Thursday, April 24, 2014

One Statism of Mordechai Nisan

No, I have not yet read Caroline Glick's new book, The Israeli Solution: A One-State Plan for Peace in the Middle East.

But, as even Caroline can tell you, I'm an old "one-state" hand.

Starting from Jabotinsky and Betar, the Land of Israel Movement and Shmuel Katz and on to HaTechiya and more, I have no shortage of the opinion that:

-  all of the territory between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea should be one polity;

- that Israel has all legal rights to that position;

- that Israel's future security requires the retention of those territories;

- that the demographic "threat" does not exist;

- that Israel will indeed be a democracy and a Jewish state.

- that a "state of Palestine" is the beginning of the end of Zionism and the state of Israel as they cannot coexist due to Arab/Muslim rejectionism and uncompromising hostility that has nothing to do with politics but of religion and culture.

There are many resources that shore up convincingly my approach and many have I published here at the blog over the past decade.

One book, recently published, that you should read, and its just less than 150 pages (Caroline's book is 350 or so), is that of my friend, Dr. Mordechai Nisan entitled "Only Israel West of the River". 




By the way, my copy of his 1977 "The Arab-Israeli Conflict, A Political Guide for the Perplexed" is also well-thumbed.

In short, the book treats "the national Jewish character of Israel, the danger of domestic Arab challenges, and the imperative of Israeli rule throughout the area west of the Jordan River". It also deals with demography and "arranging Jewish-Arab accommodation and political stability". Nisan proposes what he terms "the only reasonable political solution for a problem that is more than one hundred years old. The two-state solution, currently monopolizing political discourse, is a non-starter".

I agree.  In its seven chapters it presents facts, clarity of thought, a reasoned approach and no "messianism".  I do not like the term "settlements" that he employs, I'll admit.  "Communities" is my preferred word.

Read it.

^

Jabotinsky in UK Commons Debates & Question Time

The raw archival material of the mentions of Ze'ev Jabotinsky in various debates and parliamentary questions in the House of Common:

1.

HC Deb 27 April 1920 vol 128 cc1020-2 1020

§38 Sir WILLIAM WHITLA asked the Secretary of State for War and Air (1) whether the recent outbreaks of disorder in Jerusalem were preceded by anti-Jewish political demonstrations in that city; whether he has any information to the effect that such demonstrations were worked up by agents from Egypt;
(2) on how many days between the 1st and 10th April rioting took place at Jerusalem between Mohammedans and Jews; what was the total number of casualties in the two communities, respectively; whether any damage was done to religious edifices or private property; if so, has any estimate been made of the amount of the damage; will any compensation be paid; and, if so, by whom?
54. Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY asked the Prime Minister the nature and composition of the inquiry that is being held into the recent disturbances in Jerusalem; and whether it is being conducted in public?
§57. Lieut.-Colonel POWNALL asked the Lord Privy Seal whether his attention has been called to the statement that Mr. Vladimir Jabotinsky had been condemned in Jerusalem to 15 years' penal servitude; and, if so, whether, in view of Mr. Jabotinsky's services during the War, he will have inquiries made as to the circumstances which have caused such a sentence?
§3. Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY asked the Under-Secretary for State for Foreign Affairs whether Mr. Vladimir Jabotinsky has been sentenced to 15 years' penal servitude; whether this is the gentleman who was largely instrumental in raising the 38th Royal Fusiliers, which fought in Palestine by the side of British regiments; on what charge was he tried; what was the composition of the court; whether any appeal will be allowed; and whether any Arabs or Christians have been tried in connection with the recent disturbances in Palestine?
§10. Mr. KILEY asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Government sent instructions a few months ago to the British administration in Palestine that they were to regard the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine as an accomplished fact; whether M. Vladimir Jabotinski, who raised the first Jewish regiment to fight in the British Army in Palestine, was sentenced a few days ago by a British court-martial to 15 years' penal servitude according to the Ottoman penal code; and whether he will explain the reason for basing the sentence upon this code, in view of the Government's declared policy concerning Palestine?
§Mr. CHURCHILL I have been asked to reply. I shall be much obliged if all these questions are put down again for next Thursday, as the information necessary to enable me to make a statement is still incomplete in several important particulars, and I am awaiting a further telegraphic report from Lord Allen by on various points, including especially the case of Lieutenant Jabotinsky.
1022
§Colonel WEDGWOOD Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether Mr. Jabotinsky is still in prison, and, if so, where?
§Mr. CHURCHILL I understand that he is confined in Jerusalem.
§Colonel WEDGWOOD Have instructions been sent that he shall be properly treated in prison?
§Mr. CHURCHILL I have sent no instructions of that kind, but the British authorities are responsible for the proper treatment of prisoners.
§Colonel WEDGWOOD Were the British officers responsible for the pogrom which took place?
§Sir W. WHITLA Is it not a fact that Mr. Jabotinsky is treated as a political prisoner?
§Mr. CHURCHILL I do not think that is so. I am in communication with Lord Allenby by telegram, and I wished the series of telegrams to be completed before I make a statement to the House.

2.

HC Deb 15 February 1922 vol 150 cc1012-3 1012
§76. Mr. RAPER asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, as stated in the Palestine Press, Messrs. 1013 Jabotinsky and David Yellin were implicated in the importation and smuggling of arms into Palestine through the port of Haifa?
§Mr. CHURCHILL I have no knowledge of the Press reports referred to in the question. I am awaiting a full report on the incident from the High Commissioner for Palestine.
§Mr. RAPER Has the right hon. Gentleman's Department received any report at all on this question?
§Mr. CHURCHILL No, Sir; not according to my information.
§Colonel WEDGWOOD Is this the same Mr. Jabotinsky who took part in the raising of the Jewish Legion in the War?
§Mr. CHURCHILL It sounds very much like it.

3.

HC Deb 04 May 1920 vol 128 cc1877-9 1877
§29. Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY asked the Secretary of State for War and 1878 Air whether he can now state whether the British military authorities received any warning of the possibility of anti-Jewish rioting in Jerusalem on the occasion of the Moslem pilgrimage on 4th April last; if so, what steps were taken to preserve order; and whether Mr. Jabotinsky will be allowed to appeal against his sentence of 15 years' penal servitude?
§Mr. CHURCHILL I am still awaiting the full reports of the recent occurrences in Jerusalem, but I take this opportunity of informing the House that as well as the reduction of sentence on Mr. Jabotinsky to one year's imprisonment without hard labour, the sentences on the 19 Jews of three years' penal servitude, have been reduced to six months' imprisonment without hard labour. The sentences of 15 years' penal servitude on the two Moslems convicted of rape and on the Jew convicted of unlawful wounding have been allowed to stand.
According to my latest information, the total numbers tried by Military Court in Jerusalem amounted to 31, composing 21 Jews, 9 Mohammedans, and I Christian, As well as the sentences already enumerated the following additional persons have been dealt with or are awaiting trial:
1 Moslem convicted. Charge and sentence not yet known.
6 Moslems charged with making speeches in public places calculated to arouse hostilities. One of these was found guilty, sentenced to two years' imprisonment and fined £20. Three were acquitted and two absconded from bail. One Christian found guilty of a similar offence was awarded two years' imprisonment and fined £20.
5 Jews are now being tried on a charge of being in possession of firearms.
The following are also awaiting trial:
1 Jew for attempted murder.
2 Jews for being in possession of fire-arms.
1 Moslem for, it is believed, unlawful wounding.
3 Moslems for assisting the escape of absconders.
1879
§Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY Can the right hon. Gentleman now say whether Lieutenant Jabotinsky will be allowed to appeal against this reduced sentence?
§Mr. CHURCHILL I cannot say, without notice.
Major LOWTHER: Was the sentence of fifteen years' penal servitude confirmed by Lord Allenby?
§Mr. CHURCHILL The sentence has been reduced by Lord Allenby.


4.

HC Deb 29 April 1920 vol 128 cc1397-402 1397
§23. Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Mr. Vladimir Jabotinsky has been sentenced to 15 years' penal servitude; whether this is the gentleman who was largely instrumental in raising the 38th Royal Fusiliers, which fought in Palestine by the side of British regiments; on what charge was he tried; what was the composition of the Court; whether any appeal will be allowed; and whether any Arabs or Christians have been tried in connection with the recent disturbances in Palestine?
§24. Mr. KILEY asked the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether the Government sent instructions a few months ago to the British administration in Palestine that they were to regard. the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine as an accomplished fact; whether Mr. Vladimir Jabotinsky, who raised the first Jewish regiment to fight in the British Army in Palestine, was sentenced a few days ago by a British court-martial to 15 years' penal servitude according to the Ottoman penal code; and whether he will explain the reason for basing the sentence upon this code, in view of the Government's declared policy concerning Palestine?
§37. Mr. SPOOR asked the Prime Minister whether he has received any information indicating a lack of sympathy on the part of the British military administration in Palestine with the Government's declared policy of establishing in that country a Jewish national home; and whether he can say when the military administration will be exchanged for a civil administration in order that 1398 practical steps may be taken without delay to carry out the Government's repeated promise?
38. Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY asked the Prime Minister the nature and composition of the inquiry that is being held into the recent disturbances in Jerusalem; and whether it is being conducted in public?
§61. Lieut.-Colonel POWNALL asked the Lord Privy Seal whether his attention has been called to the statement that Mr. Vladimir Jabotinsky had been condemned in Jerusalem to 15 years' penal servitude; and, if so, whether, in view of Mr. Jabotinsky's services during the War, he will have inquiries made as to the circumstances which have caused such a sentence?
§124 Sir WILLIAM WHITLA asked the Secretary of State for War and Air (1) whether the recent outbreaks of disorder in Jerusalem were preceded by anti-Jewish political demonstrations in that city; whether he has any information to the effect that such demonstrations were worked up by agents from Egypt;
(2) on how many days between the 1st and 10th April rioting took place at Jerusalem between Mahommedans and Jews; what was the total number of casualities in the two communities, respectively; whether any damage was done to religious edifices or private property; if so, has any estimate been made of the amount of the damage; will any compensation be paid; and, if so, by whom?
§128. Mr. ORMSBY-GORE asked the Secretary for War and Air whether the British military authorities in Palestine were warned beforehand by the Zionist Commission that anti-Jewish excesses were probable at the time of the Nebi. Moussa festival; why these warnings were disregarded by the chief military administrator; and whether the formation of a Jewish self-defence corps was amply justified under the circumstances?
§The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR and AIR (Mr. Churchill) I have been asked to answer. I am not yet in possession of full details of recent events in Jerusalem, but from abridged reports which have been received by the War Office it appears that disturbances commenced in 1399 Jerusalem on the 4th April, on the occasion of the annual Moslem pilgrimage to Nebi Musa, and quickly developed into anti-Jewish riots. As the native police proved unreliable they were removed, control of the city handed over to British troops, and martial law declared. Spasmodic anti-Jewish outbreaks occurred up till the 8th April, from which date the situation became normal. Disturbances appear to have been confined to Jerusalem, and did not extend to the country villages. I regret to say that about 250 casualties occurred, of which nine-tenths were Jewish.
§ I am not in a position to state what actual damage occurred in the city, but there were, undoubtedly, certain cases of arson. As the House will realise, these events took place among Eastern people, and feeling appears to have run high. On such an occasion, there is no doubt but that both Moslems and Jews represented to the British Administration that the other was at fault, but in this connection a military Court of Inquiry has been constituted to inquire into the causes which led up to the disturbances. This Court does not sit in public, but religious heads of all denominations have been invited to attend or to send representatives.
§ The chief offenders have been tried before a military Court, and heavy sentences imposed. Jabotinsky was sentenced to 15 years' penal servititude for the crimes of possessing firearms, instigation to disobedience by arming the populace, conspiracy and preparing means to carry out acts of riot, while 19 other Jews, convicted of being in possession of firearms, were each sentenced to three years' penal servitude. Two Moslems, convicted of the rape of two Jewish women, were each sentenced to 15 years' penal servitude, and seven other Moslems, arrested in possession of firearms, are awaiting trial. The above prisoners, including Jabotinsky, are now confined as second division prisoners at Acre. They are confined to prison, but will be excused all hard labour and prison fare.
§ With regard to the whole affair, including the above sentences, as I told the House on the 27th instant, I am in direct communication with Lord Allenby, and I regret I have not yet received his answer, and further questions by hon. Members which are not covered by this 1400 statement must remain unanswered until I am in full possession of the facts.
§Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY Will the right hon. Gentleman answer my question? Is this Jabotinsky the same gentleman who raised the Jewish Battalion, the 38th Royal Fusiliers?
§Mr. CHURCHILL Yes.
§Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY Will any appeal be allowed against this decision?
§Mr. CHURCHILL I have said that the whole matter is being considered, and that I am asking for further information.
Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: Does the Government intend to send out a Commission of inquiry?
§Mr. CHURCHILL I think it is much more reasonable to await the full report of the Governor, Lord Allenby. When we know what were the full reasons which actuated the court-martial, and the full opinion of the responsible authorities we shall be able to form an opinion about it, but, of course, in the ultimate issue it must be His Majesty's Government that must bear the responsibility of taking the final decision in such a matter.
§Mr. SPOOR: Will the right hon. Gentleman reply to my question as to when the existing military administration will be replaced by civil administration?
§Mr. CHURCHILL I am afraid I cannot do that, but I hope it may be as early as possible.
§Commander Viscount CURZON Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether Mr. Jabotinsky is a purely Jewish resident, of Jewish descent, in Jerusalem?
§Lord R. CECIL Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us how soon the native police were replaced by British soldiers; whether rioting was allowed to go on for a day or two before any such replacement began or whether it was done immediately; and whether a precisely similar sentence to that passed on Mr. Jabotinsky has been passed upon Moslems for the rape of Jewish women?
§Mr. CHURCHILL In reply to the first part of the question, if it is suggested that the British authorities deliberately connived at a state of disorder amounting to a pogrom against the Jewish population, the suggestion is entirely 1401 without foundation. I cannot say exactly at what stage the native police were relieved, but I am quite certain they were relieved at the moment when the authorities on the spot thought that the state of disorder could be most speedily terminated by such action. So far as the comparison between the two sentences is concerned, I am awaiting telegraphic reports, which we have asked for, as it would be very improper for me, without any such information, to attempt to draw conclusions from the apparent anomalous discrepancies which may appear in these cases.
§Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is it not a fact that this Committee of inquiry is to inquire into the question of the preparations against this pogrom that might have been made in consequence of warnings given to the administration, and whether, if that is so, it is not unusual to appoint on the Committee the very people whose conduct is being inquired into?
§Mr. CHURCHILL I do not think that is so; the officers appointed—General Palin (President), Brigadier - General Wildblood, and a Colonel from the 3rd Division—I speak from the information I have at the moment—are not the officers concerned.
§Colonel WEDGWOOD Do they not belong to the same trade union?
§Lord R. CECIL Will the right hon. Gentleman further inquire whether or not, as alleged, any warning was given to the British authorities that a riot of this kind was in preparation, and whether they took the steps they did take in consequence of that information?
§Mr. CHURCHILL I certainly will make further inquiries. The matter does require full inquiry; but I am very much predisposed to the belief that our officers on the spot did their best under the circumstances. Further review of the whole circumstances by the Government may result in additional remedial measures being taken.
27. Lieut.-Colonel MALONE asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the satisfaction with which the Balfour declaration concerning the status of Palestine (which has been confirmed by France, Italy, America, and other Allied Powers) was received by the oppressed and persecuted Jewish peoples in Poland 1402 and other parts of the globe; and whether he will press for an early decision of the Palestine question by the Supreme Council?
§Mr. BONAR LAW I cannot add anything to the answer given on the 27th instant to a question on this subject by the hon. Member for Bedwelty.


5.

HC Deb 27 April 1920 vol 128 cc1020-2 1020
§38 Sir WILLIAM WHITLA asked the Secretary of State for War and Air (1) whether the recent outbreaks of disorder in Jerusalem were preceded by anti-Jewish political demonstrations in that city; whether he has any information to the effect that such demonstrations were worked up by agents from Egypt;
(2) on how many days between the 1st and 10th April rioting took place at Jerusalem between Mohammedans and Jews; what was the total number of casualties in the two communities, respectively; whether any damage was done to religious edifices or private property; if so, has any estimate been made of the amount of the damage; will any compensation be paid; and, if so, by whom?
54. Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY asked the Prime Minister the nature and composition of the inquiry that is being held into the recent disturbances in Jerusalem; and whether it is being conducted in public?
§57. Lieut.-Colonel POWNALL asked the Lord Privy Seal whether his attention has been called to the statement that Mr. Vladimir Jabotinsky had been condemned in Jerusalem to 15 years' penal servitude; and, if so, whether, in view of Mr. Jabotinsky's services during the War, he will have inquiries made as to the circumstances which have caused such a sentence?
§3. Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY asked the Under-Secretary for State for Foreign Affairs whether Mr. Vladimir Jabotinsky has been sentenced to 15 years' penal servitude; whether this is the gentleman who was largely instrumental in raising the 38th Royal Fusiliers, which fought in Palestine by the side of British regiments; on what charge was he tried; what was the composition of the court; whether any appeal will be allowed; and whether any Arabs or Christians have been tried in connection with the recent disturbances in Palestine?
§10. Mr. KILEY asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Government sent instructions a few months ago to the British administration in Palestine that they were to regard the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine as an accomplished fact; whether M. Vladimir Jabotinski, who raised the first Jewish regiment to fight in the British Army in Palestine, was sentenced a few days ago by a British court-martial to 15 years' penal servitude according to the Ottoman penal code; and whether he will explain the reason for basing the sentence upon this code, in view of the Government's declared policy concerning Palestine?
§Mr. CHURCHILL I have been asked to reply. I shall be much obliged if all these questions are put down again for next Thursday, as the information necessary to enable me to make a statement is still incomplete in several important particulars, and I am awaiting a further telegraphic report from Lord Allen by on various points, including especially the case of Lieutenant Jabotinsky.
1022
§Colonel WEDGWOOD Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether Mr. Jabotinsky is still in prison, and, if so, where?
§Mr. CHURCHILL I understand that he is confined in Jerusalem.
§Colonel WEDGWOOD Have instructions been sent that he shall be properly treated in prison?
§Mr. CHURCHILL I have sent no instructions of that kind, but the British authorities are responsible for the proper treatment of prisoners.
§Colonel WEDGWOOD Were the British officers responsible for the pogrom which took place?
§Sir W. WHITLA Is it not a fact that Mr. Jabotinsky is treated as a political prisoner?
§Mr. CHURCHILL I do not think that is so. I am in communication with Lord Allenby by telegram, and I wished the series of telegrams to be completed before I make a statement to the House.

6.

HC Deb 26 March 1930 vol 237 cc404-5 404
§23. Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can now state the circumstances under which Mr. Jabotinsky was convicted by a military court in 1920 to 15 years' penal servitude; whether he is aware that this was almost immediately afterwards reduced to one 405 year's imprisonment in the second division, and that Mr. Jabotinsky was amnestied and released, but subsequently appealed against the original sentence, as a result of which the proceedings of the military court were quashed with the exception of the finding that Mr. Jabotinsky had been guilty of being in possession of a revolver without a licence; and whether Mr. Jabotinsky entered into any undertaking never to return to Palestine?
§Dr. SHIELS The events referred to took place before the Colonial Office had any connection with Palestine; but I have ascertained that the facts are substantially as stated in the second part of the question. As regards the last part, I am not aware that Mr. Jabotinsky ever entered into the undertaking referred to.
§Sir A. POWNALL Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the services rendered by Mr. Jabotinsky during the War, especially in regard to the formation of a Jewish battalion?
§Colonel HOWARD-BURY Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Mr. Jabotinsky went to Palestine and made a very violent incendiary speech—
§Mr. SPEAKER The hon. and gallant Gentleman is always giving information instead of asking questions.
§Captain E. N. BENNETT Is it not a fact that a person deported from Palestine or any other country is ipso facto debarred from returning as and when he likes?
§Colonel WEDGWOOD Was he deported?
§Mr. ORMSBY-GORE Is it not a fact that the sentence was quashed and never ought to have been passed, and the hon. Member's suggestion is, therefore, without foundation?

7.

HC Deb 16 September 1931 vol 256 cc816-7 816
§11. Colonel WEDGWOOD asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether Lieutenant Jabotinsky may now be allowed hack in Palestine?
Mr. THOMAS After considering this matter further in consultation with the acting High Commissioner, I am satisfied that the circumstances are not such as would justify any modification, at the present juncture, of the attitude adopted by the late Secretary of State.
§Colonel WEDGWOOD Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Lieutenant Jabotinsky fought for us in the War and was decorated, and that he has been excluded from Palestine solely because of the Arab massacres?
Mr. THOMAS The question as to what should be the attitude to those who fought in the War will have to be considered in relationship to their present 817 attitude. I am sure that the late Secretary of State, who is always anxious to preserve what is called freedom of speech, arrived at this decision in the best interests of Palestine and in the best interests of everybody.
§Colonel WEDGWOOD May I ask whether the previous Secretary of State, who knew Jabotinsky well, did not have quite a different opinion of him?
Mr. THOMAS I do not know the opinion of the previous Secretary of State, but the late Secretary of State, Lord Passfield, considered the whole situation before coming to a decision. I see no reason to alter his decision.
§Colonel HOWARD-BURY Is not this gentleman a firebrand; and would it not be unwise to allow him to enter Palestine in the present state of affairs in that country?

History as it was being made.

^

Reconciliation on the Temple Mount

Excerpts from Israel Harel's column, on the Temple Mount:


If Israel would dare to grant Jews equal rights at the Temple Mount, then, after time, it will become the new norm.

.... it quickly became clear that the government of the Jewish nation didn’t want to embrace the historic, unparalleled gift that the paratroopers had bestowed upon it [in June 1967].  In their iniquity, successive Israeli governments, the Chief Rabbinate and all those others responsible for blocking a Jewish presence on the Temple Mount have led to the Jewish people’s loss of sovereignty over the site. Those that succeed in ascending feel like unwanted strangers at the Jewish people’s holiest place...
In 1967, officials of the State of Israel, including its clergy, were struck with a spiritual blindness. They didn’t understand the enormous national significance of returning to the Temple Mount, just as they only partially understood the significance of the liberation of Judea and Samaria...
...The recent Arab rioting on the Temple Mount − just another link in the chain of innumerable previous disturbances − is the rotten fruit of the refusal to assert Israeli sovereignty, due to a congenital Jewish fear that “it will set the entire region aflame.” ...
...An amazing convergence of powers prevents this wrong from being righted − Israeli governments, the Waqf, the rabbinical establishment (including the religious-Zionist rabbinical establishment), the United Nations, the Arab League and, of course, human rights groups. The latter fight ferociously for Arab freedom of worship anywhere, but object with equal vehemence to the right of Jews to pray at their holiest site, and the Supreme Court of the Jewish state supports them, automatically rejecting with the same responses petition after petition in which Jews seek the right to freely worship there.
So long as the Arabs feel that this government coalition is essentially backing them on this, the Temple Mount will continue to erupt and the destructive lava will continue to flow. But if the state would dare to declare equal rights for Jews there, if only the right to pray, and enforce that right with all the means at its disposal, then a new status quo will emerge. It will be tense at first, but over time, perhaps a long time, it will become the new norm. And eventually, the frequent intermingling may well create a dynamic of closeness.Anyone who opposes this opposes an historic reconciliation between Jews and Arabs in the Land of Israel and the possibility of fostering true peace.

 ^

Wednesday, April 23, 2014

Temple Mount Under TransJordanian Guns - and a Synagogue

As informed by my good friend Lenny Ben-David of Picture-a-Day, British Pathe newsreels are up.

In this one, you can see TransJordian troops and irregulars invading Mandate Palestine.

What caught my interest was the stationing of troops on the northern side of the Temple Mount:



the courtyard:



and the Dome of the Rock



and then I noticed off to the south-west, in the Jewish Quarter above, the "Tiferet Yisrael (Nissan Bek) Synagogue" complete


In other words, as the Synagogue was blown up on May 21, 1948, we can presume the film was shot sometime between then and the day of the invasion, May 17


^

Martial Law in Mandate Palestine

The source for some of the footage for "Last Night We Attacked":-




The Goldschmidt Officers' Club was blown up on March 1, 1947.


^

Tuesday, April 22, 2014

Jerusalem Between Israel, Washington and the "West Bank"

As we now know

The US Supreme Court on Monday granted certiorari in three cases slated for argument during the October 2014 term. In Zivotofsky v. Kerry, the court will address the constitutionality of a federal statute requiring the Secretary of State, on request, to endorse US passports and Consular Reports of Birth Abroad of US citizens born in Jerusalem with "Israel" as the place of birth. The US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit found the statute unconstitutional on grounds that it "impermissibly infringe[d] on the [p]resident's exercise of the recognition power."

As I have opined, the case, I think, could be strengthened by pointing out two additional, if quite simplistic, aspects of the affect of the law.

In the first case, not appending a "state" identification would cause a bureaucratic burden in that it could so develop that the United States citizen, birth registered and subsequently carrying a passport without a birth location, if visiting a country with a city named "Jerusalem" could conceivably be ordered to either pay taxes, or be liable for military service or some other civic obligation as if he were a citizen of that other country.

In not being able to easily and immediately prove that he was born is another country, i.e., Israel. due to the State Department's regulations and the refusal of the President to follow through on the Jerusalem Act, his lack of country identification on his official papers causes a hindrance that could easily be resolved by adding "Israel".

In the second case, State Department regulations at the present recognize something called the "West Bank".

As I have blogged five years ago, the document U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 7 – Consular Affairs 7 FAM 1300 Appendix D Page 11 which can be read online here, reads


"c. Birth in the West Bank or in the No Man’s Lands between the West Bank and Israel: The birthplace for people born in the West Bank or in the No Man's Lands between the West Bank and Israel is WEST BANK; Those persons born before May 1948 in the area known as the West Bank may have PALESTINE listed as an alternate entry. Those born in 1948 or later may have their city of birth as an alternate entry. Persons born in the West Bank in 1948 or later may not have Palestine transcribed as an alternate entry." 

Now, as you and I and the State Department well know, there is no state of the "West Bank". 

Nevertheless, if you read "g." carefully, it gets worse:

g. Birthplace in Area Formerly Known as Palestine: An applicant born in the area formerly known as Palestine (which includes the Gaza Strip, the Golan Heights, Jerusalem or the West Bank) may object to showing the birthplace. In such cases, explain the Department of State (CA)’s general policy of showing the birthplace as the country having present sovereignty. The Senior Passport Specialist, Supervisory Passport Specialist or Adjudication Manager at a domestic passport agency or center or supervisory consular officer or regional consular officer at a U.S. embassy or consulate may make an exception to show PALESTINE as the birthplace if the applicant was born before 1948. If the applicant was born in 1948 or later, the city or town of birth may be listed if the applicant objects to showing the country having present sovereignty.

"Sovereignty"?  Whoa there.  No one has sovereignty, the State Department usually claims as regards Israel so how come it includes that term there?  Why is the "West Bank" to be permitted as a supposed sovereign country but Israel which surely has a much better proven sovereign administration, including a capital. a Supreme Court and government offices as well as a seat of government with a residing Prime Minister and a residing President is denied such a status?

And as for the term "West Bank", besides not existing as a country/state, the term "West Bank" was first used to describe what the United States considered an illegal occupation and annexation by the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan of the area in April 1950.  

If the State Department refuses to permit "Israel" to be the state in which "Jerusalem" is located, 




why do they recognize the opposite when it comes to the "West Bank"?

Is that logical?  Or is that simple bias?

In any case, the US Supreme Court should not extend assistance in any legal way to this situation.  The Justices should indeed intervene and whether or not it is a matter of constitutionality, there is a simple matter of justice: you cannot treat Israel any less than something, which is non-existent and has much less proof of sovereignty, called the "West Bank".

_______________

And read this.

^


Sunday, April 20, 2014

The UN's Serry Calls for Respect of Religious Freedom

Can you believe this story?

Robert Serry, the United Nations special coordinator for the Middle East peace process, joined the procession of Jews ascending to the Temple Mount, along with other diplomats, and criticized the Israeli police actions in Jerusalem and closure of roads leading to the Holy Site.

"The procession was stopped at the fourth security checkpoint prior to the entry on to the grounds of the former First and Second Temples,” he said in a statement. “Despite earlier assurances to the Jewish community in Jerusalem, from all across Israel as well as visiting Jews from abroad, such as Rabbi Meir Soloveichik, of unhindered access on the occasion of Passover celebrations, the Israeli police refused to allow such entry claiming they had orders to that effect. A precarious standoff ensued ending in an angry crowd pushing their way through."

He called on all parties "to respect the right of religious freedom, granting access to holy sites for worshipers of all faiths and refraining from provocations not least during the religious holidays."

Of course not.


Here's the original story:-

Robert Serry, the United Nations special coordinator for the Middle East peace process, joined the Easter procession along with other diplomats and criticized the Israeli police actions in Jerusalem and closure of roads leading to the Church of Holy Sepulcher.

"The procession was stopped on the fourth security checkpoint prior to the entry on the church grounds,” he said in a statement. “Despite earlier assurances to the Palestinian Christian community in Jerusalem of unhindered access to the Holy Sepulcher Church on the occasion of Easter celebrations, the Israeli police refused to allow such entry claiming they had orders to that effect. A precarious standoff ensued ending in an angry crowd pushing their way through."

He called on all parties "to respect the right of religious freedom, granting access to holy sites for worshipers of all faiths and refraining from provocations not least during the religious holidays."

What was I thinking?

^

One Hot Egyptian Woman



Her name is Firnas Hafzi.  Her beat is women and fashion.  Usually.

She wrote the "The Jews Can Rejoice In Their Holidays Only If They Eat Matza Laced With The Blood Of Non-Jews" article.  Here it is in Arabic.

She previously wrote one on the Shabbat.  It contains this explanation of Halachic observance:

The handcuffed rites of Jews on Saturday...forced them to isolation from the others in the area and made them a closed sectarian group. But the Jews skip prohibitions through authorization through license which takes the form of getting around the law by a fatwa issued by any of the scholars of the Jews. For example, some of the Jews put food on Saturday after a half-mile from their home, and thus this place becomes their home, and they then have to walk half a mile further. The Israeli armed forces hired Arabs to do the job. Since a Jew could not demand of a non-Jew to do the job directly, he must allude to it, for example, they need to light a fire to keep warm they'll say: «It's cold here». There are other forms of dispensation practiced by Jews in Israel and beyond.

It also opined by one of the rabbis that he doesn't mind if monkeys or dogs are trained to turn off the lights (on Saturday) and of doing other household tasks, if you were not such animals from the family property , in this case considered to be part of the family! ! They should rest with the rest of the members of the family.


Really hot stuff.

^

No Matter How Hard You Stare

If you go here, you can observe some nice-looking young Arabs.  Even enticing:-




And even if you stare hard enough, you won't see Israel.


^

Islamophobia or Going the Route of Rationality

Culture, or Climate, of Fear is a term used to indicate that an innocent culture or religion or approach-to-life is evil or at least threatening and that this term is ultimately employed to incite fear amongst the public, usually to achieve a political goal to quash or eliminate or restrict this culture. This is done by exaggerating the potential danger and more often than not, portrays the fears in an irrational manner.

Muslims face what is called Islamophobia which is presented so:


Latent and manifest Islamophobia: An inception of ideas
Has the Islamophobia industry used fear to lull our intellect to sleep and implant racist ideas about Muslims?

Over at Berkeley's Center for Race & Gender's Islamophobia Research & Documentation Project, we are informed that

The term "Islamophobia" was first introduced as a concept in a 1991 Runnymede Trust Report and defined as "unfounded hostility towards Muslims, and therefore fear or dislike of all or most Muslims." The term...incorporate[s] the following beliefs:
Islam is monolithic and cannot adapt to new realities
Islam does not share common values with other major faiths
Islam as a religion is inferior to the West.  It is archaic, barbaric, and irrational.
Islam is a religion of violence and supports terrorism.
Islam is a violent political ideology.

And the Project's working definition is so:

Islamophobia is a contrived fear or prejudice fomented by the existing Eurocentric and Orientalist global power structure.  It is directed at a perceived or real Muslim threat...Islamophobia reintroduces and reaffirms a global racial structure through which resource distribution disparities are maintained and extended.

I am nonplussed because if a threat is "real", the fear is justified, although, of course, not all measures of response can be employed.  In a new book, we learn that


 "Terrorism is not the product of radicalpolitics but a symptom of political impotence." The antidote therefore seems self-evident: "A strong, active and confident Muslim community enjoying its civic rights to the full." Yet policy on both sides of the Atlantic has ended by criminalising Muslim opinion, silencing speech and increasing social division. These results may make political violence more, not less, likely.
which, of course, excuses "excesses".  All can be explained away by disingenuously minimalizing threats.

Note this, for example:




which is a graphic of those who believe that Muslims should be the new "Almoravids" (‘the body of men committed to the fight of establishing true Islam’ who preached "true Islam" and the waging of Jihad against infidels), that a revelation of the Caliphate in Jerusalem is imminent and that the army of Mohammed is coming. These are usually dismissed. Lyn Julius notes that there is a


politicization of the study of Islam and its treatment of non-Muslims. Young minds are being brainwashed by a sanitized version of history 

But it gets worse.

Dr. Charles Small, who I heard two years ago at a seminar in Jerusalem, most recently pointed out


...the tactics of incitement and dehumanization are once again on the world stage without meaningful protest by the international community. Overt calls by the Iranian Regime, and other radical Islamists to annihilate the Jewish state; references to Israel as a cancer and the Jewish people as “dogs”, “bacteria”, “pigs”, “apes” have been met with collective indifference. Where is the leadership against this outrage? Once again, the world, and much of our human rights gatekeepers in academia, are silent. 

It can be difficult confronting the challenge of those who seek to defend the most outrageous of ideologies by hurling charges of "Islamophobia" at one. Yossi Klein Halevi failed when he co-wrote an apology for Brandeis University's rescinding of recognition of Ayaan Hirsi Ali in publishing that the honorary degree was wrong because Ali 


crossed the line from critic of Islamist extremism to demonizer of Islam itself, repeatedly labeling the faith of more than a billion believers as an enemy against whom war must be waged.

Of course, in Halevi's criticism of Israel rightist forces, there is no such phobia. Phyllis Chesler reacts to Halevi by asking

Who gets to decide who is a “renegade” and who is a “dissident”?  

and continues:

Ayaan HIrsi Ali is an important ally in the battle against Islamism–just as important as are religious Muslims such as Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser. Most of all, Western concepts of freedom of speech and academic freedom should protect, not banish truth-tellers who stand for women’s rights in fundamentalist cultures. Halevi and Antepli go further and almost–but not quite–view the Jew-hatred in the Muslim world as morally equivalent to the kind of alleged insult to Islam represented by one woman. One woman. Who offers us reasoned argument and personal experience.

Yes, there are isolated extremists.  This new campaign has a goal of "frightening" and "threatening" rebuilt Zion.  But they do not remain isolated for long.  Yes, there are Islamic terrorists and yes, there is an extreme Islam and yes, Islam is extreme.

That is not Islamophobia.

There must be a counter-thrust.  Here, in a small and limited way, is an example when William Shawcross, the UK Charity Commission, stated in an interview this week:

“The problem of Islamist extremism and charities . . . is not the most widespread problem we face in terms of abuse of charities, but is potentially the most deadly. And it is, alas, growing.”
...Last month, he wrote to the prime minister requesting laws to strengthen the regulator’s powers. “It is ludicrous that people with convictions for terrorist offences are not automatically disqualified from serving as charity trustees,” he said.

We need to take back the stage of ideas, the rules of debate, the route of logic and rationality.

Saturday, April 19, 2014

Dartmouth U. Pres. Against Extreme Campus Behavior



Dartmouth president calls for 

end to ‘extreme behavior’ 

that mars image of elite college

and thought to myself: he's coming out against the BDS movement, the pro-Islamic hysteria and the anti-Zionism rampant on campuses.

I was wrong.

Here's the story:

Dartmouth College’s president lamented Wednesday that the Ivy League school’s promising future “is being hijacked by extreme behavior,” including sex assaults, parties with “racist and sexist undertones,” and a campus culture in which “dangerous drinking has become the rule and not the exception.” Philip J. Hanlon, a Dartmouth alumnus who took office in June, said such problems were taking a toll on the image of the 245-year-old college in Hanover, N.H. Applications to Dartmouth fell 14 percent this year, the sharpest drop in two decades, and the federal government has launched an investigation of issues related to sexual harassment and sexual violence there. Philip J. Hanlon says that the school’s promise “is being hijacked by extreme behavior.” Gallery The biggest commencement speakers of 2013: President Obama, Melinda Gates, Oprah Winfrey, the Dalai Lama and Stephen Colbert mixed tough love in their upbeat speeches and advice to this year’s grads. Here’s where they spoke — and what they said. Click here to subscribe. “The actions I have detailed are antithetical to everything that we stand for and hope for our students to be,” Hanlon said...

Well, each to his own.

My Anti-David Newman Letter

In response to David Newman:-

Rights of others 
Sir, – David Newman’s fulsome and magnanimous praise for Rabbis for Human Rights (“Rabbis for human rights celebrate Passover,” Borderline Views, April 14) notes that this group attends to the situation of human rights even of the enemies of the State of Israel, for which we should be thankful.

Would that these rabbis concerned themselves also with the human rights of almost 400,000 Jews in Judea and Samaria, and the additional 210,000 Jews living in Jerusalem’s post-1967 neighborhoods as well. But they do not. In fact, on too many occasions they work against them, so these rabbis are active on behalf not of human rights, but of the political rights solely of Arabs in those areas.

They might, as Newman phrases it, be “lending dignity to the universal messages” of Judaism, but they are not at all concerned with the Jewish rights of Jews.

YISRAEL MEDAD Shiloh 

^

Friday, April 18, 2014

In (Oiy!) Praise of Self-Restraint

In A distinguished police, Dan Margalit writes about the police behavior during this Passover week.

They closed the Temple Mount to all non-Muslims because they allowed fanatic, violent and extremist Muslim forces to infiltrate the Mount, hole up in Al-Aqsa and collect lethal stones,



(updated new one:



and those didn't come from the police)

waving Hamas, etc. flags and banners



(you notice the souvenir police shield?)

and another now updated:




and when the violence started, could barely contain it and didn't stop it.  And in response, instead of telling the Waqf officials that the Mount was off limits for a week due to the violence and instead of charging those few arrested according to the Law for the Protection of the Holy Places, they closed the Temple Mount to entry off all non-Muslims.

The logic of the Israel Police, the Minister and the Prime Minister.

What does Margalit think about all this?

Excerpts:-

Violent clashes at the Temple Mount and the Western Wall area go back to the early days of the conflict. The Holy Basin set the region ablaze on multiple occasions, even before the Arabic word intifada (popular uprising) became a household name in Israel...And this week rocks were hurled on visitors, for the umpteenth time. This will undoubtedly happen again.

This place...represents the heart of the conflict...The Muslims on the mountain have never missed an opportunity to instigate violence. The police, however, refused to be provoked this week, despite the barrage of rocks they sustained. They stood there, without being drawn in. This is what I call extreme self-discipline. Such restraint and forbearance is almost unbearable for a human being...The police made a wise decision by holding fire...The police's conduct serves Israel well. Israel wants the world to see it can accommodate all faiths in the area and wants to make sure things remain in control...The security forces at the Temple Mount should be awarded a citation, each and every one of them. As Pirkei Avot says, a hero is someone who knows how to hold back. I can't think of a better manifestation of that adage.

There is no need for lethal response.

As I noted, an ounce of prevention would have halted all this.

A close-down would be punishment enough. 

The police, to prevent Jews from entering, claim they have 'intelligence' that indicates provocations and danger but it seems they had nothing, because they were looking at the Jews, not the Muslims. They blind-sided themselves.  They were worried what King Abdallah II would say, not what Israel's laws read.

They yielded to violence.

That is something not to be very proud about.

Self-restraint can be self-destructive.

^

Thursday, April 17, 2014

Shiloh. Dispute. Conspiracy. Surrender. Arrest.

No.

Not at Shiloh, Mateh Binyamin.

Arizona.

And the Shiloh is a dog:-


After Mark Dixon and his ex-wife, Carol Johnson, terminated their marriage in late 2009, they got into a custody dispute over Shiloh, an Australian shepherd.

On Dec. 2 of that year, Dixon was pulled over by three plainclothes Pinal County sheriff's deputies with semiautomatic weapons, according to the incident report and court records.  Dixon alleges he was ordered to surrender the dog or face immediate arrest, so he acquiesced. A civil complaint he filed in federal court against a group of Pinal County deputies and Dixon's ex-wife says he argued that the disagreement with his wife was a civil matter and that deputies "did knowingly and willingly criminally extort property" by threatening arrest if he did not give up the dog. His lawsuit accused Pinal County officials of conspiracy.

In a court motion, Dixon asserted that his ex-wife, who then worked for a credit union, had assisted Pinal County Superior Court Judge William J. "Bill" O'Neil in obtaining a $300,000 loan prior to the canine-custody dispute.

Dixon, who represented himself during most of the case, speculated that O'Neil, who was not named as a defendant, returned the favor by influencing deputies to seize the dog.

Deputies denied any conspiracy, court records show, and O'Neil also denied any impropriety in an interview with The Arizona Republic. Defense attorneys successfully argued that the lawsuit, which sought $5 million in damages, was legally flawed and failed to show proof...

^

BBC Headline Comes Up Short

BBC presumes you know who gets "killed" in the territories:

And while the lead-in sentence manages to include the word "Israeli":

A meeting between Palestinian and Israeli peace negotiators has been postponed in the wake of a killing of an Israeli in the West Bank.

Somehow, they couldn't find room for that word in the headline: 





Or perhaps they were hoping you'd think the IDF was running wild.  Or those "hilltop youth".

___________________________

Received this from a friend:


It's taken them three days and numerous versions of that same article to even get to that:


and a P.S.

just noticed this at the bottom:


Also on Wednesday, clashes erupted between Palestinian protesters and Israeli police at a holy site in Jerusalem, known to Jews as the Temple Mount and Muslims as the Haram al-Sharif (Noble Sanctuary).
Reports say the violence broke out after the site was opened to visitors in the morning. The protesters began throwing stones, and the police officers responded by firing stun grenades and rubber bullets. The AFP news agency reported that dozens of protesters were hurt.
Clashes, dear BBC, do not just "erupt".  They start when, as in this case, Muslims throw stones and worse in order to prevent visitors, Jews, from entering the compound.

^

And now a P.P.S.:-


JERUSALEM (Reuters) - Israeli riot police entered one of Jerusalem's most revered and politically sensitive religious compounds on Wednesday to disperse rock-throwing Palestinians opposed to any Jewish attempts to pray there. The confrontation erupted after Israeli police tried to escort some 20 visitors onto the plaza revered by Muslims as the Noble Sanctuary and by Jews as the Temple Mount in Jerusalem's walled Old City. Palestinian youths, who a Reuters photographer said had gathered inside al Aqsa mosque, ran outside and threw rocks at the group. Israeli police in riot gear pushed onto the plaza and used stun grenades to disperse the demonstrators, but did not enter al Aqsa itself.