Saturday, March 23, 2019

What is a 'Historical Connection'?

Great Britain's Ambassador to Jordan, Edward Oakden, was told two years ago by Jordan's Lower House Speaker, Atif Tarawneh, that Jordan attaches great importance to the Palestinian cause and believes that the Hashemite custodianship is the legitimate guardianship of Jerusalem's holy shrines. And he added:

"Jordan's custodianship is firm and historically entrenched and any attempt to circumvent that is bound to inflame the sensibilities of Arabs and Muslims around the world"

On that background, consider the statement of Jordan's King Abdullah II who is vowing to keep protecting Islamic and Christian holy sites in Occupied Jerusalem. He called it

a “red line” for his country

and admitted during a visit to the Zarqa governorate last week 

that he’s under pressure to alter his country’s historic role as custodian of the Jerusalem holy sites but that he wouldn’t. Abdullah says: “I will never change my position toward Jerusalem in my life.”

This is a consistent line. Last April. the King was quoted

Stressing that the Hashemite custodianship of Islamic and Christian holy sites in Jerusalem is “a historical duty and responsibility that we are proud to carry”, King Abdullah said: “We will persevere in upholding this responsibility, in coordination with our brothers at the Palestinian National Authority and with your support.”

What "history" is he talking about?

The most compact statement is this, from the 2013 Jordan-PLO Agreement on the Jerusalem Holy Sites:

Recalling the role of King Al-Sharif Hussein Bin Ali in protecting, and taking care of the Holy Sites in Jerusalem and in the restoration of the Holy Sites since 1924; recalling the uninterrupted continuity of this role by His Majesty King of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, who is a descendant of Al-Sharif Hussein Bin Ali; recalling that the Bay’ah (oath of allegiance) according to which Al-Sharif Hussein Bin Ali held the custodianship of the Jerusalem Holy Sites, which Custodianship was affirmed to Al-Sharif Hussein Bin Ali by the people of Jerusalem and Palestine on March 11, 1924; and recalling that the Custodianship of the Holy Sites of Jerusalem has devolved to His Majesty King Abdullah II Bin al-Hussein;

An expanded research booklet is here. That "custodianship" was based on some eight months that Ali claimed to be Caliph but was tossed out:

Two days after the Turkish Caliphate was abolished by the Turkish Grand National Assembly on 3 March 1924, Hussein declared himself Caliph at his son Abdullah's winter camp in Shunah, Transjordan.[10] The claim to the title had a mixed reception, and Hussein was soon ousted and driven out of Arabia by the Saudis, a rival clan that had no interest in the Caliphate.

That booklet first debunks Jewish history. Rather badly and so stupidly. On page 59, we read:

The present-day Israeli narrative seeks to justify the ethnic domination of Jews in the Holy Land by making the claim that the earlier 400-year connection of Jews to Jerusalem (and the later 100-year connection) gives Israel sovereignty over it. However, Jerusalem was founded by the Arab tribe of the Jebusites 2000 years before the arrival and brief rule of the Hebrews. In fact, many different nations and peoples have lived and ruled in Jerusalem, but for more than 1200 years of the last 1400 years since 638 CE, Jerusalem has been a predominately Arab and Islamic city. Moreover, in the 5000 years since Arabs founded the city, they have maintained a constant presence there (as Muslims or pre-Islam) and have ruled it for at least 3200 of the 5000 years of recorded history, compared with only about 500 years of Hebrew and Jewish rule.


Then, on pages 56-57, the Jordanian "historical connection" is explained:

...the Jordanian Hashemites took on the role of the guardians and custodians of the Muslim Holy Sites in Jerusalem. In 1918, British Commander Hogarth was instructed to deliver a guarantee to Sharif Hussein bin Ali — Emir of Mecca and father of the founding King of Jordan Abdullah I — that Muslim Holy Sites shall be considered a Muslim concern alone and shall not be subjected directly or indirectly to any non-Muslim authority. Since 1922, the Hashemites have undertaken three major restoration projects of the Holy Sites in Jerusalem and since 1948 Jordan has continuously maintained the Awqaf Administration in the Old City. The First Hashemite restoration of the Dome of the Rock and the Al-Aqsa Mosque took place during the period of 1922–1924, under the auspices of Sharif Hussein and in cooperation with the Supreme Muslim Council. This exceptional historic role continued during the periods of the “British Mandate”, the period of Jordanian rule over East Jerusalem (1948–1967) and even after the Israeli occupation of East Jerusalem (1967–present). Sharif Hussein bin Ali donated 24,000 golden lira to the first renovations of Al-Aqsa Mosque and requested to be buried there before his passing.  

History of less than a century.

Jordan was not officially a country, a sovereign and recognized country, until 1946, by the way.

There you have it.


Thursday, March 21, 2019

The Other Spies and Agents of Zionism

Alerted by this piece, I learned there's a new book out: ‘Spies of No Country: Secret Lives at the Birth of Israel’.

It treats the interesting chapter of Jews from Arab lands who enlisted in the Palmach's Shachar Unit. The unit was

the successor to the former Arab Platoon, sent, after the UN Partition Plan of November 29th, 1947, a number of teams behind enemy lines. Their goal: to gather intelligence in real time as to the future intention of the Arab neighbors.The unit was active inside Arab nations, as well as within Arab-controlled sectors within Israel.
One of the four spies Friedman deals with has described his childhood experience, when he was 12, that led him on his path

One day, in 1936, while I was working during the summer holiday in the Montefiore neighborhood, I saw three Arabs passing through a nearby field and a Jew walking in the opposite direction. They proceeded to stab him to death and as I watched the entire incident, I screamed my head off," Yakuba recounted about an incident that had a profound effect on him as a child.
I have blogged previously about one of his early operations, before the period which Friedman deals with, summarized here:

In 1943, Yakuba took part in the first operation in which the Arab Squad participated, which came to be known as "The Surgical Operation". It was a reprisal operation the objective of which was to castrate an Arab youth who had raped a Jewish girl. "The rape was shocking and the punishment also sounds shocking today. We were briefed by a physician in Afula, but encountered difficulties trying to anaesthetize the subject and the business became really nasty. Luckily, the 'operation' was successful and eventually the fellow even managed to recover," recounted Yakuba at the time. During the operation, he was assigned to guard the subject's family, while two of his comrades in arms, Yohai Bin-Nun (who subsequently became the commander of the IDF Navy) and Amos Horev (who later became the President of the Technion) "handled" the subject. Later on, Yakuba was involved in tracking, kidnapping and eliminating a sheik from Safed who had been accused of raping a mother and her daughter in Rosh-Pina.
But my point is that there were others, members of the Irgun and the Lechi, who also assumed he identities of Arabs to spy and even engage in offensive operations.

There even was an Arab from Tzfat who eventually converted to Judaism and fell in the line of duty. He was Baruch Mizrachi.

The Lechi hero, Elisha ("Shmuel") Ivzov (Hebrew resource) was killed in March 1948 on his way driving a truck bomb to the headquarters of the Arab Liberation Army led by Fawzi al-Qawuqji.

Their stories, and thos of others, deserve a good literary treatement.


Thursday, February 28, 2019

Haaretz and Menachem Begin

Those following Israeli politics in an historical perspective are aware of the Hypocrisy Principle.

The Hypocrisy Principle is employed by the Left and what it does is act as a weapon against the Right.  How it works is whenever a current right-of-center nationalist politician is to be criticized, a position, a statement or an action by either Ze'ev Jabotinsky or Menachem Begin is exemplified as the 'proper thing' whereas the current politician is portrayed as in error.  The hypocrisy is that at the time, the very same positions, statements or actions were severely criticized but now, they are held up as a paragon of proper conduct.

An example:

'He's a Crazy Man': Decades Before Netanyahu Welcomed Heirs, Begin Warned of 'Dangerous' Kahane

In a secret meeting with the U.S. ambassador in 1980, former Prime Minister Menachem Begin voiced loathing for the racist rabbi

The context:

...Lewis asked Begin whether he would consider allowing two Palestinian mayors living in the United States to return to the West Bank. The two had been deported because Israel said they were inciting to violence. Begin was vehemently opposed to that idea. And to justify his position, he noted that Israel had also taken steps against Rabbi Meir Kahane, the leader of the Kach party. Begin then told Lewis why he nevertheless used a law he despised against Kahane. “We undertook measures against Rabbi Kahane and his friends,” he said. “Having agreed to his administrative detention I had no peace with myself for days. I believe in due process. The High Court eventually confirmed the legitimacy of our action. But still, it was not easy on my soul. I agreed because he could have brought disaster – not on our people but on Arabs. We had no choice. He is a crazy man. He could have brought on us disaster. He is a dangerous man.”

Saturday, February 23, 2019

'Saving Private David Ben-Gurion'

From this academic paper:

Sedjera has been the first Jewish village in the East of the Lower Galilee, from the very begining they turned to us to help protecting the village. They hired a guard from Kfar Kama, Daot Gorkhoz (...) One night at Sedjera, while everything was calm and quiet, and while everyone was asleep (...) Daot noticed that there was some light in house, and that it was unusual for that hour. Suddenly, he saw a shadow, he loaded his gun and aimed the target. He said: "Stop, who are you?", in order to know if it was someone from the village, he asked the password. The person answered correctly and when he approached, Daot realized he was one guard from the village. The guard asked Daot why he was here, Daot answered that he had hear a noise and that he wanted to know where it came from. The guard ordered him to return to his position, Daot obeyed. 

Less than an hour later he heard shouts and cries, he came back to the  place, there were some gunfires. All the guards rand and Daot told them: "some people attacked the village, there was a fight between them and David". David was lying on the ground, he was bleeding. Daot took him on his shoulders and carried him to the house next door to Moshe Korakin's one. He ran to the infirmary of the village to prevent the auxiliary, they returned together to David with a bag ful of drugs in order to treat him. The auxiliary said: "we must go for medical assistance immediately, we need to go to Yavnel to advise the doctor, David is going to die". Daot suggested to go there, the guards told him "do not go alone, take someone with you" but Daot told them that it would be better to use all the guards to protect the village and that he was not afraid to go there alone. He jumped on his horse and went right to Yavnel, not by the road, like people usually do, but through the fields because it was faster even if it was dangerous because of the gangs who were helding the fields. But Daot knew he could not waste time (...) nobody was daring to go out at night because everyone was afraid of the gangs. 

When he arrived at Yavnel, he knocked on the door of the doctor but all the family was deeply asleep. The he shouted "open, open" until the doctor opened. Daot explained him that there was an emergency case in Sedjera and that he had to come right now in order to prevent the guard diying in the night. The doctor mounted his horse and asked Daot which way he took to arrive to Yavnel. Daot answered "by the fields", the doctor told him that it was too dangerous and that they should go through the road of Kfar Kama, in order to be secured. When they arrived at Sedjera, the doctor examined David and said that his state of health was very worrying and that he had to  be brought to the hospital, in Tiberias (...) David was saved.


Thursday, February 21, 2019

"From the Breasts of the Youth": Poland 1922

In November 1922, Gabriel Narotuwicz was elected President of the Polish Republic. He was eventually assassinated a mere five days later, accused among other claims that he was too sympathetic to the Jews..

On the background of the remarks of Acting Foreign Minister Yisrael Katz, quoting Yitzhak Shamir, "that Poles 'suckle anti-Semitism with their mothers' milk'” it is historically necessary to note this:

From the breasts of the youth a spontaneous call went forth: ‘We don’t want this kind of president! We don’t know him! Down with the Jews!’ This chant echoed through the streets of Warsaw and spontaneously a march was formed. (p. 2 of this doctorate)

As explained there

When the Bloc’s votes tipped the scale in favor of Narutowicz, the candidate of the left, a violent and fiercely anti-Semitic campaign was orchestrated against the new president. It was waged jointly by the National Democratic press, parliamentary deputies, and demonstrators in the street, all of which claimed that only a “Polish majority” had the 2 right to elect the president of Poland.

Jews were always "aliens" in Poland. No matter what other charge Polish nationalists make, justified or not during the interwar period and just entering the Holocaust period - about Jewish Bolsheviks, about part of the Soviet oppression, economic exploitations, etc., at the end, Jews were not real citizens. And so, ghetto benches were set up, kosher ritual slaughter was banned partially, pogroms took place and other violent actions.


Background on the new Polish controversy:-
"Zimmerman finds, among other things, that the attitude of the Polish underground toward the Jews reflected the prewar political views of its individual officers, commanders, and major constituent bodies. Those who had been open to a more pluralistic Polish society—one that accepted minorities as part of the landscape of Poland—had a radically different attitude toward Jews than those whose orientation as narrowly nationalistic.
Attitudes toward the Jews not only mirrored prewar political stances, but also were shaped by geography and the progress of the war. Why geography? Attitudes common in eastern Poland—the territories first occupied by the Soviet Union after
September 17, 1939—were strikingly different from those common in territories occupied at that time by Germany. Zimmerman’s findings correlate with Timothy Snyder’s description of “double occupation” and “double collaboration” in the zones first occupied by the Soviets and later, after the June 1941 invasion, by the Germans. Poles in the East generally did not grasp that Jews may have been more
welcoming to Soviet occupation because the alternative was German occupation; for Jews, the Soviets represented protection from ghettoization and persecution, though few could as yet conceive of the coming annihilation. Similarly, many Poles were ready to identify Jews with Communism, but less willing to understand the impact that Communism had had on Jews as individuals—merchants and religiously observant Jews, for example...

...Those who argue that many Poles were not unhappy about the elimination of Jews from Poland—even if they were revolted by the Germans’ means—will find substantiation of their views in Zimmerman’s work. Yet, those who take note of Polish sympathy toward the Jews can point to other compelling and competing evidence."
From Michael Berenbaum's review of The Polish Underground and the Jews, 1939–1945 by Joshua D. Zimmerman


Who Wrote: "We must be free of the Arabs"?

Who wrote this?

“Sir, you should end the quarrel which divides the world in two. Our ancestors described a man like you as the one who will do it. We must be free of the Arabs—with air we can breathe, a view of the horizon around us clear of Arabs, no cries of pain from a sheep which an Arab has knifed, and every animal should die peacefully and be left undisturbed for us to drain it empty and clean it right down to the bones. Cleanliness—that’s what we want— nothing but cleanliness.” Now they were all crying and sobbing. “How can you bear it in this world, you noble heart and sweet entrails? Dirt is their white; dirt is their black; their beards are horrible; looking at the corner of their eyes makes one spit; and if they lift their arms, hell opens up in their arm pits. And that’s why, sir, that’s why, my dear sir, with the help of your all-capable hands you must use these scissors to slit right through their throats”. 



Wednesday, February 20, 2019

David Blatman's Call for Violence

On January 31, 2019, Haaretz published an op-ed authored by Daniel Blatman.

Entitled "Who Will Lead the Revolt?", Blatman raises a dark spectre.  However, since it seems not to have appeared other than in the Hebrew original, it has not drawn enough attention, if any, I assume.

Blatman bemoans the lack of a proper response to the Netanyahu threat. Netanyahu supposedly accuses journalists as "traitors" according to Blatman. He is leading Israel to a apocalyptic breakup.

Therefore, organization is required.

Yet, there is no real worthwhile political figure to save Israel.

One. Lapid it seems, is a journalist celebrity with a huge ego.

Another is a general, presumably Gantz, who is proud of what he did to Gaza.  Blatman then adds,

as if he were General Jurgen Stroop, who prepared a grand album to mark his victory over the Warsaw Ghetto.

Comparing the IDF Commander-in-Chief to a Nazi is, well, breathtaking. Of course, Haaretz saw nothing wrong in that.

Blatman then devotes most the rest of the article to John Brown.  The American Abolitionist. He is Blatman's hero. Now do you realize why the title is "Who Will Lead the Revolt?"?

In the penultimate paragraph he writes that several of the speech Brown made in the courtroom should be embedded in the minds of

all who seek the proper ways to confront the darkness descending upon us

In case you missed that history lesson, John Brown  was an American abolitionist who believed in and advocated armed insurrection as the only way to overthrow the institution of slavery in the United States. He led the Pottawatomie massacre in 1856. He was in charge of the raid on Harper's Ferry.

Blatman ends his op-ed with a call:

Would that there arise among us a leader that would speak such words in that spirit [of Brown - YM], he would be worthy more than anyone to stand at the head of the camp of John Browns that will go out to struggle for the existence of Israeli democracy"

This is what Blatman wrote and what Haaretz printed.

Support for insurrection.

Labeling Gantz a Nazi.

Suggesting Netanyahu is destroying Israeli democracy.

Think about that.


For those who cannot access the original, I reproduce it below:

מי ינהיג את המרי
כמה שורות בניתוח הפוליטי של יוסי ורטר ("הארץ"', 25.1) היו צריכות לחולל השבוע מהפכה בתפישתם של אלה שמתיימרים להציב אלטרנטיבה לשלטון בישראל. וכך כתב ורטר על הרגע שבו יבין בנימין נתניהו שאין עוד סיכוי למנוע את סילוקו מראשות הממשלה והעמדתו למשפט בגין עבירות שהרשעה בהן עלולה לשלחו לכלא: "אז יגיע השלב שבו נתניהו יודיע לבייס שלו: זהו, אין אלוהים. ביום הזה, הדמוקרטיה הישראלית תועמד בסכנה של ממש... כשיכלו כל הקיצין יהיה מי שייתן את האות להמון המוסת, שמוחו כבר יהיה רווי במסרים של שנאה ונקם, לקום. להסתער". הכתובת הזאת רשומה כבר על שלטי חוצות עם דיוקנאות של עיתונאים המסומנים כ"חורשי מזימות", ועל קיר הפייסבוק של נתניהו, שמסמן בקביעות את מערכת המשפט ואת "השמאל" כבוגדים.

לו היה היום משמאל לליכוד מנהיג בעל שיעור קומה, הוא היה יוצא אל מול המחנה הגדול של חרדי קריסת הדמוקרטיה הישראלית ואומר דברים ברורים: אנחנו בדקה ה–89 שלפני השבר האפוקליפטי שאליו מוליך נתניהו את ישראל. אם לא נתארגן מבעוד מועד, מה שהיה לא יהיה עוד. ואם הדרך לשם מצריכה תובנה שמשמעותה שבירת כל הכללים הישנים והתארגנות למאבק שונה מכל מה שידענו בעבר — יש להתארגן לכך מבעוד יום. אבל במקום זה, יש לנו חבורה עלובה ומבולבלת, הכוללת עיתונאי־סלבריטאי נפוח אגו, מחפשי פלטפורמה פוליטית שתביאם לכס המיניסטר, או גנרל המתגאה כי החזיר לתקופת האבן עיר נצורה, שבורה, מוכת רעב ומחלות, משל היה הגנרל יורגן שטרופ, שהכין אלבום מפואר לציון ניצחונו על גטו ורשה.

אברהם לינקולן, מדמויות המופת של ההיסטוריה המודרנית, הוביל את עמו למלחמת אזרחים עקובה מדם, ועדיין, הנשיא שהביא על המדינה הצעירה יחסית, בשנות ה–60 של המאה ה–19, את המשבר הגדול בתולדותיה, והעמיד בסכנה את עצם קיומה, נחשב היום לאחד מגדולי מנהיגיה, דמות מופת שדורות של אמריקאים מתחנכים לאורה. ולא, אין זה רק משום שמחה את כתם העבדות, שהיתה גוועת ממילא במרוצת השנים. לינקולן נהפך לסמל חשוב משום שניחן ביכולת שאין היום לאף מנהיג פוליטי בישראל, המבין את הסכנה הגדולה העומדת בפני הדמוקרטיה החבוטה, אך אינו מעז לומר את הדברים האלה בפני המחנה הגדול שהיה מוכן לצאת ולהגן עליה — לומר אמת לבני עמו.

נאום ההשבעה של הנשיא האמריקאי לקדנציה השנייה, ב–4 במארס 1865, ראוי שיילמד על ידי מי שמתיימרים להציג אלטרנטיבה לחבורת החושך המנפצת את הדמוקרטיה הישראלית לרסיסים. לינקולן קבע, כי הרצון של מצדדי העבדות לשמור על המוסד הזה הביאם עד כדי נכונות לפרק את הברית בין מדינות ארה"ב, גם אם הדבר כרוך במלחמה קשה. מתנגדיהם, במקרה זה הממשל, רצו למנוע את ריסוק ארה"ב. אבל בעצם, שואל לינקולן, מהי סמכות הממשל לכפות נורמות מוסריות על חלקים בחברה השוללים את הנורמות האלה ולצאת למלחמה בשמן? ובהשלכה למציאות כאן: מהי סמכותם של שומרי הדמוקרטיה הליברלית הישראלית לקום ולהיאבק, גם במאבק אלים, נגד אלה הרוצים לכונן נורמות אחרות, לשבור ולשנות את המציאות שהתקיימה ב–70 שנותיה של המדינה?

לינקולן, הנוצרי האדוק, קובע ביחס למצדדים בעבדות: "לכאורה מוזר הוא, שבני אדם יעזו לבקש מאלוהי הצדק שיסייעם להוציא לחמם מזיעת אפם של בני אדם אחרים". אבל הוא מוסיף, בהסתמכו על הברית החדשה: "אַל תִּשְׁפְּטוּ לַמַּעַן אֲשֶׁר לֹא תִּשָּׁפְטוּ" (מתי, ז, 1). כלומר: אין אנו יכולים לדעת מה כוונתו של האל, והתפילות של אף צד לעולם לא נענות במלואן. אבל כאן לינקולן עושה את ההכרעה הגדולה שלו כמנהיג בעל שיעור קומה היסטורי: "אם ברצון האלוהים שהיא (מלחמת האזרחים, ד"ב) תימשך עד שכל העושר שנערם ב–250 שנים של עמל ללא תמורה של המשועבד (העבדים, ד"ב) יחרב כליל, ועד שכל טיפת דם שהוקזה בשוט תיפרע בטיפת דם שתוקז בחרב, כמו שנאמר לפני 3,000 שנה, עדיין יש לומר: 'מִשְׁפְּטֵי ה' אֱמֶת צָדְקוּ יַחְדָּו'" (תהילים, יט, 10). כלומר, מכיוון שאין אנו יודעים מה רצונו של האל, ומכיוון שנכפתה עלינו המלחמה הנוראה הזאת, חובה מוטלת עלינו להמשיך בה עד שעוול העבדות יגיע אל קצו. לינקולן מאמץ את המסקנה הפרשנית לפסוק הזה, שלפיה הכרעות בני האדם, בניגוד למשפט האל, אף אם הן נעשות על פי הדין והיושר, אינן יכולות להיות נקיות לחלוטין מעיוות ועוול, שכן בן אנוש אינו יכול לשקול במדויק כמו האל בהכרעות של חטא ועונש. ובכל זאת, מוטל על האדם להכריע בהתאם למיטב הבנתו את צו האל. וכך הוא עשה.

כל קונפליקט אלים בחברה שמתפתח למלחמת אזרחים, יסודו במאבק על נורמות וערכים, שבו צד אחד מערער על הקיים ומנסה לנטרל את יריבו. קונפליקטים חברתיים כאלה יכולים להסתיים ללא אלימות, כל עוד שני הצדדים מקבלים את נצחיותן של הנורמות שהיו קיימות בחברה מאז שכוננה כמסגרת קולקטיבית, שכל חבריה שותפים וולונטרית לאותה מערכת ערכים. אבל כשצד אחד מדיר קולקטיב גדול מנורמות היסטוריות מקובלות ומנסה לקבע במקומן הגדרות חדשות, תוך כדי עשייה אלימה, חייבים אלה המאמינים כי "מִשְׁפְּטֵי ה' אֱמֶת צָדְקוּ יַחְדָּו", כפי שהאמין לינקולן, לקום ולעשות מעשה.

מלפיד, גנץ, גבאי, לבני, ברק, יעלון או כל מנהיג/ה אחר/ת שטרם יצא לפני המחנה ואמר את שצריך להיאמר, יש לצפות שיפסיקו להתבזות ולהטעות את כמחצית מהישראלים. אלה מרגישים, בתסכולם הרב, כי הם עומדים למצוא את עצמם בקרוב במדינה שבה חלומם יתמצה בתקווה שילדיהם ונכדיהם יהגרו לאוסטרליה, לאנגליה או לקנדה. אבל לא יודעים באמת כיצד לעצור את הקטסטרופה המתרגשת עליהם.

מהמשבר הגדול בסוגיית העבדות בארה"ב נחרת בזיכרון במיוחד המקרה של ג'ון בראון, מתנגד קיצוני של העבדות. ב–16 באוקטובר 1859 הוא פרץ, בראש 22 מאנשיו, ובהם ששת ילדיו, למחסן נשק בווירג'יניה, במטרה לצייד בנשק את תומכיו ולהקים בהרים מחנה מקלט לעבדים. הוא נתפס, נשפט והוצא להורג בדצמבר 1859. בראון הפך במורשת האמריקאית לדמות מופת של איש הנוקט אקט של מרי אזרחי למען הגשמת מטרה נעלה. כמה משפטים מנאומו האחרון בבית המשפט ראוי שייחרתו במוחו של כל מי שמחפש את הדרך הראויה להתייצב מול האפלה היורדת על חיינו כיום: "אילו התערבתי כך (במרי האזרחי, ד"ב) למען העשיר, התקיף, המשכיל, הגדול, וסבלתי והקרבתי כפי שסבלתי... לא היה איש פוצה פה; וכל אחד בבית משפט זה היה רואה במעשה זה דבר הראוי לפרס ולא לעונש. (אבל, ד"ב) כאשר התערבתי למען הענווים הבזויים לא עשיתי אלא צדק. עכשיו, כשאתם רואים צורך לגזור עלי כי אקפח את חיי למען קידום מטרות הצדק, שאערב את דמי בדם ילדי ובדמם של מיליוני ארץ העבדים הזאת, שזכויותיהם נדחקות על ידי חוקי אוון רשעים ואכזריים, אני מקבל עלי: יהי כן!".

לו יקום בינינו מנהיג שיידע לדבר דברים ברוח זאת, הוא יהיה זה הראוי מכולם לעמוד בראש מחנה הג'ון בראונים, שייצא למאבק על קיום הדמוקרטיה הישראלית.

פרופ׳ בלטמן הוא היסטוריון באוניברסיטה העברית


Tuesday, February 19, 2019

The Infamous Palestinian Authority Disappearing Act

Following up on this story

PA deletes Jewish history from key sites in Judea and SamariaNew signs and website ignore Jewish roots to key archaeological sites and nature reserves, Regavim reveals • Concerted effort, which includes renaming of sites, is in clear violation of 1995 interim agreement with Israel • Regavim: Israel must act.

I ended up here.

And not only is it history, but anything currently Jewish like my home village of Shiloh.

It isn't anywhere on that map. Not to mention that "Beverly Hills" description.

Here's from Google Earth:

Shiloh's been 'disappeared'.

Hello? Emek Shaveh. Amnesty?



I see now that if you enlarge the map, you will get Jewish locations:

However, since technically, tourists can visit Jewish locations and there are Arab artifacts at and near Shiloh, it still is odd that the location gets no mention in the description.


From A Locked Gate to a Synagogue at the Temple Mount

Yesterday's events are reverberating.

After a Muslim pray-in at the Golden Gate along the eastern wall of the Temple Mount compound, towards the north, last Thursday, the police locked the entrance gate at the top of the stairs.

Yesterday, Muslims tried to break in and there was pushing and shoving.  Here's extract from Wafa's account:

Israeli police broke into Al-Aqsa Mosque compound in Jerusalem’s Old City this afternoon after closing all gates leading to it and arrested individuals inside the compound after people removed chains and gates the police had earlier placed at the Golden Gate building in the prevent its use, according to witnesses.

They said a number of Palestinians removed the metal gates and chains the police had on Sunday placed at the stairs leading to the building adjacent to the closed Golden Gate, also known as Bab al-Rahmeh, considered a property of Al-Aqsa Mosque, following calls for holding the Muslim prayers at the building in defiance of the Israeli police decision.

Immediately after this, police closed all gates leading to the Muslim holy compound as its forces carried out arrests among those present inside it while forcing the Muslim worshippers to leave it.

There's a video clip here.

Here's the reaction of Mahmoud Abbas

The Palestinian presidency strongly condemned the Israeli closure of the Golden Gate (Bab al-Rahmeh) with locks and chains, warning against Israeli plans aimed at imposing the temporal and spatial division of the mosque.

He is demanding that Israel preserve "the mosque’s status quo of 1967".

The Jordanian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Expatriates condemned "in the strongest possible terms" the Israeli police closure of al-Aqsa Mosque in occupied Jerusalem and the assaults on worshipers.

The ministry's official spokesman, Sufian al-Qudah, demanded that Israel, as the occupying power, "act in accordance with international law and immediately reopen the gates, respect the sanctity of the holy place, not hamper the entry of worshipers, withdraw security forces at the holy compound and respect the feelings of Muslims," according to Jordan news agency, Petra.

The spokesperson slammed the Israeli measures at al-Aqsa as "a flagrant violation of the historical and legal status quo and Israel's obligations under the international law and the international humanitarian law, as the occupying power, and held it fully responsible for the safety of the mosque."

(UPDATE: On the Jordan/PA coordination now)

Here is the Golden Gate or Mercy Gate (Sha'ar HaRachamim) in green

Another Wafa report raises a suspicion:

Officials have expressed concern that Israel may allow Jews to hold prayers in the Golden Gate area and possibly build a Jewish temple there after separating it from the rest of Al-Aqsa compound.

It would be a wonderful site for a synagogue.  In fact, it is a two-halled structure that would easily divide, and equally so, for a men's and women's section each. It is also located way below the level of most of the Temple Mount esplanade as can be seen in the first picture above.

The blue area I marked in the photo above is where this structure is:

Seems to be a storeroom. Not a religious building.

That would fine for a temporary synagogue. It's quite near the Children of Israel Gate, off on the side, would not interfere with Muslims.

Five years ago, I suggested a site right next to the Hallel Gate (formerly Mughrabi Gate).

The Waqf has added at least two new mosques since 1967 (and are working on a third) so actually, there is no status quo regarding buildings and construction.  A small synagogue, quite unobtrusive, is feasible and would fulfill the terms of the Israel-Jordan Peace Treaty's Article 9:

Each party will provide freedom of access to places of religious and historical significance...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.

For My House is a house of prayer for all peoples (Isaiah 56:7).

And that should include Jews.

P.S.  For a Hebrew-language background, see here.


UPDATE: Israel seems to have capitulated.  

Gate removed altogether.


Another report.

The Western Wall As A symbol for Western Media Bias

I've heard and read a lot about the Western Wall Plaza but this is remarkable:

Visually, anyone who’s ever been to Israel and been to the Wailing Wall has seen that the women have this tiny little spot in front of the wall to pray, and the rest of the wall is for the men. To me, that’s a great representation of the American media, is that in this tiny little corner where the women pray you’ve got Breitbart and Fox News and a few others, and from there on, you have CBS, ABC, NBC, Huffington Post, Politico, whatever, right? All of them. And that’s a problem for me, because even if it was reversed, if it was vastly mostly on the right, that would also be a problem for me.
My experience has been that the more opinions you have, the more ways that you look at everything in life — everything in life is complicated, everything is gray, right? Nothing is black and white.

That was from an interview with  Lara Logan, foreign correspondent for CBS’s 60 Minutes.

Her interviewee 

characterized U.S. news media as “absurdly left-leaning” and supportive of Democrats, further describing the status quo of American news media’s left-wing and partisan Democrat biases as a “huge f***ing problem” and “disaster for this country.”


Logan concurred, “I agree with that. That’s true.” She described U.S. and international news media as “mostly liberal,” adding, “most” journalists are left.
“The media everywhere is mostly liberal, not just the U.S.,” assessed Logan.

Shall we pray?