B'Tselem and Hamas' excellent adventure

YNet reports:

A B’Tselem ad calling on Hamas to release IDF soldier Gilad Shalit "immediately and unconditionally" has been banned in Gaza, according to the Israeli human rights organization.

The group spokeswoman said the ad was published on Thursday by the Palestinian newspaper Al-Quds, which is circulated in the West Bank, but the Gaza-based daily 'Palestine' refused to print it.

"We wanted to publish the ad in the Gaza Strip as well, but we were unsuccessful," the spokeswoman told Ynet.

"They ('Palestine' newspaper staff) did not give us a reason for the refusal, but we assume it's because the issue is a complex one (in the Hamas-ruled territory). The press in Gaza is apparently not so free. The ad was published in Al-Quds, and we hope the residents of Gaza will read it there."

B'Tselem, a human rights organization, will not hesitate to condemn Israel at the drop of a hat, but look how difficult it is for them to say anything bad about Hamas.

"We assume."
"It's complex."
"Apparently not so free."

Not "We were refused" but "we were unsuccessful."

This episode illuminates B'Tselem's mindset far better than it illustrates Hamas'.

Read More

UC Santa Barbara clears lying, anti-semitic professor

From YNet/AP:

A committee at a California university has cleared a professor who sent an e-mail comparing Israel's policies in Gaza to the Holocaust.

Officials at the University of California, Santa Barbara, sent a letter Wednesday to sociology professor William I. Robinson saying the committee had closed the matter.

In January, Robinson offended some students and others with an e-mail to his "Sociology of Globalization" class that juxtaposed grisly photos from the Nazi era with a recent Gaza offensive.

Robinson has said his justified criticism of Israel's policies should not be confused as anti-Semitism.

As I reported then, the media screwed up this story big time.

First of all, Robinson sent out an email with 42 pictures juxtaposing Nazi-era pictures with pictures of Israelis and Arabs. While it was characterized as if it was source material for a class, it was nothing of the sort.

Secondly, while the university seems to have been fixated on whether this was anti-semitic or not (and it clearly is,) it ignored that his "facts" were provably wrong. Robinson didn't just tell his students his opinions; he told them lies as if they were factual.

When a university has such a disregard for the truth, it loses all credibility. This episode does not just damn Robinson - it damns the entire University fo California Santa Barbara as a serious institution of higher education.

Read More

Today's PalArab news, part 2 (6-24-09)

There are rumors that Israel's release of Hamas politician Aziz Dweik is an initial move towards Hamas releasing Gilad Shalit in Egypt in two weeks. We've seen these sorts of rumors before, though.

Sources in Jordan's Interior Ministry are saying that there is international pressure for Jordan to naturalize Palestinian Arabs living there, with Jordan refusing to do so - of course, in the name of preserving "Palestinian identity." I wonder if they gave a referendum among Jordanian Palestinian Arabs, asking what they might want?

The former Secretary-General of the Arab National Conference, Maan Bashour, said in a conference in Syria that all of Jerusalem is the undivided historic capital of Palestine. Yes, he is claiming western Jerusalem as well.

Read More

More on Mizrahi Jews

I wrote on Monday about a Cambridge conference on Mizrahi Jews that downplayed the Arab role in their cultural disappearance.

This great article at ZioNation, a response to a different article by a "progressive" Sephardic Jew, explains things very well:

I would like to respond to "Why Jews left Arab Lands" a Progressive Sephardic view by David Shasha.

Allow me to briefly introduce myself. My name is Israel Bonan, I am a Mizrahi Jew. I was born in Cairo, Egypt in the mid 1940s. I was expelled from Egypt in 1967, and left with a torn shirt on my back, and a pair of mangled glasses, broken intentionally, on my face, and with very little else.

I am considered by any descriptive measure, a bona fide "refugee", a designation echoed by the United Nation High Commissioner of Refugees UNHCR, on behalf of the more than 800,000 displaced Mizrahi Jews fleeing the Arab countries (expressed twice, in 1957 and subsequently in 1967). I currently reside in the Boston area in the US.

I have been familiar with Mr. Shasha's views for quite sometimes now, and I find it disquieting that his positions, which run contrary to the factual history of the era and the conventional wisdom of the Mizrahi community, or as he prefers to call us "the Arab Jews", are taken as representative, when they are not.

It never ceases to amaze me, that Mr. Shasha who likes to refer to himself as an Arab Jew, though born in the US, has such a meager understanding, of the history of the era and about what constitutes a refugee or to dwell with any depth about their lot. Be that as it may.

I find that Mr. Shasha's logic and the common thread in his writings, have always consisted of three major assertions; making his discourse monotonously predictable and invariably repetitive.

One, life was always rosy for the Jews living in Arab lands and Israel's creation, as a cataclysmic watershed event, is the only cause for disrupting such an idyllic life.

Two, Israel as a product of an Ashkenazi culture, that is European by nature, has always suppressed, repressed and maligned the Mizrahi community and treated them as second class citizens; though they do represent, according to Shasha, the most effective group to undertake any peace initiative and dialog with the Arabs, having shared their culture, albeit without the author postulating any specific ideas as to the who, the why, the what, the when or for that matter, the how.

Finally, and he shares that notion with his counterpart (and much quoted resource in his writings) Professor Yehuda Shenhav; that it is unconscionable nay, immoral, to compare the plight of the Mizrahi Jews with that of the Palestinian Refugees.

Once again in the cited article, he did not disappoint, neither did he deviate from his usual template, but merely continued his revisionist approach to the Mizrahi historical narrative.

Extremism by its very nature does not allow for a tempered view of events or for cogent reflective analysis. The end result is always black or white; so regardless of how carefully and temperately Mr. Shasha seems to preface his views, the end result is always the same … black or white, all or nothing.

It is strange to note that in Mr. Shasha's attempt at historical fairness and balance, he used the following 26 words, in an article of more than 3300 words: :

Some arrived of their own free will; others arrived against their will. Some lived comfortably and securely in Arab lands; others suffered from fear and oppression.

That was the extent of defining what really happened to the Mizrahi Jews in an article titled: "Why the Jews left Arab lands," and you know what, Mr. Shasha is right!! Now if we can only take those 26 words and flesh them out a bit more with the historical facts of the matter, we get a totally different unfolding narrative that is not steeped in demonizing a country or a refugee class, or in cataclysmically defining some watershed events while glossing over others.

I took pains to chronicle my own personal Exodus ordeal, in "A Personal Exodus Story" after more than 35 years of silence. Shasha wrote:

It is curious that in a world that has largely ignored the voices of Arab Jews, the few we hear are filled with anger, resentment and hostility toward Arabs.

I invite Mr. Shasha to read it and to tell me, how much hate he can attribute to me vis-à-vis my Egyptian tormentors or Arabs in general, after reading it. By my accounting, none; yet I will let him be the judge. It is not hate, nor rancor or anger that motivates us to speak out as the "Forgotten Refugees". It is done out of fairness not retribution, it is about justice after having our human rights trampled upon and above all to record our own history that should not be denied us.

In a co-authored article with Dr. Rami Mangoubi titled: "Zionism for the ages", we rebutted the first two of Shasha's stated positions and in my article titled: "The Banana Jews"I took Professor Shenhav to task in rebuttal to his article "Hitching a ride on the magic carpet" about the third topic you both share.

In a nutshell, and again I happen to agree with Mr. Shasha, the Jews of Egypt participated fully and in greater proportion to their numbers in all aspects of life in Egypt; they more than made their mark on the cultural and economic landscape of the country. Where we disagreed with David Shasha, is that he choose the watershed event of the creation of the State of Israel as the turning point without which life in Egypt (and ergo the rest of the Arab countries) would have remained idyllic.

Idyllic indeed, when law after law (as far back as 1869), before even Zionism was spoken of, was enacted to limit access to citizenship for the Jews of Egypt in the country of our birth. through successive Nationality decrees and laws (of 1929).

Idyllic indeed, when law after law was enacted, to economically ethnic cleanse the Jews and other minorities by passing the Company law (of 1947) to restrict Jews and other minorities from access to work in the private and public sectors.

Idyllic indeed, when the Nationalization law (of the mid 1950s) was enacted, to deprive the members of our community of their remaining assets and businesses. Lest I forget and be judged guilty of omission, many other minorities at the time also suffered through this ordeal.

We also touched on the issue of the class system that favored the Ashkenazi community over the Mizrahi community; only to find ourselves citing some top government leadership roles that are today studded and replete with Mizrahi Jews. Mr. Shasha, class struggles are just that, they are struggles to improve ones status and to raise the ante for the whole country to improve, through an honest and thriving competitive spirit; and it will always will be and better be, a work in progress; for everyone's sake.

In my rebuttal of the third point, I wrote at length of my experience and that of my parents' experience and about what a refugee is, because it is not about being an arm chair apologist or being a Monday morning quarterback. It is about the suffering experienced, the dislocation, the angst associated with what was left behind and for one having to start rebuilding a life in one's old age. It is also about leaving behind a culture, a way of life and the familiar. Undoubtedly the older refugee generation has suffered, more so, than the younger one.

But then, what could I expect from Mr. Shasha, the Arab Jew, with his non-refugee status; or from Professor Shenhav, who as a Moroccan Jew by birth, had actually left with his family, of their own volition to settle in Israel, and with all their assets intact (Morocco being the only country out of 10 Arab countries that allowed such largesse). Are we being intentionally obtuse and blind to the fact that it is more than just assets and businesses that matter to a refugee, especially the ones that were left with nothing to call their own?

That takes me back again to the famous 26 words I alluded to earlier, and Shasha's attempt to cover all the bases for historical completeness; and in the process Shasha saw only what he wanted to see and felt what he could only touch; and the rest to Shasha, remained conceptual, at arm length and clinically sterile indeed.

As part of my public speaking educational campaign about the Mizrahi Jews "The Forgotten Refugees", I always stress the fact that the Middle East narrative has been one sided for far too long and that our history needs to be disseminated. I also never neglect to touch on the issue of the two refugee populations, as a study in contrasts; the same event (the creation of the State of Israel), that affected two classes of refugees, The Mizrahi Jews, the "Forgotten Refugees" and the Palestinian refugees and what became of them, after the fact.

They both started undeniably with a lot of hardships. The Mizrahi Jews who left for Israel, had to live in tents and ma'abarot (refugee camps), but not for long and in the process they helped and were part and parcel of creating a new country.

The Mizrahi Jews who were resettled elsewhere, invariably found the Jewish community at large eager to help, to get them started in their new life and they rebuilt their lives in the country of their choice.

On the other hand the Palestinian refugees, for the most part, were denied absorption in the Arab countries; they were left in camps as wards of the UN for over 60 years and they passed their refugee status much like an inheritance to the fourth generation. All this dehumanizing behavior on the part of their Arab brethren was simply for political expediency and never once did the Palestinian refugees' dignity entered into anyone's consideration.

This is my narrative, this is my parent's narrative, this is the Mizrahi Jews' narrative and we will not be denied our history. It is pathetic to hear Shasha suggest that he speaks for me or for the Mizrahi Jews; his perspective is flawed and does not add much value to the historical narrative of the era.

Arab Jewish voices have today largely been silenced, and with that silencing has come the lamentable absence of a perspective that could allow us to see the Middle East in different ways.

One last note, that is conspicuously absent from Shasha's writings, save for the inherent braggadocio without any real substance, which has to do with the sensitivity of the discourse vis-à-vis the Arabs. I again happen to share Shasha's notion, as I truly believe that the Mizrahi Jews are in a unique position to enhance the dialog between Israel and her Arab neighbors.

To resolve an ongoing feud, as ingrained in the Middle Eastern culture, both sides have to acknowledge and fully account for what they had done to each other. Admission and full accounting, is a prime imperative to reach a "sulha" or a sustainable peace. Yet we find the Arab governments in total denial about having harmed their Jewish communities.

A peace solution needs to include a priori such an acknowledgment phase, before they can reach a forgiveness phase and eventually a sustainable peace. It is paramount for both sides to acknowledge that there never was only one injured party, after so many years of feuding.

That simple detail was not lost on the Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, when he had the courage to apologize to both refugee classes, the Mizrahi Jews and the Palestinians for what they had to go through. Can Mr. Shasha find it in his heart to follow suit? I, for one, will not hold my breath.

Israel Bonan

Read More

PalArab news roundup 6-24-09

Hamas' crackdown on the media continues, as they kidnapped the editor of a Gaza newspaper and confiscated is computer. Which makes their little "visit" to Ma'an even more transparent.

A Fatah member was similarly kidnapped from his home by Hamas, and they took his computer and his (and his wife's) cell phones.

The only place to find stories like these is the Palestine Press Agency. The rest of the Palestinian Arab media are way too frightened to write stories against Hamas.

A Rafah man accidentally killed himself while cleaning his gun. I count this as a "self-death" because the PCHR includes deaths like these as "misuse of weapons."

Another man from Hebron was found dead "under mysterious circumstances" south of Ramallah.

The 2009 PalArab self-death count is at 107.

Read More

They might not be "dirty Arabs" but they are liars

Joharah Baker writes in the "Palestine Chronicle" (this article has also been published in literally hundreds of other Arab and left-wing sources):

What unwritten law is out there that allows Israelis to sling racist insults at Palestinians with impunity? After all my years in this country and the absurdities that come along with it, this is one absurdity I still find hard to digest.

Obviously, my outrage has been most recently rekindled by Israeli Public Security Minister Yitzhak Aharonovitch, who during a tour of the old central bus station in Tel Aviv called a Palestinian-Israeli policeman a "real dirty Arab." Once the words were out, the minister was forced to apologize, saying his remarks did not reflect his worldview. A spokesman for the ministry also issued a statement saying that, "in a moment of jest, and using common slang, the minister said what he said, not intending to hurt anyone."

If this were an isolated incident or if it were not an Israeli right-wing minister who said it, we might, just might, be inclined to believe this sorry excuse for an explanation. But in Israel's history with the Palestinians, this can hardly be considered slip-of-the-tongue. Instead, such slurs are embedded in a historically-rooted relationship between Israeli Jews and their perceived Palestinian-Arab subordinates, a relationship that is so lopsided it allows room for those who wish to be verbally abusive against Palestinians to thrive.

Ms. Baker must have hundreds of examples of such instilled hatred, right? Let's check them out.

This is certainly not the first time an Israeli political or religious figure insults Palestinians or calls them some degrading name. In 2001, the spiritual leader of Shas, Ovadia Yosef called Palestinians snakes and called on God to "annihilate Arabs." In an interview with the Israeli daily Maariv, he said, "It is forbidden to be merciful to them, you must give them missiles, - annihilate them. Evil ones, damnable ones."

Expecting that such remarks might not be received well by the public and the media, a Shas spokesperson at the time clarified that Yosef had only been referring to "Arab murderers and terrorists." Doesn't that make us all feel better?

OK, her first example is not from an Israeli official, in a quote that indeed referred to terrorists, from eight years ago. Not quite the best example of Zionist racism, but she has more:

Still, some may say Yosef was an overzealous, ultra-religious fumbling fool who should not be taken seriously. Fine. What about Israel's prime ministers? Those who the Israeli public voted into office? In 1982, in a speech to the Knesset, Prime Minister Menachem Begin said, "The Palestinians are beasts walking on two legs."

Unfortunately for Baker, that (quite distorted) quote was also referring very specifically to terrorists. As CAMERA notes, the full quote is this:

The children of Israel will happily go to school and joyfully return home, just like the children in Washington, in Moscow, and in Peking, in Paris and in Rome, in Oslo, in Stockholm and in Copenhagen. The fate of... Jewish children has been different from all the children of the world throughout the generations. No more. We will defend our children. If the hand of any two-footed animal is raised against them, that hand will be cut off, and our children will grow up in joy in the homes of their parents.

But Baker isn't finished:

A year later, Raphael Eitan, then-Israeli army chief of staff told the New York Times, "When we have settled the land, all the Arabs will be able to do about it will be to scurry around like drugged cockroaches in a bottle."

This is the only slightly accurate quote Baker finds, and even that one is way out of context. Eitan was arguing against shooting Palestinian Arab stone-throwers, saying "The Arabs will never win over us by throwing stones. Our response must be a nationalist Zionist response. For every stone that’s thrown–we will build ten settlements. If 100 settlements will exist–and they will–between Nablus and Jerusalem, stones will not be thrown. If this will be the situation, then the Arabs will only be able to scurry around like drugged roaches in a bottle." Certainly nothing to be proud of, but hardly reflective of a deeply biased Arab-loathing society.

Her last example is from a Ha'aretz article where the people quoted as singing "All Arabs must die" weren't even Israelis.

Of course there exists some bigotry against Arabs in Israel as well as elsewhere. (Iranians are famously not fond of Arabs, for example.) And within the Arab world, there is even more bigotry against Palestinian Arabs - see how they were treated in Iraq after Saddam's fall, in Kuwait after the first Gulf War, in Jordan in 1970, in Lebanon today. However, considering the fact that Israel is literally surrounded by Arabs who are far less reticent to openly speak of their own ambitions to destroy all Jews, Israelis and Zionists, Israel's record is pretty damn good.

Baker's thesis is that "Israelis sling racist insults at Palestinians with impunity." Her biggest example was a case where an Israeli minister who indeed made a bigoted remark was forced to make a public apology. Perhaps she doesn't understand the meaning of the word "impunity." Or perhaps Baker is simply another liar who projects her own hatreds onto her perceived enemies.

Baker digs up a few mostly inaccurate examples sprinkled over three decades. I can easily find far more examples of prominent Arabs saying far worse things about Jews, and thousands of examples of them saying worse things about Israelis and Zionists, just over the past year.

Including lying articles like this that baldly equate Zionism with racism.

Read More

Afternoon Links

Contentions: What was Jimmy Carter's proposal to Hamas?

WSJ: Israel radio show captivates Iranians

Qantara: Turkey, the Jews and the Holocaust

Read More

The worst ex-prime minister in history

From Ha'aretz:

Former prime minister Ehud Olmert offered Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas that the Holy Basin area of Jerusalem would be under no sovereignty at all and administered by a joint committee of Saudis, Jordanians, Israelis, Palestinians and Americans, the former prime minister told Newsweek magazine in an interview in the current issue.

The proposal to internationalize the Holy Basin was intended to achieve a breakthrough in the negotiations around the issues of sovereignty over holy sites in Jerusalem, the issue which had reportedly caused the breakdown of the Camp David talks in July 2000.

Olmert also told Newsweek he suggested to Abbas Israel would withdraw from 93.5 to 93.7 per cent of the West Bank, compensating the Palestinians with territory equivalent to 5.8 per cent of the West Bank, and allow for direct crossing between the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.

The fact that Olmert was willing to give away the most important sites in Judaism is not news.

The fact that he is willing to tell the world that Jerusalem is not nearly as important to him and his secularist, wishful thinking cronies as it appears to be to Palestinian Arabs - and implying that most Israeli Jews agree with him - is also not novel.

But what is new is that an ex-prime minister is actively trying to subvert the current elected leader of Israel by publicizing his incredibly foolhardy offer. By telling these details to Newsweek - an offer made while he was a lame duck PM, one that there is no evidence he could have pushed through the Knesset - he is telling the world that Binyomin Netanyahu is not pushing a consensual view of the Israeli electorate. He is telling everyone that anything less than this offer is not serious, and that Palestinian Arabs have no reason to compromise beyond his terms because if they wait out Netanyahu, they'll get more. He is not only showing his poker cards - he is telling the other players that Netanyahu is bluffing. He is encouraging the West to pressure Israel mercilessly until it meets Olmert's idea of what needs to be freely given away for a worthless piece of paper.

The incompetent, immoral and likely criminal Olmert is undermining Israel democracy and security to boost his own ego and gain legitimacy in Western eyes as a "peacemaker." And he is selling Israel down the river to do it.

Even Barak didn't do anything like this when he left office.

Read More

Great Britain, 1929. Barack Obama, 2009.

On September 23, 1928, on the evening of Yom Kippur, the Jews of Jerusalem placed a removable screen at the Western Wall to separate the male and female worshippers.

This was not new; they had done this in years and decades past. But this year, the Arabs decided that such a partition was an unacceptable structure, symbolizing Jewish attachment to Jerusalem, and they told the British authorities to take it down or risk mass riots.

While the elderly Jews at the Wall pleaded to at least allow the screen to stay until the fast was over, the British took the Arab side. Ten armed policemen with steel helmets came on Yom Kippur morning and destroyed the screen, while Arabs chanted "Death to the Jewish dogs!"

The British felt that the screen was a provocation to the Arabs and it was easier to cave to Arab demands than to risk riots.

Of course, it emboldened the Arabs to riot anyway, as they did in 1929, killing some 135 Jews.
After the 1929 Arab riots, the British caved again, forbidding Jews from bringing chairs and Torahs to the Wall and also from blowing the Shofar on Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur to placate the angry Arabs and avoid new "disturbances."

The entire British policy during the Mandate period can be characterized that way. The British agreed to limit Jewish land purchases and to limit Jewish immigration in the face of Arab threats.

All of this was "legal." Jews who violated these rules - by immigrating to Palestine, by blowing the shofar on Yom Kippur - were acting "illegally."

The Arabs, of course, weren't basing their objections on legal issues. They simply hated the Jews and feared their increasing power. The British were willing accomplices because they could be counted on to cave to Arab pressure. After the fact, they could justify their actions by saying that they were simply enforcing the rule of law.

The appeasement policy didn't work. The Arab uprising in the 1930s was as much against the British as it was against the Jews, and it took that long for the British to finally realize that their appeasement in the previous decade only encouraged more violence.

But it was too late. The net result of this legal, immoral British policy was that millions of Jews who could have been saved from the Holocaust by fleeing Europe to Palestine were murdered instead.

Today, the Obama administration is saying that Jews do not have the right to build anything even in the Old City of Jerusalem. Not in the Jewish Quarter, not near the Western Wall - nothing.

"We're talking about all settlement activity, yes, in the area across the line," [State Department spokesman Ian Kelly] said, referring to neighborhoods in Jerusalem over the Green Line, or pre-1967 armistice line, in response to a question on where America's calls to halt construction in the settlements would be applied.

The official reason is that such construction is "illegal." The real reason is because this administration fears Arab pressure and threats, just as the British did.

It wants to appease the Arabs in a foolhardy attempt to gain their trust, just as the British did.

The Arabs are more than willing to use this new leverage to demand the Americans add more and more restrictions on the Jews, just as they demanded from the British.

The next logical question to ask the State Department would be - would the Obama administration consider erecting a removable screen at the Western Wall an illegal expansion of the Old City Jewish "settlement"?

Read More

Trader Joe's boycott attempt fails miserably

The attempt to "de-shelve" Israeli products from Trader Joe's this past weekend has apparently fizzled, and the store sold lots and lots of Israeli products. Details can be found here.

Read More

Jew visits holy place; Arabs call it a "provocation"

From Ma'an:

Israel’s Internal Security Minister Yitzhak Aharonovitch visited the Al-Aqsa Mosque compound in Jerusalem’s Old City under heavy guard on Tuesday morning in what Palestinian officials condemned as a provocation.

...The Al-Aqsa Foundation for Heritage said in a statement that the Israeli minister also barged into the Marwani mosque and into the Dome of the Rock, and circled the Al-Aqsa Mosque.

The organization said, “This visit shows that the Israeli institution are targeting Al-Aqsa,” and it asked, “is this incursion a provocation only or is there something else behind the visit?”

Finally, the last paragraph shows that the visit was coordinated with the Waqf:

Shiekh Azzam Khatib, the director of Jerusalem Waqf (Endowment) said the visit was carried out with coordination with the Waqf, which has jurisdiction over the compound. He said he did not know the reason for the visit.

Which means that the "provocation" was not that an Israeli minister "barged in" or unilaterally trespassed or anything like that. It was planned and known ahead of time.

The "provocation" is that a Jew decided to visit the holiest place in Judaism.

UPDATE: Ma'an now changed the story to "without coordination."(h/t Yitz)

Read More

Today's Syrian drought - and the Hauranites

YNet reports:

Some 700,000 households in Syria – about 3.5 million people - have no income. In other words, an average of one family of five in Syria leans on monthly governmental aid in order to survive, according to a comprehensive study conducted by the Social Affairs and Labor Ministry in Syria, whose main findings were published by the local al-Watan newspaper.

These reports join a recent international report, which states that some 160 villages in northeastern Syria have been abandoned by their residents due to the food shortage. These villagers immigrate to the country's big cities, putting a great amount of pressure on the already shaky infrastructures in Syrian cities.

This reminds me of what happened in the Hauran district of Syria in the early 1930s. A severe drought there also prompted tens of thousands of Hauranites to leave - and the emigrated to the most logical place to make money, Palestine:

The Hauranite "invasion" was so massive that both Arabs and Jews protested the illegal immigration: (all articles from the Palestine Post)

Nonetheless, the Hauranites did find jobs and sent back money to their families:

Palestine in the 1930s was a logical place for Arab immigration, for precisely the same reasons - its economy was the envy of the Middle East. More importantly, Arabs didn't feel a strong attachment to the areas they lived in (outside their villages) - the nascent Arab nationalism that the intelligentsia adapted from the West did not permeate the villages and the peasants, who were itinerant and moved where ever they wanted whenever it made economic sense, corssing "national" boundaries.


Many (although not most) of todays' "Palestinian" Arabs are actually descended from these immigrants from Syria, Iraq and Transjordan. They didn't consider themselves parts of these nations - they simply considered themselves Arab.

When the fighting began after the 1947 partition agreement many of them crossed borders again, thinking that their Arab brethren would allow them to settle in new homes as they had for centuries before when circumstances prompted Arabs to relocate elsewhere in the Middle East. They didn't anticipate that they would become pawns in a power game against Israel for the next six decades and beyond, and that their Arab brothers - and leaders - would do everything possible to keep them stateless.

Read More

Open thread - summer's here

Even though the East Coast has had one of the coldest Junes on record, it is summer nonetheless. Time for an open thread!

Meanwhile, a nice link.

Read More

Proof that Hamas controls the tunnels

The media likes to portray the smuggling tunnels under Rafah as pure capitalism at work, where people desperate for money or goods are forced to engage in this dangerous but heroic activity to bring in candies, schoolbooks and cattle into Gaza.

However, a story in Palestine Today puts a lie to that.

There have been a large number of motorcycle accidents in Gaza over the past few months, and many people are complaining about it. As a result, Hamas has put a number of restrictions in place on motorcycles, mandating helmets and restricting underage drivers and so on.

One of their restrictions is to ban the import of more motorcycles from Egypt through the tunnels.

How can Hamas restrict the goods being smuggled into Gaza unless they know about and control each tunnel?

And if Hamas does control the tunnels, how much effort do they place in importing weapons and explosives compared to consumer goods?

The media doesn't seem to worry about that part of the issue very much.

Read More

The subtle politics of a Cambridge conference

From the University of Cambridge:

A major conference, to be opened by Prince Hassan bin Talal of Jordan this week, will shed new light on the underexplored subject of Arab Jews.

The Jews of Arab Culture: 1948-2009 conference, which takes place from 22-24 June, is being co-hosted by Cambridge University's Department of Middle Eastern Studies and the Centre for the Study of Muslim-Jewish Relations of the Woolf Institute of Abrahamic Faiths.

Over the course of the 20th century, Arab Jews came to Israel from Arab countries ranging from Morocco to Iraq and now constitute more than 50% of Israel's Jewish population. While the study of medieval and early modern Judaeo-Arabic culture and literature is a comparatively well established field in Western academia, the complex identity of the recent influx of Arab Jews to Israel and its impact on the culture of the Middle East has been little studied.

The conference will examine the cultural repercussions of the absorption process of Arab Jews by the State of Israel, the impact this has had on Arab Jewish literature, and the reactions which followed in Palestinian literature.

The conference, which will be held at Westcott House and will include internationally renowned academics, will be accompanied by the screening of various films and a concert of Jewish-Arab music played on the 'Oud and Violine by Israel-Iraqi musician Yair Dalal, all of which are open to the public.

Professor Yasir Suleiman, Director of the Centre of Middle Eastern and Islamic Studies, said: "Arab Jews have historically been an important part of Arab culture well before the advent of Islam. In Arabia, Spain, Iraq, Egypt, and the Levant Jews have played an important role in creating a culture that belonged to all those for whom Arabic was a native language. The conference will tap into this past to challenge and repair some of the ruptures of the present by showing the richness and diversity of an inclusivist culture that belonged to all the communities that helped create it."

Gregor Schwarb, Ariane de Rothschild Academic Director of the CMJR, said: "Showing the richness and dynamism of the culture of Jewish Arabs dispels the myth that there is a total divide between Arabs and Jews. In this way, we hope that the conference will contribute towards greater understanding, a spirit of reconciliation and a greater respect of differences".

Research shows many Arab Jews look with affection and pride on their Arab heritage; others see themselves as "forgotten refugees", whose cause is akin to that of Palestinian refugees. In a recent open letter, a group of prominent Israeli Jews whose parents came from Arab or Islamic lands wrote that "the culture of the lands of Islam, the culture of the Middle East, and the Arabic culture, are all part of our identity, a part of it that we cannot sever and wouldn't wish to sever, even if we could." They added: "The rift between Israel and the Arab and Muslim world cannot be a permanent one, since it splits our identities and our souls."

In general, such a conference is to be welcomed. But some of the details show that what should be a purely academic conference still has plenty of political bias.

First of all, why is there a separate Palestinian Arab track that has essentially nothing to do with the topic of the conference? Here's that description:

14:30–16:00 Panel VII – Palestinian Literature
Chair: Shmuel Moreh (Jerusalem)
Atallah Mansour (al-Nāṣira), The Shadow of the Political Conflict on Hebrew and Arabic literature in Palestine/Israel
Sayyed Kashua (Jerusalem), Language-Choice and Perception among Palestinians and Jews in Israel
Manar Makhoul (Cambridge), Palestinian Novelists in Israel: the Writing and the Context

Secondly, the conference seems to spend a bit of time on the problems that Jews from Arab countries had in integrating to Israeli society - a very valid and important topic - but nothing about the anti-semitism they suffered in their old homes that prompted them to leave. To speak of one and ignore the other puts the responsibility of the disappearance of this culture entirely on the backs of the only place where it still exists.

One of the speakers is Rachel Shabi, an outspoken leftist critic of Israel who emphasizes the Zionist attempts to attract Mizrahi Jews and downplays the Arab countries' discrimination against their Jews. While she correctly points out that there was both a "push" and a "pull," she doesn't seem to realize that the very existence of a Jewish state gave the Jews of Arab lands an alternative that was never available to them - an opportunity to shake off their dhimmi status. There are no comparable speakers who talk about the very real Arab anti-semitism that caused the Jews of Arab countries to all but disappear.

Thirdly, characterizing the Jews of Arab countries as "Arab Jews" is actually offensive to many of them, who never considered themselves Arab and always felt like outsiders, even as they adopted much of Arab culture in their own lives.

This is probably because the conference is consciously trying to be as pro-Arab as possible, inviting the Jordanian prince to open it.

Read More