The world has been horrified by the Islamic State's purposeful destruction of ancient heritage sites. UNESCO has had a number of sessions on the topic and the UN passed a resolution 69/281 to save Iraq's cultural heritage.
They invoke the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict as a primary means to save these cultural heritage sites.
But there is another group that is actively attempting to destroy ancient heritage sites, and the world has little to say about them.
Fires severely damaged two ancient tombs, one of them an iconic landmark, outside Jerusalem’s Old City on Friday, in what police suspect may have been arson.
An initial investigation by firefighters points to unknown persons setting fire to Absalom’s Tomb in the Kidron Valley, opposite the Temple Mount, and the adjacent Tomb of Jehoshephat, Ynet reported.
The tombs are among a cluster of ancient graves at the base of the Mount of Olives dating to the Second Temple period.
Absalom’s Tomb is traditionally identified as a monument to the biblical figure of the same name, but archaeologists have dated the edifice to the 1st century CE.
The fires broke out around 4:15 p.m. on Friday and caused extensive damage to the 2,000-year-old structures.
Both of these structures are centuries older than anything that ISIS targeted.
But the world is silent when Palestinians attack Jewish heritage sites.
This is hardly the only example.
Palestinians have been firebombing Joseph's Tomb in Shechem for years.
Rachel's Tomb in Bethlehem has been attacked by Palestinian mobs a number of times, forcing Israel to build huge fortifications to protect the holy site.
The ancient Shalom Al Yisrael synagogue in Jericho was torched by Palestinian mobs in 2000.
Gravestones at the Mount of Olives, some hundreds of years old, are routinely attacked.
Of course, the biggest crime against Jewish heritage occurred when the Waqf methodically destroyed unknown treasures from the First and Second Temple periods on the Temple Mount.
Under PA rule, Tulul Abu el Alayiq, near Wadi Qelt and Jericho, has been left to decay. This is an important archaeological site where Hasmonian kings and Herod built their winter palaces, and it contains what may be the remains of the earliest synagogue in Israel. The nearby Naaran synagogue is threatened by Palestinian real estate developers who are building practically atop the site. Israeli archaeologists who have managed to visit there say that the PA has let the place rot.
The PA has also allowed villagers to encroach upon the important synagogue remains in Eshtemoa in the southern Mt. Hebron area. Neither Israeli archaeologists nor Israeli worshippers and tourists have access to the site (which is located in Area B), despite the fact that the Oslo Accords supposedly guaranteed this.
It is important to note that these three sites are specified by name in the appendices to the Oslo Accords, and defined as historical and religious sites which the PA is supposed to preserve, and to which they are supposed to provide access for Israelis.
The PA is a signatory to the Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property but allows much of this destruction to go on in areas under its control.
UNESCO has attempted to protect Jewish heritage sites in danger in Iraq, along with Kurdish, Christian and Islamic sites. But it does not say a word about Palestinian destruction of Jewish sites. On the contrary - it praises the Waqf for "preservation" on the Temple Mount and condemns Israel for its careful archaeological digs that often discover and preserve Islamic cultural sites!
Palestinian destruction of Jewish antiquities may not be quite as methodical ISIS' attacks on heritage sites, but it is no less important. Yet the world ignores anything the Palestinians do, because anything that is against Israel is justified.
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.
A pro-Arab commenter recommended that people read the British Palin Commission of Inquiry report that examined the anti-Jewish rioting in Jerusalem from April 4-7, 1920 known as the Nebi Musa riots.
By 10:30 a.m. on Sunday, 4 April 1920, 60,000–70,000 Arabs had congregated in the city square for the Nebi Musa festival, and groups had been attacking Jews in the Old City's alleys for over an hour. Inflammatory anti-Zionist rhetoric was delivered by Amin al-Husayni from the balcony of the Arab Club. Another inciter was Musa al-Husayni, his uncle, the mayor, who spoke from the municipal building's balcony.
The editor of the newspaper Suriya al-Janubia (Southern Syria), Aref al-Aref, another Arab Club member, delivered his speech on horseback at the Jaffa Gate.[13] The nature of his speech is disputed. According to Benny Morris, he said "If we don't use force against the Zionists and against the Jews, we will never be rid of them",[9] while Bernard Wasserstein wrote "he seems to have co-operated with the police, and there is no evidence that he actively instigated violence".[13] In fact, Wasserstein adds, "Zionist intelligence reports of this period are unanimous in stressing that he spoke repeatedly against violence".[13]
The crowd reportedly shouted "Independence! Independence!" and "Palestine is our land, the Jews are our dogs!"[1] Arab police joined in applause, and violence started.[14] The local Arab population ransacked the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem. The Torath Chaim Yeshiva was raided, and Torah scrolls were torn and thrown on the floor, and the building then set alight.[1] During the next three hours, 160 Jews were injured.[14]
Khalil al-Sakakini witnessed the eruption of violence in the Old City:
"[A] riot broke out, the people began to run about and stones were thrown at the Jews. The shops were closed and there were screams. … I saw a Zionist soldier covered in dust and blood. … Afterwards, I saw one Hebronite approach a Jewish shoeshine boy, who hid behind a sack in one of the wall's comers next to Jaffa Gate, and take his box and beat him over the head. He screamed and began to run, his head bleeding and the Hebronite left him and returned to the procession. … The riot reached its zenith. All shouted, "Muhammad's religion was born with the sword". … I immediately walked to the municipal garden. … my soul is nauseated and depressed by the madness of humankind."[15]
The army imposed night curfew on Sunday night and arrested several dozen rioters, but on Monday morning they were allowed to attend morning prayers and were then released. Arabs continued to attack Jews and break into their homes, especially in Arab-majority mixed buildings.[1]
On Monday, as disturbances grew worse, the Old City was sealed off by the army and no one was allowed to exit the area. Martial law was declared, but looting, burglary, rape, and murder continued. Several homes were set on fire, and tombstones were shattered. British soldiers found that the majority of illicit weapons were concealed on the bodies of Arab women.[1] On Monday evening, the soldiers were evacuated from the Old City, a step described in the Palin Report as "an error of judgment". Even with martial law, it took the British authorities another 4 days to restore order.
The Old City's Jewish community had no training or weapons, and Jabotinsky's men had found themselves outside the walled Old City, and shut out by British soldiers.[1] Two volunteers were able to enter the Jewish Quarter disguised as medical personnel to organize self-defense – using rocks and boiling water.[1]
The Palin report mentions very little of this. While is admits that Jews were the primary victims of days of murder, looting and rape, the bulk of the report describes Arab frustration over Zionism and blames Zionists for being too political, provoking the Arabs to act. Every time the word "provocative" is used in the report, it refers to Jews - doing little more than saying things..
Here is a salient section that shows how the British viewed Zionist political (and, at that time, very limited paramilitary) activity:
Towards the Administration they [some Zionists] adopted the attitude of "We want the Jewish State and we won't wait", and they did not hesitate to avail themselves of every means open to them in this country and abroad to force; the hand of an Administration bound to respect the "Status Quo" and to commit it, and thereby future Administrations, to a policy not contemplated in the Balfour Declaration.. It is not to be wondered at that the Arab population complained of bias on the part of the Administration in favour of the Jews. They see the Administration repeatedly overruled by the Zionist Commission; they see the Zionist Commission intermeddling in every department of Government, in Justice, Public Health, Legislation, Public Works, and forcing the Administration as in the case of the Wilhelma Concession to interfere in their favour, in a purely business transaction. They see Jews excluded from the operations of the Public Custodian with regard to enemy property: they have seen the introduction of the Hebrew language on an equality with Arabic and English: they have seen considerable immigration not effectively controlled: they see Zionist stamps on letters and Zionist young men drilling publicly in the open spaces of the town. Finally they have seen them proceeding to the election of a Constituent Assembly. What more natural than that they should fail to realise the immense difficulties the Administration was and is labouring under and come to the conclusion that the openly published demands of the Jews were to be granted and the guarantees in the Declaration were to become but a dead letter?
30. Another indiscretion of the Jews, moreover, had succeeded in adding fuel of the most combustible kind to the growing fire. Christians and Moslems alike have the deepest concern for the Holy Places of Jerusalem. Rightly or wrongly they suspect the intentions of the Jews with regard to these, the Roman Catholics more particularly with regard to the Christian Holy Places and the Moslems with regard to the Haram el Sherif, which they can never forget is the site of the Jewish Temple. Now previous to the war, the Jews had already entered into negotiations to secure a piece of land for a Jewish meeting place close to the Wailing Wall, the land in question being a Waqf of the Moroccans. [p35] The scheme was taken up again in 1918, but opposition had then been raised and the scheme had to be dropped.
The Wailing Wall is in reality the Western Wall of the Haram, the bottom courses consisting of huge blocks certainly dating from the time of the Jewish Temple, though whether Herod's or Solomon's is not clear. This wall the Jews claim as their possession, but it is almost certain that they have no claim in law, the wall together with the rest of the Haram being the property of the Sultan of Turkey in his sovereign capacity. Recently the question has arisen in a more acute form through the attempts of the Moslems to repair certain of the upper courses of the wall. The correspondence which has ensued between the Jews and the Administration with reference to this subject throws considerable light on the extent of Jewish claims in this direction. The Rabbi Kook in his letter of 30th May declares that the Temple area and the whole of the Mount are "bound in the end to revert to us" and asks the Government to entrust the Wailing Wall "to the care and control of the Representatives of Jewry: and any reparations that shall be required we shall carry out ourselves." The Zionist Commission in their letter to Colonel Storrs of May 16th 1920 declare the act of repairing the wall by the Moslems a 'Sacrilege', and the Council of Rabbis writing to Colonel Storrs on June 2nd 1920 say "The Holy Wall, the Wailing Wall is the property of Israel as far as the heavens and no other person or persons is allowed to touch it. .... At the same time we beg to declare our right to recognise the sacredness of the whole Moriah and Temple area; we are sure that the day will [p36] come and God will deliver his people; and our Holy Temple will be rebuilt in its glory as in the days of old ......." Such language may doubtless be considered as nothing but the pious expression of millenial hopes by deeply religious men. The Moslems, however, will be inclined to look to the practical activities of the Zionist Commission and to suspect that the less spiritually minded among them may be tempted to hasten the fulfilment of prophesy. In view of the sanctity of the Haram in the eyes of all Moslems, such a suspicion is enough to fire not only the Moslems of Palestine; but the whole of Islam.
...33. We have then arrived at a condition of affairs where the native population, disappointed of their hopes, panic-stricken as to their future, exasperated beyond endurance by the aggressive attitude of the Zionists, and despairing of redress at the hands of an Administration which seems to them powerless before the Zionist organisation, lies a ready prey for any form of agitation hostile to the British Government and the Jews.
This section is preceded by a French expression that summarizes the entire report in two lines:
Cet animal est très méchant
Si on l'attaque il se défend.
This animal is very nasty
If attacked it defends itself.
This is a slight misquote from a French burlesque song of the 1860s. It means that one cannot fault an animal for its actions; when provoked it naturally lashes out in self-defense.
The Jews are the provokers. The Arabs are the innocent animals. And if any Jews get killed and raped and stabbed, well, it is their own fault for provoking the animals with speeches, working with the British and creating their own institutions.
See, for example, this section where Arab threats to the lives of Jews are discounted:
There is certainly evidence that an indefinite presentiment existed among the people that an attack might be made on the Jews at some time during that festival. Threats were uttered and warnings given to individual Jews both in Jerusalem and in the country. It is necessary to observe here, however, that it is not an uncommon occurrence for the Moslem population in the East, when relations are strained, to indulge in vague menaces of this character and the approaching gathering of Moslems in Jerusalem would naturally suggest itself as a suitable occasion for their execution.
While Arab justifications for terror are fully aired out and treated sympathetically, Zionism is described (quite falsely) as being a form of Bolshevism.
Jewish accusations are mentioned only briefly and treated contemptuously:
35. Having examined in considerable detail the case made by the Arab population against the Government and the various causes which may have been said to have given rise to the intense feeling which culminated in the outbreak on Easter Day, it is now necessary to pass shortly in review the case against the Administration as presented by the Zionists. This case was presented and pressed with a degree of bitterness by the Zionists remarkable even after making due allowance for the injury und alarm their compatriots had suffered in the riots. They persist in describing the events of these days as a "pogrom", a word which clearly imputes connivance to the Administration: Dr. de Sola Pool gave as his definition of the word that it meant "an attack on the Jews of the city carried out by the lower lawless elements who were given free play by the non-interference of the police and those charged with the keeping of order. Not necessarily with the connivance of the Government, but almost invariably of the lower police officials."
The Zionists also allege that the Administration and its officials have been steadily biassed against the Zionists and [p41] disloyal to the policy laid down in the Balfour Declaration: that by the exhibition of this bias they encouraged the Arabs to think that a massacre of the Jews would be pleasing to the Administration: that they failed to make adequate preparations to meet a premeditated attack in spite of repeated warnings, and that by their coquetting with the Sherifians and the Emir Feisal, they precipitated the catastrophe. The question of the behaviour of the police and the question of premeditation and want of preparation may best be left for consideration when we come to discuss the actual occurrences of Easter week. The questions to be examined here are how far the allegations of bias and encouragement of the Arabs can be said to be justified.
After discounting the testimony of a British officer that supported the Jewish claims, ("Colonel Meinertzhagen arrived with a definite anti-Arab bias and a prejudice in favour of Zionism") the Commission summed up its response to these charges this way:
A much juster view of the situation can be obtained by the examination of the evidence of Lieut. Colonel Bentwich, Senior Judicial Officer of the Administration. Lieut. Colonel Bentwich is an English Jew and an ardent and convinced Zionist, and he impressed the Court as being a most fair minded and reliable witness. This is what he says "I don't think there has been a general bias. There have been one or two cases of officers in the Administration who had - Colonel Gabriel had, and one or two others were anti-Jewish. These officers have been dealt with. I think the Jews are a little out to seek offence. They are too sensitive and ready to take offence and there is action and re-action accordingly. The Jews regarded the declaration of 1917 as something which was to be fulfilled immediately and have been worried and disappointed by the delay. I think also there has been too much ostentation and demonstration irritating to the populace." This evidence deserves the profoundest consideration for it really sums up the whole matter.
Indeed it does. It shows that British attitudes towards the Arabs gives them as much agency in their actions as animals have, while Jews are expected to forego any activity that might "provoke" the animals to defend themselves.
This is racism, and it continues to the present day. One only needs to glance at the news to see that the attitude of Arabs as animals, not responsible for their actions, and Jews as adults who must not do anything to provoke the animals, is embedded in our culture. The entire reason the US gives to not move its embassy to Jerusalem is based on the concern that the Arab "animals" will start to kill people because of this "provocation." Consistently, Jews in Israel are implored to not act as sovereigns in their own land but as slaves to the animals whose attacks are terrible but understandable - because one cannot expect animals to behave any better.
The Palin report, certainly without meaning to, makes this racist attitude against Arabs explicit.
And its tacit acceptance of Arab violence with its recommendations against Zionist Jews led to more and more similar reports when there were major attacks on succeeding years - 1921, 1929, 1936 - all of which shifted responsibility for Arab terror on their Jewish victims.
The only way to bring real peace is to start treating Arabs as human beings who are responsible for their own actions, and to stop justifying constant threats and acts of terror as "natural." It is this Western racism that encourages terror.
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.
I now work in an area where, for whatever reason, there are TVs all over the place, with the volume down and closed-captioning on, and nearly all of them tuned to CNN.
So for the past several weeks I've been treated to seeing CNN all day.
I never realized how bad this network was.
Every day, the producers decide to take one story and beat it to the ground. For what seems like 20 minutes out of each half hour, the different hosts all tackle the same story with the same blaring headline on the screen underneath the talking heads discussing it.
On Tuesday the story was all about how Donald Trump's transition team is in disarray.
To me, a mere blogger, the obvious thing to do with a story like this would be to compare this transition with those of previous presidents of different parties than the previous administration. I didn't spend too much time researching this myself, because it isn't really the topic of this blog, but I did see that George W. Bush didn't get to start his transition in earnest until early December because it wasn't clear that he won the election. It seems that this is a salient fact when people are saying how far Trump is behind on this crucial task.
But I didn't see anyone in the hours of coverage even considering to look at previous handovers of power.
On Wednesday, the obsession was over the fact that Trump went out to dinner with his family without having the press tag along.
The coverage was similar to this NBC news headline:
The talking heads who were incensed about the idea of a president-elect having dinner with his family without them invoked "democracy" as the rationale for their "right" to follow him.
Apparently, there is a tradition that the "protective press pool" follows the President everywhere so they can record what he does in case he gets shot or says something stupid. But it is merely a tradition - it isn't law and it isn't a matter of "security" as Rachel Maddow said. The media went berzerk over what they regarded as a huge insult.
It is not a headline story, but CNN made it into their main story for several hours.
It was followed by some rumors that Jared Kushner is firing the most competent potential advisors to Trump, with more talking heads discussing how much of a mess the transition supposedly is.
I don't know if it is or it isn't a mess, but I do know this: neither does CNN.
I'm not a fan of Donald Trump. I'm quite concerned about who he is choosing to be in his cabinet and who he is choosing to advise him. But CNN, and the media in general, are not reporting on this important story responsibly. They float rumors as facts and uninformed opinion as serious analysis. In fact, their blatantly anti-Trump coverage (with the token talking head who supports him among the screaming headlines) makes me more sympathetic towards Trump wanting to go out with his family to dinner before he moves into the White House fishbowl.
I was already familiar with how superficial and meme-driven CNN's coverage of Israel is. But it is clear that it isn't only Israel - this superficiality is part and parcel of CNN itself.
This is not journalism. This is gossip disguised as news. CNN is no more responsible as a media outlet than Access Hollywood is.
There are real stories out there. There are a few real journalists out there. And right now, important things are happening. But so long as the CNNs of the world care more about ratings than about news, we'll hardly ever see any real news behind the bright spotlights of the Gossip News Network.
(Yes, I'm sure I would be just as critical of Fox News and MSNBC if I was subjected to them all day as 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.
Israel’s supporters were hoping Hillary Clinton could forestall the Democratic Party’s seemingly inevitable turn against the Jewish state. Clinton’s loss last week means we’re officially après Hillary — and must prepare for the flood.
This could be the last US presidential election that Israelis don’t have to watch with existential dread. At least, the first signs of a post-Clinton Democratic Party aren’t good. Minnesota Rep. Keith Ellison, a fiery critic of Israel, is the front-runner to be the next Democratic National Committee chairman.
As Scott Johnson detailed in The Weekly Standard when Ellison was on the verge of winning his House seat in 2006, before his congressional career Ellison had worked with Louis Farrakhan’s Nation of Islam and even defended Farrakhan against accusations of anti-Semitism.
Ellison has left Farrakhan far behind, but his Israel criticism remains scathing. As the Jewish Telegraphic Agency reported, Ellison “has organized letters urging pressure on Israel, and was an advocate of drawing lessons from the UN Goldstone Report following the 2009 Gaza War.” Even Richard Goldstone, the author of the infamously anti-Israel report, wound up essentially disowning it.
The defense of Ellison by supporters is that the Louis Farrakan stuff was long ago, that he’s changed. And indeed, from much of what I’ve read about Ellison, he tries to play some of his activism when it comes to Israel to the left of center but not to the extreme.
Yet those words of reasonableness are called into question by his association with anti-Israel groups. U.S. Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation The U.S. Campaign to end the Israeli Occupation, recently rebranded as the U.S. Campaign for Palestinian Rights, is one of the most active BDS groups. As we have covered many times, the U.S. Campaign is active on campuses and in churches urging the boycott of Israel.
The U.S. Campaign is so uncompromising, so vitriolic and so biased, that the United Methodist Church assembly recently voted to seek withdrawal from the U.S. Campaign coalition. The U.S. Campaign is so toxic that it could not find a single congressman or congresswoman to sponsor its planned event on Capitol Hill, as we previously reported, Report: Pro-BDS event on Capitol Hill canceled after nature of group exposed:
In his inspiring book “Words That Hurt, Words that Heal,” Rabbi Joseph Telushkin wrote: “Because words can be used to inflict devastating and irrevocable suffering, Jewish teachings go so far as to compare cruel words to murder.”
Thus it is painful to see the malicious character assassination and false accusations of “anti-Semitism” being hurled against President-elect Trump’s appointee Stephen Bannon and Bannon’s company, Breitbart Media.
In fact, as pro-Israel writer and Breitbart senior editor Joel B. Pollak wrote, Bannon is “an American patriot who defends Israel & has deep empathy for the Jewish people.” Pollak is an Orthodox Jew; would an Orthodox Jew praise Bannon and tolerate spending six years working with Bannon if he were an ugly Jew hater and Israel basher?
ZOA’s own experience and analysis of Breitbart articles confirms Bannon’s and Breitbart’s friendship and fair-mindedness toward the Jewish people and Israel. To accuse Bannon and Breitbart of anti-Semitism is Orwellian. In fact, Breitbart bravely fights against anti-Semitism. Here are a few of many examples:
Loudspeakers have been in the news in Israel. For those not in the know, the Knesset is working on a piece of legislation to ban loudspeaker use in houses of worship. This is because the Arab muezzin call to prayer is blasted over loudspeakers five times a day and the sound carries to Jewish neighborhoods. This would not be a problem at all, if one of those five times of the days were not dawn, which this time of the year is at 4:33 AM, when the majority of the citizens of the Jewish State are fast asleep.
In my own neighborhood of Efrat, some of the neighborhoods are closer to Arab villages than others, and it definitely does wake people up. Efratians are just regular people who work 9-5 and need a good night's sleep. Efrat has politely (and repeatedly) asked the villagers to turn the volume down a bit. Our Arab neighbors comply for a week or so and then the volume begins to creep back up until it's being blasted at full volume once more.
And let me tell you. It's LOUD.
Now, this isn't specific to Efrat. I know this because I haven't always lived in Efrat. In fact, when I first came to Israel in 1979, I lived for a time in the Jewish Quarter of the Old City of Jerusalem. I was in Israel as a year student at a seminary.
That first night in the dorm, it was hard falling asleep; getting used to a strange place; a new bed; dorm mates chatting in the kitchen, walking around; and so forth. But I finally did nod off. Until at dawn, the muezzin's call came blasting into my bedroom.
I was 18 and American and terrified. I didn't know it was the call to prayer coming at me from a loudspeaker. I sat bolt upright in my creaky cot, heart pounding. I thought it was an invasion, an attack of marauding Arab terrorists come to rape me and slit my throat.
I thought it was the end. (Just my luck—my first night in Israel.)
But as the prayer continued inexorably on I realized there was not a peep from my roommates. Deductive reasoning told me this was obviously NOT a terror attack. I didn't know what it was, that loud Mideastern caterwauling but I realized it couldn't be anything dangerous or I would see some movement, hear some screaming. Something. I did my best to fall back asleep, thinking I'd ask about it in the morning.
And that, my fair readers, was my introduction to Muezzin, his loudspeaker, and the Arab dawn prayers.
In every place I have since lived, I have seen and heard the same phenomenon, and heard about it from other Israelis in different parts of the country, as well. The Arabs are asked to lower the volume a bit, they do for a time, then back up it goes, the volume, in every mosque in every Arab town, city, and village in Israel. Sometimes we Jews do something smart and blast Jewish music from loudspeakers in our towns, loud enough to disturb the Arabs, during the day or at a middle of the night time OTHER than their dawn call to prayer.
That may feel momentarily good, but it does nothing, however, to rectify the situation.
More effective perhaps, was this effort by Jewish citizens to demonstrate for their mayor that we're talking serious noise pollution here.
The thing is, there is already in place, a law to limit the volume at which loudspeakers are used. Of course, the Arabs ignore the law, and nobody dares enforce it, because oh my, the left might have a conniption fit, so the law is, for all intents and purposes, worthless at keeping the prayers at a sane volume.
As Elder noted, this new bill was approved by the Knesset on Sunday and while it will need several readings to pass into law, Netanyahu threw the weight of his approval behind the legislation. The Prime Minister said that while freedom of religion is important, a government must also protect its citizens from noise pollution. Naturally, the Arabs are not happy campers. The PA is threatening to go to the Security Council. MK Zahalka said that anyone who doesn't like the noise should leave and go back to where they came from. (As if the Jews, the Yehudim in Hebrew, or Yahud as they are called in Arabic, don't come from Yehuda/Judea.)
But what really irked me most from all the responses was this message that flew into my work inbox unbidden, from the Israel Democracy Institute (IDI), in the form of a press release on how this think tank sees the legislation:
IDI Scholars Responds to Bill Prohibiting Loudspeakers at Houses of Worship:"Offensive to the Muslim Israeli Community, Harmful to its Freedom of Expression"Scholars from the Israel Democracy Institute submitted an opinion to Ministerial Committee on Legislation regarding the pending piece of legislation, scheduled to be discussed on Sunday, 13/11/2016, by the, which would ban the use of loudspeakers at houses of worship.
November 13, 2016 --------IDI's Vice President Professor Mordechai Kremnitzer; Co-Director, The Project for Arab-Jewish Relations, Adv. Eli Bahar and Head of the Defending Democratic Values Project ,Dr. Amir Fuchs explained:
"Israel's Knesset has already passed legislation that prohibits an inappropriate level of noise. However, this new proposal asserts that any sounds emanating from a loudspeaker system will automatically become illegal. In essence, this bill seeks to ban even reasonable levels of noise.This is unacceptable and contradicts the stated purpose of this proposal, to uphold the quality of life standards for all Israelis."
In addition, the authors noted that "even though the bill is worded in neutral language and defines a house of worship as a 'synagogue', 'church' or 'mosque', it is clear that in practice this law is aimed at limiting and harming the activities of mosques only. After all, only Muslim houses of worship make frequent use of public address systems."
Kremnitzer, Bahar and Fuchs emphasized that "it is impossible to ignore the fact that this bill's supporters have stated that it seeks to 'stop the broadcasting of nationalistic messages and incitement,' a completely separate issue that has nothing to do with excessive noise. Israeli law of course offers a number of legal remedies to deal with offences related to incitement. As such, there is no reason to use the pretext of too much noise."
Finally, the authors of IDI's response stated: "the use of this seemingly innocuous piece of legislation cannot disguise the nefarious purpose of its drafters: to not only violate Muslim Israelis' freedom of religion, but to stir up strife and arouse resentment among members of this community."
The IDI's policy position would have us believe that with this new bill, Israel is attempting to stifle Muslim freedom of worship. Nothing could, however, be further from the truth.
See, here's the thing: knock yourselves out praying at dawn. But do it without loudspeakers. Because you have proven that you can't use them at a normal volume, loud enough for Muslim worshippers, and soft enough for Jewish people who still have a few hours left to sleep before a long day of work. Instead, you've proven that you use these loudspeakers as a direct provocation to assert religious supremacy over the Jews and to show your non-recognition of Israel as the Jewish State.
Since these worshippers can't respect Jewish rights in the Jewish State, it seems obvious that some limits would need to be applied to keep their behavior in line with societal norms. In the Jewish State, you see, the people who comprise the majority have the right to be asleep at 4:33 AM, if they so choose, without having loudspeakers coercively blaring Muslim prayers in their ears. And enforcing this right to quiet and a good night's sleep is just what this bill aims to accomplish. It goes beyond the worthless bill limiting volume, and puts an end to the practice of using loudspeakers altogether.
Which makes that IDI policy statement really smell. Which is no surprise. Author Yitzchak Klein said, in a 2009 article about IDI entitled The strange case of the Israel Democracy Institute, "If the Church of England was once described as the Conservative Party at prayer, IDI is this country's secular left-wing elite thinking out loud. The IDI's ideal model of Israel is a secular, nonnational, economically and socially liberal society with its Jewish character and ethic pressed as much out of view as possible."
In other words, if you're with the IDI you think that it's fine to be Muslim in Israel, but don't anyone dare try to be Jewish! (Loudspeakers YES, Jewish sleepers, NO.)
And by the way, this isn't the first time the IDI has attempted to undermine and override the rights of Jews in the Jewish State. IDI also worked in tandem with the IDF to develop a strategy to carry out Disengagement. An article in Mida by Ran Baratz describes the outcome of this alliance:
In any well-governed country, the working paper which the IDF issued together with the Israel Democracy Institute would have become a major scandal. For example, under the general heading “Army-Society Relations in the Disengagement Process”, under the sub-heading “Purpose of the Teamwork,” the document identifies three different populations within the general public: (1) Those who accept the Disengagement; (2) Those who are severely opposed to the Disengagement; (3) Those who have reservations about the Disengagement (whose position is not clear cut). With respect to those who have reservations the document states (emphases added): “We have marked this population as the main target of our activities, because it may be possible to influence their positions and behavior.”
The scandalous discussion on influencing positions and behavior of the public is not accidental. “Shaping the Public Consciousnessby means of an advocacy campaign” is an important objective that is explicitly designated in the document.
We’ve found a definition of political objectives already in the Introduction: classifying the public according to attitudes concerning a political program, and marking one segment of the population as a target for activities designed to “shape consciousness.” The document continues to detail the objectives and the means of advocacy, including roles designated for the political echelons:
The Disengagement Plan is a political move that was accepted in a completely democratic process – this argument should be made by jurists and law experts (such as retired judges, political science experts and public figures) … concerning the underlying rationale of the Disengagement Plan – a clear rationale for the program should be presented. This rationale will be presented by the political echelons.
The document is an example not only of political action, but also of political commentary. It also presents the position of the YESHA (Judea and Samaria) leadership concerning a referendum – an idea that the IDI decisively rejects (after all, for the champions of “democracy” in Israel, there could be nothing more “anti-democratic” than an act of direct democracy, which renders superfluous all the power hubs the left so diligently maintain):
The YESHA leadership is interested in conducting a referendum for several reasons:
a. A referendum may lead to a change of the decision;
b.A referendum could enable the process to be postponed and ultimately dissolved;
c.Conducting a referendum and potential results may enable the leadership to gain better control over reactions of populations they lead and may moderate the intensity of the public outcry against the plan.
The IDI, in its dealings, betrays its desire to ride roughshod over the democratic norms of the Jewish State to impose the will of the Arab inhabitants on the majority Jewish population. The question is why? Why does the left think it's okay to rob Jews of their rights to give Arabs their rights in the Jewish State?
My colleague Myles Kantor says that for at least one public figure to the left of the political spectrum, the new media director of the Times of Israel, Sarah Tuttle-Singer, it's about masochism and wanting to impose that abuse on everyone around her, on an entire country in fact.
Tuttle-Singer is supporting widespread aggression that traumatizes kids and damages the general population's health in a fundamental area. A mother stated in 2014:
"From the time she was born until she was nearly two, my daughter woke up in a panic every night from the call of the muezzin."
"Yungreiss...said mosques use extremely powerful loudspeakers that are unnecessarily loud, and children in the neighborhood have suffered from a lack of concentration in school due to their sleep being disturbed."
Not content to enjoy suffering privately, Tuttle-Singer wants to impose the sickness upon Israel as a whole.
And, like saying Sgt. Azaria "committed a heinous crime" and "should rot in jail," it's all because she loves Israel so much.
The truth is, I'm not sure why this new bill would work any better than the old bill. If they couldn't enforce the volume issue with the old bill, how are they going to enforce the no loudspeaker thing with this new bill? In both cases, it would seem that in order to enforce the law, the police/army would be required to actually go into the mosques and issue warnings or even arrest worshippers for repeated violations. I can't see the Israeli government being any more brave about dealing with loudspeakers than dealing with loudspeaker volume.
They will be too afraid of the backlash of the UN, the EU, and other assorted anti-Israel abbreviations.
Which is an incredibly sad state of affairs.
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.
Jerusalem, November 16 - No date has been announced for the trip to Israel President-elect Donald Trump has promised to make once he assumes office, but the country's Arab lawmakers are already preparing to greet the controversial leader with a traditional display of disrespect, modified to suit the particular recipient of the treatment.
Members of the Joint List parliamentary alliance of Arab parties decided unanimously today that if and when Trump makes his official visit to the Knesset, instead of throwing shoes at a man perceived as hostile to Muslims and Arab interests, they will throw gloves and mittens sized for small children as a reference to his supposedly tiny hands.
Joint List Chairman Ayman Odeh and his colleagues agreed at a delegation meeting today to coordinate the move, and named MK Dr. Ahmad Tibi as supervisor of the effort to obtain, store, and, when the time comes, distribute the gloves to the other twelve members of the alliance. Tibi told reporters he felt honored at being selected, but that the occasion for the honor removed any other positive feelings.
"Trump is a bigot," proclaimed the legislator, whose party supports homophobia and misogyny, and denied the legitimacy of Israel as a Jewish State. "We will protest his attitude and the statements he made throughout his campaign by subjecting him to the dishonor of being pelted with shoes, but instead of shoes, we will throw small gloves to fit his tiny, tiny hands," added Tibi, who, along with his Joint List colleagues, never feels the need to compensate for shortcomings.
Odeh revealed that he instructed Tibi to get his hands on specifically on gloves manufactured in China, whom Trump has blamed for many of the US's trade and employment woes, as well as for global warming. "I also told him that if he could find gloves emblazoned with the Mexican flag, that would be perfect, but that's probably not going to be easy. I suppose we could commission something from Etsy, but that's going pretty far, and the Communist-leaning members of of our alliance wouldn't be so happy about that."
MK Taleb Abu Arrar supported the decision but nevertheless confessed misgivings about its wisdom. "Given Trump's experience with hecklers, and the way he assumes they're out to harm him physically, this could backfire against the entire Arab and Palestinian community," he explained. "But in the end I decided to go along with it, because doing things that backfire against the Arab and Palestinian community is basically our thing.
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.
National Public Radio takes a nice look at the issue of relocating the US embassy to Jerusalem. Unfortunately, Daniel Estrin’s dispatch assumes Jewish ties to eastern Jerusalem only began in 1967. The western part of Jerusalem is almost entirely Jewish. The eastern part of the city was entirely Arab when Israel captured it in the 1967 Arab-Israeli war. Many Israeli Jews have moved into the eastern part of the city, and Israel claims all of Jerusalem as its capital, though no other country recognizes this.
Talk about twisted context.
Jerusalem was a unified city. There were no distinctions between “East” and “West” Jerusalem until Jordan captured the city’s eastern neighborhoods and Old City. The only reason it was “entirely Arab” when Israel reunified the Jerusalem during the Six-Day War was because the Jordanians expelled the Jews from its jurisdiction, systematically destroyed synagogues, and generally made its half of the city judenfrei.
Wrapped in Israeli flags and holding signs condemning UNESCO, hundreds of people walked in Midtown yesterday protesting the UNESCO resolution. “And to all of UNESCO, we declare ‘Am Yisrael Chai,'” shouted Rabbi Avi Weiss, who heads the Hebrew Institute of Riverdale in the Bronx. “We have faced enemies in the past. We have overcome. We are overcoming. We will overcome.”
On Thursday afternoon, StandWithUs, in cooperation with Artists 4 Israel, set up a giant Pinocchio effigy across from the United Nations, symbolizing the lies the U.N. is spreading about the UNESCO decision.
This followed the “We Stand Together” rally at the Israeli Consulate, organized by AMCHA-Coalition for Jewish Concerns, and co-sponsored by StandWithUs New York and other groups. Among the attendees were students from the Moriah School in Englewood, N.J. and members of Weiss’s shul. StandWithUs is a non-profit organization that educates people around the world and students on college campuses about Israel. Artists 4 Israel utilizes art to benefits all Israelis regardless of race, religion, national origin or political belief.
The position of the two Palestinian leaders, Arafat and Abbas, is deeply rooted in the Palestinian tradition and culture, in which any compromise with Israel is considered an act of high treason. Abbas knows that concessions on his part would result in being spat upon by his people -- or killed.
Hence the PA president has in recent years avoided even the pretense of negotiations with Israel, and instead has poured his energies into strong-arming the international community to impose a solution on Israel.
The French would do well to abandon their plan for convening an international conference on peace in the Middle East. Declaring a Palestinian state in the Security Council only makes them look as if their actual goal is to destroy Israel -- and they know it. They would be fooling no one.
Many in Europe, particularly France, seem be aching to do just that -- as a "present" to the Organization of Islamic Cooperation to show how submissive they can be; to encourage more "business" with Muslim states, and, they might hope, to deter more terrorist attacks. Actually, if the members of the UN Security Council declare a Palestinian state unilaterally, they are encouraging more terrorist attacks: the terrorists will see that attacks "work" and embark on more of them to help the jihadi takeover of Europe go even faster.
In June, I noted an op-ed in the popular Egyptian newspaper Al Masry al-Youm by a respected writer that minimized the Holocaust, and then said that the Jews deserved it.
He said that he received his information from a video that a friend sent.
The speaker is Ahmed Huber, a Swiss-German neo-Nazi and convert to Islam who died in 2008.
He was featured in a CNN segment after the US declared him a terrorist who was helping Al Qaeda back in 2001.
For some reason, Arabs have no problem with this neo-Nazi who happened to have been a Muslim.
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.
A wonderful byproduct of Donald Trump talking about moving the US embassy to Israel's capital in Jerusalem (and people believing him) is seeing the reactions of supposedly pro-Israel groups who make their living by criticizing Israel.
After all, there is no legal reason why the US embassy should not be in Jerusalem, and lots of good reasons why it should. It is Israel's capital, after all. The idea that Jerusalem would ever become an international city, the official US reason for not moving it, has been dead for 67 years. The real reason the US hasn't moved the embassy is because of a bizarre hope that somehow that disrespect towards the State of Israel will motivate Zionists to give up more concessions to Palestinians. Yet, as David Gerstman writes in Legal Insurrection, that has backfired into more Palestinian intransigence, and moving the embassy would destroy the fiction that coddling Arabs brings us closer to peace.
Israel's enemies don't object to siting foreign embassies in Jerusalem because it would undermine diplomatic negotiations. They object because they deny Israel's claim to any part of Jerusalem, even parts that have always been sovereign Israeli territory. They deny, in other words, that Israel's very existence is a settled issue. Moving the US embassy to Jerusalem would send one message, simple but significant: Americans do not regard the survival of the Jewish state as negotiable.
Most Israelis, from the left to the right, would welcome moving the embassy to Jerusalem. Most Americans who expressed an opinion say it should be moved.
When asked if Trump’s much-publicized promise to move the American embassy to Jerusalem was good for Israel, Amidror didn’t hesitate. “No question. It will not change anything fundamental on the ground but it would be very symbolic that the capital of Israel is becoming a real capital in which foreign countries are building their embassies,” he said. “It’s very important symbolically.”
In short, there is no legal or security reason why the US shouldn't do what is right, and many important reasons why it should.
American elected officials should respect the need for the permanent status of Jerusalem to be determined in the context of a negotiated two-state solution, and refrain from steps, rhetorical or practical, that inflame an already tense situation – for instance, calling for the immediate relocation of the American Embassy to Jerusalem.
J-Street cares so much about possibly upsetting Arabs that Jews who feel passionately about Israel's attachment to Jerusalem can go to hell. The Jews don't start knifing people when they get upset, so their opinions aren't as important as those of the Arabs who threaten to do exactly that.
This is J-Street's "pro-Israel" position - "cower before your enemies and maybe they'll like you better, because everything is your fault anyway."
Jerusalem is a wonderful litmus test as to whether you are pro-Israel: If you are against things that most Israelis are adamantly for and for things that they are against, and you use the excuse that it is for their own good, you can be sure that you aren't really pro-Israel.
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.
At their weekly meeting Tuesday, Central Student Government voted 34 to 13 to reject a resolution that would have called on the University of Michigan to divest its investments in several companies that allegedly commit human rights violations against Palestinians.
The resolution, which was brought to the assembly by student organization Students Allied for Freedom and Equality, initially considered a range of companies, but was limited during the meeting to only Boeing, G4S, Hewlett-Packard and United 130 Technologies. This is the 10th attempt since 2002 to pass a resolution to divest at the University, including in 2014 and 2015, following in the path of similar resolutions at many other schools around the country. The vote this year was less close than it has been in recent years.
I found this argument against Israel interesting:
University alum Devin Jones, who said he was a Palestinian citizen, told the story of his mother and grandfather, born in the same house on the same street, but facing drastically different political climates in their lifetimes. “But she was born in a different state… We were not indigenous to our own land because we were on the wrong side of a battle, a battle that wasn’t our fault,” Jones said. “Basically, we were stripped of our Palestinian identities and forced to become Israeli citizens.”
If he describes himself as Palestinian, how does his mother becoming an Israeli citizen (with equal rights to Jews) strip him of his identity?
If he lives in the US, does that mean that he has voluntarily stripped himself of Palestinian identity?
The anti-Israel arguments get dumber every year, which may be why the divestment movement has been weakening year after year.
(h/t Dan)
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 Oberlin College board of trustees voted to dismiss professor Joy D. Karega, effective Nov. 15.
After extensive consideration and a comprehensive review of recommendations from multiple faculty committees and Oberlin President Marvin Krislov, the college voted to let go the assistant professor of rhetoric and composition for failing to meet the academic standards that Oberlin requires of its faculty and failing to demonstrate intellectual honesty, according to a news release from the college.
The release said: “As a board, we agree with President Krislov and every faculty committee reviewing this matter that the central issues are Dr. Karega’s professional integrity and fitness. We affirm Oberlin’s historic and ongoing commitment to academic freedom.
“During this process, which began with Dr. Karega’s posting of anti-Semitic writings on social media, Dr. Karega received numerous procedural protections: she was represented by counsel; she presented witness testimony, documents, and statements to support her position; and she had the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses testifying against her.
“The faculty review process examined whether Dr. Karega had violated the fundamental responsibilities of Oberlin faculty members – namely, adherence to the “Statement of Professional Ethics” of the American Association of University Professors, which requires faculty members to “accept the obligation to exercise critical self-discipline and judgment in using, extending and transmitting knowledge” and to “practice intellectual honesty."
“Contrary to this obligation, Karega attacked her colleagues when they challenged inconsistencies in her description of the connection between her postings and her scholarship and she disclaimed all responsibility for her misconduct, according to the release.
She also continues to blame Oberlin and its faculty committees for undertaking a shared governance review process, the release said.
“For these reasons, the faculty review committees and President Krislov agreed on the seriousness of Dr. Karega’s misconduct. Indeed, the majority of the General Faculty Council, the executive body of Oberlin’s faculty, concluded that Dr. Karega’s postings could not be justified as part of her scholarship and had “irreparably impaired (her) ability to perform her duties as a scholar, a teacher, and a member of the community.
“In the face of Dr. Karega’s repeated refusal to acknowledge and remedy her misconduct, her continued presence undermines the mission and values of Oberlin’s academic community. Thus, any sanction short of dismissal is insufficient and the Board of Trustees is compelled to take this most serious action,” according to the statement.
her dismissal is not only because of her antisemitic posts on Facebook, but from her activities since they were revealed.
I know the news is coming in. Trust me, this is not a surprise. I've been dealing with the persecution, incompetent leadership, and discrimination from Oberlin College since March. No surprise here.
I will be issuing an official statement soon. I could easily release a "Kiss My Ass" statement. I would be MORE than justified in doing so. But that is not my style. I choose my weapons CAREFULLY and STRATEGICALLY. And trust, I have done that. There will be a challenge and defense of my rights, using ALL the avenues I have available to me -- litigation, public, etc. The pathway for that has already been laid.
...For my Africana faculty, I'm sorry that it had to come to this. I'm sorry that now you all will be placed at the center of the litigation that is coming. I never wanted that. But the College has left me no choice.
She also claims in her post that she was targeted because she is black. ("To my faculty colleagues who had a hand in this decision and to my faculty colleagues who have sat back and done NOTHING: When this precedent that is being set extends beyond mere harm to faculty of color, you will have NO right to complain or say anything.")
The news articles that have been about her, by their nature, minimize her antisemitism and her willingness to embrace absurd anti-Israel conspiracy theories - in other words, her complete inability to distinguish truth from fiction and her willingness to espouse hate.
Thanks to David Gerstman at The Tower, who broke the story about this professor, we have screenshots of what she has actually said in context:
This article has more, and so does this, where Karega "liked" a post that bragged about "exposing the Jew."
Stanley Fish, the Davidson-Kahn Distinguished University Professor of Humanities and Law at Florida International University and author of Versions of Academic Freedom: From Professionalism to Revolution, said Karega can say whatever she wants on social media or even in her scholarship, even if it’s patently false and relates directly to her subject area—as long as she doesn’t attempt to present it in class as a fundamental truth (and there’s a sound pedagogical reason for presenting it at all)
This is probably why Oberlin is couching her dismissal not in terms of her posts, but in terms of her antagonism towards her employer in the wake of their asking questions about her posts. It was her refusal to “accept the obligation to exercise critical self-discipline and judgment in using, extending and transmitting knowledge” and to “practice intellectual honesty."
These academic standards quoted by the AAUP and professors who comment on the case are written by people who have an interest in protecting their own jobs. It seems to me that the bar for teachers, and journalists, must be higher, because their entire jobs are dedicated to conveying truthful information. If a professor or journalist cannot distinguish between truth or fiction - even on Facebook posts that have little to do with their professional work - then one must be concerned about their ability to perform their jobs professionally, too. If they prove that they are bigots on Facebook, then they disqualify themselves from pretending to be honorable members of their profession in the office or classroom.
Free speech is important, but for professions that depend on truth and a modicum of fairness, free speech isn't a defense against lies and hate. These opinions aren't merely "controversial." They are wrong and disgusting, and that should disqualify people from jobs that rely on the ability of the professional to know the difference between truth and fiction and between reasoned opinion and hate disguised as truth.
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.
This blog may be a labor of love for me, but it takes a lot of effort, time and money. For 20 years and 40,000 articles I have been providing accurate, original news that would have remained unnoticed. I've written hundreds of scoops and sometimes my reporting ends up making a real difference. I appreciate any donations you can give to keep this blog going.
Weekend long read
-
1) At the INSS Orna Mizrahi looks at ‘Hezbollah’s War in the Service of
Iran—Consequences for Lebanon’. “In an interview with Bloomberg on
October...
Th...
Weekend long read
-
1) At the INSS Orna Mizrahi looks at ‘Hezbollah’s War in the Service of
Iran—Consequences for Lebanon’. “In an interview with Bloomberg on
October...
Th...
An Observation on Israelis and Archaeology
-
Ariel David of Haaretz reported on a new find, one that appears here and
deals with An Israelite Residency at Mahanaim in Transjordan?
It deals with "th...
Hating Thanksgiving
-
It wouldn't be Thanksgiving without turkey, long lines, and people browsing
their phones for Black Friday deals in which the products had their prices
r...
Italian senate marks exodus of Jewish refugees
-
The Italian senate in Rome held a commemoration of the exodus of 850,000
Jews from Arab countries on 25 November. See video here. The moving force
behind...
Turkey Day
-
[image: Dry Bones cartoon, Thanksgiving, Ham, Turkey, America, Holiday,
Jews, Pork, Holiday,]
An American Favorite
* * * Celebrate Thanksgiving by Supporti...
Hamas/Gaza War Musings #36- Dangerous Surrender!
-
As a student of the Bible/Tanach, most recently Prophets/Navi, that's the
message. Gd will save us if we do the right thing. That's how we won the
1967...
An open letter to the police and CPS
-
To the police and CPS. With reference to complaints made by Gabriel
Kanter-Webber about Rupert Nathan. I understand that the matter has now
been referred...
7 Biggest Dungeons In Elder Scrolls Games
-
You’ve reached your account maximum for followed topics. Labyrinthian in
Skyrim is a maze of Nordic ruins with fiends to battle and treasures to
find. Sund...
One Choice: Fight to Win
-
Yesterday Israel preempted a potentially disastrous attack by Hezbollah on
the center of the country. Thirty minutes before launch time, our aircraft
destr...
Closing Jews Down Under Website
-
With a heavyish heart I am closing down the website after ten years.
It is and it isn’t an easy decision after 10 years of constant work. The
past...
‘Test & Trace’ is a mirage
-
Lockdown II thoughts: Day 1 Opposition politicians have been banging on
about the need for a ‘working’ Test & Trace system even more loudly than
the govern...
Thursday, November 17, 2016
Elder of ZiyonFires severely damaged two ancient tombs, one of them an iconic landmark, outside Jerusalem’s Old City on Friday, in what police suspect may have been arson.
