Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Tuesday, October 10, 2017

Palestinian Terrorists Get The Best "Welfare Plan" Western Money Can Buy (Daled Amos)

Welfare: aid in the form of money or necessities for those in need.
Websters Online

The Palestinian Authority's current "Pay for Slay" program to reward Palestinian terrorists for murdering Jews can be traced back as far as 1964, when Nobel Prize-winning terrorist Yasser Arafat first initiated the idea:

Arafat. Photo by Remy Steinegger -
originally posted to Flickr as Yasser Arafat -
World Economic Forum Annual Meeting Davos 2001

Back then, a main goal was consolidating the power and influence of the PLO.

But it has continued and developed over time, but never intended to actually helping Arabs in need.

In an opinion piece for The New York Times, Matthew Levitt noted that during its iteration as the "Fund for Families of Martyrs and the Injured" the program was still not a part of any real welfare system:

According to the World Bank, “the program is clearly not targeted to the poorest households. While some assistance should be directed to this population, the level of resources devoted to the Fund for Martyrs and the Injured does not seem justified from a welfare or fiscal perspective.”

Matters have not gotten any better.

Eli Lake wrote last year that finally, the Palestinian reward system is getting attention:

For years the Israelis and the Americans didn’t do much on this issue. The Israel Defense Forces work closely with Palestinian security services to keep the peace in the West Bank. Meanwhile, the Bush and Obama administrations have pressed both sides to restart negotiations over a final status.

This is starting to change. On Friday, Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, announced that he would begin withholding part of the tax revenue that Israel sends to the Palestinian Authority — equal to the amount paid to “martyrs.”

One aspect of the problem remains addressing this program for what it is.

Palestinian Media Watch has been a major source of information about this reward system and has been giving the impetus to various governments to recognize this practice for what it is and act accordingly.

PMW describes how the Palestinian Authority has institutionalized the stipends paid to terrorists and their families into law:

In April 2011, the Palestinian Authority Registry published a Government Resolution granting all Palestinian prisoners imprisoned in Israel for security and terror-related offenses a monthly salary from the PA (Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, April 15, 2011). This new resolution, called PA Government Resolution of 2010, numbers 21 and 23, formalized what has long been a PA practice.

The PA defined which Palestinians would be considered "prisoners": "Anyone imprisoned in the occupation's [Israel's] prisons as a result of his participation in the struggle against the occupation" (Ch. 1 of Law of Prisoners, 2004/19, www.alasra.ps, accessed May 9, 2011)

According to the PA definition, more than 4,500 Palestinian prisoners (as of December 2012) serving time for terror-related offenses are recipients of PA salaries. This means that Palestinians convicted of crimes such as theft do not receive a salary, but Hamas and Fatah terrorist murderers do. [emphasis added]

That is one of the key points that is overlooked in confronting the continued Palestinian claim that the money is part of some humanitarian welfare fund. While the salary is targeted for criminals, it is intended for terrorists and their families alone.

This is not about a welfare system intended for the average family.

Another key point is that not only does this Palestinian law ignore the average needy family, the rewards it pays out to terrorists are as much as 5x what average Arab families are earning:

Watch the entire video:

A third proof that these are not welfare payments comes from the Palestinian Authority itself, as PMW notes:

These monthly payments to prisoners are paid from the PA’s general budget and income taxes are paid, as is the case with all other PA salaries (Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, June 19, 2011). According to the language of the PA regulation as well as PA economic reports on government salaries, the monthly salaries to prisoners range from 1,400 shekels to 12,000 shekels. The PA economic report listed the prisoners’ salaries as part of the PA general salary budget, which includes civil servants, military personnel and others. (Life and the Market, supplement to Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, June 19, 2011). It was not listed as a social service payment. [emphasis added]

In fact, those stipends are still being described as "salaries" instead of "assistance":

Abbas calls terror stipends "salaries", not "assistance. Credit: Palestinian Media Watch

Thus far, Abbas has refused to stop paying the stipends -- though whether it is because of his own stubbornness or because he dares not stop such a popular measure.

The responsibility rests upon the West to refuse to provide any funding to the Palestinian Authority that goes toward paying any salaries, as long as the money goes toward encouraging terrorism.

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.

1872 researcher says explicitly that Palestine Arabs had no national character

As the centennial of the Balfour Declaration approaches, we will see more Arab propaganda about how Balfour destroyed the "Palestinian nation." For example, from Ramzy Baroud in Arab News

{Balfour] cared little about the fate of Jewish communities. His commitment to establishing a Jewish state on land already populated by a thriving and historically rooted nation was meant only to enlist the support of wealthy Zionist leaders for Britain’s role in the First World War.

I have looked for a long time for evidence of this "nation" without luck. I never found any element of culture or folklore that could be considered "Palestinian." But when I look for counter-evidence of this supposed nation, I came up with this article in a periodical from 1872:

THE ARAB FELLAHHEEN OF PALESTINE: WHO ARE THEY?

IT is impossible to live for any length of time, as the writer has done, in the Holy Land without being struck by the diverse character of its present inhabitants—that is to say, of the settled population, not including the annual pilgrims. In the various towns the inhabitants are more or less of various and of mixed race. In Jerusalem we find Jews, Moslems, and Christians of different sects and races. But all over the land in the rural districts the observer is met by the fact that in this small country are collected together people of various and distinct races as well as of diverse creeds.

Not now to dwell upon the peculiarities that distinguish from each other Samaritans, Maronites, and Druses, we pass on to the general rural population of Palestine, called Syrian or Arab, or, as by themselves, Fellahheen, i.e., "tillers of the soil."

They do not, properly speaking, form a nation. There is among them neither coherency nor spirit of patriotism. Just as the wild Bedaween are divided into distinct and generally hostile tribes, so the peasantry (Fellahheen) are divided into clans governed by their respective sheikhs. They speak a common, language, they possess a common religion; their manners and customs are generally the same all over the country. Yet of national unity there is absolutely none. They never combine for any purpose excepting when occasionally some clans aid each other in their faction fights. They are all classed, it is true, under the two great divisions of Yemeny and Kais, wearing white or red as the badge of these parties; but even then there is nothing among them approaching to the co-operation of patriots as a nation, ready and willing to join hand in hand for the mother country. The Turkish government well understand this important fact and take it into practical account in. their method of ruling the land. This state of things is in itself enough to explain in great measure the backward condition of the people at large. They have no national life. Every district lives in and for itself, and wages its own petty wars with its neighbours, but has neither interests nor action in common with any other.

The people of the various districts, moreover, differ considerably from each other, in outward appearance, in character, and in speech. They resemble each other just so far as to indicate descent from a common stock. They differ as the fragments of a nation may which has been broken up at an extremely remote period into distinct and hostile clans. All are Fellahheen, and yet all are apart from each other, independent and commonly at enmity.

Here is a person who lived in Palestine, who knows the land inside out (as the full article shows.) But he sees no evidence of a Palestinian people or nation.

It is a myth. But good luck teaching that at universities today.

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.

Everyone who visits the Kotel is a "settler" in Arab media

From popular Egyptian news site Youm7 (Seventh Day), showing pictures of Sukkot in Jerusalem.

This is using Google Translate but the translation of مستوطن يهودى is accurate:

I see this sort of thing all the time. Yesterday Arab media reported 22,500 "settlers" visiting the Tomb of the Patriarchs during Sukkot.

When it comes down to it, every Jew - especially the ones who are recognizably Jewish - is a "settler" to the Arab world. Peace agreement or not, "moderate" or not.

No Arab is complaining to Youm7 about their inaccurate reporting.

Just one of those inconvenient facts that starry-eyed peaceniks prefer not to think about as they blame Israel for no peace.

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.

Scene-by-scene description of anti-Israel play, The Siege, at NYU theatre

From JNS:

American Jewish leaders are denouncing plans by a New York University (NYU)-affiliated theater to host a play that portrays Palestinian terrorists as heroes.

The NYU Skirball Center for the Performing Arts will host performances of “The Siege” from Oct. 12-22. The play focuses on the Palestinian terrorists who, in order to avoid capture by the Israeli army, seized Bethlehem’s Church of the Nativity in the spring of 2002 and occupied it for 39 days.

“The Siege” was created by the Freedom Theater of Palestine, which is based in the Palestinian Authority-controlled city of Jenin. Among those promoting the play on YouTube is Ibrahim Abayat, one of the leaders of the church occupation. The Israeli government has identified him as the killer of New York City native Avi Boaz, in Bethlehem in early 2002.

The play was first performed overseas in England in 2015. The Board of Deputies of British Jews charged that it “promoted terrorism as positive and legitimate,” and the Zionist Federation of Great Britain and Ireland staged a protest rally outside the premiere.

American Jewish leaders now are similarly alarmed.

“Having witnessed firsthand the ‘siege,’ a blatant terrorist outrage, I am especially outraged at this presentation,” Malcolm Hoenlein, executive vice chairman and CEO of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, told JNS.org. “Diminishing the true nature of this brutal attack serves to whitewash terrorism at a time when this scourge is taking so many lives and threatening so many more.”

When it was performed in London, it was in Arabic with English subtitles. I couldn't find the script but I did find a detailed scene-by-scene description that shows how pro-terrorist the play is.

Scene – Tourist guide

The play opens in the Church of the Nativity. It is 2015.

A tourist guide, Issa, welcomes the audience. He is a bit surprised at the large amount of people; normally he takes groups of just a few, this time there is over a hundred.

Issa introduces himself, then goes on to talk about the Church of the Nativity. He talks about his family’s history dating back to the time of Jesus and how his ancestors have always worked in the church. It is the most important place in the world to them.

“Okay, now, before we begin, did we discuss money? No?... Okay this time it’s for free but please, if you would like to make a donation… Let’s go on the tour of the church.”

Scene -‐ Interview

Five men sit. They are the exiled fighters from the siege of the Church of the Nativity. It is 2015 and they are being interviewed.

Interviewer: “I need you to introduce yourselves, what was your role was and what can you remember from the siege?”

Taking a moment, the fighters gather their thoughts. They begin to speak: words, thoughts, feelings…

Video

The Israeli invasion of the West Bank comes on screen. We see tanks, helicopters and shooting. We see the fighters running across Manger Square, into the Church of the Nativity.

Scene – Refuge in The Church of the Nativity

The men enter the church. It is mass and the prayer is taking place. They wait for the Father to finish. The men ask him if they can take refuge in the church. He is upset; why are they in the church? This is a Holy place and not for fighting. The fighters explain that the Israeli army is outside, there is nowhere else to go. The Father is concerned that they will bring the fighting inside the church but in the end decides that as long as the men show respect, they have the right to take refuge in the house of God.

Scene – Fighter calls home

The fighters organize themselves in the church. They bandage one man’s wound. He is bleeding heavily and is in much pain. He makes a phone call to his pregnant wife and tells her to look after herself.

The Israeli army begins to surround the church. The fighters position themselves ready for an attack.

Video

We see tanks, helicopters and snipers surround the church. The siege of the Church of the Nativity has begun.

Scene – The bell ringer is shot

Silence everywhere. The sound of speakers demanding the fighters to surrender. A quarrel begins between the men about what to do. Some want to take the injured out, others want to stay. One man wants to shoot back. During their discussion, the church bells begin to ring. Tension builds. One of the fighters goes out. Then a gun shot. Panic.

The fighter enters. He tells the others that the bell ringer has been shot. Silence.

Scene – Phone call from the general

A cell phone rings. It is a call from the Palestinian leadership in Ramallah telling the fighters to have patience and not to shoot back. The fighters are angry; should they just sit here and die, one by one?

Video

The Israeli army prepares for an attack on the church. We see tracer fire and an explosion.

Scene – The attack

There is an explosion. The church is under attack. Israeli soldiers start to climb over the walls of the church. The fighters are in position, waiting. They open fire, killing four Israeli soldiers.

Scene – Celebration

The fighters celebrate their victory. They begin to get out of control. Eventually one of the men tells the others to control themselves and to behave with respect, not like animals. There is a fire in the church but everyone is so busy arguing they don’t notice it. Eventually the monk entersand asks them to calm down and remember to respect the church.

Scene – Tourist guide

It is 2015. Issa the tourist guide enters. He tells the history of the Church of the Nativity, including the story of the Massacre of the innocents. The Massacre of the innocents is the biblical narrative of infanticide by Herod the Great. Herod ordered the execution of all young male children in the vicinity of Bethlehem, so as to avoid the loss of his throne to a newborn King. Issa shows the group where the bones of the children are buried and points out that this church has always been a place of refuge for the sons of Jesus.

Scene -‐ Interview

It is 2015. The exiled fighters are being interviewed.

Interviewer: Tell me about the first few days of the siege. What did youdo? What did you see?

The men explain that the first few days were the hardest. They had very little food and water and didn’t know if and when the Israelis would attack. “Despite all the difficulties, we were still able to sing, tell jokes and laugh. We had hope that the problem would be solved.”

Scene – Torture

Intense noise. The Israeli army are playing strange sounds as a means of psychological torture. It has been going on for hours. The fighters are going crazy. They begin to dance in resistance. Eventually silence. Relief.

A voice. It is the mother of one of the fighters. She has been brought to the church and is forced to speak at gunpoint. She tells her son that the whole family has been arrested. The Israelis want her to ask her son to leave the church. Instead she tells him that she will rip off the breast that fed him if he surrenders. The man is in shock. He grabs his gun and tries to exit the church. The others stop him.

Scene – Leadership

The man whose mother was brought to the church sits and talks with another man, who tells him about leadership and the importance of wisdom, endurance, mercy and understanding. He tells him to stay strong because the Israelis are trying to emotionally and psychologically break them. They must act with their minds, not their emotions.

Video

Negotiations. Internationals are arriving. Sharon, Israeli prime minister, speaks. Yasser Arafat, Palestinian leader, speaks.

Scene – Escape

One of the fighters enters. He had fallen asleep on guard and now there are people from the church missing. He goes to tell the others. They don’t understand how these people could have left the church unless they were collaborators. They accuse the man on guard of also being a collaborator. They go to take his gun but at that moment another man enters and tells the others not to punish him, it was not difficult to escape the church.

Scene – Injured fighter

The man whose leg is wounded is in immense pain. The designated medic among the fighters goes to check the wound and finds that it has become infected. The men decide that he must get out of the church even if it means he will spend the rest of his life in prison. Otherwise he will die. They begin to lift him up but the man grabs his gun and threatens to kill himself if they take him out. He begs the others to amputate the leg. The medic manages to speak to a doctor on the phone who recommends that they cut the gangrene off. They proceed to do so.

Scene – Food

As the wounded man sleeps someone suggests they must get him food to strengthen him. They start to imagine eating the perfect maklube and chocolate cake. One fighter tells a story of a time when he was lost in the mountains with his friends and they began eating leaves for survival. The men realize they can do the same; they can pick leaves from the courtyard to eat.

Scene – Picking leaves

Two men go outside. Drone footage on screen: the fighters going out to pick leaves.

The men cook and eat the leaves.

Scene – A fighter’s death

The man on guard receives a call from the father of another man. The father says he saw two white doves and his son coming home dressed in white.

The man whose father called wakes up and is angry with the guard for not waking him to watch the sunrise, a tradition they have created. The man takes over the guarding post.

Moments later there is a gunshot. The fighter has been hit by a sniper. The others try to save him but he is bleeding heavily. They shout at the Israeli soldiers to get him out but there is no answer. He bleeds to death.

Scene – Tourist guide

It is 2015. Issa tells his personal story and his connection to the church. He believes that the siege was a test from god. He shares an experience of seeing an icon in the church cry tears of blood.

Scene – Prayer

The fighters pray – we see both Christian and Muslim prayer.

Scene – A negotiation

The monk brings news of a deal by the international delegation, the Israelis and the Palestinian Authority. According to the deal, 26 people will be exiled to Gaza and 13 to Europe. There is no further information. The fighters are told to sign the paper if they agree. The men have a long discussion and eventually decide to reject the deal.

Video

We see images of Bethlehem under siege. Heavy military occupation, empty streets, curfew.

Scene – A young woman calls

There is a phone call from a young woman. Her baby is sick and because of the siege she cannot take him to hospital. She asks the fighters to leave the church so that the siege will be over and her baby can live.

The fighters are in a very difficult situation. One of them makes a speech:

“We have a siege. We have martyrs, we have injured people, we have thirst, we have hunger-‐ we have all these things. But we have to take into account all the givens of the situation, inside the church and outside. There is a collective suffering and we have to take responsibility for this. Yes, we are fighting for the freedom of our people against the Israeli occupation but the facts of the situation have changed. If they are accusing me of being responsible then I must make a sacrifice. We are faced with the Israeli information machine, which is in many languages, and this machine reverses the facts, makes black white and white black, makes the oppressed the oppressor and the oppressor the oppressed.All truths are reversed. We are standing in front of our people, and our names are being repeated for forty days as the reason for the siege. And our people are protecting us, because without our people we are nothing.The alphabet of the Revolution tells youthat the Revolution is a fish and the people are the sea. And if you come out of the sea, you are dead. You are nothing. So you have to take into account a number of factors, not only military but also human ones. You have moral obligations toward your people. If we know that a pregnant woman is going to deliver and she can’t get to the hospital because of the siege, we must ask, why? If they are saying that we are the reason, and the opportunity arises for an honorable solution, we must cooperate.”

The men decide to take the deal.

Video footage: The fighters exit the church; kiss the ground of their homeland and wave goodbye to their families. They drive off on a bus.

Scene – Interview

It is 2015. The men tell of their life in exile and how they long toreturn to Palestine.

Scene – Tourist guide

It is 2015. Issa enters. “The Church is the place of our eternal light. The light that gives us the beginning and the end. Without this light we cannot walk on this earth. This church is the heart of our land. Our holy land. We are born in this land and we have to live here even if we face difficulties. We are the sons of this land. This is why we take the strength and the power from our Lord Jesus Christ and the Virgin Mary and we continue on our path. I hope tha God will bless us and show us the way to the real peace that we are looking for.”

Most of these incidents never happened, of course. The monks were hostages. The church was desecrated. Nuns took care of the wounded, not the terrorists. They never killed four Israeli soldiers. The idea that no one in Bethlehem could go to the hospital for weeks is ludicrous. The story of the mother being forced to speak at gunpoint is fiction.

To have such a play glorifying terror to be performed at NYU is outrageous.

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.

10/09 Links Pt2: Disproving 'Temple Mount denial' one bucket at a time; Adam Sandler Getting His Palm Frond On

From Ian:

Were Egypt’s Jews expelled? Bonan rebuts Bisawe

Israel Bonan 's plans to leave Egypt were disrupted when he became one of 400 Jews jailed for up to three years after the 1967 war. Haaretz has published his long rebuttal to an earlier piece by Eyal Sagui Bisawe which argued that Egyptian Jews were not singled out for expulsion: their exit was not as dramatic nor as systematic as they claim, but a result of decolonisation targeting all minorities. (Bisawe’s claim that Jews from Arab countries exaggerated their persecution to gain legitimacy with Ashkenazi Jews is commonly heard on the left.) Bonan argues that Jews were targeted over and above other minorities and for their religion, not nationality (with thanks: Pablo, Eliyahu, Imre and Lily):

"We can imagine rows of hooded soldiers gathering Egyptian Jews in Cairo’s Tahrir Square and giving them two options: convert to Islam or be expelled. Or even not giving them the choice but expelling them all. But such an event simply never occurred."

Putting aside the vulgar and unworthy lack of empathy, the ridicule and venom, what is the definition of the word expulsion? A common definition would be: “The process of forcing someone to leave a place, especially a country.”

A process usually entails more than one step to accomplish a purpose.

So, what was the process used to expel the Jews and other minorities from Egypt? These steps spanned many years, promoted by successive governments all marching to the same tune: "Egypt for the Egyptians".

The process follows the same template of Nazi Germany, and of all forms of fascism. Loss of citizenship rights and protection, loss of jobs in the private and public sectors, no prospect for future employment, dispossession of assets, death, and expatriation/expulsion.

.@Amnesty never questions minorities claiming persecution or human rights abuses, yet oddly 'liked' this tweet. Why? https://t.co/TMNPmF2TBy pic.twitter.com/PcV00mcRme
— UN Watch (@UNWatch) October 9, 2017

Disproving 'Temple Mount denial' one bucket at a time

When Wakf bulldozers illegally ascended the Temple Mount in 1999 to surreptitiously remove thousands of tons of ancient soil to make way for a subterranean mosque, two archeologists found hope in recovering some of the Jewish heritage that crime destroyed.

As countless invaluable artifacts dating from the First Temple period at Judaism’s holiest site were dumped in a garbage heap in the capital’s Kidron Valley, Dr. Gabriel Barkay and Zachi Dvira saw an opportunity.

Five years later, under the auspices of Bar-Ilan University, the two archeologists procured a government license to have the ancient debris transferred to Emek Tzurim National Park on the western slope of Mount Scopus, where they established the headquarters of the Temple Mount Sifting Project.

Today some 70% of the 400 truckloads of earth has been scrutinized by a staff of 15 employees and thousands of volunteers from around the globe, one bucket at a time.

Since then, more than 500,000 artifacts – from a 3,000-year-old seal from the time of King David to coins, stone vessels, jewelry and flooring tile fragments from the Second Temple period – have been painstakingly documented for future generations.

Nevertheless, to the outrage and utter befuddlement of millions, last October UNESCO approved a resolution denying Jewish ties to the Temple Mount.

I'll say it: Amnesty (at least its UN Tweeter) is antisemitic

UN Watch noticed something that is more than creepy:

Haaretz published an article by Eyal Sagui Bizawe with the title "Were Egypt's Jews really expelled?" The article itself made it clear that many Egyptian Jews in fact were expelled from Egypt; the author is arguing that it would not be accurate to say that all Egyptian Jews were expelled. (Haaretz has since changed the headline dramatically, to "Jews Were Expelled From Egypt. But Can We Talk About 'The Expulsion of The Jews?'"

Later, Haaretz published a rebuttal by Israel Bonan that pretty much destroys Bizawe's thesis. Bizawe himself admits he is not a historian.

But, as UN Watch notes, the original article title questioning whether Egypt's Jews were expelled in its headline was "liked" by the Amnesty UN account.

Now, Amnesty is no fan of Egypt. It regularly tweets and writes reports that are anti-Egypt.

And the Egyptian Jews who were forced to leave Egypt (there are only a handful of old women left out of 80,000 in 1948) were not generally Zionists.

So why would Amnesty "like" an article that calls into question the Jewish narrative of what happened to the now disappeared Jewish community of Egypt?

Amnesty never, ever questions the narrative of persecuted groups or minorities. It always goes after the big, evil governments. Its entire goal is to protect the rights of the persecuted, not the persecutors.

Except for this one, singular, time. When the persecuted minority are Jews.

Amnesty's tweet reveals its true nature of antisemitism. The idea that Jews are lying about their history of being persecuted by Arabs is too delicious for the famed NGO to let go. The community that was destroyed is populated by criminal liars, and the ethnic cleansers are the innocent victims of Jewish slander.

Amnesty UN has since "unliked" the tweet. But that is because of fear of embarrassment, not because of any moral problems with the tweet. The baseline thinking of the Amnesty tweeter, which is utterly consistent with everything else we've seen from that organization, is a dislike for Jews, usually demonstrated by its focus on Israel beyond nearly every country with serious human right abuses.

Twitter is great because it reveals the subconscious thinking of the tweeter. In this case, it showed in no uncertain terms that Amnesty considers Jews to be, by default, liars whose persecutions have been exaggerated or invented.

That's pretty antisemitic.

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.

Islam Question and Answer: Muslim Jew-hatred 101 (Petra Marquardt-Bigman)

By Petra Marquardt-Bigman

I recently came across a report about a Canadian mosque that had removed a link from its website after it was pointed out that the linked site promoted “anti-Semitic content that urges an ‘Islamic jihad’ against Jews, denounces democracy and approves the killing of ex-Muslims.” The offensive site was identified as Islamqa.info, i.e. “Islam Question and Answer” and it was noted that it “is run by a conservative Saudi cleric.”

As it happened, I was somewhat familiar with the site from research I had done for some of my recent writings. The post I first read on Islam QA responded to a questioner wondering about the difference between the Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock: “if the Masjid e Aqsa is different from the Doom of the Rock, why do we see its picture representing Masjid e Aqsa at all Islamic places, and I (and many other muslims) were completely inaware of the difference.”

The response claimed that “the name of the mosque was historically applied to the whole plateau,” (i.e. the Temple Mount), but also stated: “The Muslims’ fondness for the picture of the Dome may be because of the beauty of this building, but this does not excuse them from the resulting mistake of not distinguishing between the Mosque and the buildings that surround it.” To my amazement, the apparently widespread Muslim ignorance about the difference between the Dome of the Rock and the Al-Aqsa Mosque was then explained as a result of nefarious Jewish plots – which of course show how urgent it would be “to cleanse al-Masjid al-Aqsa of the brothers of the monkeys and pigs.”

Since the site prominently declares that Shaykh Muhammad Saalih Al-Munajjid is its “General Supervisor,” I looked him up. According to Wikipedia, he is “an Islamic scholar known for founding the website IslamQA.info, which provides answers to questions in line with the Salafi school of thought.” Even though Salafists are supposedly only a tiny minority of the world’s estimated 1.8 billion Muslims, the entry notes that “IslamQA.info is one of the most popular websites providing the Salafi perspective and is (as of November 2015) according to Alexa.com the world’s most popular website on the topic of Islam generally.” Apparently, the site still holds its number 1 rank, and it seems to be well-funded since it can afford to offer texts in more than a dozen languages. (E.g. the antisemitic post explaining the difference between the Dome of the Rock and the Al Aqsa Mosque is available in English, Arabic, Uighur and Spanish).

As noted in the report on the Canadian mosque, Islam QA includes plenty of posts encouraging Jew-hatred and hostility to western values:

“’The Jews are people of treachery and betrayal; it is not possible to trust them at all,’ reads a post on the formerly-linked site, Islamqa.info […] ‘The hour (the Day of Judgment) will not begin until the Muslims fight the Jews and kill them.’ […] another Islamqa.info entry calls democracy ‘a system that is contrary to Islam’ and says ‘the main goal of jihad is to make people worship Allah alone.’ A discussion on ‘why death is the punishment for apostasy’ reads: ‘Whoever changes his religion, kill him.’ As for homosexuals, it says to ‘drive them out of your town.’”

Another article focusing on how Islam QA defines the status of women notes that “the opinions […] read like documents from a time long, long ago;” one of the cited examples is a ruling claiming that “Islam allows a man to have sexual intercourse with a slave, no matter whether the man is married or single.”

It is worthwhile noting that the post (archived) describing Jews as “people of treachery and betrayal” goes back to the early days of IslamQA: it was published already in January 1999 and signed as written by Sheikh Muhammed Salih Al-Munajjid himself; the text is available in English, Arabic, French, Uighur and Indonesian, and it has also been posted on other sites (e.g. here, here, and here; also documented as inciting hate here). I would urge everyone to read the post in full, because it is a breathtaking example of the depth of Muslim Jew-hatred, which is justified both by invoking Islamic scripture and by inventing Nazi-style fantasies about Jewish evil:

“There cannot be harmony between Jews – who are usurpers and aggressors, who have oppressed and persecuted others, and who are known for their treachery and corruption throughout the world, historically and in the present age – and the purely monotheistic Muslim owners of the land, whose menfolk the Jews have killed, and imprisoned their sons, and destroyed their homes, and taken possession of their lands by force, and prevented them from earning a proper living, and carried out chemical and radiational experiments on their prisoners, and taken organs from them for transplant into Jewish patients… and all other kinds of persecutions and atrocities.”

During an appearance on a Saudi TV program last year, Al-Munajid re-affirmed similar views:

“The Jews are among the enemies of (Islam). In fact, they are at the top of the list. The Jews today are the Jews of the past. This requires no proof. Allah made their traits clear to us, and the Prophet Muhammad clarified that our war with them will continue until the end of time [...] Allah said that 'the Jews are the strongest in enmity to the believers.' He said that the Jews 'strive to spread corruption in the land.' He said: 'They hasten into sin and aggression.' He said: 'Nor did they forbid one another the iniquities which they committed.'” […] “'The Jews are the nation that incurred the wrath of Allah. They are a people of lies, fabrications, treachery, and conspiracies. They are the slayers of prophets, the profiteers from that which is forbidden. They are the filthiest of nations with the basest of character.'”

No wonder the TV host thought it was entirely reasonable to follow up with the question “Is hatred of Jews considered a form of worship in and of itself?” Al-Munajid evaded a direct response, countering instead: “The question should be: Do they hate us? These people believe that anyone who does not adhere to their religion is a filthy pig. This is written in their distorted Torah. Jews have the right to rape non-Jewish women. This is also written in their books.”

How is that from a man who refers to Jews as “the brothers of the monkeys and pigs” and insists that Islamic scripture gives Muslim men the right to rape female slaves? Looks like Al-Munajid could greatly benefit from reading a bit of Freud and learning about projection…

However, as already noted, even though Al-Munajid’s IslamQA is apparently the most popular website on Islam, it supposedly reflects Salafist doctrine and therefore only the beliefs of a small minority of Muslims. So it might be useful to look for some comparable material on Jews from other sites. I noticed on one discussion board that some Muslims who considered Al-Munajid’s IslamQA as too rigid and intolerant recommended instead another IslamQA (which has the extension .org instead of .info). One particularly fascinating example is provided by two posts from the two sites (here and here) that address the notorious hadith that predicts an end-time battle in which Muslims will slaughter the Jews. In both cases, the person asking the question is wondering how this violent hadith can be squared with Islam’s claim to be “a religion of love and peace.”

On Al-Munajid’s IslamQA, the response (also available in Arabic) includes extensive quotes from Islamic scripture explaining and justifying the hadith; the conclusion is that

“Allah, may He be exalted, will honour the Muslims in this battle with this miracle, which is that rocks and trees will speak and call the Muslims to come and kill the Jews who will be hiding behind them.

All of this indicates that it will be a just battle that Allah approves of, as was the case with all the Islamic battles in which the aim was to make the word of Allah supreme on earth. ‘Whoever fights so that the word of Allah will be supreme is fighting in the way of Allah.’”

On the supposedly more moderate IslamQA site, the response – provided by a South-African mufti who studied in India – is rather laconic (and can also be found here): “This will happen around the time of Isa (alaihis salaam). The ones that are not bad will accept the truth and hence will be Muslims.”

In other words: all the Jews “that are not bad” will eventually convert to Islam, and the Jews who stubbornly remain Jews are obviously so bad that they deserve to be slaughtered…

Here are a few more gems from the supposedly more moderate IslamQA:

“Are Muslims supposed to hate Jews?” Well… yes, they are, because the “Qur’aan is replete with the descriptions of the Jews” showing them as greedy, ungrateful and murderous. So the post offers “just a few [examples] from an infinite list of their disobediences and violations of Allah’s orders. Due to their disobedience, Allah Ta’ala said, ‘Disgrace and need has been set on them.’ Rasulullah (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam) said, ‘Verily this (the Jews) are a dirty nation. We do not need them.’”

“Why Islam or Muslims are against Jews (in general)?” Well, naturally, this is the fault of the Jews: “The holy Qur?aan declares them to harbour the most enmity against us Muslims. This is one of the reasons the Muslims don?t get along with them. The main reason for this enmity stems from jealousy.” (It’s a bit ambiguous here who is jealous, isn’t it…)

“Why are the Jews hated so much throughout the world?” Well, again – the Jews deserve to be hated, of course: “Allah Ta’ala has cursed the jews for their repeated disobedience of Allah Ta’ala, and has cursed their offspring for their approval of the sins of their forefathers. This is why they are hated.”

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.

10/09 Links Pt1: Bayefsky: Why is Pres. Trump Letting Palestinians Violate U.S. Law?; Iran Deal Isn’t Worth Saving

From Ian:

Anne Bayefsky: Why is President Trump Letting Palestinians off the Hook for Violating U.S. Law?

If President Trump is backtracking on his promise to move the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem allegedly for the sake of a “peace process,” why is he simultaneously allowing the Palestinians to violate U.S. law and sink peace unilaterally?

American law requires that funding for Palestinians be drastically curtailed if they use the International Criminal Court (ICC) to turn Israelis into war criminals. Though Palestinians have given the ICC a veritable bear hug, hundreds of millions of American dollars are still flowing into Palestinian coffers.

Palestinians are actively using a crooked international legal system as a means to avoid a negotiated end to the Arab-Israeli conflict and an acceptance of a Jewish state. It’s called lawfare — the antithesis of a “peace process.”

Palestinian-led lawfare has two goals: to criminalize Israeli exercise of the right of self-defense, and to criminalize Israelis living on any territory that Palestinians and the UN have unilaterally appropriated.

Congress has understood lawfare to be exactly what it says — namely, war by another means. They have also understood that twisting self-defense against terrorism into a war crime will rebound on American and NATO soldiers. Feeding Israelis to the sharks will be just the first course.

The International Criminal Court Statute was a coup for anti-American and anti-Israeli globalists because it trashed the essence of the reach of international law – namely, the consent of states. For the first time, international law could be used directly against citizens of states that had refused to be bound. Neither Israel nor the United States hase ratified the ICC Statute, but that cannot prevent the ICC prosecutor from going after either Americans or Israelis.

Moreover, the late stages of the drafting process of the ICC Statute – originally conceived as an instrument to target the most heinous acts perpetrated by humankind – were hijacked in 1998 by the Palestinians and their friends. The result is a statute that purports to turn Israeli settlements into war crimes.

PMW: Another PMW success as Belgium freezes funding of PA schools

On Sept. 27, 2017, Palestinian Media Watch reported that the Palestinian Authority Ministry of Education has named at least 31 schools after terrorists. PMW reported and notified the Belgian government that one of those schools whose building Belgium funded, the Beit Awwa Basic Girls School, subsequently changed its name to the Dalal Mughrabi Elementary School, honoring the Palestinian female terrorist who led a bus hijacking and murder of 37 people, including 12 children.

PMW also reported on the danger of naming schools after terrorists as exemplified with one of the schools named after Dalal Mughrabi where children are taught to see the terrorist as a role model. One girl told PA TV that her “life's ambition is to reach the level of the Martyr fighter Dalal Mughrabi." [Official PA TV, March 27, 2014]

PMW sent this information to the Belgian embassy in Tel Aviv, including the picture below of the Belgian flag, which still appears on a plaque announcing Belgium’s funding at the Dalal Mughrabi Elementary School.

Reporting on the Belgian government’s outrage that the PA has renamed the school after the terrorist murderer Dalal Mughrabi, The Algemeiner quoted the spokesperson for the Belgian Foreign Ministry, Didier Vanderhasselt:

“Belgium unequivocally condemns the glorification of terrorist attacks [and] will not allow itself to be associated with the names of terrorists in any way.” [The Algemeiner, Oct. 7, 2017]

According to the Belgian Development Agency (BTC), Belgium has built 23 Palestinian schools since 2001, and was planning to build 10 more in the coming years. [Website of Belgian Development Agency, accessed Oct. 9, 2017] However, according to the spokesperson all these plans are now frozen:
“Belgium has immediately raised this issue with the Palestinian Authority and is awaiting a formal response... In the meantime Belgium will put on hold any projects related to the construction or equipment of Palestinian schools.”

Michael Oren: The Iran Nuclear Deal Isn’t Worth Saving

Had American sanctions on Iran remained in place in 2015, companies would have had to choose between doing business with the United States, the world’s top-ranked economy by gross domestic product, and Iran, ranked 27th. That same stark choice will confront businesses if sanctions are reinstated.

Similarly, the contention that Iran will rush to make nuclear weapons in the absence of an agreement is unfounded. Iran could have made that rush well before 2015 but it did not. The reason was the 2012 speech by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to the United Nations General Assembly and the implicit military threat that backed it up.

The world, he declared, must not allow Iran to amass enough highly enriched uranium to produce a nuclear bomb. “Red lines don’t lead to war,” he said. “Red lines prevent war.” That red line will remain indelible whether the deal is strengthened or canceled. What was true in 2015 holds equally today: The more credible the military option, the lesser the chance it will need to be used.

The agreement’s apologists say that altering or negating the agreement will irreparably harm America’s prestige. Yet it is difficult to see how America’s status is served by a refusal to stand up to Iran’s complicity in the massacre of half a million Syrians and its efforts to annihilate American allies.

Israel’s position on the Iran deal was and remains clear. “Fix it or nix it,” Prime Minister Netanyahu recently told the United Nations. If canceled, the deal must be replaced by crippling sanctions that force Iran to dismantle its nuclear weapons capacity. Fixing the deal would include conducting stricter inspections of suspect Iran nuclear sites, imposing harsher penalties for Iranian violations and, above all, eliminating the “sunset clause.”

Either way, revisiting the agreement will send an unequivocal message to the world. It will say that Iran’s state-funded terrorism and its attempts to establish a Shiite empire will not be tolerated. The weakness of the Iran deal invites wars, it will say, while displays of strength prevent them. It will say that the United States is truly unwilling to accept a nuclear Iran — not now, not in a decade, not ever.

John Bolton: The Iran Deal Isn't Worth Saving

"Cut, and cut cleanly," Sen. Paul Laxalt advised Ferdinand Marcos in 1986, urging the Philippine president to resign and flee Manila because of widespread civil unrest. The Nevada Republican, Ronald Reagan's best friend in Congress, knew what his president wanted, and he made the point with customary Western directness.

President Trump could profitably follow Mr. Laxalt's advice today regarding Barack Obama's 2015 deal with Iran. The ayatollahs are using Mr. Obama's handiwork to legitimize their terrorist state, facilitate (and conceal) their continuing nuclear-weapons and ballistic-missile programs, and acquire valuable resources from gullible negotiating partners.

Mr. Trump's real decision is whether to fulfill his campaign promise to extricate America from this strategic debacle. Last month at the United Nations General Assembly, he lacerated the deal as an "embarrassment," "one of the worst and most one-sided transactions the United States has ever entered into."

Fearing the worst, however, the deal's acolytes are actively obscuring this central issue, arguing that it is too arduous and too complex to withdraw cleanly. They have seized instead on a statutory requirement that every 90 days the president must certify, among other things, that adhering to the agreement is in America's national-security interest. They argue the president should stay in the deal but not make the next certification, due in October.

This morganatic strategy is a poorly concealed ploy to block withdrawal, limp through Mr. Trump's presidency, and resurrect the deal later. Paradoxically, supporters are not now asserting that the deal is beneficial. Instead, they concede its innumerable faults but argue that it can be made tougher, more verifiable and more strictly enforced. Or, if you want more, it can be extended, kicked to Congress, or deferred during the North Korea crisis. Whatever.

As Richard Nixon said during Watergate: "I want you to stonewall it, let them plead the Fifth Amendment, cover up, or anything else if it'll save it — save the plan."

If recent analysis here and elsewhere is correct, SJP and associated anti-Israel organizations are likely to be shifting strategy to take advantage of the increase in radical political activity on college campuses and elsewhere. This activity is likely to take the form of building alliances with groups protesting at schools, pressuring administrators to cave in to demands, and shutting down events held by those with whom they disagree.

The marriage of such groups and organizations like SJP makes perfect sense since (1) the tactics now being inflicted on large numbers of students (such as shout-downs of speakers) were pioneered against Israel’s supporters and (2) anti-Israel activists have mastered the technique of bending other radical groups to their will through a one-sided application of “intersectionality” (which is why feminists in “the movement” must submit to the male-dominated SJP agenda, while SJP has no obligation to even mention gender Apartheid in the Middle East).

There are number of ways to meet this threat, some more productive than others.

For instance, one poor choice would be for Israel’s supporters – Jewish and otherwise – to try to find a home in newly forming radical alliances in hope to have a say when villains and victims are selected. The problem with this approach is that our side displays little of the ruthlessness that is the ultimate source of power in such “movements.” SJP, for example, is ready to cause limitless turmoil in other people’s organizations in order to get their way. For better or worse, it is unrealistic to assume our side can effectively manage similarly destructive power grabs.

Another poor choice would be to set ourselves up in opposition to the radicals, abandoning interaction across the political spectrum and throwing our lot in with those most averse to the protestor’s agenda. While there will always be a certain logic to embracing whoever seems to most vocally support Israel at the moment (which today are conservatives), a quick glance at history or the current political landscape demonstrates the folly of assuming today’s friends will always be friendly.

This is especially so since our greatest successes have come from cultivating support across the political spectrum (exempting the radical fringes), best exemplified by the ability of AIPAC to manage the community’s relationship with Congress regardless of which party is in power. In addition, the more we can separate Jewish and Israeli concerns from domestic politics (either American or Israeli) the better.

So if joining the mob or joining the mob’s enemies are not likely to be productive options, what can we do (beyond holding the usual speaking events and hummus parties and hoping for the best)?

First of all, we need to understand each challenge we face as clearly and concretely as possible. Reading stories of rampaging mobs on campuses can boil the blood, and get us fearful that any radical group we face has similar numbers and power. But if you look at any political challenge objectively, it always boils down to understanding the enemy and his or her true numbers and resources, understanding your side in similarly concrete fashion, and being aware of the battlefield on which the fight might be fought.

SJP is made up of individuals, as are the organizations they are trying to align with or corrupt. So how many people are in each of these groups, and how many of those people know what they’re doing with regard to creating and maintaining political alliances (a tricky project under any circumstances)?

Speaking of alliances, we do have alternatives (which I describe here) to throwing our lot in entirely with either our enemies or our enemies enemies and hope they play nice with us.

So first steps are to avoid panic, get a handle on the situation as it really is (as much as possible) and create the teams that can effectively country the enemies likely next steps.

Some examples of how this can work next time.

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.

Mudar Zahran, Khaled Abu Toameh and the "Jordan is Palestine" conference

Tal Schneider at Globes/JPost writes an op-ed that mentions EoZ and varda (a Hebrew version came out last week.)

After months of preparations, "The Jordan Option - The Ultimate Alternate Solution" conference will take place in at the Menachem Begin Heritage Center in Jerusalem next week.

The organizers of the event, right-wing writers and bloggers, want it to carry weight. They invited Knesset member Yehuda Glick (Likud) to take part. Former Knesset member Arieh Eldad is listed among the speakers, which also includes Mudar Zahran, billed as the Secretary General of the Jordanian Opposition Coalition and the representative of six million Jordanians of Palestinian extraction.

According to past reports, Zahran, who has written for the Jerusalem Post, has pretensions to bringing about the collapse of the Kingdom of Jordan and to becoming the next leader of Jordan, replacing King Abdullah II. Hypothetically, immediately after he does so, he says he would make peace with Israel. His writings and ideas have sparked the imaginations of some columnists on the Israeli right: he was interviewed in Israel Hayom, took part in a conference at Ariel University, and had a column written about him in Ma'ariv.

He was recently featured as a commentator on the i24 News television channel broadcast from Jaffa in English and Arabic. He is presented everywhere as the leader of the Jordanian opposition.

Slowly but surely, with his media coverage broadening to English-languages publications, Zahran has consolidated his status.

Within the past six months he has even obtained a meeting with a Likud minister, to whom he expounded his ideas. Eureka, they thought on the right: there's hope and there's an opposition in Jordan with an aspiration on par with organizations in exile to turn the Kingdom of Jordan into a secular, modern Palestine. As the Jewish sages said, when someone tells you that he sought diligently and he found, believe him.

A surprising twist in the plot has, however, taken place in the past few weeks. Zahran developed a strange obsession with Israeli-Arab journalist Khaled Abu-Toameh, formerly the Jerusalem Post Arab affairs reporter. Zahran wrote articles attacking Abu-Toameh and smearing his reputation with all kinds of tales. Since Abu-Toameh is well known to many reporters and respected by columnists on both left and right, his circle of acquaintances, especially on the right, started to stick pins in the "leader of the Jordanian opposition" balloon. It was no more than a mirage.

The first was Jerusalem Post columnist Caroline Glick, a promoter of the Jordanian option, and a personal and professional acquaintance of Abu-Toameh for fifteen years. In a long Facebook post she told how she wanted to believe Zahran, to believe that there was an opposition to the king, that there was a chance of establishing a Palestinian state in Jordan.

Glick commented how she had been led up the garden path: "I also cited Zahran and described his vision of Jordan as Palestine," Glick wrote. "I recommended that President Trump and/or Prime Minister Netanyahu meet with Zahran if Abdullah continues to protect Tamimi from extradition. After I wrote the column, I was contacted by three knowledgeable sources with whom I have longstanding relations.

"They did not coordinate their calls. Each one told me independently that Zahran is not a credible source. He is not a leader of an opposition movement. He doesn't have an organization. He has multiple websites, they said… I was disappointed because, as I wrote in my second column, I think the best way to compel Abdullah to behave responsibly, as behooves an ally in the war against jihadist terror, is to make clear to him that he isn’t the only option.

"My colleagues effectively told me that despite the fact that we could use an alternative to Abdullah, none exist today, at least none that are better than he."

Glick has been joined by other right-wing journalists: commentator and columnist Ruthie Blum, Dr Harold Rhode, and Varda Meyers Epstein on her blog "Elder of Zyon" [sic sic], considered a leading right-wing publication.

Varda certainly brought this issue to the forefront with her last two blog posts here.

Yesterday I was roped into a bizarre email thread between Zahran and his supporters and Toameh's supporters. Zahran is accusing Toameh having received an expensive car as a gift from an ex-intelligence chief in Jordan. You can see Zahran's other accusations against Toameh, filtered through his allies, here.

Toameh was also accused of secretly being anti-Israel in an Arabic-language interview. I read the interview and saw nothing of the sort. It showed that he is not a right-wing Zionist, which I don't think any intelligent person expects him to be.

Most of the email thread deteriorated into accusations and counter-accusations regarding minutiae of who accused which other right-wing Zionist of doing what first.

But Zahran did not come off looking good in this email exchange. After spraying his messages to some 20 people, he then threatened those who stood against him with legal action for sending unwanted emails to him. One scholar who asked politely, twice, to be taken off the thread was directly threatened with legal action by Zahran when he said he supported Toameh - without saying anything bad about Zahran. Even Zahran's main ally told him to cool it.

In the end, Toameh's work speaks for itself. He has legitimate questions about the conference and the idea of "Jordan is Palestine" that he has mentioned for years. That seems to be Zahran's main issue with him. But Toameh is an excellent journalist and Zahran's effort to smear him makes only Zahran look bad.

On the other hand, we cannot say that Zahran's work speaks for itself. I have yet to see any evidence that ANY Jordanian supports him. He sometimes gets written up in Jordanian media, often based on Hebrew articles, but that proves Jordan's paranoia more than Zahran's political influence in the kingdom.

It does appear that Zahran is using passionate right-wing Zionists to build up his reputation and his power, such as it is, but in reality the idea that he is a credible challenger to King Abdullah is laughable. A leader needs followers, and Zahran apparently has fewer Arab followers than he has thumbs, from what I can tell. (Apologies if he has six anonymous Arab fans.) (UPDATE: Yes, six seems to be the number: )

I have nothing against the conference, however. All options should be discussed, even if they are (as I've said before) non-starters. I like the idea of putting pressure on Jordan to take more responsibility for their Palestinian population.

This whole episode is silly, and in danger of getting ugly. Whatever we do, it must be based on reality and facts. An Arab accusing another Arab of not being Zionist enough is, frankly, ridiculous, as are the accusations from both sides on whether a supporter is a sock-puppet or on someone's payroll. Stick with the facts and the record.

I would be thrilled if a Zionist Jordanian could become the leader of the kingdom. But - I happen to inhabit the real world.

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.

Islamic Jihad leader on FBI Most Wanted Terrorist list - Fatah members support him

The FBI has placed Ramadan Shallah, head of Islamic Jihad, on its Most Wanted list:

Naturally, the "moderate" Fatah movement headed by Mahmoud Abbas is on the side of the terrorist, not the US.

Abbas Zaki, a member of the Fatah Central Committee, gave full throated support to the terrorist leader, saying "Dr. Shallah is a fighter for freedom and liberation of his country."

Zaki said, "Allah forbid that Dr. Ramadan Abdullah Shallah be considered a terrorist. He is a fighter for freedom, and these actors (the FBI) is working against human freedoms and national sovereignties."

Zaki said that the FBI were mere slaves of the Zionists.

He also expressed concern over the possible increased danger to Ramadan's life.

He expressed no concern over the lives of hundreds of Israelis killed by Islamic Jihad under Shallah's leadership.

(h/t Breitbart)

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.