Dubai's police chief: "Mossad tried to kill me!"

The Chief Police Clown of Dubai just can't shut up, but since he ran out of things to say about six months ago,  now he's just making stuff up as he goes along.

Al Quds al-Arabi reports on his latest claims.

Even though Canada denied that they had arrested anyone associated with the assassination of Mahmoud Al Mabhouh, Lieutenant-General Dahi Khalfan Tamim insists that his information is more accurate. In fact, now he knows that not only did Canada arrest one of the Mossad spies, but after the arrest he (escaped? and) went to safety in the United States!

Normally, that would be enough bizarre theories for one interview, but Lt-Gen Dahi has more:

He says that Mabhouh was not on his way to Iran, but rather to China. Moreover, Mabhouh in previous visits to Dubai (remember, with a false passport) never went to Iran afterwards.

But wait - there's more!

Dahi also says that the Mossad is really, really, really angry at him for his fantastic police work that has yet to result in a single arrest directly connected to the murder. They are so mad, they tried to kill him as well! Unfortunately, no details are forthcoming on this claim. I'm sure that the team of would-be assassins are in Dubai jail right now, since Khalfan obviously foiled the plot.

And he said that the Mossad isn't so great, anyway. (I guess they aren't if they couldn't even kill him.) You see, the Mossad sent 42 people to kill a single, unarmed man - how hard can that be?

Yes, he said 42. Apparently the number of suspects has been continuing to grow while we weren't looking.

Read More

Judea/Samaria's strategic importance - video in English

I just translated the video I linked to a couple of days ago about the strategic importance of Judea and Samaria ("the West Bank") to Israel's security.



I cannot believe that the people who went to the considerable effort to make this video didn't spend an extra hour to make it accessible to the English-speaking world. (Yes, that's how long it took me.)

Read More

PLO "ambassador" to US advocates expelling all Jews from "Palestine"

If anyone fits the very picture of a "moderate" Palestinian Arab, it would be the PLO's ambassador to Washington, Maen Rashid Areikat. As Tablet describes him,

A robust, dark-skinned man with salt-and-pepper hair and black-rimmed architect’s glasses, he is a protégé of Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas, who supervised Areikat’s work as director-general of the Negotiations Affairs Department of the PLO. The two men are said to be temperamentally similar and personally close. With his direct manner and relaxed but forceful presence, he seems more like a businessman than a diplomat. It is easy to imagine him traveling through international airports hammering out partnership deals for Hewlett-Packard or SAP, in Europe one day and Dubai the next.

[He was] born in Jericho, on the West Bank, raised under Israeli military occupation, and educated in Arizona (where he received an undergraduate degree in finance and then an MBA.)

Friends and similar in temperament to the reknowned "moderate" PA president? Check.
Acts like a Westerner? Check.
US education? Check.

What's not to love?

Only one, small, niggling problem: The guy is a bigoted liar, and he perfectly represents everything that is wrong about Palestinian Arab leadership.

I won't fisk the entire thing, because he is re-hashing a lot of the usual stuff we've heard before. But here is something that for some reason did not get much coverage.

Q: When you imagine a future Palestinian state, do you imagine it being a place where Jews, if they wish to become Palestinian citizens, could own property, vote in elections, and practice their religion freely?

A: I remember in the mid-’90s, the late [PLO official] Faisal Husseini said repeatedly “OK, if Israelis choose to stay in a future Palestinian state, they are more than welcome to do that. But under one condition: They have to respect and obey Palestinian laws, they cannot be living as Israelis. They have to respect Palestinian laws and abide by them.” When Faisal Husseini died, basically no Palestinian leader has publicly supported the notion that they can stay.

What we are saying is the following: We need to separate. We have to separate. We are in a forced marriage. We need to divorce. After we divorce, and everybody takes a period of time to recoup, rebound, whatever you want to call it, we may consider dating again.

Q: So, you think it would be necessary to first transfer and remove every Jew—

A: Absolutely. No, I’m not saying to transfer every Jew, I’m saying transfer Jews who, after an agreement with Israel, fall under the jurisdiction of a Palestinian state.

Q: Any Jew who is inside the borders of Palestine will have to leave?

A: Absolutely. I think this is a very necessary step, before we can allow the two states to somehow develop their separate national identities, and then maybe open up the doors for all kinds of cultural, social, political, economic exchanges, that freedom of movement of both citizens of Israelis and Palestinians from one area to another. You know you have to think of the day after.

The PLO representative to the US publicly calls to ethnically cleanse hundreds of thousands of Jews from their homes. Not Israelis - Jews.

I think that is called "transfer" and in another context it is considered the most heinous crime imaginable. When  right-wing Zionists mention it, they are called "extremists" and "genocidal." When the PLO representative says it, it causes nary a ripple.

This interview was published a week ago!

Earlier in the interview, he said that one reason he doesn't like the idea of recognizing Israel as a Jewish state is because

[Y]ou know that there are between 18 and 20 percent non-Jews who are living in Israel, who are mostly Palestinians, and who are part of the Palestinian people. By accepting the Israeli plan that they are a Jewish state, we are undermining the rights of this minority, who are already suffering discrimination at the hands of the Israeli authorities.

So Areikat is saying that "Palestine" must ethnically cleanse every Jew who lives in its borders, but at the same time calling Israel a Jewish state would somehow cause discrimination against the "Palestinians" who live in Israel. Apparently, ethnic cleansing is OK, but calling a state Jewish is a terrible crime.

Then, Areikat goes into fantasyland:

A: Why should I pay the price for the political movement called Zionism, which said, “It’s time to reclaim parts of Palestinian territory that at one point were home for the kingdom of David, of Israel”—which you and I know was concentrated in the northern part of the West Bank. It never was in Jerusalem, it never was on the coast, it never was in Hebron.

Q: Of course it was in Jerusalem.

A: No.

Q: The City of David is right there.

A: No, I mean, it was from Shechem to the outskirts of Jerusalem. It was never the Palestine that they claim.

The rest of the interview is almost equally ridiculous, and that's the point - Tablet isn't interviewing a construction worker in Ramallah, but a respected Palestinian Arab diplomat who represents his supposed nation to the US.

He is moderate - compared to many or most of the people he represents. And that is the entire problem with the word "moderate." The West seems to think that we must reward relative moderation, because the alternative is even worse. But when such "moderation" nakedly calls for ethnic cleansing, why should it be rewarded? Shouldn't the absolute bigotry displayed by Palestinian Arab leaders today - when they are trying to impress an American audience no less, in English - indicate that their desired state would be a human rights disaster?

(sorry, don't remember who gave me the link)

UPDATE: See Balfour St. for more.

Read More

Report: Modern Arab anti-semitism not because of Israel

Prof. Shmuel Trigano has written a fascinating, and all too short, monograph on the expulsion of Jews from Arab countries in the 20th century.

One of his theses is that the Jew-hatred that became endemic in Arab lands during this time was not a reaction to Zionism, but rather because of the new concept of Arab nationalism and the xenophobia that resulted. He documents that many of the anti-Jewish laws in Arab countries pre-date modern Israel.

Excerpts:

The Jews were isolated from their society by a legal process in many lands.

This was the preliminary stage of their exclusion, which was followed by expulsion. A number of legal measures in various countries illustrate this point.

In Egypt the most articulate evolution occurred. It began with the Treaty of Sèvres (1920), a peace treaty between the Allies and the Ottomans that dismembered the Ottoman Empire and opened the way to the further creation of Arab (and Israeli) states. It addressed the question of nationality in Egypt and can be considered the first infringement of the rights of autochthonous Jews. The notion of belonging to a race (article 105) rather than a nation was introduced, thereby dissociating Jews from the majority of the population of the country. The next step was the nationality laws of 1927 and 1929, which favored jus sanguinis (or right of blood). An Egyptian was from then on defined as somebody who had Arab-Muslim affiliation.

The London Convention (1936) granted Egypt independence under King Farouk, and it was followed by a worsening of the nationality laws. According to additional nationality laws (in 1950, 1951, 1953, and 1956), autochthonous Jews became stateless: 40,000 people were turned into "foreigners" in their own country. In 1956, after the Sinai War, a new dimension was added: Egyptian nationality was taken away from anyone who committed acts in favor of enemy states or states with no relations with Egypt. In practice, all Jews were suspected of dual loyalty. This led ultimately to the accusation that all Jews were Zionists.
...
A number of legal measures imposed restrictions on businesses and associations. Jewish communities and organizations were placed under supervision. Arabic became the sole language of public services.

In Libya, in 1953, Jews were subjected to restrictions and became victims of economic boycotts. The Maccabi sports club was forcibly opened to Arab members in 1954. A decree was issued on 9 May 1957 obliging Libyans with relatives in Israel to register at the Libyan boycott office, even though at that point, 90 percent of the Jews had already left. On 3 December 1958, Tripoli's Jewish community ceased to be an independent entity. Thereafter it was overseen by a state-appointed commissioner. Legal exclusion worsened. In 1960, Jews were prohibited from acquiring new possessions. They were no longer allowed to vote, hold public office, or serve in the army or the police. On 2 April 1960, Alliance Israélite Universelle schools were closed.

Similar developments occurred in Lebanon. As early as 1947, Jewish students were expelled from Beirut University. Jewish "Zionist" organizations (such as the Maccabi sports club) were forbidden. Jews were discharged from public service positions and Jewish youth movements banned.

In Iraq, Jewish history and Hebrew language instruction were prohibited in Jewish schools during the 1920s. Jews were expelled from public service and education in the 1930s. The Jewish schools' curricula were censored in 1932.

In Yemen, sharia law was instated in 1913, worsening the situation of the dhimmi. Decrees specifying forced conversion for orphans were issued between 1922 and 1928, while Jews were excluded from public service positions and the army.

In Syria, real estate purchase was prohibited to Jews in 1947, and Jews began to be discharged from public service positions. In 1967, Muslim principals were appointed to Jewish schools.

In Morocco, after independence in 1956, a process of Arabization of public services began, cutting the Jews off from the larger society. A dahir (decree) Moroccanizing Jewish charitable organizations was issued on 26 November 1958, endangering their freedom.

In Egypt, a long process of discrimination in the public service began in 1929. In 1945-1948, Jews were excluded from the public service. In 1947, Jewish schools were put under surveillance and forced to Arabize and Egyptianize their curricula. Community organizations were forced to submit their member lists to the Egyptian state after May 1948 and until 1950. In 1949, Jews were forbidden to live in the vicinity of King Farouk's palaces.

In Tunisia, a law concerning Judaism (11 July 1958) put an end to Jewish communities, replaced them with temporary "Israelite worship commissions," and suppressed the personal status of the Jews (inherited from the dhimmi status, which obliged the Jews to depend on their religious tribunals for all matters related to their personal status). In Tunisia too, independence (1956) led to the Tunisification of public services.

Turkey under the Young Turks (1923-1945) created hard-labor battalions for non-Muslim conscripts in May 1941.

...A series of pogroms and related events, such as riots, arrests, murders of public figures, and destruction of synagogues, occurred while colonial powers and Arab state police looked on passively. That gave the Jews the signal that it was time to leave.

In Egypt, anti-British and anti-Semitic riots broke out in several towns on 2-3 November 1945. Massive arrests occurred on 14-16 May 1948; one thousand Jews were detained and accused of being Zionists. On 2 November 1948, riots and lootings took place in Cairo and on 26 January 1952, "black Saturday" saw riots and acts of violence.

In Turkey, in June-July 1934, pogroms occurred in Thrace.

In Iraq, on 1-2 June 1941, in the Farhoud pogrom in Bagdad, 180 people were killed and 600 injured. In 1948, a wave of official anti-Jewish persecutions, including arrests and considerable fines, took place. ...

In Libya, riots against those living in the Jewish quarters occurred in Tripoli in January 1945. Sixty percent of Jewish possessions were destroyed and 135 people were killed; soldiers acted as accomplices to the rioters. Jews were forced to evacuate. Jews in Hara, Tripoli, and Benghazi were put on remand....

Anti-Semitism would have developed even without the existence of the state of Israel because of Arab-Islamic nationalism, which resulted in xenophobia. In the twentieth century, hostility toward Jews was spreading well before Israel's creation: in Yemen, Syria, Mandatory Palestine, Turkey, and Algeria.

It is the custom to say that Zionism was responsible for this development. But Zionism is to be understood, in the worldview of the Islamic mind, in another perspective. With the collapse of the Ottoman Empire and the birth of intolerant Arab nationalism, long-dominated nations (such as the Armenians and the Jews) sought independence. This was understood by the Arab world as a rebellion not only against the new Arab nation-states but also against Islamic law, which puts non-Muslims in the inferior status of a dominated nation: the dhimmis.

Both the Armenians and the Jews were subjected to violent repression. The former were massacred by the Ottoman Empire in 1894-1895 - around 300,000 victims - and suffered a genocide - 1,200,000 victims - by the Turks in 1908. The latter in Mandatory Palestine suffered pogroms in 1920, 1929, 1936, and 1939. And the Jews in Muslim countries, as we have seen, were forced to leave. Hardly any Jews remain in the abovementioned countries, and the number of Christian Arabs is now dwindling in them as well.

The new Arab anti-Zionism contained classic anti-Semitic policies, as demonstrated by the "Statute of the Jews" that could be compared to the Vichy Statute of the Jews, except that it developed over a long time, in a huge geographical area, and at different periods. Jews were accused of being coresponsible with Israel for the war that the Arab states declared against the new state and then lost. Regardless of their ideological affiliation - communist, nationalist, Zionist, religious, and so on - they were subjected to special laws specifically aimed at Jews. They were expelled from all Arab-Muslim countries because a collective responsibility was imputed to them. This is typical anti-Semitic reasoning.

The Jews from Arab-Muslim countries were powerless. They had no army. They did not take part in the conflict. They were not responsible for triggering hostilities between the Arab states and Israel. That the Yishuv, the quasi-Jewish state that developed in Mandatory Palestine, became a state according to the United Nations Partition Plan was not also responsible for the war except for the scandal of its existence. Instead, the cause of the situation was the intolerance and imperialism of the new Arab states: before these attained independence, there were indeed no such states. Before the Western colonial empires there was another Islamic colonial empire, the Ottoman one. Palestine never existed as a political or cultural entity. The new nation-states - Israel included - were a product of the Western colonial empires and all were "invented." Why were these Jews in Arab countries persecuted and expelled if not as a result of an anti-Semitic ideology and policy? It was a continuation of the traditional Islamic anti-Judaism but defined in reference to the symbol of the rebellion of the Jewish dhimmis: Zionism.

This is a fascinating line of reasoning, but I think it needs to be greatly expanded and organized better, on a country-by-country basis. The paper is a good first step in showing that Arab anti-semitism followed a continuum that more closely corresponded with Arab nationalism/xenophobia than with Zionism.

Read More

Pennsylvania acts concerning Holocaust-denying professor

From Inside Higher Ed:

A Pennsylvania English professor whose anti-Israel rhetoric and denial of the Holocaust as a historic certainty have ignited controversy is citing academic freedom as his defense.

Kaukab Siddique, associate professor of English and journalism at Lincoln University of Pennsylvania, appeared last month at a pro-Palestinian rally in Washington, where he called the state of Israel illegitimate. “I say to the Muslims, ‘Dear brothers and sisters, unite and rise up against this hydra-headed monster which calls itself Zionism,’ ” he said at a rally on Sept. 3. “Each one of us is their target and we must stand united to defeat, to destroy, to dismantle Israel -- if possible by peaceful means,” he added.

While many professors engage in anti-Israel rhetoric, Siddique is getting more scrutiny because his September comments prompted critics to unearth past statements that the Holocaust was a “hoax” intended to buttress support for Israel -- a position that the professor didn’t dispute in an interview Monday with Inside Higher Ed.

Siddique maintained that his comments should be placed in the framework of academic freedom, as an example of a questing mind asking tough questions. He also warned of dire consequences if universities can be intimidated by politicians and outside commentators. “That’s freedom of expression going up the smokestack here,” he said.

“I’m not an expert on the Holocaust. If I deny or support it, it doesn’t mean anything,” he said before invoking the firebombing of German cities during World War II and the U.S. bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as examples of the moral ambiguity of the war. “We can’t just sit back in judgment and say those guys were bad and we were the good guys,” he said. “I always try to look at both sides…. That’s part of being a professor.”

Siddique cited as scholarly evidence the work of notorious Holocaust denier David Irving, whom a British judge described as an anti-Semitic neo-Nazi sympathizer. “Irving has for his own ideological reasons persistently and deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidence,” High Court Judge Charles Gray wrote in a ruling shooting down Irving’s claim of libel against the historian Deborah Lipstadt of Emory University.

The Siddique case isn't the first one in which a tenured academic has been criticized for questioning whether the Holocaust happened. Northwestern University periodically faces debate over Arthur R. Butz, an associate professor of electrical engineering who is a Holocaust denier, but who has avoided the topic in his classes.

Siddique’s embrace of Holocaust denial could be treated differently because of what he teaches. Cary Nelson, president of the American Association of University Professors and a staunch defender of the right of professors to take highly unpopular positions, said that academic freedom protects the professor’s right to criticize both Israeli policy and the moral legitimacy of the Israeli state. Holocaust denial is another matter entirely, said Nelson.

“Were he an engineering professor speaking off campus, it wouldn’t matter,” said Nelson in an e-mail. “The issue is whether his views call into question his professional competence. If he teaches modern literature, which includes Holocaust literature from a great many countries, then Holocaust denial could warrant a competency hearing.”

The Christian Broadcasting Network, which broke the story of Siddique's anti-Israel and anti-semitic opinions last month, reports that the state of Pennsylvania is now scrutinizing him and his school:

[T]he Chairman of the Pennsylvania State Board of Education, Joseph Torsella, is demanding answers--and action--from Lincoln University. Here is a portion of a letter he sent to Nelson just yesterday (read the entire letter here):

Academic freedom and the system of tenure designed to protect it are critical elements of higher education. So a professor expressing personal opinions (even extraordinarily objectionable ones) on current events is one matter, and I understand the need to protect these expressions of speech. Denying the Holocaust-a tragic historical fact-is another matter entirely. It is especially troubling that the professor in question teaches at a state-related university, subsidized by state tax dollars.

In my view, Mr. Siddique's Holocaust denials go directly to his fitness to educate the students in his charge (particularly since I understand that he teaches, among other subjects, a course in journalism). As you know, state regulations (22 Pa. Code section 31.24(b)) governing institutions of higher education in the Commonwealth require that faculty "shall be... qualified to teach in their fields of specialization." While the standards for initiating a review of any faculty member's tenure at any institution are appropriately high, the falsification or purposeful misrepresentation of research data, for example, would certainly occasion such a review. Mr. Siddique's misrepresentations of history are equally grave and consequential, and raise questions about intellectual integrity.

In the interest of clearing the air around these unfortunate accounts, I urge Lincoln to:

1. Formally investigate whether Mr. Siddique is, in fact, "qualified" to teach in light of his denial of the indisputable historical facts;

2. Formally investigate whether Mr. Siddique has used ANY university resources (e.g., office support, email and computer system, research facilities) to convey his personal views or in support of his efforts such as "New Trend Magazine";

3. Communicate the results of those two investigations to the State Board of Education's Council of Higher Education at the earliest possible opportunity; and

4. Make a clear public statement repudiating the substance of Mr. Siddique's views and underscoring that they are in conflict with the university's values and mission.

We'll see what Lincoln University answers.

(h/t Callie)

Read More

Freedom of the press, Libyan-style

From Reuters Africa:

The Libyan government has suspended printing of a newspaper controlled by a reformist son of leader Muammar Gaddafi, local media reported, in what could be the latest phase in a power struggle inside the oil exporting state.

The print version of the Oea newspaper, controlled by Saif al-Islam Gaddafi, was suspended soon after it published an article calling for a "final assault" on the government which it alleged had failed to tackle corruption, local media said.

"(Prime Minister) Al-Baghdadi Ali al-Mahmoudi has suspended the publication of the weekly Oea," the prime minister's office said in a statement that was printed by three Libyan newspaper websites. It did not give a reason for the suspension.

Can't wait for the UN Human Rights Council, which says it is so very interested in press freedoms, to censure its member Libya.

Read More

Today's PalArab news (11/4/2010)

Egypt discovered 16 more smuggling tunnels to Gaza. They were mostly being used for iron, cement and food, although the article says something about weapons and ammunition (possibly that the smugglers had.)

Israel is sending the eleventh shipment of cars to Gaza.

"The first case of settlement-goods smuggling into West Bank shops was filed in a Bethlehem court on Wednesday, set to test a new Palestinian Authority law prohibiting the sale of settlement-produced products."

"More than a thousand settlers storm Joseph's Tomb in Nablus." They were engaged in "noisy celebrations and religious rituals." And peaceful Palestinian Arabs stoned their bus as they were leaving.

Here's how Palestine Today illustrates a story about the Mossad.

Read More

Follow-up on yesterday's assassination in Gaza

More details on what happened:

Israel resumed its targeted assassinations in the Gaza Strip on Wednesday with the killing of a senior al-Qaida-affiliated terrorist by a car bomb in Gaza City.

The Shin Bet (Israel Security Agency) confirmed Wednesday night that together with the Israel Air Force, it had carried out an operation to kill 27-year-old Mohammed Namnam, a top operative with the Army of Islam, a radical Palestinian terror group affiliated with al-Qaida and involved in the 2006 abduction of Gilad Schalit.

“Earlier today, the Israeli army targeted a ticking bomb,” IDF spokeswoman, Lt.-Col. Avital Leibovitz, told reporters in a conference call.

According to the Shin Bet, Namnam, from the Shati refugee camp, was responsible for a number of attacks against Israel in recent years.

The security agency added that it had obtained intelligence indicating that Namnam was in the midst of planning attacks against American and Israeli targets in the Sinai Peninsula.

Palestine Press Agency, and others note that Namnam was driving one of the new cars that Israel has been allowing into Gaza. Hamas had announced that they were sweeping all the new cars to search for booby traps and tracking devices.

Even though Hamas certainly decides who gets the new cars, this Army of Islam leader - who was said to be at odds with Hamas - managed to obtain one. Hmmmm.

PalPress also mentions that sources say Namnam had married a woman from Afghanistan.

The unreliable but sometimes illuminating Debka says that it was actually a US rocket that killed Namnam, shot from a warship in the Mediterranean. It says that Namnam was involved in a planned second wave of attacks against the US after the package bombs that were discovered en route to the US this week. The report says that Al Qaeda planned to attack US Marines stationed near Sharm el Sheikh, and that Egypt is cooperating with the US in stopping the group.

(h/t Joel)

Read More

Britain considers "Palestine" to be a nation already

From the British Consulate-General Jerusalem website:

UK and Palestine sign the first treaty between the two nations

This agreement is the first ever bilateral treaty between the two nations

The UK’s Foreign Secretary, William Hague, visited the Occupied Palestinian Territories today (3 November) for his first visit to Palestine since he assumed office. The Foreign Secretary is visiting the OPTs as part of a regional visit that includes Israel and Egypt.

The Foreign Secretary met Prime Minister Dr. Salaam Fayyad and Foreign Minister Riyad Al-Malki today in Ramallah.

The Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister discussed a wide range of issues, including Gaza, the peace process and the economy. After the meeting the Foreign Secretary and Prime Minister signed the first bilateral treaty between the PLO and the UK Government. This treaty is designed to enhance cooperation in the field of film.

While the text properly says "Palestinian territories" and that the agreement was with the PLO, the headline and subhead were also written by the Consulate.

Read More

Al-Ahram: Hamas suppressed poll that made them look bad

Firas Press, quoting Al-Ahram, says Hamas commissioned a public opinion poll in Gaza - and then stopped publication of the results when they were found to be less than complimentary towards the terrorist group.

According to the story, the poll showed a great decline in Hamas' popularity in Gaza across the board, including the performance of its quasi-government ministries and security services.

Gazans had no more confidence in Fatah, however, and blamed Hamas, Fatah and Israel equally for the failure of Hamas and Fatah to reconcile.

Read More

Gazans trying desperately to prove they are Egyptian

The Hamas-leaning Felesteen newspaper reports that hundreds of Palestinian Arabs in Gaza are trying to go through their family histories to prove that they are really Egyptian, not Palestinian, in order to gain citizenship in Egypt.

Not only residents of Rafah, a town divided between the Gaza and Egyptian side, but even Gazans from Khan Younis and other areas are trying to become Egyptian citizens.

One man is interviewed, saying that he went through months of painstaking research, hiring an Egyptian lawyer to help him, before he could prove to Egypt's satisfaction that his grandfather was Egyptian.

Another man said that many members of his family proved their Egyptian origins by finding proof of family assets in Egypt. A third was trying to become an Egyptian citizen because he married an Egyptian woman and crossing the border to visit relatives would be easier if he had Egyptian citizenship.

I would love to see a poll of how many Palestinian Arabs, in the territories and in other Arab countries, would voluntarily become citizens of other Arab countries if given the choice. I'd bet it would be over 75%.

Read More

Win a NYC vacation and $3000 for Apple products

Decent prizes, free entry, good cause - and Daughter of Ziyon get a free chance with everyone who enters.

Which means she'd better get me a MacBook Air if she wins.

The NCSY Big Apple Giveaway.

Read More

The ancient Jewish keffiyeh - the"sudra"

Since the idea that Jews could "steal" the keffiyeh from Palestinian Arab culture tickled me so much, I looked a little at the history of the keffiyeh.

Starting at Wikipedia, we see that the keffiyeh is of course not "Palestinian" at all, but Arab, meant to shield the head from the sun and sand. PalArabs did make the black-and-white version symbolic, which makes one wonder if they are as aghast at the Jordanian red and white version as they are at the modern Jewish blue and white version.

A paragraph in the Wiki entry, no doubt written by an angry Mizrahi Jew, says:

The tribes of Israel, and their Jewish and Samaritan descendants, have worn variations of the keffiyah since biblical times.[5] This practice was not unique to the Arabs, as the wearing of headgear is a universal practice amongst Semitic peoples and a logical protection against the harsh mid-east sun. From the biblical and rabbinic sources it can be deduced with certainty that the ancient Israelites wore headgear similar, if not identical, to the Kefiyah (كوفية) still worn by Arab and other Semitic peoples.[6] Variations of the Jewish Kefiyah (كوفية اليهود ), also known as a Sudra, were worn by middle-eastern Jews from ancient until modern times. This ancient practice rapidly declined with the founding of the State of Israel and the false association made by some racist European Jews of the keffiyeh (كوفية) as a solely Arab clothing item, rather than being an authentically Jewish practice and custom.

The Talmud does mention the "sudra" a number of times, and Jastrow translates it as a scarf wound around the head and hanging down the neck or a turban. It is clearly a head-covering that one ties on (Berachot 60b). A passage in Kiddushin 29b implies that only married men wore it.

No proof was brought that it was worn in biblical times, although almost certainly some sort of cloth headcovering was. It is possible that more elaborate turbans were reserved for prominent people.

Either way, Jews were wearing a variant of the keffiyeh many centuries before anyone ever heard of "Palestinians." Which makes the claim that Jews are "stealing" parts of Palestinian Arab culture even more absurd than it already was.

Read More

International Union of Muslim Scholars calls to destroy Israel

From Iran's ABNA:

The International Union of Muslim Scholars (IUMS) has said the only solution for the Arab- Zionist conflict was “comprehensive resistance against the Zionist enemy with the aim of liberating all of the occupied Palestine,” local Arabic newspapers reported.

IUMS chairman Sheikh Yousef al-Qaradawi, who opened the Union’s permanent headquarters in Doha, expressed gratitude to HH the Emir Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani for granting the facility.

The IUMS warned of sectarian and doctrinal conflicts among Muslims, which it said would serve “only the Zionist and American interests”.

The Union described Palestinian issue as the central problem of the Muslim Nation and as the most dangerous against its future, Rohama reported.

Here is the actual statement of the IUMS.

Qaradawi is possibly the most influential Sunni religious figure in the world.

Naturally, Western news media don't give any coverage to the daily statements by even major Islamic figures inciting Muslims to murder a few million Jews. After all, it is a dog-bites-man story.

A nice background article on the group from Asharq al-Awsat discusses how the IUMS uses Israel to mask its internal problems.

Read More

UNRWA official caves, apologizes, grovels for telling the truth

We've mentioned Andrew Whitley, the outgoing UNRWA official who said in a speech

If one doesn’t start a discussion soon with the refugees for them to consider what their own future might be – for them to start debating their own role in the societies where they are rather than being left in a state of limbo where they are helpless but preserve rather the cruel illusions that perhaps they will return one day to their homes – then we are storing up trouble for ourselves.

We recognize, as I think most do, although it’s not a position that we publicly articulate, that the right of return is unlikely to be exercised to the territory of Israel to any significant or meaningful extent.

It’s not a politically palatable issue, it’s not one that UNRWA publicly advocates, but nevertheless it’s a known contour to the issue.

He was slammed for this bit of obvious truth by Jordan, the PA and by groups who called for him to be fired.

Instead of standing up and saying that he spoke the truth - he caved.

Ma'an Arabic quotes him as saying "I send my apologies to Palestinian refugees for any pain caused by my remarks. I have spent a lot of my time in the service of the Palestinian refugee issue and I've worked to serve and defend their rights in a professional manner.


"These remarks were wrong and do not represent the view of UNRWA, and I believe that it is not right for the Palestinian refugees to give up their basic rights including the right of return."

By giving in to the pressure, of course, Whitley is contributing to - and extending - the misery of the people that he is claiming to serve and defend.

Way to go, Whitley!

(See also my letter to the UN.)

Read More