Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Tuesday, June 08, 2021

When the British evacuated the Jews from Silwan (UPDATE)

Buried in a New York Times article about the claims of both Jews and Arabs to houses in Silwan we see this:

In the late 1930s, the site was abandoned. Documents show the British authorities, which then ruled Palestine, evacuated the Jewish residents, fearing they were vulnerable to an Arab insurrection. After the British left and Jordan occupied the West Bank in 1948, Palestinian families moved onto the uninhabited plot.

That is a sanitized way of saying that the Jews were constantly attacked by Arabs in Silwan.

Here is the Palestine Post article about their evacuation, from August 15, 1938:

The British authorities were supposed to protect the homes. They didn't - Arabs broke into a synagogue and defiled the Torah there several months later:

UPDATE: Here is the letter from British officials about the evacuation - and the expectation that the Jews would return shortly. (h/t Stephen)

From The New Arab:

A Jordanian national table tennis player has withdrawn from an international championship to avoid playing an Israeli player, the Jordanian Paralympic Committee said on Friday

Osama Abu Jame refused to continue participating in the Slovenia International Championship after reaching the quarter-finals where he was scheduled to go head to head with an Israeli player.

Jame is sponsored by a Jordanian software company named ProgressSoft.

It doesn't seem that the rules of the Paralympics are as stringent as those of other sports concerning athletes who refuse to compete.

Jordanians seem thrilled as this show of cowardice.

06/07 Links Pt2: The UN’s anti-racism mission excludes Jews; Ben Shapiro: The muddled thinking of 'antiracism'; Former Israel Space Agency Chief Dies of Wounds Sustained During Arab Riots

From Ian:

Anti-Zionism: the Modern Antisemitism

The Holocaust did not put an end to antisemitism, but it made all its existing forms unacceptable. Had the Nazis entered Palestine and eliminated the Yishuv (the pre-state Jewish population of the Land of Israel) anti-Zionism might have followed the fate of its predecessors, but fortunately the Nazis did not. Yet, prior to the Holocaust, Judaism played the role that Zionism plays today. Hatred of Judaism was shared by both the right and the left; though on the left, it took not a religious — as with the Church — but an ideological approach. Karl Marx in his notorious “On the Jewish Question,” written in 1843, proclaimed the antisemitic manifesto of the hundred years that followed: “In the final analysis, the emancipation of the Jews is the emancipation of mankind from Judaism.” Thus Judaism, as an expression of Jewish particularism, as the culture of the People of Israel in the Diaspora, was declared persona non-grata. Hitler’s ideas about the impossibility of peaceful coexistence between the Jews and the rest of the world, and his view of the inevitability of the final solution, stemmed from Marx’s maxim.

After the Holocaust, however, it seemed for a brief short moment that the Holocaust had not only failed to finish off the Jews, but had killed antisemitism for good. Not so fast. As happened many times during the twentieth century, the Soviet Union came to rescue. The 1930s saw the USSR slowly return to the antisemitic roots of the tsarist regime. The pact with Nazi Germany and the dismissal of Maxim Litvinov were the turning points, and the war that followed only injected the Soviets with the rabid antisemitic propaganda disseminated by the Nazis. After the war ended, with the dawn of the Cold War, Stalin, for many different reasons, needed a new internal enemy. With the class struggle being officially almost over, Jews proved to be a perfect candidate.

Yet Judaism proved to be irrelevant, as the Soviet Union was anti-religious, with most religious practices either banned or under strict government supervision, not to mention the association of traditional antisemitism with the Holocaust. Thus Zionism presented itself as an excellent replacement for Judaism, fitting perfectly with Marx’s ideological antisemitism. And for naive or conniving Western intellectuals, the allure of the rebranded hatred proved to be irresistible.

It is important to note that, prior to the Soviet turn to anti-Zionism, anti-Zionism itself as a defined ideology and political stance did not truly exist. There were groups of people, some large, of both Jews and non-Jews who advocated against the Zionist enterprise. However, they did so either on a purely religious basis, like some Orthodox Jews, or because they saw the enterprise as unfeasible and undesirable. Very few argued against the Jewish state as such.

And there is a reason for this: anti-Zionism, as an idea, is absurd. Imagine a political movement calling itself anti-France. It is a laughable idea that one can support only as a joke or due to a mental disorder. So why does anti-Zionism not get similar treatment? The answer is antisemitism. The defining feature of antisemitism is to treat the Jews in a way that is the opposite of one’s treatment of other people: what is allowed to everyone else is forbidden to Jews. What is tolerated in others is condemned in the Jews. And so France is fine, however questionable its long history, but Israel is not.

The general rule when observing the oldest hatred is that if one singles out Jews from among all other nations, then one is antisemitic. Anti-Zionism is no exception.

The UN’s anti-racism mission excludes Jews

António Guterres, the UN’s secretary-general, has described rising anti-Semitism as a ‘multi-headed monster’ of intolerance that’s creating a ‘tsunami of hatred’ across the world, and the UN proclaims ‘anti-racism’ as its defining ideology. But the UN is failing to confront discrimination and violence against Jews — and at times even nurturing it.

The UN special rapporteur on racism, E. Tendayi Achiume, ought to be among the leading global voices speaking out against Jew hate. Last year, she called on Bulgaria to stop hate speech and discrimination against the Roma, she urged the Human Rights Council to address abuses against people of African descent and she appealed to world leaders to confront ‘structural forms of racial and ethnic injustice’.

Yet Achiume has a blind spot about one kind of racial and ethnic injustice. When ‘anti-Zionist’ activists descend on Jewish neighborhoods with calls to ‘kill and rape’ Jewish women, and when Jews were targeted by protesters chanting ‘Zionists are terrorists’ at rallies around the world, Achiume says nothing.

She did, though, produce a report on anti-Semitism in 2019. But that only addressed the resurgence of anti-Semitism in the context of ‘neo-Nazi and related intolerance’. This exposes a fundamental flaw in the UN system, one amplified and promoted by influencers, thought leaders, academics and journalists: Jew-hatred can only be acknowledged when it carries a tiki torch. When it comes cloaked in the language of ‘racial justice’, it’s excused or ignored.

The UN human rights chief, Michelle Bachelet, has also been silent about race-based violence against Jews. Not only that, she’s lined up with the inciters. She recently marked the 20th anniversary of 2001 World Conference Against Racism, held in Durban, South Africa, by endorsing its racist final declaration. Instead of combating racism as it claimed to, the Durban conference became one of the worst international manifestations of anti-Semitism in the postwar period.

The Durban conference featured ugly displays of intolerance, anti-Semitism and baseless claims against the Jewish state. Anti-Israel activists gathered from all over the world to accuse the Jewish state of crimes against humanity. They equated Zionism with racism, threatened Jewish activists, and brandished anti-Semitic caricatures of money-clutching Jews with hooked noses and fangs dripping with blood. Two decades later, these memes recur in the anti-Jewish invective spouted by left-wing activists in the name of ‘racial justice’.

Ben Shapiro: The muddled thinking of 'antiracism'

This week, a clip of America's most prominent racial grifter, Ibram X. Kendi, began making the rounds on Twitter. Kendi, the author of How to Be an Antiracist, has undoubtedly made a fortune by indicting those who disagree with him as complicit in American racism – and by providing partial absolution to those who repeat his cultish ideas.

In one particular clip from a recent interview, however, Kendi was asked to do one very simple thing: to define racism itself. Kendi failed signally in that task. "I would define it as a collection of racist policies that lead to racial inequity that are substantiated by racist ideas," Kendi stated.

The audience laughed out loud.

Kendi then reiterated his definition and added: "And antiracism is pretty simple using the same terms. Antiracism is a collection of antiracist policies leading to racial ... equity that are substantiated by antiracist ideas."

This, of course, is utterly nonsensical. No term can be defined by simple reference to the term itself. If someone asked you to define an elephant and you quickly explained that an elephant is, in fact, an animal known as an elephant, you would be adding no new information. If someone asked you to describe anger and you then defined anger as the feeling of being angry, you would leave the listener in serious doubt as to your sanity.

Islamic Jihad hands out awards to journalists in Gaza

Last week I reported that Hamas had an awards gala to recognize journalists in Gaza who did everything the terror group wanted them to.

Today it was Islamic Jihad's turn.

The awards show was held at the luxury Reef Al Madina restaurant.

Islamic Jihad honored media professionals for "reporting Israeli crimes."

06/07 Links Pt1: The West’s Nauseating “Post-Truth” Over the Gaza War; PA pays $42,000 to family of terrorist who killed 2 Israelis; Hamas and Iran Turned Gaza into Cemetery for Children

From Ian:

The West’s Nauseating “Post-Truth” Over the Gaza War

In the wake of the Israel-Gaza conflict in May, an American author was suspended by Twitter for comparing a Boston Globe cartoon to Nazi propaganda. New York Times writers who, in expressing their sorrow over the fact that “most of the children who died were Arabs,” are in fact admitting that they would be happier if most of the children who died were Israeli Jews.

The NYT story did mention that “Hamas and other militant groups fired more than 4,000 rockets at Israeli towns and cities indiscriminately.” It also correctly stated that the Israeli air defense system had managed to stop about 90% of the rockets.

The article also noted that at least two of the children killed in Gaza may have been killed when Palestinian militants fired a rocket that fell short, and that one of the children killed in Israel, Nadine Awad, was Palestinian. “The low toll on the Israeli side also reflected an imbalance in defensive capabilities,” NYT concluded.

All the same, the paper’s pro-Hamas propaganda was deeply problematic in its evasive language. The authors of the op-ed, in expressing their sorrow over the fact that “most of the children who died were Arabs,” in fact covertly confessed that they would be happier if most of the children who had died were Israeli Jews.

Would the West’s underdog-nation romanticists feel better if Israel’s Iron Dome had failed, and Hamas rockets had killed 500 Israeli children instead of two? Is it really too hard to understand that 500 Israeli children were spared not because Hamas did not want to kill them, but because, as the NYT article pointed out, there is an imbalance in defensive capabilities? Is it Israel’s sin to have built the Iron Dome to minimize casualties when it is threatened by thousands of rockets flying over its skies?

If this is the precedent set by the “cradle of democracy,” the lesser democracies of the world will find it much easier to call for more Jewish blood.

Palestinian Authority pays $42,000 to family of terrorist who killed 2 Israelis

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas on Sunday ordered that the family of a Palestinian terrorist who murdered two Israelis be paid more than $40,000 and be given new housing, the Kan public broadcaster reported.

Ramallah Governor Laila Ghannam, an Abbas appointee, met with the family of Muhannad Halabi and gave them some 30,000 Jordanian Dinars ($42,000), reportedly to help them cover housing costs since their home was destroyed by the IDF following the killings, Kan said.

Ghannam also told the family that Abbas had instructed his security services to help them find permanent housing. Home demolitions are a controversial policy that the IDF says helps deter future terror attacks.

The payments are the first high-profile payments to terrorist families since the Biden administration took office, despite claims that the Palestinians were willing to rethink the controversial policy as part of an effort to improve relations with Washington.

Halabi killed two Israelis, Rabbi Nehemiah Lavi and Aharon Banita, and injured Banita’s wife, Adele, and their 2-year-old son in a stabbing attack in the Old City of Jerusalem on October 3, 2015.

Muhannad Halabi, 19, the terrorist who killed two Israelis on October 3, 2015 in a stabbing attack in Jerusalem’s Old City. (Israel Police)

He was shot and killed by Israeli security forces.

Ahead of Biden’s inauguration, senior Palestinian officials told The Times of Israel that Ramallah was willing to alter the way it pays stipends to Palestinian security prisoners, as well as the families of terrorists and others killed by Israelis, in a bid to improve ties with Washington and Europe.

Because the PA hands out more money for longer sentences in Israeli prisons, those incarcerated for the most brutal terror attacks receive more funding from Ramallah.

Khaled Abu Toameh: Arabs: Hamas and Iran Turned Gaza into Cemetery for Children

The Arabs are aware that Hamas's only interest is to appease the mullahs in Tehran for the sake of milking them for more money and weapons. The Arabs understand that this just is another farce by Hamas and particularly Iran.

It is... refreshing to see how many Arabs are aware of the dangers of Iran's involvement with Palestinian terrorist groups that seek the elimination first of Israel, then of them.

"The Hamas militias in the Gaza Strip belong to Iran.... Iran wants to use the Palestinian issue as a winning card at the Vienna negotiations..... to force the US to lift the sanctions on Iran in return for ending the security escalation which threatens Israel.... Iran's weapons are for destruction, not construction." — Amjad Taha, prominent Arab journalist, Twitter, May 27, 2021.

"The more killing and destruction, the more Hamas's income increases while the Palestinians continue to suffer from siege and poverty." — Saeed Al-Kahel, Moroccan writer and political analyst, Assahifa, May 29, 2021.

"Iran exploited Hamas and the Islamic Jihad for its own benefit only, and if it wanted the interest of the Palestinians, it would have contributed to the reconstruction of the Gaza Strip.... Tehran has not contributed or made donations for humanitarian or reconstruction projects in Gaza...." — Samir Ghattas, former Egyptian parliament member and head of the Egyptian Middle East Forum for Strategic Studies, Al-Arabiya.net, May 26, 2021.

The Egyptian expert [Muhammad Mujahid Al-Zayyat, a consultant at the Egyptian Center for Thought and Strategic Studies]... is joining other Arabs in warning the Biden administration and the Western powers against allowing Iran to be rewarded for Hamas's war of terrorism against Israel.

It now remains to be seen whether the Biden administration and the Western powers will heed this warning or continue to bury their heads in the sand, pretending that the mullahs in Iran, in exchange for massive bribes from the US, will magically change their savage stripes. They did not last time; what will happen to the region if they again do not?

Jews attacked, arrested in Arab countries in wake of Six Day War

Here are some New York Times articles about how the few remaining Jews were jailed, threatened and killed in Arab countries in the wake of the 1967 Six Day War.

Even as these abuses were happening, the Arabs were insisting that they weren't anti-Jewish, just anti-Zionist.

The years between 1964 and 1967 tell you all you need to know about Palestinian goals

On this anniversary of the Six Day War, it is worth a reminder of what the original PLO Charter said about its goals. Articles 22-24:

Article 22. The people of Palestine believe in peaceful co-existence on the basis of legal existence, for there can be no co-existence with aggression, nor can there be peace with occupation and colonialism.

Article 23. In realizing the goals and principles of this Covenant the Palestine Liberation Organization carries out its complete role to liberate Palestine in accordance with the fundamental law of this Organization.

Article 24. This Organization does not exercise any regional sovereignty over the West Bank in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, in the Gaza Strip or the Himmah area. Its activities will be on the national popular level in the liberational, organizational, political and financial fields.

Article 22 shows that the PLO considers all of Israel to be "occupied." And Article 24 shows that the PLO did not consider the West Bank or Gaza to be part of the Palestinian state that they said they wanted.

Here's a photo of a PLO meeting in Gaza before 1967, with a map of "Palestine" in the backdrop showing that they didn't consider the West Bank and Gaza to be the same as the part of Palestine they sought:

Only after the Six Day War did the PLO decide that the West Bank and Gaza were part of the Palestinian state they sought.

To summarize: The PLO only wants the parts of Palestine that are controlled by Jews.

(We've discussed many times that "historic Palestine" includes parts of Lebanon and Jordan which the PLO never claimed.)

Another interesting fact is that the Palestinian claim on Jerusalem started well after 1967!

The 1968 PLO Charter does not mention Jerusalem once.

Have you ever noticed that Palestinian officials love to put a photo of the Dome of the Rock as a backdrop in all their offices? Here's Mahmoud Abbas with Secretary of State Blinken last month.

There were no photos of the Dome of the Rock that the PLO associated with itself before 1967 - because Jordan controlled it. In fact, I cannot find any photos of PLO leaders featuring the Dome of the Rock as a background decoration until roughly 1991, when Yasir Arafat placed it in his office in Tunis.

Palestinian claims on Jerusalem seem to have been carefully coordinated with other Arabs (for example, in an Arab meeting in 1982) but it seems that only after 1988 when Jordan renounced its claim to the West Bank did the PLO make Jerusalem a key demand.

As anti-Israel activists try to bring Sheikh Jarrah back in the forefront of the world's attention, a simple question comes up.

According to Israeli legal rulings, if the residents of the homes that are in the news would just pay rent to the Jewish owners, they cannot be evicted, ever.

If people are really concerned about three families perhaps becoming homeless, then why doesn't anyone just pay the rent?

The reason: Honor. By paying rent, it would be admitting that Jews own the homes, which has been proven time and time again over four decades of legal rulings.

But the people who are making the decision not to pay the rent don't appear to be the residents. According to a Jewish Press article, the entire case has been taken over by the PLO and they are the ones who are deciding what is best for the residents - meaning, no compromise, no accepting deals, no paying rent.

To the PLO, it is more honorable for the residents to be homeless than to admit that Jews own the homes.

Of course, Palestinian leaders don't have to pay the price for making a decision like this. They are forcing the hapless residents to adhere to the Higher Principle of Palestinian Honor: Sacrifice yourself for our principles.

This is a pattern.

If you point out that Israel has offered many peace deals that were rejected by Palestinian leaders, the apologists for the Palestinians say "the offers weren't good enough." What does that mean? Does it mean that perpetual statelessness is better than a statehood that falls short of the demands?

As always, the leaders - whose lives are not affected by the lack of a state one bit - are forcing the people to adhere to their false sense of honor, to the people's detriment.

Palestinians are told not to buy from Israeli markets - because of "honor." Instead of returning stolen Israeli cars to Israel, they are crushed - because of "honor." Jews are not supposed to walk and pray on the Temple Mount - because that violates "honor." International incidents are threatened if Jews march around their capital with flags - because that is an affront to "honor."

You know what is really honorable? Peace! A peace where Palestinians can raise their families in dignity. A peace where they have autonomy. A peace where they work together with their Jewish neighbors, instead of acting as if the Jews don't belong on the land that was Jewish 1500 years before any Arabs ruled there.

The misplaced sense of honor is the single biggest obstacle to peace in the Middle East. It is obvious that this honor is misplaced because we see that the UAE and Bahrain and Morocco have not sunk into an abyss of shame after normalizing relations with Israel. On the contrary, they are expected to reap huge benefits from peace - which is the most honorable thing possible?

Palestinian leaders cannot fathom that.

As long as they cling to their fake honor, they will remain in a state of shame.

Hamas leader admits that many terror headquarters are in civilian buildings

The IDF tweeted this:

Hamas hides in civilian buildings in Gaza. Don’t believe us?

Hear it for yourself from the Head of Hamas in Gaza, Yahya Sinwar: pic.twitter.com/rcFPSmEfRZ
— Israel Defense Forces (@IDF) June 6, 2021

Sinwar admits that Hamass has been putting its military headquarters among high rise buildings and residential buildings.

Of course, this was done deliberately, so the only reasons that Hamas might be saying it is moving them now is that it is being pressured to - either quietly from Hamas-friendly NGOs, or Arab states, or perhaps even from Gazans themselves who are homeless because Hamas chose to use them as human shields.

When Israel exposed Nasser and King Hussein as liars in 1967

On June 6, 1967, Egypt (and Jordan) accused the United States and Britain of being behind the airstrikes that destroyed the Egyptian air force.

The United States emphatically denied it.

Egypt was clearly embarrassed that the Jews could have been winning the war in such a dominating fashion, and this lie was to save face in the Arab world.

This backfired. Badly.

Two days later, Israel played a phone conversation between Egypt's President Nasser and Jordan's King Hussein where they hatched the story.

Israel played the message to the Arab world over and over aain:

Jordan, embarrassed, issued a statement admitting that it did not see any American or British planes:

This intelligence coup was also an embarrassment for the Soviet Union, which supplied the communications equipment to Egypt and Jordan that should not have been able to be intercepted. This leak seemed to also be designed to let America know that Israel is a valuable intelligence ally.

06/06 Links: UNRWA finds attack tunnel under one of its Gaza schools; Ben Shapiro: Here’s THE TRUTH About the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

From Ian:

Jake Wallis Simons: The problem with the New York Times’ Gaza coverage

That’s where the New York Times comes in. It goes without saying that it’s impossible to report objectively on any story when your editorial line has been decided in advance. The latest Israeli campaign was more accurate than any recent war, with combatants accounting for the vast majority of the dead. All of this is lost when you sacrifice the facts for emotive photographs of children.

Don’t get me wrong. Emotive photographs have their place, and we must never lose touch with the tragic cost of war. But from the point of view of the victims, there is a certain indignity in the fact that they have been used to further a political agenda. And from the point of view of the Times, it is troubling that its journalists have participated in doing so.

When the front page was published, Brad Parker, a representative of the NGO, Defense for Children International Palestine (DCIP), tweeted his thanks to the Times for ‘reaching out to us at @DCIPalestine to help make this front page’.

This was revealing. As was evident from his Twitter name, to which he had appended the hashtag #SaveSheikhJarrah, Mr Parker was not an entirely dispassionate observer of the conflict. And a quick look at the DCIP website shows that it is hardly objective, either. What exactly did the New York Times expect when it asked them for ‘help’?

It has long been an aphorism of journalism that if one man says it’s raining and another says it’s dry, it’s not your job to quote them both, but to look out of the window and see for yourself.

If the Times journalists had followed the basic tenets of their profession, America’s paper of record would not have become a pawn in the chess game of Hamas. To have the Gray Lady contribute towards Hamas' war aims was a major boon for the terror group – and another dark day for journalism.

I am a Jew and I am scared. Will I be the last one in Britain?

The most worrying sign is that the Jew hate obsession has opened up a new front. Having long ago penetrated our universities and created a febrile and intimidating environment, intensely hostile to Jews and Israel, the disease is now infiltrating our schools. The Jesuit dictum was ”Give me the child until he is seven and I’ll give you the man”. Children are now being exposed to the vicious doctrine of Jew hatred. Some would call this brainwashing.

In a Leeds school the police were called to protect a head teacher, Mark Roper, after he referred to an incident where a pupil brought in and waved a Palestinian flag. He is quoted as saying during a school assembly that “some might interpret this action as a call to arms and feel threatened and unsafe”. On social media, an avalanche of cries of Islamophobia echoed and demands that heads must roll trended. Apologies were demanded and meekly given.

This represents a stunning victory for the many Jew haters. It signals that it is acceptable to migrate anti-Semitism from the mosque to the classroom. It legitimises the slanderous and libellous lies underpinning the ever-growing Jew hatred movement, no matter whether those Jews are in Leeds or Jerusalem.

Had the Israeli flag been brought in by a Jewish pupil, then that individual would almost certainly have suffered verbal abuse and also probably physical assault. Further the media would have almost certainly have chosen to question his/her patriotism, asking where their primary loyalty lay? Was it to the UK or Israel? But nobody dared question the loyalties of the pupil who provocatively waved the Palestinian flag. Conclusion? Jews have dual loyalty. Plucky pro-Palestinian Muslims are being discriminated against and insulted because they are a minority. This despite the fact that Muslims outnumber Jews in Leeds by 7 to 1. (ONS)

No matter how much of worth Jews have contributed to humanity, it counts for nothing to the Jew haters. They close their ears to any facts that detract from their unquestioning world view that Jews are evil.

Lest we forget: throughout history anti-Semitism has been the norm, with relatively short periods of calm between pogroms. What is happening today in most parts of the world is likely to be merely a reversion back to that norm. Fortunately, unlike earlier times Jews now have somewhere that will always welcome them no matter how bad things become in their country of residence. An attack on Israel is therefore an attack on all Jews everywhere.

Over recent years the number of my Jewish friends has steadily decreased. Gladly the grim reaper has not claimed them. Rather they have “made aliya”, that is moving to the “Land of Israel”. In practice this proves to be a complex and bureaucratic process for Jews, contrary to popular perception.

I wonder, how long will it be until I am the last Jew left In Britain? Will I be the one that turns the lights off?

Ben Shapiro: Here’s THE TRUTH About the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict (A Comprehensive History)

From biblical times to today, Ben takes us through time to explore the long history of Israel and explains the many conflicts along the way. (h/t Yerushalimey)

I guess Biden Admin is all about free speech and expression, and all that jazz ... except when it comes to Israeli Jews in our capital, #Jerusalem? https://t.co/gpwORxgesW
— Arsen Ostrovsky (@Ostrov_A) June 6, 2021

Arab pride: Egypt told the world it was winning the 1967 war

From the New York Times, June 6, 1967:

And because Egypt wanted to maintain that fiction, it refused a cease fire demand from the UN - ensuring that it would lose far more territory:

From Times of Israel:

Defense Minister Benny Gantz on Saturday said he will demand a right-wing nationalist parade through Jerusalem’s Old City be called off if it “requires extraordinary security measures and endangers public order and diplomatic processes.”

An Israeli official, speaking on condition of anonymity, told Hebrew media earlier on Saturday that police would make the final call on whether the march would be held. “Israel has returned to routine, there are no current restrictions and Jews are visiting the Temple Mount,” the official said.

Leaders of the left-wing Labor, Meretz and Joint List parties warned earlier Saturday of the potential negative consequences of the march and indicated they believed it could be a deliberate attempt to thwart the formation of the so-called “change government.”

Police chiefs were set to hold a meeting Sunday to decide whether to approve the march. According to Channel 12, the parade was likely to be approved, though possibly with changes to its route, including a refusal to allow participants to pass through the volatile Damascus Gate area that was at the center of unrest in the capital last month.

Haaretz has a headline: Biden Administration Fears Jerusalem Flag March May Reignite Tensions in Gaza

It hardly needs to be said that in a democracy, protests and rallies should be allowed unless they endanger innocent people. But that danger must come from the demonstration itself, not from people reacting to the demonstration who disagree - if any demonstration could cause others to react violently, then it is the responsibility of the police to protect the protesters.

Otherwise, people who oppose the demonstration have full veto power on freedom of speech by threatening violence.

Yet when it comes to Israel, those rules don't apply to right-wing demonstrations. If Palestinians say that Jews walking peacefully around their capital waving flags will "provoke" them, somehow their feelings are now considered more important than the basic democratic principle of freedom of assembly.

Where are the liberals who are defending freedom of speech and freedom of assembly?

On Friday, thousands of people marched through Jerusalem for the annual Pride Parade, which many conservative and religious Jerusalemites oppose. If the opponents had threatened violence, can anyone imagine that liberal politicians would call to cancel the parade?

It appears that the Israeli police are being the sanest people in this case - leaning towards allowing the march but changing the route, which would be in line with other democracies in allowing demonstrations but with restrictions.

Obviously, if the marchers become violent or incite violence, it should be shut down as well. The police have the responsibility to maintain order.

One does not have to agree with the marchers to support basic democratic principles. If freedom of assembly is subject to a veto by Hamas, then that freedom has disappeared, and that is something every liberal person should strenuously oppose.

Yet so far, the Israeli and Western liberals are on the side allowing Hamas and Fatah threats of violence to curtail basic freedoms.

Where are the true liberal voices defending freedom of assembly for a cause they disagree with?

Jordanian anti-Israel "turn off lights" demonstration seems to have fallen flat

Jordanian activists have been pushing a nationwide effort to have Jordanians turn off their electricity from 10-11 PM Saturday night in protest of Jordan buying natural gas from Israel.

Roya News tried to get dramatic footage of the great electricity turn-off - and it doesn't look like very many Jordanians listened.