Tuesday, May 23, 2017

No, Ivanka Is Mislead By Israel's Government Policy

Being petty:

Ivanka [Trump]...posted about what was undoubtedly a moving personal moment on her social media channels:

I am grateful to have experienced a deeply meaningful visit to the holiest site of my faith and to leave a private note of prayer.</

Unfortunately for Ivanka, or whoever runs her social media accounts, she gave expression to a common misconception about the Western Wall. In actuality, the site only draws its sanctity from the adjacent Temple Mount, the holiest place in Judaism where both Jewish Temples once stood. (The wall is called the Western Wall because it surrounded said Temple from the West.) 



And Rosenberg gives two reasons:


One reason that some mistakenly believe the Wall to be the holiest site in Judaism is that many Jews refuse to step foot on the Temple Mount due to its sanctity, though a minority of religious authorities permit the practice. Another reason for the misconception is that even those Jews who do visit the Mount are forbidden to pray on it by the Islamic Waqf that controls the area, leaving the Wall as the world’s most conspicuous Jewish prayer site...

So I responded with the real reason:

It's Israel's 'holiest' site. As gov't won't let us do anything 'holy' on the Temple Mount, @IvankaTrump has been fooled by our gov't.

It's actually Israel's government policy that is at fault.

Friday, May 19, 2017

When the Mufti Had a NYTimes Problem

Who ever said the New York Times was always pro-Arab?



Jerusalem Grand Mufti Makes Sensational Attack on American Press
Jerusalem (Oct. 16)

The Arab newspaper “Felestin,” controlled by the Jerusalem Grand Mufti, made a sensational onslaught on American newspapers yesterday, singling out the “New York Times.” The paper asked: “Is there no honesty in the American press?”

The Mufti denied interviews with Joseph Levy, “New York Times” correspondent, Ketchum of the “London Daily Express,” and Pierre Van Paassen, representative of the Jewish Telegraphic Agency. The Mufti charges misrepresentation and distortion, but makes no specific references. Of his interview with Mr. Van Paassen, the Mufti wrote in the English edition of the “Felestin” that it was merely an informal talk.

Mr. Van Paassen stated before his departure that when he called on the Mufti for the interview, the head of the Moslem Supreme Council offered him inducements, including women, if he would take the Mufti’s side and color the news according to his personal views and ambitions.

^

Victory is in the Brainpower

Here's is the great historian Barbara Tuchman in an article she published, "Israel's Swift Sword" in November 1967:

“A people considered for centuries nonfighters carried out in June against long odds the most nearly perfect military operation in modern history. Surrounded on three sides, facing vast superiority in numbers and amount of armament, fighting alone against enemies supported and equipped by a major power, and having lost the advantage of surprise, they accomplished the rarest of military feats, the attainment of exact objectives – in this case the shattering of the enemy’s forces and the securing of defensible lines – within a given time and with absence of blunder. The war, which taken as a whole was the greatest battle ever fought in this area, shook the world, leaving local and international balances in new focus, incidentally rescuing the United States from a critical position, and, not the least of effects, exposing a profound failure of Russian calculations and presumably of military intelligence.”
“What furnished capacity primarily was that the brain power with which this people was endowed was channeled for the first time since the Exile into the military art in defense of their own homeland,”

And now consider this parallel, excerpted from the speech Menachem Begin broadcast on Saturday night, May 15, 1948, having not been invited to sign Israel's Proclamation of Independence the previous Friday afternoon:

...even after emerging victorious from this campaign — and victorious we shall be — we shall still have to exert superhuman efforts in order to remain independent, in order to free our country. First of all, it will be necessary to increase and strengthen the fighting arm of Israel, without which there can be no freedom and no survival for our Homeland. Our Jewish army should be, and must be, one of the best trained and equipped of the world’s military forces. In modern warfare, it is not quantity that counts but brainpower and spirit are the determining factors. All of our youth proved that they possess this spirit – those of the Hagana, the Lehi, the Irgun, youth that no other nation has merited. Indeed, no generation since Bar-Kochba and until the Bilu pioneers has seen such spirit.

As for brainpower, after 120 generations, the creativity of the Hebrew mind is one of the most developed and unlimited. Our military science will be built up on the Jewish mind and will be the world’s best. We will yet achieve strength for we possess the power of the brain. In order to free our country and maintain our state, we shall need a wise foreign policy. We must turn our declaration of independence into a reality.  Secondly, we must establish and maintain the principle of reciprocity in our relations with the nations of the world. There must be no self-denigration.

^

Wednesday, May 17, 2017

Jabotinsky is Not on That Wall

This is at the main entrance square to the Mount Scopus campus of the Hebrew University, Jerusalem. The institution's founders:


From right to left is Judah Leib Magnes, Albert Einstein, Chaim Weizmann, Berthold Feivel, Martin Buber and Zvi Hermann Shapira.

Ze'ev Jabotinsky is not included.

He was a member of the Preparatory Commission established by the Zionist Congress in 1913 to move the project to fruition.  He was in charge of the work in Russia: canvassing, lecturing and raising funds.  He demanded not a research center but a real school, especially for the Jews suffering from the policy of numerus clausus and an education institute with a very practical-oriented course of studies.  

Oh, he objected to high salaries.

Rewriting history.

Excluding any one right-of-center.

^


Tuesday, May 16, 2017

Leo Strauss and Ze'ev Jabotinsky

From this article by Samuel Goldman, assistant professor of political science at The George Washington University. (thanks to MP)

Yet there is something missing from Howse’s portrait of Strauss as a liberal internationalist. That is a detailed consideration of the role of Zionism in Strauss’s thought about violence.

In his intellectual autobiography, Strauss describes his earliest political decision as a commitment to “simple, straightforward political Zionism” at the age of 17. Throughout the 1920s, he was active in the Revisionist movement led by Vladimir Jabotinsky. In the 1930s, Strauss endorsed the “the principles of the Right, fascist, authoritarian, imperialist principles…” as the only basis for defense of Germany’s Jews. In the 1940s, he offered a moral defense of the British Empire partly because of the mercy it offered to the vanquished—including the Jews settled in Palestine. In the 1950s and 1960s, Strauss lectured and wrote extensively on Jewish themes, rarely failing to voice his admiration and gratitude for the foundation of the State of Israel.

These facts are barely mentioned in Leo Strauss: Man of Peace. In fact, the only explicit reference to the State of Israel that I have found comes in the conclusion, when Howse mentions Strauss’s 1957 letter to National Review defending Israel from accusations of racism. As part of his polemic against the neoconservative appropriation of Strauss, Howse assures readers that, “This was an act of loyalty to the Jewish people, not to the political right.”

Howse may be correct about Strauss’s intentions. But Strauss’s personal relationship to the American conservative movement is not the most important issue. Strauss’s lifelong commitment to Zionism tells us something important about his views on political violence. In this decisive case, he endorsed the politics of national self-assertion that Howse contends he had rejected by end of his career.

Strauss makes this point obliquely but unmistakably in the “Note on Maimonides’ Letter on Astrology” that he composed in 1968. In the letter, Maimonides attributes the destruction of the Second Temple to the fact that the Jews relied on magic to provide their defense, rather than practicing the art of war and conquest like the Romans who defeated them.

Strauss describes the remark as “a beautiful commentary on the grand conclusion of the Mishneh Torah: the restoration of Jewish freedom in the Messianic age is not to be understood as a miracle.” The Mishneh chapters that Strauss cites clarify this statement, explaining that the only difference between between the current age and the Messianic era will be “emancipation from our subjugation to the gentile kingdoms.”

For the mature Strauss, in other words, the redemption of the Jewish people was not mystical event. It is a political condition, defined by the reestablishment of Jews’ sovereignty in their own land. The achievement depended on much the same unsettling principles that Strauss endorsed in the infamous letter to Löwith. It may not be a coincidence that they were written almost exactly one year after Israel won control of the Temple Mount.

Strauss may have hoped the Jewish State could eventually become a respected member of a peaceful international federation. Nevertheless, this passage suggests that t’shuvah may not have been the central theme of Strauss’s career. Rather than enacting a return from extremism to moderation, Strauss’s thought about political violence was remarkably consistent concerning the nation that he cared most about. When it came to the Jewish people, Strauss felt that he had nothing to repent.

^

I Received a Cruel Answer

I attended this week a lecture at the Hebrew University presented by a visiting academic dealing with the future of the territories [Judea and Samaria], Israel's administration of the same and the need for a shift in the way problem-solving is perceived within the context of the failure of the "two-state solution" for decades.  The academic wanted to progress to a new construct and paradigm.

At the outset, he presented several examples of how scientists have made presumptions only to realize that they were totally wrong.  One was the ether experiments that were predicated on the assumption that there actually did exist such a thing. Another was the move from Newtonian physics to the theory of relativity.

The lecture included terms such as negative as well as positive core heuristics, paradigms, anomalies, theoretical apparatus, construct, gestalt, colonialism, Kuhnsian shift, categories of coherent theory, etc. and at the end, there were questions and comments. One person stated, inter alia, that the two-state solution was an Arab initiative.  Poor Peel Commission or, for that matter, the division of historic Palestine in 1922 and the creation of Transjordan. The opinion was voiced that actually the Arabs of the Gallil were treated worse prior to 1966 than those of Judea and Samaria since.

I ventured a question and asked: is there any assumption underpinning the framework that you are suggesting that cannot be touched?  Puzzled he, I added: for example, Palestinian Arab nationalism.

The answer, he half apologized, would be cruel.  If this was a class of advanced physics and a student came in, he said,  and asked what that symbol on the blackboard meant, he would not be allowed to continue in the class.

That was it.

Of course, he could simply have replied that everything is open for discussion and study and experimentation.  Or that Jewish Zionism and a specific Arab Palestinianism are a given. But that, I fear, would have opened up a new front: if the Arabs have consistently rejected a Jewish  national identity since 1920, and doing it quite violently, and rejected every diplomatic initiative this past century and following that up with, yes, violence, and if Zionism is assumed to be colonialism as was intimated in the talk, then obviously, some fundamentals are sacred and cannot be touched while others can most definitely be challenged and whittled away or belittled.

In any case, I am glad that scientists discovered the world is no longer flat.

^


Friday, May 12, 2017

Amos Schocken and I and Friends Tweeting

Over at my twitter feed, we had a doozy today.

The beginning is almost lost, but archived somewhere, but after I tweeted a dig



got a response:




and then it basically really took off with this:




And here it went on:




and on




and on




and on



and on



I appreciate Amos Schocken being probably one of the most accessible newspaper owners/publishers.

And the conversation may still be going on in some form still (it is). And more.

And on:






Thank you, Amos.

^

Wednesday, May 10, 2017

"A Place for Muslim Worship Only": King Abdallah's Chief Advisor

Did you know that the Jordanian King's deputy took part in the Jerusalem forum in Istanbul where Erdogan sounded off?  

"As a Muslim community, we need to visit the Al-Aqsa Mosque often, each day that Jerusalem is under occupation is an insult to us."

HRH Prince Ghazi bin Mohammed, 




the King's Chief Adviser for Religious and Cultural Affairs and Persona Envoy, was at that international conference on Jerusalem Endowments held in Turkey.

He thanked the Turkish president for patronizing the gathering and supporting the steadfastness of Jerusalemites and holy shrines and reiterated the commitment of King Abdullah II, in his capacity as custodian of Jerusalem's Muslim and Christian holy sites [but not the Jewish ones], to continuing defending holy places on behalf of the Arab and Muslim nations.

He stated that the Al-Aqsa Mosque/Al-Haram al-Sharif remains a Muslim waqf and a place of worship for Muslims only, and it does not accept partnership, partition or negotiation in any way.

And he also obliquely related to me and my friends:

"But today, we are facing extremist movements in Israel. These movements are trying day and night to make gains in the Haram al-Sharif to make it a Jewish synagogue, as they did with the Ibrahimi Mosque...the long-term objective of these movements is the destruction of the Dome of the Rock to build the so-called Third Temple...They (extremist movements) are not ashamed to say it. These movements are somewhat restricted by Israel under constant pressure from Jordan and from His Majesty King Abdullah II." 

Note the content of the Israel-Jordan Peace Treaty:

ARTICLE 9PLACES OF HISTORICAL AND RELIGIOUS SIGNIFICANCE
  1. Each party will provide freedom of access to places of religious and historical significance.
  2. In this regard, in accordance with the Washington Declaration, Israel respects the present special role of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan in Muslim Holy shrines in Jerusalem. When negotiations on the permanent status will take place, Israel will give high priority to the Jordanian historic role in these shrines.
  3. The Parties will act together to promote interfaith relations among the three monotheistic religions, with the aim of working towards religious understanding, moral commitment, freedom of religious worship, and tolerance and peace.

New Construction in 'Palestine'

It is claimed that the

Al- Reehan Neighborhood is one of the most important residential neighborhoods in Palestine, developed with the latest standards, international methods and architectural planning in terms of design, implementation, infrastructure and public utilities.

Here it is:



It's part of the this:

which is the

Amaar Group...established in 2009 as the real estate investment arm of the Palestine Investment Fund (PIF) with an authorized capital of 140 million dollars.

And  Dr. Mohammad Nasr is its Chairman.

A competitor to the Rawabi project?

I hope all their licenses and paper work are legal.

^

Tuesday, May 09, 2017

Zionism: Yielding Territory Since 1919

The proposed map of the Jewish National Home as presented to the 1919 Versailles Peace Conference:



We've been yielding and surrendering territory ever since.

^

Yes, Palestine Was Southern Syria

Another confirming document, from 1919:


____________

And don't forget this

Arab demonstration, Jerusalem, 1919/1920. The banner on the left reads "We resist Jewish immigration", the banner on the right reads "Palestine is part of Syria". (Emphasis added) In the post-WWI Peace Settlement the League of Nations divided Syria and Palestine into French and British mandates. The Balfour Declaration of 1917, which pledged Britain's support for a Jewish National Home in Palestine, was included in the British mandate for Palestine.

The picture reflects the political tensions in Palestine after the British captured the area from the Ottoman Empire.  The region was being divided up by the Great Powers with France taking over Syria and Lebanon, and Great Britain assuming the mandate of Palestine (both sides of the Jordan River) and Iraq.  And in accordance with the 1917 Balfour Declaration, Palestine was to house the national Jewish home.  By 1922, the British had lopped off the eastern bank of the Jordan (some 70 percent of Palestine) to establish the Kingdom of Transjordan for Emir Abdullah.
^