp David talks, saying that maybe it was in Nablus.

He admits that the Ottomans allowed Jews to worship there (because they were so kind!) but that Muslims always knew that it was a Muslim shrine, the Buraq Wall. (The site of the Kotel was never identified with the story of Mohammed's magic steed until the 20th century.)

Awar says "The Wailing Wall is exploited by Israeli politicians to extinguish the status of religious legitimacy on this holy place for Muslims."

He also claims that the deadly 1929 pogroms against Jews broke out because the Jews wanted to put up a partition at the Kotel to separate Jews from Muslims! (The temporary partition was meant to create separate men's and women's sections for Yom Kippur prayers.)

This is the quality of Arab scholarship as seen in media that is funded by foreign governments and NGOs.

For "quality" journalism.

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

Jihad ("Jehad") in 19th century scholarly books by Muslims ALWAYS means war

In the wake of Linda Sarsour's assertion that when she calls for a "jihad" against Donald Trump she is unambiguously meaning a non-violent jihad, and the leftist media rallying to defend her interpretation, I looked up how the word was used dispassionately in the 19th century.

A great deal of the literature comes from India, where the British needed to be aware of Islamic law and the Muslims wanted to show Islam in as positive a light as possible.

"Mahomedan Law Relating to Marriage, Dower, Divorce, Legitimacy and Guardianship of Minors, According to the Soonnees" is an encyclopedic work on Sunni Islamic law written by Muslim scholars of law who were "pleaders of the Calcutta High Court."

The word "Jehad" has no meaning in this book outside of "religious war." Here are its index entries on "jehad."

The Census of India, 1891, Volume 23, Parts 1-2, includes a large amount of explanatory material for the English-speaking reader. It includes a sympathetic description of "jehad" that makes it clear that the intent is defensive war - but that is again the only definition given, and nothing is said about the supposed "greater jihad" of struggling with oneself or any other non-violent interpretation. In fact, this description, meant for the Western reader, revels in the violence of jihad as a necessary and progressive effort to subdue paganism and Christianity.

165.—Jehad.—It is an erroneous notion to suppose that Islam is a religion propagated by means of the sword. After studying both sides of the question carefully, an unbiassed mind will pronounce its verdict against the common prevailing idea that the Jehad was enjoined by the Prophet, and that consistent Islam is always a church militant. Moulive Cheragh Ali, now Nawab Azam Yar Jung, the Subedar of the Southern division, and Financial Secretary to Government, in his valuable work, "Critical Exposition of the Jehad", completely refutes the imputation, and proves conclusively that the Jehad was a purely defensive war, undertaken by the Prophet and his handful of followers to protect themselves against the persecutions and attacks of the ungodly and fierce Koreish. After the death of the Prophet and during the Caliphate of Abu Bakr, most of the Arab tribes turned from their newly adopted religion, and refused to pay the alms and tithes which they had undertaken to disburse; hence forces were levied by order of the Caliph, and sent against such infidels to collect the tithes. Their success in this enterprise fired their zeal and enthusiasm, which developed into that marvellous career of conquest, unrivalled in the history of the world.* (Footnote: * The Arabs marched into the neighbouring countries and offered their religion to the inhabitants for acceptance; as an alternative they were advised to pay Jazya, or tribute, which allowed them the right of performing unmolested their own rites and ceremonies, and they were to be under the protectorate of the Moslems, so long as they paid the Jazija regularly; but if they refused both the above alternatives, then the question of supremacy and right was decided by the sword,) Africa was completely subjugated under Abu Bakr, the first Caliph ; Syria and part of Persia during the Caliphate of Omar, the second Caliph, and the subjugation of Persia was completed during Osman's term of office. Within twelve years after the death of the Prophet, the Arabs had reduced 36,000 fortified places in Persia, Syria and Africa and had replaced churches and places of worship, by 1,400 mosques. Musa, who, like Cromwell, was a brave soldier as well as an eloquent preacher, conquered Carthage during the expiring years of the seventh century, and Spain in the beginning of the eighth. A few years more and the Saracens entered France and would have conquered it and the rest of Europe with the same facility as they had done Asia and Africa, had not their victorious march been checked by Charles Martel, the grandfather of Charlemagne. This event took place at the memorable field of Tours in 732, A. D., so that within a hundred years after the Prophet's death, the power of the Moslems had extended from the borders of China to the boundaries of France, from the Gulf of Tonquin to the Bay of Biscay. But there were circumstances, religious, social and political, peculiar to that age and century which greatly facilitated this series of uninterrupted and almost superhuman success. In Persia, the sublime religion of Zaratusht (Zoroaster) had degenerated into various species of magie worship, idolatry and silly superstitions. The sharp distinctions of right and wrong, as developed in the lofty dualism of Ahura Mazda (Hormazd) being engaged in eternal conflict with Angrimainya (Ahriman), had well nigh faded away, and the noble race of the Iranians had sunk into all forms of vice and corruption. As a natural and inevitable consequence, there were mutual jealousies and internal feuds and dissentions all over the Sassauidian Empire, till it needed only the persistent blows of a strong force to shatter it to pieces. That force was found in Islam. The religious, social and political conditions of Syria and Egypt, of Carthage and 5? pain were equally bad, if not worse. All these countries had once formed parts of the great Roman Empire, and had consequently, not yet recovered from the effects of the blows that had brought rack and ruin to the whole. No doubt, they had all been converted from paganism and idolatry to Christianity, but that Christianity had, within six centuries, undergone such deterioration and frightful degeneracy as to have been scarcely discernible as the simple original faith, which its Founder had lived and died for. "When, therefore", says an eminent philosopher and historian, "in the midst of the wrangling of sects, in the incomprehensible jargon of Arrians, Nestorians, Eutychians, Monothelites, Monophysites, Mariolatrists and an anarchy of countless disputants, there sounded through the world, not the miserable voice of the intriguing majority of a council but the dread battle-cry, "There is but one God", enforced by the tempest of Saracen armies, is it surprising that the hubbub was hushed? Is it surprising that Asia and Africa fell?"

Finally, and most surprisingly, comes this description of Islam in The Calcutta Review, Volume 65, from the University of Calcutta. An article called "Islam as it is," anonymously written by "A European Haji," again describes Islam as charitably as possible for a scholarly Western audience. It describes the "lesser Jihad" and the "greater Jihad" in terms that are much different than how Muslims describe them today:

There are two subjects which may perhaps be most suitably introduced here:—the personal character of Mahomed, and jehad, or religious war. We need not dip far into the writings of European authors on these subjects, to detect the impulse under which they write. From Alexander Ross to Major Osborn, our authors seem to have considered it their duty when discussing such questions to heap together all the calumny they could, and excite themselves ihto fierce denunciations of the prophet, as an " ambitious politician," an "assassin," one who sought only "worldly dominion," a "libertine," and so forth; nor is the jehad a subject which such writers can afford to discuss calmly, dispassionately or truthfully. Jehad had been denounced as being the "obligation under which the faithful lie, to kill and destroy all infidels ;" and Europeans generally insist on holding the opinion, that every Mahomedan who neglects an opportunity of giving an infidel the choice between death or Islam is esteemed little better than an infidel himself. Let it be sufficient to say that did the Koran or the Miskat al Masibalt§ support this theory, there is scarcely a Mahomedan in the country whose hands would not now be dipped in English blood.
...
A Mahomedan is not bound to engage in jehad against a country or people who permit him to exercise his religion without hindrance,nor can a. jehad be proclaimed without sufficient cause being shown. In the lesser "jehad" (jehad essighir) the rights of even infidels against whom it is not directed should be respected.The "lesser jehad" is where one or more particular sects have acted aggressively towards Mahomedans, and the jehad is directed only against them. The " greater jehad " (jihad ackbar) is when Islam faces all disbelievers, and fights until either all disbelievers are exterminated, yield tribute or are converted. Christians may even assist in the "lesser jehad." Towards the close of the pilgrim season of 1875-76, the war in Turkey was formally declared to be a jehad by the ulema (or council of the learned) in Mecca.

Today, the "greater jihad" is invariably described as an "inner struggle." Yet according to WikiIslam, the hadith that defines "greater jihad" as an inner struggle is considered suspect by Islamic scholars altogether. This source explicitly defines "greater jihad" as more violent than "lesser jihad."

All three of these descriptions of jihad were written by Muslims trying to make Islam look as positive as possible for a Western audience. Not one of them mentioned Jihad in any context outside religious war.

While the etymology of "jihad" does mean "struggle," etymology does not indicate meaning. It is as if someone would describe suicide bombings as "terrific" and, when pressed, would say the word "terrific" comes from the same root as the word "terror" and often meant "terrifying" in the 17th century, which is technically accurate but fundamentally false.

(See also my post from yesterday on this subject.)

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

The Palestinian Authority siege on Gaza tightens

According to Gaza media, three days ago the Palestinian Authority banned all money transfers to Egypt for the purpose of purchasing fuel for Gaza's power plant.

The Gaza energy authority announced the stop in fuel transfers in a press statement.

Egypt had been providing fuel to Gaza to help alleviate the reduction in electricity from the PA stopping paying Israel for electricity and stopping paying for fuel for the power plant. I thought that the Egyptian fuel was free, but apparently Gaza authorities had been paying for it.

Hamas condemned the PA for further restricting the ability of Gazans to have electricity.

The PA has been severely restricting fuel, medicine, medical supplies and the have been trying to restrict electricity from Israel to Gaza for the past several months.

At this time Gaza is receiving about 92 MW of electricity a day, 70 MW from Israel and the rest from Egypt, and none from the power plant. Normally Gaza gets over 200 MW which still was only enough for several hours a day.

Yet any criticism of the PA for plunging Gaza into darkness has been muted at best.

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

07/09 Links: UNESCO Has Blood on Its Hands; Radiohead's singer flips off anti-Israel protesters

From Ian:

Radiohead's frontman flips off anti-Israel protesters in Glasgow

Radiohead frontman Thom Yorke faced off anti-Israel protesters who disrupted a show Friday night at the Transmight Festival in Glasgow, Scotland. The band has been facing massive pressure from the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement to cancel its upcoming show in Israel, but Yorke has been adamant that the July 19 show in Tel Aviv will take place as scheduled.
Activists from the Glasgow Palestine Action Group, Glasgow Palestine Solidarity Campaign and Radiohead Fans for Palestine protested at the festival's venue, waving giant Palestinian flags and posters reading, "Radiohead: #canceltelaviv."
According to fans in the audience, Yorke was visibly irritated by the protestors and just before the band's performance of their hit "Myxomatosis," he muttered "some f***ing people" and gestured with his middle finger.
In a recent interview with Rolling Stone magazine, Yorke blasted the BDS movement's call to boycott Israel as divisive.
"All of this creates divisive energy. You're not bringing people together. You're not encouraging dialogue or a sense of understanding. ... It's such an extraordinary waste of energy. Energy that could be used in a more positive way."Yorke further said it was "patronizing in the extreme" to presume Radiohead is unfamiliar with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, pointing out that guitarist Jonny Greenwood's wife is an "Arab Jew."

IsraellyCool: Roger Waters’ Antisemitism To Be Subject of Documentary

Roger Waters is about to have his pathological hatred of the Jewish state put under the microscope in an upcoming documentary film.
Waters himself is now the subject of a boycott campaign and a documentary film made by award-winning filmmaker and New York Times bestselling author Ian Halperin.
Halperin’s work includes documentaries on Kurt Cobain, Michael Jackson and Lady Gaga. For the past two years, the investigative journalist has been making Wish You Weren’t Here, a documentary examining contemporary anti-Semitism and Waters’ efforts to make Israel a global pariah.
—
“During my research,” Halperin continued, “I came upon Roger Waters, and I couldn’t believe he was singling out Israel when there are so many truly egregious violators of human rights in the world. Why is he going after Israel? So, I began asking people what this guy has against Israel. To me, an attack on Israel is an attack against the Jewish people.”
Halperin met with psychologists who work with Holocaust survivors and their families. He described the effect of Waters’ floating pig bearing the Star of David as “unforgiveable” for survivors, comparing it to a scene in his film where a three-year-old Palestinian girl is “brainwashed” into believing Jews are pigs.

Wish You Weren't Here - The Trailer; Film Coming Summer 2017

Outrage as Islamist claims Grenfell Tower victims were 'murdered by Zionists' who fund Conservative Party

An Islamist activist has claimed the Grenfell Tower victims “were murdered” by Zionists who fund the Conservative party in an astonishing outburst now being investigated by police.
Nazim Ali, a director of the Islamic Human Rights Commission (IHRC), is accused of exploiting the tragedy during an anti-Israel demonstration in the days after the fire.
The Metropolitan Police said it was now investigating allegations of anti-Semitic comments made during the protest.
Mr Ali, who is managing partner of a private health clinic in west London which charges patients up to £150 for a GP consultation, told the rally on June 18: “As we know in Grenfell, many innocents were murdered by Theresa May’s cronies, many of which are supporters of Zionist ideology.”
In video footage posted online, Mr Ali goes on: “Let us not forget that some of the biggest corporations who were supporting the Conservative Party are Zionists. They are responsible for the murder of the people in Grenfell, in those towers in Grenfell, the Zionist supporters of the Tory Party.”

From the Jerusalem Consulate web page (h/t Yisrael Medad):

U.S. Consul General Donald Blome launched a hiking journey across the entire West Bank this week as he follows the 321 kilometer Masar Ibrahim Al-Khalil trail. The journey, which will span from north of Jenin to the Old City of Hebron, provides the opportunity to explore the unique culture and natural beauty of the West Bank while encouraging tourism and sustainable development.

The inaugural hike kicked off on May 14 in Rummana village northwest of Jenin, famous for its hilly landscape and olive trees dating back to Roman times. It ended in Burquin village at a community center renovated recently with support of USAID. This first segment covered 18 kilometers and will be followed by 21 sequential hikes the Consul General will walk to complete the Abraham path in the coming year.

Consul General Donald Blome was joined by local officials and members of the Masar Ibrahim Al-Khalili organization as he explained his reasons for launching the journey: “This journey is all about exploring the connection of the people with the land – deep roots formed through nature, culture, art, and agriculture.”

The webpage of the Masar Ibrahim al-Khalil makes it very clear that this isn't about real history or culture, but about Palestinian propaganda:

Masar Ibrahim Al-Khalil is a trail that runs through the West Bank from the Mediterranean olive groves of the highlands of the north to the silence of the deserts in the south, from the area west of Jenin to the area south of the Sanctuary of Abraham (known in Arabic as Al-Haram Al-Ibrahimi) in the city of (Hebron).
It is more than just a hiking trail, it’s a path that leads deep into the memory and heritage of Palestinian people, inviting you to discover the family life of the villages, the proud ways of Bedouin tribes, and the age-old traditions of hospitality that lie at the heart of Palestinian life.

The word "Jewish" is completely absent from their website.

To pretend that this hiking trail based purportedly around a Biblical figure without mentioning Jews even once shows that this initiative is not about teaching culture and history - but about erasing it.

Donald Blome, who has spent years working in and concerned with Arab countries, knows this all quite well.

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

Linda Sarsour recently stirred up a great deal of attention when she gave a speech where she called for "jihad" against Donald Trump but made it clear that she was not referring to anything violent. As reported in the Washington Post:

In her speech, Sarsour told a story from Islamic scripture about a man who once asked Muhammad, the founder of Islam, “What is the best form of jihad, or struggle?
“And our beloved prophet … said to him, ‘A word of truth in front of a tyrant ruler or leader, that is the best form of jihad,'” Sarsour said.
“I hope that … when we stand up to those who oppress our communities, that Allah accepts from us that as a form of jihad, that we are struggling against tyrants and rulers not only abroad in the Middle East or on the other side of the world, but here in these United States of America, where you have fascists and white supremacists and Islamophobes reigning in the White House.”

As Lee Smith noted, Sarsour knew exactly what she was saying by using the word "jihad" here, to paint those who are offended at the term as bigots.

I am a bit more interested in her story about Mohammed's use of the term.

The source for that story is a fairly obscure hadith, Musnad Aḥmad 18449. Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal merits only a small mention in Wikipedia; although the author was an early influential Muslim theologian, the veracity of his hadiths are sometimes suspect by other Muslims.

More interestingly, there is a much more famous story about Mohammed and the definition of jihad (from the English translation of the Book of Jihad):

A man asked the Prophet: What is Jihad? He (s.a.w)
replied: “To fight against the disbelievers when you
meet them (on the battlefield).” The man asked: “What
kind of Jihad is the highest?” He (s.a.w) replied: “The
person who is killed whilst spilling the last of his blood”

Yet another quote from Mohammed on jihad is this one:

The Messenger of Allah was asked about the best jihad. He said: "The best jihad is the one in which your horse is slain and your blood is spilled."

Wikipedia's article on Jihad notes that while the use of the word to refer to non-violent actions was used in some very early sources, its use was often unambiguously violent:

Of the 199 references to jihad in perhaps the most standard collection of hadith—Bukhari—all assume that jihad means warfare.[31]

Sarsour's cynical use of "jihad" is being amplified by her Muslim admirers such as the equally deceptive Dalia Mogahed who tweeted "What's #YourJihad? Maybe it's working for an America for All. Maybe it's just loving your kids. #IStandWithLinda."

This is a deliberate effort to water down the meaning of the word "jihad" to make it appear to be a liberal value. In no way is that true; even the expansive definition of "greater Jihad" refers to striving or struggle to be a better person, "loving your kids" should not be a struggle for most people.

Sarsour, taking advantage of the controversy, tweeted that "My work is CRYSTAL CLEAR as an activist rooted in Kingian non-violence." It would be most illuminating to ask her is she is therefore against jihad as holy war altogether, which everyone agrees is one of its meanings. As an avowed believing Muslim, Sarsour cannot possibly say that. It would also be interesting to ask Sarsour if she condemns the use of the word "jihad" by Palestinian terror groups like Islamic Jihad, let alone if she unequivocally condemns their use of violence, since she she claims to be so "Kingian."

There is literally no way Sarsour could condemn Palestinian jihad or the concept of violent jihad altogether. Those are bound up in her identity as a Muslim and as a descendant of Palestinians who define Israel as a place that must be destroyed by any means possible.

In this sense, the word "jihad" can be loosely compared to the word "crusade." The analogy is far from exact, because the current use of "crusade" in English vernacular is wholly outside of any Christian religious connotation except by scholars, while "jihad" is clearly used by millions of ordinary Muslims today to refer primarily to holy war. Yet when the word "crusade" is used today, Muslims take offense - how dare the speaker invoke a word that has such negative connotations to Muslims? But the word "jihad" is, by any yardstick, much more offensive, and Sarsour is deliberately using it to demonize her opponents.

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

Around 2011, Egypt under Muslim Brotherhood rule briefly opened up the border to Gaza both ways, and hundreds of curious Egyptians visited the enclave expecting it to be as terrible as the news media made it sound. They were surprised to find that in many ways Gaza was better off economically than their own villages and towns.

Now as then, there is no shortage of news stories about how bad things are in Gaza. Scores of NGOs are based there, all publicizing their crucial role in helping the poor Gazans survive the "crushing siege" that Israel imposes on them.

But just across the Egyptian border, Gaza isn't looked upon as the third world hellhouse it is portrayed as in the media. For some Egyptians, Gaza is an opportunity to escape the even worse situations at home.

From Al Monitor (June 25):

Egyptian construction workers often do not earn enough to cover the basic expenses for themselves and their families, such as food, medicine and clothing.

The value of the Egyptian pound fell in half following the government’s decision to float the Egyptian currency in November and stands at about 18 Egyptian pounds to the US dollar.

This has forced many construction workers to work extra hours; some of them even sought to migrate or obtain a work visa abroad.

Strangely, however, some found jobs in the Gaza Strip, which is reeling under its own massive unemployment and harsh economic conditions due to the Israeli siege.

Since the beginning of the year, some employers, including contractors, in the Gaza Strip have noticed that Egyptian construction workers have been applying for jobs there.

At first this seemed quite odd. Many wondered how these Egyptian men crossed into Gaza and started searching for jobs there.

Contractor Mohammed Younis of the southern Gaza town of Rafah, who employs 10 construction workers, hired two Egyptians in early April.

In order to be allowed to enter Gaza through the Rafah crossing, these Egyptian workers usually invoke their kinship relationship to Egyptian women who are living in Gaza and married to a Palestinian national. Egyptians, however, have to be first- or second-degree relatives of these women in Gaza to get a tourist visa to Palestine.

After getting the visa, these Egyptians are forced to wait for long periods to enter Gaza, in light of the repeated closure of the Rafah Crossing. Once in Gaza, they start their job hunt through their relatives and Egyptian connections there.

Al-Monitor met with four Egyptians working in different areas in the Gaza Strip.

Moamen Hosni, 34, is from Dakahlia governorate in northeast Egypt. ...He traveled to Gaza at the beginning of March and is now working as a construction worker with a contractor related to his brother-in-law.

Hosni told Al-Monitor, “At the beginning of this year, I was evicted from an apartment I had rented in Dakahlia because I was unable to pay the monthly rent. I had been working extra hours and taking on multiple odd jobs for two years in a crumbling Egyptian economy.”

He continued, “Then one day my sister who lives in Gaza suggested I move to the Gaza Strip despite the difficult conditions there and even though it was unlikely for me to find a job. But given the currency exchange difference between the Egyptian pound and the shekel, if I did ever find a job there, I would be able to send money to my family back home and pay the monthly rent.”

Hosni works from the early morning hours until the sun sets. He said that in the month of Ramadan he works from midnight until the time of the Suhoor (the meal consumed early in the morning by Muslims before fasting).

“I have been getting a monthly salary of about 1,300 shekels ($368) since I started working in the Gaza Strip. I transfer half of this amount to my wife through money transfer offices in Gaza to pay the rent and cover other bills.”

Mutawaa Dahlouki, 42, and Ayad Bashir, 39, told Al-Monitor that they worked in Libya from September 2014 until August 2016, but they left their jobs there for fear of terrorist groups, especially after the killing of a number of Egyptian workers in Libya and the abduction of others, whose fate is yet to be known. When Dahlouki and Bashir came back home, they found their financial situation to be much worse than when they left.

Dahlouki and Bashir entered the Gaza Strip in February. Bashir’s mother is Palestinian. She lives in the Maghazi refugee camp in the central Gaza Strip with her husband, whom she had married after his father's death in the 1990s. The two men were able to work as construction workers and as porters with a local house furniture transport company.

Dahlouki told Al-Monitor, “It is currently very difficult for an Egyptian to obtain a visa for Arab countries. Illegal migration to European countries has proved to be deadly and frightening. Moving to a European country is not as easy as it may seem. Bashir and I never thought about coming to Gaza, which has been ravaged by wars. But our search for means of a livelihood brought us here, and we found it safer than Libya.”

Dahlouki and Bashir earn a monthly salary ranging between 1,200 shekels ($340) and 1,500 shekels ($425) each for working for about 12 hours a day. They send money to their families in Minya governorate in Upper Egypt. Dahlouki has a family of six and Bashir of five.

Ahmad Mustafa, 44, traveled to Gaza to stay with his daughter, who is married to a Palestinian. Mustafa works as a home electricity maintenance technician and at night he sells cellphone accessories on a cart, on Omar al-Mukhtar Street in Gaza.

Mustafa is the father of seven children living in Hadaiq al-Qubbah neighborhood in central Cairo. He is working two jobs to be able to provide for the needs of his family, not to mention the tuition fees of three of his children.

He told Al-Monitor that an electrician in Egypt often does not make more than 50 Egyptian pounds ($2.75) a day, which is not enough to cover household expenses.

There are no UN resolutions or teary New York Times articles about the terrible situation of Egyptians in the Sinai. In fact, such stories comparing Gaza to the Sinai would not be allowed -because it would retroactively show that the media is spent a hugely disproportionate amount of time and column-inches to a "crisis" that, while serious, is not bad compared to other economic crises worldwide that receive next to no attention.

Which is just another way of saying the adage - no Jews, no news.

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.