Tuesday, May 19, 2015

  • Tuesday, May 19, 2015
  • Elder of Ziyon
Israel-haters are wasting no time in politicizing the two new "Palestinian" saints. From Ma'an:
Rifaat Kassis, a prominent political community activist and coordinator of Kairos, a local Christian group, says the canonization is significant on many levels, notwithstanding the recognition that Palestinians under Ottoman rule were part of a diverse, productive society, contrary to the mainstream sidelining of Palestinians from the region's history.

"This puts Palestine on the map, among not only the catholic world, but the whole world, and I think this will also help people to understand Palestine and the occupation," he told Ma'an.
Were these poor Catholic women under brutal Israeli occupation? Did anyone call them "Palestinian" before 1970?

But there is one fact in the life of one of the new saints, Sister Mariam Baouardy, that could be understood in a completely different context.
Betrothed in an arranged marriage at age 13, she refused to go along with it, insisting on a religious life. As punishment for her disobedience, her uncle hired her out as a domestic servant, making sure she had the lowest and most menial of jobs. A Muslim servant with whom she worked began to act as her friend with an eye to converting her from Christianity. On 8 September 1858, Mary convinced him she would never abandon her faith; in response he cut her throat and dumped her in an alley. Mary lived, an apparition of the Virgin Mary treated her wound, and she left her uncle’s house forever.
So this Catholic saint had her throat slashed by a Muslim because she didn't want to convert to Islam.

Perhaps Sister Mariam's canonization indicate that the Catholic Church considers Islam to be a violent, intolerant religion!

But no one will be quoted with that theory.
  • Tuesday, May 19, 2015
  • Elder of Ziyon


In previous columns I’ve touched upon hostility shown at certain times by British administrators towards Zionism and Israel. In this, a continuation of last week’s column concerning the Conservative Heath government’s arms embargo during the Yom Kippur War, I want in fairness to offer a small taste of the pro-Israel sentiment that was the other side of the coin.

I was in London at the time, and attended the Zionist Federation’s huge pro-Israel rally in Trafalgar Square on a crisp autumnal Sunday afternoon, 14 October, at which speakers denounced the Heath government, the Foreign Office, the Arab aggressors, and the United Nations. The throng – which included well-known stars of stage and screen, including such non-Jews as Donald Pleasance – was estimated by The Times (15 October 1973) as 10,000 strong, but the Jewish Chronicle (19 October 1973) put the figure at 20,000. Speakers included the Israeli ambassador, Michael Comay, the Federation’s president (life peer Lord, formerly Sir Barnett, Janner), the president of the Board of Deputies (Sir Samuel Fisher), a former president of the Liberal Party (life peer Lady [Nancy] Seear), Conservative MP Hugh Fraser, and Labour MP Peter Shore. Chief Rabbi Lord Jakobovits recited a prayer. Lending support by their presence were the 89-year-old Jewish Labour life peer Lord (Manny) Shinwell, and the 89-year-old non-Jewish Conservative peer Lord Barnby. I can see the latter clearly in my mind’s eye: standing proud and erect in a tan-coloured overcoat, this right-wing aristocrat who spoke up for Israel in the House of Lords that week; to my disgust, the Jewish Chronicle failed to record his presence, even after I wrote to remind them of it.

To cheers, Hugh Fraser expressed his abhorrence of the fact that the government “should at this time be sending arms for a parade of independence in Dubai and denying to Israel, fighting for its life, spare parts for Centurion tanks”. Peter Shore condemned the deafening silence from the nations of the world regarding the Arabs’ premeditated attack on Israel on Judaism’s holiest day, and observed that it was extraordinary that at a time when the Soviet Union was pouring armaments into Arab countries British Foreign Secretary Sir Alec Douglas-Home had nothing better to offer than a unilateral arms embargo which would tilt the balance against Israel.

The rally passed a resolution calling on the Heath government and the UN to condemn Egypt and Syria and to assist in the promotion of a just and peaceful settlement, negotiated between Israel and the Arabs. As soon as the rally was over, the resolution, addressed to Edward Heath, was taken to 10 Downing Street.

When the arms embargo issue was voted upon in the House of Commons (the government carried the day 251: 175 with over 100 MPs abstaining or absenting themselves from the Chamber), seventeen Conservative MPs defied a two-line whip to vote against their own side. These rebels included all but two of the party’s nine Jewish MPs (one of the two was Robert Adley – real name Adler – for whom Jewishness was clearly a burden and who ended up as an Anglican): the remainder were Andrew Bowden, Hugh Fraser, Philip Goodhart (son of a Jewish father, Oxford jurist Professor A. L Goodhart), John Gorst, Tom Iremonger, Sir Stephen McAdden, John Maginnis, Lieutenant-Colonel Colin Mitchell, Ernie Money (yes, that really was his name; he sat for Ipswich), and Dudley Stewart-Smith. In addition, the Reverend Ian Paisley, the Ulster Unionist MP, flew from Belfast to London especially to vote against the embargo.

The Jewish Chronicle (16 November 1973) revealed that during the Yom Kippur War thousands of British non-Jews had offered to help Israel. The Israeli Embassy experienced jammed switchboards in the first week of the war owing to the numbers of Gentiles phoning to offer assistance or merely good wishes. The Embassy received 1,500 supportive letters during the conflict and several hundreds more in its immediate aftermath. “Unlike previous poignant occasions – such as the Munich massacre of Olympic athletes last year – there was not a single abusive and derogatory letter or one with even a hint of antisemitism.” Those offering material help included several British servicemen: for example, a former Royal Navy officer offered his motor launch to the Israeli navy, and when the offer was politely refused begged to be allowed to take it to Israel himself; two soldiers from County Durham who wrote “It would give us pleasure and honour to serve in your country against your oppressors”; a merchant seaman from Leicester who wrote of his preparedness “to adapt myself to any circumstances to fight for the Jewish cause” and to pay his own fare to Israel to do so. Six individuals offered their own private planes, complete with pilots, for Israeli reconnaissance flights. Then there were people such as the young Scotsman who turned up at the Embassy with rucksack packed, ready to fight for Israel; there were the Londoners who answered the call to give blood at the Marble Arch Synagogue for Israel’s war wounded; there were those who sent unsolicited gifts of money, even jewellery, to help Israel’s war effort.

There was the army major who, in a letter to The Times (30 October 1973) recalled that serving under General Sir Horatius Murray in Palestine during 1948 was “the period of my army service of which I am least proud”. Murray, in a letter to the same newspaper (26 October 1973) had written that back then he was “forced to shell Tel Aviv with 25-pounders and to attack with tanks” and that “this action proved successful”. “So it should!” observed the major sarcastically. “We found that to a large extent Tel Aviv was defended by women, children, and old men, and the sight of their sacrificed bodies sickened the most hardened British troops. The Jews have always paid the full price in blood for their tiny promised portion of the earth’s surface.”

A widespread perception abounded that churchmen had not been as outspoken as they ought regarding the Arabs’ attack and its timing. I haven’t looked into this issue enough to make an informed comment, but certainly that was the view of the rabbi of Manchester’s Reform Synagogue. Certainly, too, the Moderator of the Church of Scotland, in a letter to one Zionist body wrote that his church, “which has a deep affection for the Jewish people, shares in the revulsion that hostilities should begin against Israel on the Day of Atonement, when the Jewish people were at prayer.” (It is, by the way, interesting to note that in a column entitled “Friends like these” [Jewish Chronicle, 15 October 1973], the Labour MP Gerald Kaufman, now almost 85, one of the most outrageous Israel-baiters in the House of Commons, decried the attitude of most of the British media, which, it seemed to him, appeared to rejoice in the chastening effect the war had so far wrought on Israel.)

One of the well-known personalities at the pro-Israel London rally mentioned above was the author Lynne Reid Banks, perhaps best known for her novel The L-Shaped Room. She read out score upon core of messages of solidarity from notable people unable to attend in person. I remember reading a stirring newspaper article during that war in which Ms Banks wrote (I believe I quote her correctly from a distance of 42 years) that the Jews of Israel – “their tiny sliver of a country” – deserved support from non-Jews “for all that we let them suffer in Europe”. It was a beautiful article and most welcome. More recently, however, Ms Reid Banks, although observing on her website that she is not a Jew, has, like her Jewish husband, Israeli ex-pat sculptor Chaim Stephenson, signed statements critical of Israel under the auspices of “Independent Jewish Voices”. IJA is an organisation which would appear to include a number of persons who are Jewish only by some accidental quirk of ancestry or other tenuous association. I wonder whether, were he alive now, Robert Adley would sign that body’s statements criticising Israel. There are certainly Jews who do so for whom such activity under those auspices is their only association with matters Jewish.

It seems to me that at the root of much of the pro-Israel sentiment that was being voiced at the time might have been rooted, to a greater or lesser extent, consciously or subconsciously, in an identification of modern Israel’s struggles against the Arabs with ancient Israel’s struggles against Pharoah, a remembrance of school scripture lessons. There were, of course, other factors at work: support for Israel in remorse for Jewish suffering down the centuries culminating in the Holocaust, and admiration for the Jews and what they had achieved not only in exile but in Israel too; the perception of Israel as an ally of the West, which contrasted with older perceptions that an independent Jewish State would be a tool of the Soviet Union. I’d like to discuss these matters more fully in later columns, but for now I’ll conclude on this note: traditionally taught “religious knowledge” is no longer on the British school curriculum, and comparatively few children imbibe the scriptures at home or at Sunday school. Therefore fewer and fewer have the opportunity to identify the trials and tribulations of modern-day Israel with the trials of ancient Israel or to perceive an organic historical link between the old Israel and its miraculous modern successor. It’s a problem, especially at a time of encroachments by so-called “Chrislam,” another topic that must await a later column.


Daphne Anson is an Australian who under her real name has authored and co-authored several books and many articles on historical topics including Jewish ones. She blogs under an alias in order to separate her professional identity from her blogging one.

From Ian:

PMW: Israel conducts “secret medical experiments” on prisoners
One of the ways the Palestinian Authority demonizes Israel is by spreading libels. One such libel claims that Israel conducts medical experiments on Palestinian prisoners, poisons them and deliberately kills them.
Last month, the official PA daily stated that Israel carries out medical experiments and speculated that it “perhaps” poisons them as well:
“The occupation authorities conduct medical experiments on the prisoners, giving them medicines and perhaps poison.” [Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, April 12, 2015]
Director of the PLO Prisoners’ Affairs Commission and PA Parliament Member Issa Karake often reiterates this libel. Recently, after visiting a released prisoner, Karake stated that sick prisoners “are victims of severe crimes committed against prisoners in prisons, which expose them to deadly, chronic diseases resulting from secret medical experiments on their bodies, and their deliberate negligence.” [Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, March 31, 2015]
He has also claimed that:
“[Israeli] prisons have become the source of an epidemic, a source of death and a source of dissemination of diseases in the bodies of the prisoners.” [Official PA TV, April 13, 2015]
The official PA daily has claimed that Israeli prisons have a “system called ‘slow death’” to do away with prisoners, and has compared Israeli treatment to the medical experiments of Nazi doctor Josef Mengele, who experimented on Jews in the Auschwitz concentration camp.
“[There is] an entire system called 'slow death,' which the Israeli establishment uses against Palestinian prisoners, from the moment of their arrest until they are released... The 'experiments' stage is perhaps one of the most dangerous stages in the slow death of released prisoners, who suffer from diseases, which they contracted in prison. This way, the Israeli jailers attempt to imitate the German Nazis, who were the first to use prisoners as guinea pigs, for testing the weapons and the deadly drugs, which they developed. The Nazi German doctor, Josef Mengele, was the most famous among them." [Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, April 17, 2011]
JPost Editorial: Nonproliferation
A centerpiece of US President Barack Obama’s foreign policy agenda has been nonproliferation. But with Saudi Arabia more than just threatening to acquire nuclear capability “off the shelf” from Pakistan and with other Sunni states sure to follow, his dream of a nuclear-free planet seems more out of reach than ever.
Obama’s pursuit of nonproliferation goes back at least to his short tenure in the Senate. As a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, he traveled to Russia, Azerbaijan and Ukraine to inspect nuclear facilities and developed an idea of international diplomacy. It was at this time that he began talking about initiating conversations with Iran.
In 2009 Obama, in a speech in Prague, made sweeping promises proclaiming that the US has a “moral responsibility” to lead the world toward a nuclear-free reality.
The following year, the New START (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty) with Russia was signed.
But the New START treaty was marred by Russia’s unwillingness to cooperate. It was barely ratified and generated no additional nonproliferation deals.
Elsewhere, the nonproliferation cause seemed to be falling apart as well. Not only did North Korea – despite diplomatic efforts – obtain nuclear capability, it began spreading its know-how elsewhere.
Where diplomacy failed, however, the use of force provided remarkable results.
Netanyahu: Jerusalem won’t be divided again
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Monday vowed that Jerusalem would never be split in any peace deal with the Palestinians, and said construction throughout the capital would continue, despite international criticism.
In a Knesset speech marking Jerusalem Day, which was on Sunday, the prime minister goaded opposition leader Isaac Herzog to clarify his position vis-à-vis Jerusalem and concessions he would be willing to make to the Palestinians. The challenge prompted an angry response from Herzog, who maintained he would never divide Jerusalem, while accusing Netanyahu of calling its unified status into question.
“Jerusalem won’t be divided again,” Netanyahu said. “It won’t go back to being a frontier or a border town.”
The prime minister praised Israeli efforts to develop the capital, while conceding that “it doesn’t mean the unification is perfect.
“It doesn’t mean that there are no problems, it doesn’t mean that there aren’t tasks [ahead of us]. There is a lot to perfect, and a lot to improve, but we will not go backwards.”
Netanyahu said that, with regard to Jerusalem, “I have a clear position — we build in Jerusalem.

  • Tuesday, May 19, 2015
  • Elder of Ziyon
From Ma'an:
Right-wing Jews and Israeli police officers physically assaulted Palestinian security guards on duty at the Al-Aqsa mosque compound early Tuesday, the director of the compound told Ma'an.

Sheikh Omar al-Kiswani said that a group of Israeli settlers was touring the compound when they began to "deliberately" provoke Palestinians near the Cotton Merchants Gate by repeating slogans calling for the removal of the Dome of the Rock.

Al-Kiswani said that "when the guards intervened, Israeli settlers assaulted and beat them. The Israeli police backed [the right-wing Jews], protected them, and clashes erupted in the area."

The sheikh said that the Islamic trust that controls the compound subsequently intervened and Israeli police escorted the right-wing Jews from the compound.

Al-Kiswani said that one of the guards, Fadi Abu Mizr, had trouble breathing after he received blows to his chest, while guard Maher Abu Isninweh had bruises on his face. The two guards were treated in the mosque's clinic.
Whenever something like this is reported, I look for video. I actually found one that showed scuffles on the Temple Mount:



I count at least 10 edits in this video.

The person taking this video didn't repeatedly turn off his video camera ten times while juicy fights were happening. No, this video was edited afterwards:

To cut out every scene of Arabs attacking Jews.

That means that there are at least ten punches and shoves that we are not seeing.

The chances that the Jews started fighting with the guards on the Temple Mount this morning are exactly the same chances that they were "repeating slogans calling for the removal of the Dome of the Rock."

More fiction from the haters, who can lie without any fear of consequences.

UPDATE: Qpress' video section has been decimated since I posted this, no idea what is going on. I didn't save it, sorry.

UPDATE 2 - Got it from Facebook (h/t Bob K)

UPDATE 3: (h/t Bob K)
An unedited video:



And from The Temple Institute:

 Jews involved in the altercation say they were attacked by Muslim Waqf personnel whose 'job' is to watch the lips a nd bodies of Jews on the Temple Mount to make sure they are not praying or swaying or bowing down, all expressions of Jewish faith, which Prime Minister Netanyahu, in league with king Abdullah of Jordan, has forbidden in practice, even if he cannot say so, as freedom of worship is the law in Israel.
  • Tuesday, May 19, 2015
  • Elder of Ziyon
Israel's PM Benjamin Netanyahu said on Jerusalem Day, "This is our home and here we will stay."

The response from Mahmoud Abbas is telling.

Did he say that Jerusalem was Muslim? Did he say that it was Arab? Did he say that Bibi was wrong?

No. Instead of asserting rights because of how much he loves the city that was all but ignored by Arabs when they controlled it, he decided to use the language of blackmail.
President Mahmoud Abbas' spokesman, Nabil Abu Rudeineh told Palestinian news agency Wafa on Monday that there would be no peace or stability in the Mideast unless the Palestinians can claim East Jerusalem as their capital.

Not only no peace in Israel - no peace (or stability!) in the entire Middle East!

When naive Westerners claim that there is linkage between the Israel-Arab conflict and the stability of the entire Middle East, they are channeling the constant blackmail threats of Palestinian Arab leaders to the world.

Why Westerners want to succumb to explicit threats of blackmail by so-called "moderate peacemakers" is probably a question better answered by psychologists.

  • Tuesday, May 19, 2015
  • Elder of Ziyon

We already know that when a performing artist announces a concert in Israel, he or she will face insults and even death threats because of a heartfelt desire for peace and justice.

So it would be disappointing if we don't see the same types of threats against Queen Elizabeth from the moral BDS crowd:

Ben-Gurion University president Prof.Rivka Carmi – the first woman to head an Israeli university and previously to serve as dean of a medical school here – has another honor to celebrate.

Buckingham Palace announced Monday that the leading pediatrician and geneticist is to receive a rare honor from Queen Elizabeth – an honorary Commander of the Order of the British Empire (CBE) – for her work to deepen scientific and academic relations between the UK and Israel.
Ben Gurion University has been a specific target of the BDS crowd, and Carmi has been an outspoken opponent of the boycott movement.

OK, haters. Time to show the Queen the same concern for morality and justice that you show to those who don't oppose Israel.

God save the Queen from anti-Israel idiots.

(h/t Zvi)

Monday, May 18, 2015

From Ian:

BDS : An open letter to Roger Waters
There is nothing personal in this letter. I am putting aside your history and ignoring the relationship I have had with your music; I have simply read your recent public comments and felt a need to respond.
I am a Zionist, which simply means that I believe the Jews have the right and need to control their own destiny just like every other nation does. That for a long time, Jews were without that nation, doesn’t detract from that right. Or arguing another way, believing what you do, I doubt you would suddenly announce that all Palestinian claims had expired due to some imaginary time limit.
You argue by having ‘researched’ that your opinion is of more weight and value than anyone who disagrees with you, claiming as you have in the Dionne Warwick case that she is ‘ignorant’ and ‘misunderstands’. You support dismantling the Middle East’s only liberal democracy (the ‘one state solution’) in line with the central tenets of the BDS platform. I have no intention of dealing with propaganda or the creation of a separate storyline; my intent is simply to show that the basic facts highlight that the BDS narrative is wrong. What I am also not going to do is suggest Israel is without flaws, nor posit that Israel is always right; that isn’t my Zionism; for me Israel has every right to be a state that makes mistakes; just like the UK. At the same time, my Zionism allows for the Palestinians to be victims too, even if you and I would radically disagree both about the causes and the possible solutions to the conflict.
As for your research; many people have studied the conflict, many taking opposing views to yours. I too have done so, spending many years living and working with both Israelis and Palestinians. You have clearly taken a stance that considers some ‘sources of information’ untrustworthy, building your opinion only from those you have chosen to follow. Most people do that when taking sides, but it is important to remember your opinions are not facts but merely conclusions drawn from individually and carefully selected pieces of information. (h/t cba)
Legitimizing the Groups that Hate You
On May 21, a representative of a prominent British Jewish charity, the Anne Frank Trust, will share a platform with one of Britain's most anti-Semitic extremists: the Salafist preacher, Abdurraheem Green.
The event, organized by the Islamic Diversity Centre, is named "Against Racism Against Hatred: Tackling Anti-Semitism & Islamophobia."
The speaker, Abdurraheem Green, has spoken of a "Yehudi [Jewish] ... stench" and urged Muslims to "push them [Jews] to the side." In addition, he encourages men to hit their wives to "bring them to goodness," and has called for the killing of homosexuals and adulterers.
In addition to Green, Councillor Alyas Karmani will also be speaking at the event. A former member of George Galloway's Respect Party, Karmani has claimed that the "ideology" of "the Yahood [Jews] and the Nasara [Christians]" has "no issue killing women and children."
Despite these views, Grace Dunne, a representative of the Anne Frank Trust, as well as anti-racism campaigners and Labour MP Jeremy Beecham, seem happy to share a platform with these two anti-Semitic preachers, all in the name of tolerance.
 The pro-Palestinian activists are not pro-Palestinian
What have “pro-Palestinian” activists done for the Palestinians?
Did they help Palestinians achieve national independence? Did they help them build an economy? Did they help them build a civil society? Did they help them grow talent and integrity among their leaders? Did they help them define their identity as anything other than victims and terrorists?
Where are the pro-Palestinian conferences helping Palestinians achieve all these things? Where are the organizations who believe in the Palestinian identity and who help shape it towards the future? Where is the funding that would help grow the Palestinian civil society that Palestinian Bassem Eid believes is fundamental to the Palestinians’ future?
When the United Nations approved in 1947 the partition plan aiming to create a two-state solution that gave little to Jews, the Arabs were eager to kill it, and they used war to try to do it. Did anyone care that the Palestinians’ interests would have been greatly served by that plan?
Between 1948 and 1967, when Gaza and the West Bank were under full Arab control, did anyone attempt to create a Palestinian state on that land?
Israel: Vital to the US and Arabs
For some time, there have been voices within U.S. intellectual and academic circles that question how vital Israel is to the U.S. Some openly wonder whether Israel has done anything good for the U.S., or if Israel is actually important at all to American national interests. Such voices, while few, still manage to utilize a very effective anti-Israeli propaganda machine, for example the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement, as well as some academic institutions that have chosen to turn themselves into enemies of the Jewish state. Their main argument is: What do we need Israel for?
Of course, those voices get a lot of support from us, the Arabs. We Arabs have been claiming for seven decades now that Israel is the source of all evil. Some of our rulers have been saying this to the Western media for decades. Basically, we claim that if Israel disappears, our lives will become wonderful and iPhones will grow on the trees in our backyards.
Nonetheless, facts on the ground suggest that these claims could not be further from the truth. Let's see why.
It is no secret that the Obama administration has had a very difficult relationship with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Nevertheless, Israel has become more vital to American interests than ever, for the following reasons: (h/t Alexi)

Yossi Beilin in the NYT writes:

[W]e who know that a peace settlement is essential for Israel’s future should now rethink the ultimate goal. When I do that, I keep returning to the idea of an Israeli-Palestinian confederation, rather than a classic two-state solution. By acknowledging that our two peoples live too close together to ever be completely separate, we might finally persuade both sides to make historic concessions to each other.

I answered this stupidity in 2010 when an Arab proposed it in another op-ed in another major US newspaper. Here was my post:


George Bisharat, writing in the Washington Post, paints a lovely picture of how well a bi-national state in Palestine would work:

The answer is for Israelis and Palestinians to formalize their de facto one-state reality but on principles of equal rights rather than ethnic privilege. A carefully crafted multiyear transition including mechanisms for reconciliation would be mandatory. Israel/Palestine should have a secular, bilingual government elected on the basis of one person, one vote as well as strong constitutional guarantees of equality and protection of minorities, bolstered by international guarantees. Immigration should follow nondiscriminatory criteria. Civil marriage between members of different ethnic or religious groups should be permitted. Citizens should be free to reside in any part of the country, and public symbols, education and holidays should reflect the population's diversity.

Although the one-state option is sometimes dismissed as utopian, it overcomes major obstacles bedeviling the two-state solution. Borders need not be drawn, Jerusalem would remain undivided and Jewish settlers could stay in the West Bank. Moreover, a single state could better accommodate the return of Palestinian refugees. A state based on principles of equality and inclusion would be more morally compelling than two states based on narrow ethnic nationalism. Furthermore, it would be more consistent with antidiscrimination provisions of international law. Israelis would enjoy the international acceptance that has long eluded them and the associated benefits of friendship, commerce and travel in the Arab world.

It sounds so lovely! Palestinian Arabs from Lebanon, Syria and Jordan can move into this new binational Palestine by the millions, but don't worry: they won't do anything to hurt their treasured Jewish minority.

Once upon a time, not too terribly long ago, there was an Arab majority in Palestine. How well did they treat the minority population? Here are the news briefs for a single day, September 4, 1938, in the Palestine Post:



Wasn't life just grand then? Didn't everyone live together in peace and harmony? No need for a state for Jews - that would be racist. No, they can live in peace among the Arabs, in full safety and security, knowing that they are protected as dhimmis by force of Koranic law.

Bisharat couches his dream in multicultural terms:
The main obstacle to a single-state solution is the belief that Israel must be a Jewish state. Jim Crow laws and South African apartheid were similarly entrenched virtually until the eves of their demise. History suggests that no version of ethnic privilege can ultimately persist in a multiethnic society.

The idea that there are 22 or so states that define themselves as "Arab" - and discriminate against non-Arabs - is not a problem at all for Bisharat. The fact that the constitutions of many of those statesproclaim that their state religion is Islam, and that the Koran is the source for their laws, is also just peachy for oh-so-cultured Bisharat. No, the only evil is a Jewish national home - that is racist! Jewish self-determination is inherently evil, while the addition of another de-facto Arab state is supremely moral.

His plan recalls another Arab plan.

In 1947, on the eve of the partition, Arabs put forth another single-state plan in a desperate effort to avert the possibility of a Jewish state, however tiny, in Palestine.



In this plan the Arabs stressed that the state would have equal rights, free access to holy places, and they would even deign to let Hebrew be spoken in certain ghettos where Jews would be the majority.

This plan was just as utopian-sounding as Bisharat's plan today, and its purpose was exactly the same: to destroy Israel.

Yet one only has to look at what happened a mere ten days after this transparent Arab plan couched in liberal terms of equality and tolerance and co-existence was offered. Jews were attacked mercilessly by the very people who were supposedly ready to display tolerance towards them. 

And what happened when the relatively liberal kingdom of Transjordan took over the Jewish areas? Jews were forbidden to visit their holy places. Every Jew in the country was expelled. The Jewish Quarter was destroyed; the ancient Jewish cemetery on the Mount of Olives gutted, dozens of synagogues burned down in the course of a few weeks.

This is the reason why a Jewish state is needed. To have a tiny area in the world where Jews can live as Jews, without fear. The morality of a Jewish state where Jews can live safely and securely far outweighs the pseudo-morality of Bisharat's vision where the clock would go back to the days of Jews being bombed in markets because of a never-ending series of perceived injustices and affronts. 

When the Arab world shows that it can treat its minorities with the sensitivity that Israel treats hers, then maybe Bisharat can make a valid point. When Jews can buy land in Jordan and Lebanon and Syria and Saudi Arabia and move there without fear, then maybe we can talk about how Israel discriminates against parts of its population. When that day occurs, and Jews can live anywhere in the world with as little fear as Muslims can today, then the raison d'etre of a Jewish state would melt away.

However, today, it is Arabs themselves who show by their actions exactly why a Jewish state, in the Jewish homeland, is not only  necessary but moral.

(h/t Yoel)

  • Monday, May 18, 2015
  • Elder of Ziyon
These cartoons have been found in Iranian media:





Notice the Saudi offering a blood offering to the Jewish Golden Calf, and the last cartoon says "Hypnosis Jewish," not "Zionist."

But Iranians insist that they aren't antisemitic,and Roger Cohen agrees, so that's that.

(h/t Gidon Shaviv)

From Ian:

The UNRWA farce: Nothing more than a blatant travesty of human integrity based on a political agenda
Why is it that the Palestinian method of inciting hatred and killing people over what they term as the “Naqba’ that occurred 67 years ago, is still considered a valid cause? Why is it that we never hear about the millions of other people around the world who were displaced from the lands of their forefathers owing to war or political unrest? The list of people who were forcibly exiled or who fled their war ravaged homelands for safety zones in recent history is so long that it makes the mind boggle, it represents far greater numbers of refugees than the Arabs of Palestine, whose status of ‘refugee’ has been maintained by a special United Nations Agency (UNRWA) that functions with a different set of criteria than any other UN refugee agency. Hence the facts that nearly all of Europe’s forty million refugees were settled in under two years following the end of WW11, whilst nearly seven decades later the Palestinians have been left to stagnate as ‘pawns’ to be used in their immoral struggle against Israel. It is flabbergasting that according to the ‘special criteria’ set out by UNRWA, the Palestinian refugee count stands at around 6.5 million worldwide…one in three refugees worldwide being Palestinian! Currently 3.8 million of those ‘Palestinian refugees’ and their descendants are registered with UNRWA; a staggeringly big number considering that there remains only a mere 30,000 to 50,000 of the originally displaced people created by the Arab Israeli war in 1948.
All other refugees have learned to cope and move on. But the United Nations is maintaining and prolonging this farce of millions of people known as ‘Palestinian refugees’ which is nothing more than a blatant travesty of human integrity based on a political agenda.
There has never been much interest or horn-blowing shown to any of the world’s far worse refugee problems.
Abbas to Syria's Palestinian Refugees: Go to Israel or 'Die in Syria'
Faced with the suffering of their own people, the Palestinians' leadership recently decided not to help. Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas rejected a deal with Israel brokered by the United Nations that would allow Palestinian refugees living in Syria to resettle in the West Bank and Gaza. Abbas stated unequivocally that "we rejected that and said it's better they die in Syria than give up their right of return." The Palestine Liberation Organization has also ruled out any military action to help the 18,000 or more refugees who are trapped in the Yarmouk camp near Damascus.
Abbas's cold-blooded response reveals something fundamental about Palestinian society and identity. Far more than territory, the key Israeli-Palestinian issue is the idea of a Palestinian "right of return"—the belief in a legal and moral right of Palestinian refugees, and more importantly their descendants from around the world, to return to ancestral homes in [Israel's part of] what was once Mandatory Palestine. This belief is so vital to Palestinian national identity that their leaders would rather they die than give it up and have a chance to live.
United Nations General Assembly Resolution 194 (III) of December 1948 supposedly codifies this "right." However, a closer look reveals it to be conditional: "refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbors should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and … compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return." The resolution also calls for the United Nations "to facilitate the repatriation, resettlement and economic and social rehabilitation of the refugees and the payment of compensation."
Interestingly, all the Arab States in the UN at the time (Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Yemen) voted against the resolution, since it implicitly accepted the partition of Mandatory Palestine that recognized the Jewish right to a state. But the actual text of the resolution has been irrelevant since the beginning; Palestinian identity has crystallized around the dream of an unconditional "right of return," as has Palestinian propaganda to the world.
IDF official: If our war crimes probes no good, all of the West's are no good
With a veiled threat to the International Criminal Court, a top IDF legal division official said on Monday that “if others say that our investigations” into war crimes allegations are insufficient, then “the entire Western world” must realize that their investigations will be declared insufficient.
IDF Deputy Magistrate Advocate General Col. Eli Baron’s statement, at the Israel Bar Association Conference in Eilat, was the first major statement by a high ranking IDF official since ICC Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda last week issued what was interpreted as a warning to Israel to cooperate with her office more quickly on her preliminary examination of war crimes allegations in the 2014 Gaza War.
Bensouda implied she might be stuck deciding whether to open a full criminal investigation against Israeli soldiers solely based on evidence from Israel’s human rights critics, if Israel did not provide her with its own evidence on the Gaza war soon.
Israel’s response was to attack the ICC Prosecutor’s move and her preliminary probe in which she recognized a State of Palestine.
Jerusalem still vehemently rejects the idea of a State of Palestine, especially regarding any issues relating to the ICC.

Dr. Sami Al-Emam, professor of Judaism and an "expert" of Zionist ideology at Egypt's Al Azhar University, spoke to Jordan's Dostor newspaper about - what else - how evil Jews are.

He says that Israel has secret maps showing their ambition to take over all Arab lands from the Nile to the Euphrates. The turmoil in Iraq, Syria and Yemen is, naturally, the Jews' fault and foretold in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Israel is "demonic."

One of the illustrations of the article shows the Rothschilds' evil tentacles.


This is all positively moderate compared to his personal blog.

There, this "expert" asserts that the blood libel is completely true, but that the Jews don't kill non-Jewish children for their blood any more after the Russians and Germans found out and retaliated by murdering millions.

(h/t Shawarma News)

  • Monday, May 18, 2015
  • Elder of Ziyon
This is quite amazing:
Six Palestinian and Syrian families left the Gaza Strip on Sunday through the Erez border crossing en route to Sweden after being officially granted the right to immigrate and live in the Scandinavian country.

The immigration of the 27 members of the six families was done in coordination with the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and facilitated by the International Committee of the Red Cross.

“Our organization facilitated the departure of the six families through the [Israeli-controlled] Erez border crossing at the behest of the UNHCR,” Soheir Zaqout, the spokesperson for the International Committee of the Red Cross, told Anadolu Agency.

According to UN figures, the Palestinian population residing in Syria was estimated at 581,000 before the outbreak of the 2011 Syrian war, the majority of whom lived in the Yarmouk refugee camp in southern Damascus and other camps in various Syrian regions.

However, the ongoing war in Syria has forced tens of thousands of families to migrate to Lebanon, Jordan and hundreds have managed to relocate to the Gaza Strip.

“The Red Cross doesn’t coordinate immigration, our task was to only aid them [the six families] in leaving the Gaza Strip through the Erez crossing because the UNHCR has no official office in Gaza,” Zaqout said.

The immigration of the six families was done through the official channels and after coordination with the Swedish government, she added.

Dozens of Palestinians have recently immigrated illegally through the sea due to the harsh economic conditions plaguing the Gaza Strip and the destruction caused by last summer’s Israeli onslaught on the embattled enclave.
Normally, UNHRC doesn't do anything in the areas that UNRWA works, namely Gaza, the West Bank, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon. While not mentioned here, my guess is that these families had fled from Iraq to Syria (or the Syrian border) and were never in the UNRWA system but were rather considered real refugees from Iraq under UNHCR. From there, when the Syrian war broke out they probably made their way to Egypt and then Gaza.

The interesting part is that UNHCR, which actually tries to reduce the number of refugees, has taken these 27 people out of the land where UNRWA works so hard to maintain the refugee status of its people and increase the numbers of o-called "refugees."

This is the sort of news UNRWA doesn't like to hear, because so many of the people it keeps in its system would love to move to Sweden or South America or anywhere else, but UNRWA doesn't give them that option. Fewer "refugees" means less funding and less reason for UNRWA, meant to be a temporary agency, to exist.

One other point: Notice that not one Arab country is offering to naturalize any refugee whose ancestors happened to live in British Mandate Palestine n 1948. The countries that offer to help are Western. Arab countries prefer that Palestinian Arabs remain stateless  - supposedly for their own good.

The contrast between how the UNHCR and the Western world acts compared to how UNRWA and the Arab world acts cannot be more striking.

AddToAny

EoZ Book:"Protocols: Exposing Modern Antisemitism"

Printfriendly

EoZTV Podcast

Podcast URL

Subscribe in podnovaSubscribe with FeedlyAdd to netvibes
addtomyyahoo4Subscribe with SubToMe

search eoz

comments

Speaking

translate

E-Book

For $18 donation








Sample Text

EoZ's Most Popular Posts in recent years

Hasbys!

Elder of Ziyon - حـكـيـم صـهـيـون



This blog may be a labor of love for me, but it takes a lot of effort, time and money. For over 19 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.

Donate!

Donate to fight for Israel!

Monthly subscription:
Payment options


One time donation:

subscribe via email

Follow EoZ on Twitter!

Interesting Blogs

Blog Archive