Saturday, November 19, 2016
Elder of Ziyon
"The better young people are integrated, the greater the chance is that they radicalize. This hypothesis is supported by a lot of evidence". — From a report by researchers at Erasmus University in Rotterdam.An Anti-Israel Brigade With Ties To Hamas Finds A Home In San Francisco State University
"The proportions of [Islamic State] administrators but also of suicide fighters increase with education," according to a World Bank report. "Moreover, those offering to become suicide bombers ranked on average in the more educated group."
Britain's MI5 revealed that "two-thirds of the British suspects have a middle-class profile and those who want to become suicide bombers are often the most educated".
Researchers have discovered that "the richer the countries are the more likely will provide foreign recruits to the terrorist group [ISIS]."
The West seems to have trouble accepting that terrorists are not driven by inequality, but by hatred for Western civilization and the Judeo-Christian values of the West.
For the Nazis, the "inferior race" (the Jews) did not deserve to exist; for the Stalinists, the "enemies of the people" were not entitled to continue living; for the Islamists, it is the West itself that does not deserve to exist.
It is anti-Semitism, not poverty, that led the Palestinian Authority to name a school after Abu Daoud, mastermind of the massacre of Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics.
Opponents of academic accountability and apologists for terrorism alike are seething with fury over a campaign by the Middle East Forum (MEF) and Campus Watch to end San Francisco State University's Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), which it coordinates with Hamas-dominated An-Najah University in the West Bank. Accurate criticism of a taxpayer-funded institution and extensive documentation of An-Najah’s ties to radicalism and terrorism go unanswered, while accusations of “McCarthyism,” “Islamophobia” and “hate-mongering” by “Zionists” abound.Why all Labour members need to read parliament’s antisemitism report
Predictably, SFSU’s General Union of Palestinian Students (GUPS) rushed to defend MOU architect and faculty adviser Rabab Abdulhadi (who is also director of SFSU’s Arab and Muslim Ethnicities and Diasporas Initiative) with a cliché-ridden statement accusing Campus Watch and other “Zionist organizations” of racism, “Islamophobia,” and, most absurdly, “anti-Semitism."
The Samidoun Palestinian Prisoner Solidarity Network released a statement claiming that Campus Watch and other “Zionist groups … target Palestinian academics in the United States . . . [and] operate hand in hand with the violent military raids and pre-dawn arrests against Palestinian student activists at An-Najah.” Translation: Jews who object to relentless defamation of Israel on campus are as guilty as dastardly Israelis, and you know what we do to dastardly Israelis, right?
The 2016 Prisoner, Labor, and Academic Delegation to Palestine - a group comprised of radical activists and academics with whom Abdulhadi traveled to An-Najah earlier this year for an MOU-facilitated conference - equated Campus Watch's campaign with “an escalating backlash by pro-Israeli, Zionist organizations to undermine support for Palestine.”
The U.S. Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (USACBI), of which Abdulhadi is a founding member, accused MOU opponents of engaging in “McCarthy-like tactics.”
Abdulhadi herself resorted to the same tiresome banalities, describing Campus Watch’s effort to end the MOU as a “McCarthyist attack” and “a witch hunt campaign.” She maintained that the campaign “seeks to whip up hysteria, Islamophobia, racism and xenophobia to divert attention from Israeli criminality.”
It is unfortunate that both Corbyn and Chakrabarti only seem fully to understand antisemitism when it comes in the form of state sponsored genocide and verbal and physical assaults on Jewish people. Indeed, the committee remarks that it is “not persuaded that [Jeremy Corbyn] fully appreciates the distinct nature of post-Second World War antisemitism”.
It is unfortunate, too, that Chakrabarti trivialised the evidence she heard of antisemitic anti-Zionism in the Labour Party as “a series of unhappy incidents”.
Those on the anti-racist left, and indeed all those who care about race hate, must accept the the IHRA definition of antisemitism. Corbyn and his supporters must also accept, once and for all, the committee’s conclusion that antisemitism is happening in the Labour party. Only then can they resolve to stamp it out.
As left-wing journalist Owen Jones recently said: “It is incumbent on the progressively-minded to take antisemitism seriously. We wouldn’t belittle other forms of bigotry or seek to deflect from it. Discussion about serious antisemitism should not be launched into a debate about Israel.”
The Abbas family’s corruption is a hot topic in the territories, but not here in the U.S. Tareq Abbas, son of the Palestinian Authority president, is a multi-millionaire owning villas in Amman, a Beirut rooftop pad and a luxury London flat. His older brother, Yasser, has made a fortune from, among other things, his monopoly sale of U.S.-made cigarettes in the Judea and Samaria a.k.a. the West Bank.Dershowitz: BDS Activists ‘Miseducating Generation of Future Leaders’ About Israeli-Palestinian Conflict to Delegitimize Jewish Nation-State
Leaked records from a Panamanian law firm show that PA President Mahmoud Abbas and his two sons used power and influence to control the two major Palestinian economic boards (Arab Palestinian Investment Company, Palestinian Investment Fund) and built a West Bank economic empire worth more than $300 million. Abbas’ authoritarian rule has allowed his family’s Falcon consortium to dominate the West Bank’s commerce and labor markets including owning shopping centers, media and insurance companies and distributing food, cigarettes, cosmetics and other consumer items. Falcon touches every aspect of Palestinian commercial life.
These documents, reports from senior Fatah officials and Palestinian social media reveal extensive corruption at the highest levels — the Abbas family and a Palestinian elite manipulating the political and financial systems to benefit themselves at the expense of the people.
The 1993 Oslo Accords established Palestinian self-rule over 98 percent of the Palestinian population in the West Bank and Gaza. Since then, the PA received an estimated $25 billion in financial aid from the U.S. and other Western countries, the highest per capita assistance in the world.
Instead of creating the independent and robust civil institutions necessary for good governance, promoting peace with Israel and improving the lives of its people, the billions of dollars of international aid were used to create a corrupt dictatorship focusing on enriching its elites, inciting its people against Israel, advocating terrorism and waging a massive international campaign to demonize, delegitimize and destroy the Jewish State. And the U.S. doesn’t seem to care, donating $442 million of taxpayer money in 2016.
Abbas is currently in the eleventh year of a four-year term. He rules by decree, and parliamentary and presidential elections are not on the horizon.
While BDS activists have failed to get American educational institutions to boycott the Jewish state, they are succeeding in “miseducating a generation of future leaders” about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, internationally renowned legal expert Alan Dershowitz warned on Wednesday.
“Lawsuits and legislation are not enough,” Dershowitz said, during an anti-BDS conference hosted by Israeli Ambassador to the UN Danny Danon at the global intergovernmental organization’s New York City headquarters. “We have to increase our advocacy in the court of public opinion. We have to make sure that on every college campus, every claim made by BDS is refuted — on social media and by professors…We are losing the campaign for the minds and hearts of the college students today, while winning the campaign against the actual BDS program.”
Dershowitz made the comments during a discussion moderated by Dovid Efune — editor-in-chief of The Algemeiner — at the “Legal Scholars Against BDS” event.
“It will not be enough to win our war against BDS in the courts of law; we must also win it in the courts of public opinion,” Dershowitz emphasized.
President Elect Trump's appointment of Steve Bannon as his chief strategist has been criticized on the ground that Bannon is an anti-Semite. There are many reasons for opposing the appointment of Bannon, but anti-Semitism is not one of them. I do not support the Bannon appointment. But neither do I support accusing Bannon of being an anti-Semite, based on the evidence I have seen.Evelyn Gordon: Peace Now! Israeli Rightist Style
With regard to anti-Semitism, there are three distinct but overlapping issues: (1) Is Bannon personally an anti-Semite? (2) Does his publication, Breitbart, promote anti-Semitic views? (3) Do Breitbart and Bannon have followers who are anti-Semitic?
From what I can tell, the evidence cited in support of the accusation that personally Bannon is an anti-Semite falls into two categories: first, that his wife testified at a hotly contested divorce proceeding that he did not want his children to go to school with "whiney Jews"; and second, that he ran an article describing Bill Kristol as a "renegade Jew."
Let us consider these items of evidence in order. Senator Harry Reid tried to strengthen the first accusation against Bannon by saying that it appeared in a court document, thus suggesting that it had the imprimatur of a judge. But that is not the case. The claim was simply made by his former wife in a judicial proceeding, thus giving it no special weight. Bannon has rigorously denied making the statement and said that he and his wife were fighting over whether his children should attend Catholic school, rather than a secular school.
On the other side of the ledger is the testimony of Jewish individuals who have worked closely with him for years. These include my former research assistant, Joel Pollak, an orthodox Jew who wears a kippah and takes off all the Jewish holidays. He is married to a black woman from South Africa who converted to Judaism. Joel assures me that he never heard a single anti-Semitic utterance or saw an anti-Semitic action in the four years they worked together. The same is true of numerous other Jewish individuals who work with him, some of whom thoroughly disapprove of Bannon's politics and the way he ran Breitbart, but none of whom have reported any events of anti-Semitism.
Donald Trump’s election as president has already had one negative effect: It seems to have turned most Israeli cabinet ministers into radical leftists. By that I obviously don’t mean they have started adopting leftist policy prescriptions. But they do seem to have embraced radical leftists’ childish demand for immediate implementation of their own preferred solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, regardless of how much real-world damage it causes.Israel looks forward to working with Trump team, Dermer says– 'including Steve Bannon'
Most Israeli ministers–albeit not Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu–appear to support a one-state solution, and ever since Trump won, they have been demanding major steps toward its implementation: unrestricted building in the settlements, legalizing illegal settlement outposts and annexing roughly 60 percent of the West Bank (Area C). As a first step, the governing coalition decided earlier this week to support a controversial bill that would legalize many (though not all) outposts built on privately owned Palestinian land; the bill passed its preliminary Knesset reading on Wednesday. Netanyahu himself opposed it, but facing a revolt in both his cabinet and his party, he refrained from using his prerogatives to stall the bill
To be clear, nobody, even in the coalition, expects the bill to become law; its passage in preliminary reading was primarily a way of making a statement. But even if you genuinely support the bill, advancing it at this particular moment would be asinine. And that’s true even if you could somehow discount the two most obvious objections to the timing.
The first of those, of course, is that Barack Obama remains president for another two months and could use that time for various anti-Israel moves. Thus, the last thing Israel’s government needs is to give him additional impetus for such moves by appearing to abandon his cherished two-state solution.
Israel's ambassador to the United States Ron Dermer said his government has "no doubt" that President-elect Donald Trump is a "true friend to Israel," visiting his team at Trump Tower in New York on Thursday afternoon.Caroline Glick: The Ellison Challenge
"Israel has no doubt that President-elect Trump is a true friend of Israel. We have no doubt that Vice-President-elect Mike Pence is a true friend of Israel– he was one of Israel’s greatest friends in the Congress, one of the most pro-Israel governors in the country."
Briefly addressing press stationed at the bottom of the president-elect's namesake tower on Fifth Avenue, the Israeli envoy then touched on a controversy without prompting: Trump's appointment of Stephen Bannon, head of the right-wing website Breitbart.com, as chief White House strategist.
"We look forward to working with the Trump administration, with all of the members of the Trump administration, including Steve Bannon, and making the US-Israel alliance stronger than ever."
Bannon has been the subject of criticism from Jewish groups for his ties to the alt-right movement, considered a modern-day home for white nationalist, ultra-nationalist and antisemitic individuals and organizations.
The Democratic Party stands at a crossroads today. And so do the Jewish Democrats.
Out of power in the White House and both houses of Congress, the Democrats must decide what sort of party they will be in the post-Obama world.
They have two basic options.
They can move to the Center and try to rebuild their blue collar voter base that President-elect Donald Trump captivated with his populist message. To do so they will need to loosen the reins of political correctness and weaken their racialism, their radical environmentalism and their support for open borders.
This is the sort of moderate posture that Bill Clinton led with. It is the sort of posture that Clinton tried but failed to convince his wife to adopt in this year’s campaign.
The second option is to go still further along the leftist trajectory that President Barack Obama set the party off on eight years ago. This is the favored option of the Bernie Sanders wing of the party. Sanders’s supporters refer to this option as the populist course.
It is being played out today on the ground by the anti- Trump protesters who refuse to come to terms with the Trump victory and insistently defame Trump as a Nazi or Hitler and his advisers as Goebbels.
For the Democrats, such a populist course will require them to become more racialist, more authoritarian in their political correctness, angrier and more doctrinaire.
It will also require them to become an antisemitic party.
Antisemitism, like hatred of police and Christians, is a necessary component of Democratic populism.
Friday, November 18, 2016Elder of Ziyon
Friday, November 18, 2016Elder of Ziyon
Friday, November 18, 2016Elder of Ziyon
Thursday, November 17, 2016Elder of Ziyon
MESA has its own history, culture and vulnerabilities. What might be right for other associations will not necessarily serve MESA well. So we need to weigh the concrete difference MESA’s endorsement of a boycott resolution might make against such action’s potential downsides for the association, including the likely loss of some of its membership as well as of some affiliated organizations and institutions, but also possibly legal action, stepped-up attacks on MESA and Title VI by hostile organizations, legislative bodies and media, and conceivably even the loss of MESA’s home base at the University of Arizona.Fred Donner, a past president who also personally boycotts Israel, was more explicit:
For MESA to take a political stand will lead to a loss of membership, as those who do not support what becomes MESA’s official position will no longer feel welcome within it.
A stand on BDS will open the door to MESA being asked take a stand on the dozens of other political issues related to the Middle East, further fracturing its membership.
For MESA to take a stand on BDS will endanger its tax-exempt status and therefore its long-term viability as an organization, since MESA’s 501(c)3 tax exemption depends on it remaining non-political.
MESA’s endorsement of BDS will hand MESA’s enemies, who have persistently (but, until now, wrongly) claimed that MESA has been politicized, exactly the evidence they need to make their case against us—which they will not hesitate to do, to our representatives in Congress, to the I.R.S., and to the University of Arizona, whose support of the MESA Secretariat is vital to the organization’s well-being.
Nature and Objectives. THE MIDDLE EAST STUDIES ASSOCIATION is a non-profit, non-political association that fosters the study of the Middle East, promotes high standards of scholarship and teaching, and encourages public understanding of the region and its peoples through programs, publications and services that enhance education, further intellectual exchange, recognize professional distinction, and defend academic freedom.
MESA is a non-profit association that fosters the study of the Middle East, promotes high standards of scholarship and teaching, and encourages public understanding of the region and its peoples through programs, publications, and services that enhance education, further intellectual exchange, recognize professional distinction, and defend academic freedom, in accordance with its status as a 501(c)(3) scientific, educational, literary, and charitable organization.”In other words, members of MESA hate Israel so much that they want to change their very bylaws in order to be able to more freely express that hate on an institutional level. This despite the potential problems that could come up, such as losing their tax-exempt status, losing their free office space at the University of Arizona, losing the portion of their funding that comes from Congress, or losing what prestige remains for their own academic journals whose articles can no longer even pretend to be objective. Moreover, there is a competing Middle East studies association that is quite willing to welcome those who become disgusted with MESA.
The Young Americans for Freedom chapter at DePaul University invited Christina Hoff Sommers and Ben Shapiro to speak on campus. At some point, the administration decided not to allow Ben Shapiro on campus over supposed security concerns, even threatening him with arrest if he set foot on campus.IsraellyCool: The Stranglers Slam Roger Waters And BDS As “Ignorant”
In an ultimate twist of irony, the subject of Shapiro’s speech was free speech on campus.
The YAF blog has the details:
DePaul Obstructs YAF Lecture, Shapiro, Sommers
Despite having no apparent problem hosting prominent leftists in the past, DePaul University is working to obstruct DePaul Young Americans for Freedom’s scheduled lecture with Christina Hoff Sommers, after the chapter announced Ben Shapiro was slated to make a guest appearance.
To great media criticism DePaul banned YAF from hosting Ben Shapiro in August. In response DePaul YAF, Young America’s Foundation, and Shapiro decided the campus needed his message and planned to host him alongside Sommers in order to make a powerful statement about the importance of ideological diversity.
As of Tuesday morning, DePaul administrators were actively working to prevent students from hearing Shapiro’s message on campus that evening.
Legendary Punk rock pioneers The Stranglers are here in Israel to perform tonight. And at their press conference yesterday, they let know where they stand on BDS and Roger Waters.The Stranglers Slam Roger Waters And BDS As "Ignorant"
This is in addition to this interview, where they used even saltier language.
You first played in Israel in 2008 on a double bill with Blondie. What were your impressions then, and have you been pressured at all by any pro-Palestinian activists to reconsider coming?
First of all, we had a great time back then.
Tel Aviv is such a rocking city and the Israeli people are so open and fun to be with. I don’t think the outside world realizes how cool it really is there.
But as you know, people are generally ignorant of the situation in Israel and they just read the headlines. They don’t realize that Israel is a democracy in a sea of f***ed up countries. A true democracy with the Left and Right able to express themselves.
The explanation is a sharp drop in Arab Israeli birth rates while Jewish birth rates have been rising: “In 2000, the fertility among the country’s Arab population stood at 4.3 children per woman, while the fertility rate of Jewish women was 2.6. Since then the gap has narrowed as the Arab rate dropped off and the Jewish fertility rates steadily increased.”Britain’s Parliament Debates the Balfour Declaration, Revealing Divides Over Israel in Contemporary Politics
This high fertility rate is not simply an artifact of Israel’s growing ultra-Orthodox or Haredi population; the non-Haredi fertility rate is 2.6. (This is, by the way, a far higher fertility rate than that of American Jews, which is 1.9; the replacement rate is 2.3.) The overall Israeli Jewish fertility rate of 3.13 also suggests that the population balance between Israel and the West Bank will not change: “Palestinian fertility on the West Bank has already fallen to the Israeli fertility rate of three children per woman, if we believe the Palestine Ministry of Health numbers rather than the highly suspect Central Bureau of Statistics data. In 1963, Israeli Arab women had eight or nine children; today they have three, about the same as Israeli Jews.”
What are the political implications? Whatever they are, the debate must begin with facts rather than assumptions–including facts about population growth.
The British Government will neither celebrate the Balfour Declaration nor apologize for it. So responded the UK’s Minister for the Middle East, Tobias Ellwood, at the close of a special debate on the Balfour Declaration at the British Parliament this morning, criticizing the Balfour Declaration for failing to include a parallel commitment to Palestinian Arab statehood in 1917. “It is fifty years since the Occupation began,” noted the British minister with frustration, arguing that “it is for historians to assess the Declaration” and for “ministers to deal with the today.” “The Occupation of the Palestinian Territories,” he stressed, “is unacceptable and unsustainable.”
The debate was heavily dominated by concern for the “unfinished business” of the two-state solution and punctuated by repeated criticism of Israel’s settlement policies, but nevertheless included numerous supportive interjections by MPs friendly to Israel.
Labour MP Ivan Lewis stressed the importance of the debate in the context of resurgent anti-Semitism—within his own party and across Europe—which “more often than not is linked to hostility to the State of Israel.” He further blasted the “delegitimization of Israel through the rewriting of history, which seeks to deny the legal and moral basis” of Jewish self-determination. His colleague Luciana Berger spoke up for the Labour Party’s historical support for the creation of a Jewish state. A Northern Irish MP recalled following the Six Day War on the radio, admiring Israel as the underdog. And Conservative MP Jonathan Djanogly paid tribute to Theodor Herzl for persuading the international community to put an end to “Jewish homelessness.”
Numerous pro-Israel MPs made friendly interruptions to Conservative MP Caroline Ansell’s opening speech. The key to sustainable peace is that all parties should recognize Israel, said one. There would have been a two-state solution seventy years ago if “the armies of five Arab states had not invaded Israel in 1948,” added another. One MP criticized the destruction of the greenhouses in the Gaza Strip after the 2005 Disengagement. Another stressed the difficulty of conducting negotiations when “one side” refuses to come to the table, and yet another expressed disappointment at how the Palestinians have been “let down by their own leadership.”
Thursday, November 17, 2016Elder of Ziyon
zionist attack zoo
Near the most eastern part of the oasis, where the ground is unusually soft, we saw the footprints of wild boar, ibex, gazelle, jackal, and many partridges.
Thursday, November 17, 2016Elder of ZiyonOpinion, Vic Rosenthal
The U.S. diplomatic presence in Jerusalem, first established in 1844, was designated a Consulate General in 1928. It now represents the United States in Jerusalem, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip as an independent mission, with the Consul General serving as chief of mission. We also provide services to American citizens in this district. [my emphasis]
(1) Jerusalem should remain an undivided city in which the rights of every ethnic and religious group are protected;
(2) Jerusalem should be recognized as the capital of the State of Israel;
Kosovo police on Wednesday said they had arrested 19 people they suspected of being involved in an Islamic State plot to carry out terror attacks in Kosovo and neighboring Albania, including an assault during a football match between Albania and Israel this past weekend.Some Jewish Leaders Question Schumer’s Backing Of Israel Critic Rep. Keith Ellison For DNC Chair
Police said the arrests were made over the past 10 days and that the suspects had planned “synchronized terror attacks,” without going into further detail.
“They were planning to commit terrorist attacks in Kosovo and also [an attack] against [the] Israeli football team and their fans during the Albania-Israel match,” Kosovo police said in a statement on Wednesday, adding that weapons, explosives, ammunition and a drone were seized during the sweep.
The police said the suspects were communicating and receiving orders from an Islamic State member, Lavdrim Muhaxheri, the self-declared “commander of Albanians in Syria and Iraq.”
Last week, a Kosovo court ordered seven of the suspects detained for a month while the investigation continued. The seven belonged to one network that notably planned to attack a stadium in the northern Albanian town of Shkodra during the country’s 2018 World Cup qualifier against Israel last Saturday, according to media reports.
There were questions Tuesday evening about the decision by U.S. Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) to throw his support behind Keith Ellison – a fiery critic of Israel – to become chairman of the Democratic National Committee.
As CBS2 Political Reporter Marcia Kramer reported, Schumer got a taste on Monday of what it could be like to lead the out-of-power Senate Democrats in the age of Donald Trump. Some two dozen protesters came to Schumer’s Washington office and occupied it.
“The Democratic establishment cannot lead the opposition right now,” a protester said.
Another protester asked Schumer to step aside and give his Senate minority leadership to Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.)
The protests were one reason for Schumer’s hard-for-some-to-swallow decision to back Ellison (D-Minn.) to chair the Democratic Party. Otherwise, there were concerns that someone else, like Sanders, could become Senate Minority Leader. Ellison was a Sanders supporter.
Prominent Jewish leaders told CBS2’s Kramer they are upset with Schumer for backing Ellison, who has been highly critical of Israel.
Intense pressure from his base forced Senator Schumer to briefly come out against the Iran nuke sellout. But now he's at it again, backing Keith X. Ellison, who had a history of defending anti-Semitism in his Nation of Islam days, for DNC boss.
While Ellison's defenders claim that his defenses of anti-Semitism and Nation of Islam past are ancient history, there's plenty of more recent history.
Why is Senator Schumer in favor of putting an extremist with a history of defending anti-Semitic bigotry who believes that Israel is an Apartheid State in the key position at the DNC?
Thursday, November 17, 2016Elder of Ziyon
Thursday, November 17, 2016Elder of ZiyonBoth of these structures are centuries older than anything that ISIS targeted.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.
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 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.
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.
Thursday, November 17, 2016Elder of Ziyon
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 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..
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]
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:
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.
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."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:
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.
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.
Buy EoZ's book, PROTOCOLS: EXPOSING MODERN ANTISEMITISM
