Monday, July 16, 2018

Jabotinsky as a "Celeb"

Ze'ev Jabotinsky made Aliyah in October 1926, after visiting the country first in 1908 and then residing in it, first as an officer in the Jewish Legion, March 1918-July 1919, and then as an official of the Zionist Commission and head of the Hagana in Jerusalem (and, curtesy of the British, residency in Acre Prison).

Here is how he was received in Jerusalem:




By the way, that Goldsmit House was owned by Avraham Tzvi Goldsmit, son of Yaakov Yosef Goldsmit of Amsterdam who arrived in Jerusalem in 1866 and was a cloth merchant.

Soldiers of the Irgun blew it up on March 1, 1947 as it was the Officers' Club residence of the British Army.



Credit: Jabotinsky Institute

Here's official stationary:



^

Lost: A Cathedral

I have written (here and here) about the situation in Cordoba in connection to the Temple Mount as I see an exact parallel: an ancient sacred site, lost, retaken, former group seeks to pray.

Why cannot Muslims accept or at least recognize that what Jews wish in Jerusalem is what they themselves are doing in Cordoba, Spain?

What they demand for themselves in Spain, they refuse, violently, to Jews in Jerusalem.

I see that the Cathedral term is barely used as it is now promoted as a Mosque.

As here:

"Today the Mezquita de Cordoba (Cordoba Mosque) as it is comonly [sic] known (or the Cordoba Cathedral as it was know by its owners the Catholic church) can be visited throughout the year for an entrance fee. Following a dispute between the church and the city over the name of the building in the 2010's it is now diplomatically called "Cordoba Mosque Cathedral"  

For other similar sites:

and here.

Is the Cathedral lost?

^


Sunday, July 15, 2018

The Political Warfare of BDS


An extensive excerpt from an interview (thanks to BT) with with Jeffrey Herf, Distinguished Professor of History at the University of Maryland. His books include Nazi Propaganda for the Arab World, The Jewish Enemy: Nazi Propaganda during World War II and the Holocaust, Divided Memory: the Nazi Past and the Two Germanys, and Reactionary Modernism: Technology, Culture, and Politics in Weimar and the Third Reich with Alan Johnson, editor of Fathom:


AJ: What do you mean by the term political warfare?


JH: It’s a term that the British foreign office used in World War Two. Political warfare entails the specific use of propaganda to reinforce an ongoing armed attack. For example, East Germany and the Soviet Union were able to use the United Nations effectively to legitimatise their undeclared war on Israel, through dozens of UN General Assembly resolutions in the 1970s and 1980s in which East Germany played an important role.

Political warfare persists to this day in the Boycott, Disinvestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement: never ever mention a terrorist attack on Israel, or, if there is an attack on Israeli citizens, refer to it as a form of ‘justified resistance’. Then, having refused to describe accurately the terrorist attack on Israel, focus instead on Israeli retaliation. And, because you have not discussed the previous terrorist attack, describe this Israeli retaliation as a form of ‘unjustified aggression’. All these rules were set down in this earlier period.

AJ: One fascinating part of the book examines how UN leaders, such as General Secretary Kurt Waldheim, ignored detailed reports from Israeli representatives about this political warfare campaign and about the Arab states’ armed attacks against Israel. Can you tell us about that?

JH: One of my great research discoveries was the extent of the UN’s bias, its unbalanced views and its indifference to attacks on Israel. The UN permits its members to send reports to the Secretary General and the President of the Security Council, which are then circulated to all members of the UN. Gideon Rafiah, Chaim Herzog, Yosef Tekoah and Yehuda Blum, all Israeli ambassadors to the UN during the 1960s and 1970s, made excellent use of this system by sending reports with details descriptions of the ongoing attacks on Israeli civilians to all member representatives to the UN. They are the most detailed record that we have, perhaps anywhere outside the Israeli archives, about the ongoing terrorist campaign that was being raged against Israel in those years. Yet the information in these reports was overwhelmingly ignored in the UN resolutions that were passed.

AJ: What was the response of the West to this undeclared war on Israel?

JH: The centrality of the US alliance to Israel’s security became obvious in the years following the Six-Day War and particularly during the Yom Kippur War in 1973. (Ironically, critically important American military assistance to Israel in 1973 came from US President Richard Nixon, who had minimal support among American Jews.) Over the course of Israel’s short history, when push came to shove, in the event of war and peace, Israel has had one ally with the will and ability to come to its defence – the US. At the UN , US Ambassadors Daniel Patrick Moynihan and Jeanne Kirkpatrick fought off waves of attacks on Zionism, vetoing many UN resolutions. But any hopes of Europe joining these US efforts were suppressed after the Oil Crisis, when the Europeans came under increasing pressure from the Arab states.

AJ: Having touched upon the what, I would like to now focus on the why. Why did East Germany wage this war against Israel? Was it a hangover of attitudes from the Nazi period? Was it about antisemitism? Was it more to do with developments in left-wing thought at the time? Or was it cynical geopolitics to keep the Arab states on side?

JH: The book is about the leadership of the East German government. I don’t know how ordinary people who were living in East Germany thought about Jews and Israel. The book is not about the aftereffects of Nazi Germany in the population of the 17 million or so people living in East Germany. Of course, for many of them, it would defy common sense to assume there was no after effect of Nazi propaganda. But the communists took the position that they did because they were communists. They were not Nazis. And I think this is important. The problem of the communists is not that they were like Nazis. It  is that they were communists. And it was as communists that they rejected Zionism. To them, Zionism was an  anachronism, a form of reactionary nationalism. Anti-Imperialist nationalism was fine but not Zionist nationalism.

So East Germany’s war against Israel was a matter of ideological conviction; they genuinely despised Zionism. But it was also a matter of power politics and strategic calculation – the two reinforced each other. The communists rejected Zionism as a form of nationalism and as a competitor to Marxism in some working class constituencies in Europe. And after the anti-Cosmopolitan purges of the 1950s, the decent, pro-Zionist left, vanished in the Communist world.

East Germany’s other reason to oppose Israel was to do with Cold War competition with West Germany, which was busy trying to isolate the East German government diplomatically. Bonn defined East Germany as illegitimate and threatened to cut off diplomatic and economic ties with all East Germany’s allies. This was called the Hallstein Doctrine. The primary goal of East German foreign policy was to counteract the Hallstein doctrine by establishing diplomatic and political relations with other countries outside the Soviet bloc. And how was this to be done? Otto Winzer, East Germany’s foreign minister in the 1960s, made the argument that the key to breaking the Hallstein Doctrine was to play the anti-Zionist card by siding with the anti-Zionist Arab states – and the Palestinians. The fruits of Winzer’s plan were seen in 1959 when Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Yemen and Libya all signed agreements to start diplomatic relations with East Germany, and each denounced Zionism.

The reinforcing interaction of those two components – power politics and ideology – accounts for the passion with which East Germany went along with Soviet policy against Israel. 

AJ: Today we find that ‘Holocaust Inversion’ – treating Zionism as the new Nazism, Israelis as the new Nazis, and so on – is spreading. Do its roots lie in this period? 

JH: Two Israeli historians, Meir Litvak and Esther Webman, wrote a book called From Empathy to Denial: Arab Responses to the Holocaust in which they point out that the idea of Israelis as the new Nazis has been a theme in Arab politics since the late 1940s and early 1950s. In this sense, the Stalinists took an idea that originated in the Middle East and spread it throughout all the communist movements in world politics. The Israeli-as-Nazi theme was enormously important because – and I made this point in Fathom about Ken Livingstone – what the communists accomplished by accusing the Israelis of being Nazis was to take the language of anti-fascism, ironically, and turn it against the Jews and against Israel. Of course, the Nazis despised Zionism and it is completely ridiculous to say the Nazis were in favour of Zionism. Anti-Zionism was a part of Nazi propaganda and Nazi policy.

This Nazi analogy broke into world politics in a very big way at the start of the Six-Day War in 1967 when the Soviet ambassador to the UN compared Israel’s air attack to the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union in June 1941. The Soviet ambassador was associating the Soviet Union as a victim of Nazi Germany with the third world as the victim of British colonialism, manifested in the form of Zionism. This placement of the language of anti-fascism – which has enormous moral prestige around the world and in the British left and in the left of Western Europe and all over the world – into the discourse of the assault on Israel, was devastating. It was one of the greatest accomplishments of communist political warfare at the time, and it endures to this day in a variety of forms.

In Germany, of course, there was the added component of the Holocaust. Dieter Kunzelmann was a West German leftist who wrote an essay in 1969 about the need for the West German left to overcome what he called ‘the Jewish complex’. ‘The Jewish complex’, he wrote, stood in the way of making the revolution in West Germany because it burdened the left with so much guilt about the Holocaust that they were unable to make a revolution. To view Israelis as the new Nazis and the PLO as the new revolutionary brothers and victims of fascism, would unlock the path to revolution in West Germany. Kunzelmann’s essay was called ‘Shalom and Napalm’ and it was an important break with the West German government tradition of coming to terms with the Nazi past and remembering the Holocaust.

AJ: The use of the Nazi analogy is actually growing today in the UK.

JH: Well, I noticed in my research into this period that there are really no new ideas in the BDS movement. I read a review in the Times Literary Supplement a couple of months ago about the ‘new discourse’ of BDS. Actually, what’s really happened is the academicisation of an older discourse – the political warfare discourse of the Communists, the PLO and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), and the UN anti-Israel resolutions of the 1970s. All that has now entered into universities.

AJ: You claim that East Germany pioneered a ‘Eurocentric definition of counterterrorism.’ What did that definition entail and how did it shape the UN’s attitude towards terrorism aimed at Israel?

JH: This is one the most interesting aspects of the book and it made me understand how complicated the world of intelligence is.

The Stasi, East Germany’s state intelligence service, had a serious problem. On the one hand, East Germany was the transit for young PLO members seeking military training and hoping to attack Jewish institutions in West Germany or Western Europe. East Germany had a reputation in the Middle East for being a supporter of the PLO and the Arab states in their wars with Israel. Young men, mostly, came from Beirut and Damascus and Cairo to the Soviet Bloc and to East Germany and received military training or university fellowships or they learnt German, or whatever. And then, they wanted to go to West Germany or West Berlin or Western Europe and attack the imperialists that were supporting Israel. Or they wanted to attack the Jewish institutions in West Germany.

On the other hand, the Stasi knew that if anybody travelled from East Berlin to West Berlin and committed a terrorist act, condemnation would inevitably and swiftly be placed at the doorstep of the East German government by the West’s security services. The Stasi understood that if this happened it was going to put détente at risk as well as the millions of deutschmarks that were coming to East Germany from West Germany.

So, the question was how to continue to support terrorism aimed at Western interests, and at Israel, but prevent terrorist attacks in West Germany. The Stasi tackled this problem by establishing a formal written relationship with the intelligence services of the PLO in order to locate and prevent the people who wanted to commit terrorist attacks in West Germany and Western Europe. Of course committing terrorist attacks anywhere else was encouraged – hence ‘the Eurocentric definition of counterterrorism.’

AJ: Was there opposition to the undeclared against Israel within East Germany itself?

JH: Within the Communist party after 1953, no. The last leading opponent of the East German communist party to oppose the undeclared war against Israel was Paul Merker. A non-Jewish member of the Communist Party politburo, Merker’s crime was to make the rational case that the communists – because they had fought against fascism and anti-Semitism in Europe – should be close allies with the new Jewish State, help fight anti-Semitism and the Arab governments who were attempting to destroy the Jewish state. Merker made these arguments in 1946 to the UN, as did Andrey Gromyko, the Soviet ambassador of the UN.

But with the beginning of the Cold War all of this became politically incorrect in the literal sense. Merker was an independent-minded communist, foolish enough to have put his brilliant views in print and therefore he could not deny it. Although Merker was one of the lucky victims of the anti-cosmopolitan purges not to be executed, his political career was effectively over. Most of the other people associated with support for Israel in the Communist Party left East Germany and went either to West Germany or other parts of the world. This was the moment when pro-Zionism ceased within the East German Communist Party.

^

Saturday, July 14, 2018

Adnan Oktar Relating the The Temple Mount

From an interview with an Israeli journalist broadcast back in February:







No wonder Ronel published a negative view:

However, the willingness of at least some Israeli politicians and clerics to appear on his TV program and at other events stems from another element of his religious outlook: his attitude regarding Al-Aqsa Mosque.
“Christians, Jews, Muslims – everyone can worship there,” he told me, in a refreshing message to Israel’s Temple Mount Faithful movement, from a person who claims to speak on behalf of Islam. Nor does Oktar make do with supporting Jewish worship on the Temple Mount: He’s in favor of rebuilding the Temple. “The land there is sufficient for this,” he said: We will build the prayer house of Prophet Solomon there, and in this century, inshallah [God willing].”

^


On the Medical School at Ariel University

A year ago it was announced that a new school of medicine is to open at Ariel University.

The corner-stone laying was done in the presence of Prime Minister Netanyahu and Education Minister Bennett and the prime donors, Sheldon and Miriam Adelson, who contributed $113 million to the project.

The Dr. Miriam and Sheldon G. Adelson Health and Medical Sciences Building on the Ariel University campus is to open for the 2018-2019 academic year, launching Ariel University’s Medical School with a starting class of 70 pre-med students.

At the event, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu said 

"the university is an open and pluralistic institution. This is the true spirit of the State of Israel. The School of Medicine in Ariel will strengthen Israel's prestige in the world....Ariel will always be part of the State of Israel, and I hope that graduates of the medical school will help with the development of medicine in countries which approach Israel [for medical assistance], such as India and China. We love the city of Ariel and will continue to build it."


Of course, there is opposition and problems but let's recall a bit of history:




Medicine and Zionism and Eretz-Yisrael all go together.

^

Friday, July 13, 2018

Seeking BDS Clarity

France led off a year and a half ago with secondary legislation against produce originating in Judea and Samaria:

An advisory notice on the French Government website said: "Under international law the Golan Heights and the West Bank, including east Jerusalem, are not part of Israel."
It said labelling goods simply as "from the West Bank" or "from Golan Heights" without providing more details is "not acceptable". Instead goods must be clearly marked as coming from an "Israeli settlement," when that is the case, to avoid "the risk of misleading the consumer"

A question:

if Arabs produced the product, does it have have that added to the note? 

Or is it just a Jewish thing?

How misleading is to be tolerated?

^

Al-Jazeera's "Illegal Settlements" Poster

Here is Al-Jazeera's summing up poster on "Fifty Years of Illegal Settlements in Palestine":



How they push our population to 750,000 is difficult even for me to confirm but if they want us to be more, fine.  It just proves, again, that the "demographic threat" all use as a scare tactic doesn't exist.

I do want to remind all, since UNSC 242 is right up at the top there, that

it does not mention a "Palestinian people" 

it does not mention a "state of Palestine".  

Not all territories needed to be evacuated. 

The only related problem needing a solution is "the refugee" one.  

And there were Jewish refugees, too.

It's approach that there is an "inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war" should have been applied to Jordan in 1949 (in addition to the many other cases and since it was/is not, it cannot be applied only to Israel).

And let us not ignore that only Israeli armed forces need been withdrawn ("Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces"). Civilians, especially Jews who have a right by virtue of the 1922 League of Nations decision to "close settlement on the land" surely need not remove themselves.

Oh, and there is no "Palestinian-Israel Conflict" That's a perversion of what was the "Arab-Israel Conflict" which itself is a perversion.

There is an "Arab Conflict with Israel and Zionism".

^

Thursday, July 12, 2018

Three Interviews at Jews News

Eliyokim Cohen’s ISRAEL ROAD SHOW, a daily LIVE tour of Israel that will show you the Holy Land like never before, came to visit me today at Shiloh, LIVE broadcasting on Day 9 of the Road Show, Akiva Fuld behind the camera.


The results:


Monday, July 09, 2018

Sir Archibald Sinclair on Jewish Settlement

I quote Article 6 of the League of Nations Mandate decision quite often.

It reads, in full:
The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes.

Someone else quite was taken with it.


Sir Archibald Sinclair:

Article 6 of the Mandate says that the Government will encourage the close settlement of Jews on the lands, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes. Why is not that Article more extensively and whole-heartedly carried out? 

That was from a speech of his in Parliament on March 24, 1936

Note: this is a corrected version.

I like what Winston Churchill, a close friend of Sinclair, said when he spoke to the Peel Commission in 1937 and told them


he had always believed that the intention of the Balfour Declaration was that Palestine might in the course of time become “an overwhelmingly Jewish State.” During the Second World War, although most of his Cabinet colleagues rejected this idea, Churchill clung to it and on many occasions intervened with senior Cabinet Ministers to prevent “an Arab solution” of the Palestine question being permanently fixed.

On 19 May 1941, in a secret memorandum, he wrote of his hope for the establishment after the war of a “Jewish State of Western Palestine” with not only the fullest rights for immigration and development, but also with provision “for expansion in the desert regions to the southwards which they would gradually reclaim.”
and

Earlier, on 30 January 1908, he wrote in a letter of his sympathy with the “ultimate goal” of the Jewish people. As he explained in his letter: 

“Jerusalem must be the only ultimate goal. When it will be achieved it is vain to prophesy: but that it will some day be achieved is one of the few certainties of the future.”


^

Sunday, July 08, 2018

IfNotNow's Historical Roots - A Note

From "Central European Ethnonationalism and Zionist Binationalism" by Yfaat Weiss published in Jewish Social Studies, New Series, Vol. 11, No. 1 (Autumn, 2004), pp. 93-117:



and


Sound familiar?

^

A Mosque - By Rabbinical Seal of Approval

At the end of a press release condemning the decision to permit Israeli MKs visit the Temple Mount


وختم البيان بالتأكيد على أن المسجد الأقصى المبارك مسجد إسلامي بقرار رباني 



And that translates as:

The statement concluded by stressing that Al-Aqsa mosque is an Islamic mosque by a rabbinic decree

Arab MKs have been using the opposition of the Chief Rabbinate to entrance into the compound for years but to have a rabbinical seal of approval that the site itself is a mosque?

The release (slightly edited to brevity):

Religious authorities in the occupied city of Jerusalem issued a statement on Saturday, confirming that there is no authority for Netanyahu to interfere in the affairs of Jerusalem.
The statement said: "We in the Supreme Islamic Commission, the Council of Awqaf and Islamic Affairs and Holy Sites, and the House of Ifta Palestinian, and the circle of the Chief Justice in Jerusalem, and the Department of Islamic Waqf and the affairs of Al Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem,
First: The administration of the blessed Al-Aqsa Mosque is entrusted to Muslims alone, and represented by the Islamic Endowments Department in Jerusalem, which has jurisdiction and authority.
Second: The Prime Minister of the occupation can not issue a decision to allow ministers and deputies to enter the blessed Aqsa Mosque...his irresponsible decision is null and void.
Thirdly, we hold Netanyahu fully responsible for any tension in Al-Aqsa Mosque or in Jerusalem as a result of his irresponsible decision.
Fourthly, we affirm again and again that the Haram is for Muslims alone, and that any aggression or violation by the occupation authorities against al-Aqsa will not gain them any right in it.
Fifth: We reiterate the repeated and previous demand that the key to the Mugrabi Gate, which has been occupied by the occupation army since 1967, be reinstated.



^

Friday, July 06, 2018

A Missing Letter to the Editor on the Altalena

David Geffen published a piece on the sinking of the Altalena arms ship by the IDF seventy years ago opposite the Frishman Street beach in Tel Aviv last month.

I read it, thought things were missing or misrepresented and sent a letter to the editor.

The letter was not published. Someone else's letter, however, was. That letter did not address the issues I thought were important from a historical viewpoint.

My letter did, however, contain a slight, well, imprecisivity. 

One of my points was that the day of the shelling went unmentioned in Geffen's piece.  In a response, I was told that it was - "in the picture caption."

I replied, 

"But not by Geffen as I presume picture captions are a separate editor's job. If Geffen pointed it out, you have my permission to edit that bit out."

And the JPost reaction to that was

We actually note in our letters section that letters may be edited. Readers aren't privy to the process of how a story is edited and laid out, so don't assume.

I waited another week to see if my letter would be published but I guess that for daring to assume I earned enough negative points.

So, here is my letter. Why should you be denied facts and perspective because of my presumptions.

There are a few errors of fact in David Geffen's overview of the Altalena Affair ("A Sad Saga 70 Years Later", June 15).

June 20, 1948, was a Sunday, not a Monday. The date of the ship's shelling at Frishman Street beach, inexplicitly missing, is June 22. Menachem Begin did not meet David Ben-Gurion at all during or preceding these events but other Irgun High Command members such as Shmuel Katz and Yaakov Meridor met with Israel Gallili, Levi Eshkol and other senior officials who briefed Ben-Gurion. Not only were meetings and deliberations conducted in Israel but in France, Hagana commanders were conferring with Irgun leaders since March, and reporting back to Mandate Palestine HQ. 

Communique 113 of the government, published on the Palestine Post's front page on June 22, 



misleadingly declared to the public that the Altalena's arrival "was referred to the Provisional Government" by the army's High Command when actually the Hagana and Mapai leadership had known for a long time about the ship and its imminent arrival and had informed the army that it would dock at Kfar Vitkin. Geffen quotes Ben-Gurion's June 16 diary entry that the arms brought "should not be sent back. They should be disembarked".  At Kfar Vitkin, Begin was not "hoping for a compromise" but rather that the government fulfill the agreement mutually reached and keep to its conditions but that was not to be.

It need be emphasized that in using "force", Palmah members shot at, and killed, Irgun members who were swimming ashore and physically could not even have fired back if they had sought to do so. Already the previous day, Ben-Gurion had authorized the naval units to use force to prevent the Altalena from leaving the Kfar Vitkin area.

In addition, generally unknown, on the same day of the events at Tel Aviv involving the Altalena, a smaller Palmach arms ship, the Inaco, slipped into Jaffa Port, undisturbed by the IDF, the government or the UN*. That organization seems to have had no political or ideological difficulties with Ben-Gurion.
____

*

From a Palmach source:

Begin felt that he had to let the Ministry of Defense know of the vessel’s arrival. On the 16th June Begin called Galili, Eshkol and David HaCohen to an urgent meeting with himself, Ben Eliezer, Meridor, Landau and Feiglin. The important item on the agenda was: In view of the cease-fire did the government want the vessel to come in? Or should they direct it back to France or somewhere else? Begin did not know that the Hagana was waiting for a vessel of its own – “Inaco” - that was carrying dynamite and half-tracks to Tel Aviv. He also did not know that the Hagana had all the information about the load and the passengers that the Altalena was carrying. Eshkol reprimanded Begin for carrying arms and men on the same voyage and Galili asked Begin if Etzel would sell the arms to Tzahal. Begin answered that the weapons were the holy property of the Jewish people; Galili said that he would report that to BG.
^

Wednesday, July 04, 2018

How Safe Was It To Go tho the Western Wall to Pray?

How safe was it to go to the Western Wall to pray before the State of Israel was established and, supposedly, started all the problems?









And that's all before the 1929 "Wailing War Affair" that supposedly led to the riots in which 133 Jew were murdered, many mutilated.

^

Amanapour: Netanyahu is Trump's "Director"

Yesterday, after catching CNN's Christiane Amanpour's interview with Ben Rhodes, I tweeted this:

@camanpour on @cnni chooses anti-semitic trope, asking @brhodes if @netanyahu "directs US MidEast policy". Rhodes chooses "drives".And later adds "Is Bibi egging on Trump" re: Putin and Syria and Rhodes adds "Ukraine".

From the transcript:-

AMANPOUR: You know President Obama didn't have a very good personal relationship with Prime Minister Netanyahu. Now Prime Minister Netanyahu is thrilled to bits because he thinks he has his...

RHODES: Yes.

AMANPOUR: ...ally in the White House. Do you see this Middle East policy being directed by the Israeli Prime Minister?

RHODES: I think the two most important people in American Middle East policy are Mohammad bin Salman and Bibi Netanyahu. I...

AMANPOUR: The Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia?

RHODES: The Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia and the Prime Minister of Israel. I think they are driving this.

And later, there is this (edited for length):-

AMANPOUR: You just mentioned President Putin. The next big meeting is going to be between President Trump and President Putin...There's all sorts of expectations...One of them suggest that President Trump, egged on by Bibi Netanyahu and the Saudis, are going to try to ask Putin to get Iran out of Syria in return for America allowing Assad to stay in place. 

...RHODES: Yes. Yes. And potentially, some recognition of Crimea .

AMANPOUR: Recognition of Crimea as well. 

I erred on "Ukraine".  But that's all.

^

Marisa Papin, The Muslim Version

Here's how the photo-shoot was reported in the Al-Bawaba Arab-language media outlet:

In a provocative act against Muslim sentiments, a Belgian tourist and model published naked photographs of her in front of the Al-Buraq Wall in the occupied Arab city of Jerusalem.



Marisa Babin Papen [Arabic-speakers have trouble pronouncing "P", which is why "Palestine" is "Filastin"] said she chose the holy site "to break the walls" and that she came to Israel to celebrate the 70th anniversary of the "establishment of an Israeli state." The controversial photographs were taken on the opening day of the US embassy in Jerusalem five weeks ago.

She was filmed naked on a plastic chair on the roof of a house in the Old City of Jerusalem, overlooking the western wall, with the Al Buraq Wall Square.

That reporting is a naked act of stripping Jews and Judaism of our national and religious identity.

BTW, the print of the original is going now for 25,000 Euro. (NSFW)

UPDATE:

I forgot this event:


A mentally-ill woman was arrested Sunday after she stripped naked in the Western Wall plaza in broad daylight and walked around the site nude.  Visitors and worshipers were shocked at the sight of a young woman walking around the plaza completely naked.

Last June.

And this:


her mother said the spectacle was the result of mental illness, not a provocative political statement,

Did YACHAD Adopt the Term "Communities"?

Here's the itinerary for a trip organized by the UK YACHAD two-state solution group, found by clicking on the word "debate" here:


Yachad Trip to Israel and the West Bank

Nov 11 – Nov 15 all-day

Take part in a four-day study tour to Israel and the West Bank with Yachad 
from Sunday 11th – Thursday 15th November.

The purpose of our bespoke trips is to provide those that participate 
with up-to-date information and access to people and places that 
you would not normally be able to visit, deepening 
British Jewry’s understanding of the conflict.

By participating in one of our trips you will gain detailed knowledge and insight 
into the conflict and the reality on the ground. This information is essential 
in helping to create a more informed debate within the Anglo-Jewish community. 
The trip will include:

Meetings with politicians and diplomats
Visiting the military courts in the West Bank
Visiting Palestinian villages and communities in the West Bank
Trip to the southern border with Gaza
Meeting IDF spokespeople
Visiting East Jerusalem


Or am I mistaken and those "communities" are also "Palestinian", aka Arab?

Of course, if the trip had been organized, say, in 1938 by British Jews supporting the efforts of Peace Now, sorry, Brit Shalom, then "Palestinian" would have referred to Jews anyway.

The vagaries of the conflict Jews of the Diaspora have with the national homeland of the Jewish People.

^

Tuesday, July 03, 2018

What the Grand Mufti's Successor Told Prince William (And What Saudi Arabia & Jordan Told Israel)

As reported (in Arabic) at Arab21:

Akrama Sabri reveals to Arabi 21 details of his conversation with Prince William

The head of the Supreme Islamic Committee in the occupied city of Jerusalem and the preacher of the Al-Aqsa Mosque, Sheikh Ekrema Sabri, revealed the details of what took place between him and Prince William Duke of Cambridge during a visit last Thursday to the Al-Aqsa Mosque about a week ago.

"Jerusalem belongs to Muslims and Christians, a Palestinian city occupied by the Israeli occupation that is trying to Judaize it, and the Al-Aqsa Mosque belongs to Muslims alone and has nothing to do with the Jews," Sheikh Sabri said.

Sabri told "Arab21" that he had addressed William so: "Britain has historically harmed the Palestinians, and this damage still exists. Britain must remove this damage, because the Balfour Declaration was a disaster for the Palestinians."

On the response of the British Prince to this talk, Khatib al-Aqsa said that the prince "listened, and stressed that Britain's foreign policy is still considered the city of Jerusalem occupied, and did not agree to the American decision on the occupied city of Jerusalem," when US President Donald Trump acknowledged Jerusalem "the capital of Israel," he said.

That theme, of "Judaization", is expressed in an analysis provided by an expert on sites of sanctity, Dr. Najih Bkirat, whose title is Director of Religious Education in Jerusalem, when he elucidated on the "three dimensions behind the daily incursions into the Al-Aqsa Mosque" in Al-Watan's July 2 issue. 

Claiming that about 16 thousand settlers had "stormed the Al-Aqsa Mosque" since the beginning of this year until the beginning of June, and expecting more during the next six months, "especially with the exploitation of Jewish holidays, as well as the so-called 'destruction of the alleged temple'", he said in a press statement: 

"We are facing a phenomenon that has beyond it and that the war of intrusions launched on the Aqsa Mosque can be read in three dimensions. First, removing holiness from all Islamic manifestations and Arab buildings, to replace the "alleged structure" Islamic and remove the place [Al-Aqsa]".

"The second dimension of the incursions, is the process of  'Jewish settlement, a settlement of human worshipers and worshipers and the people of the mosque, "by increasing the number of settlers, which provides them with special rules to guard them and welcome them to encourage them to break into the daily.

...the third dimension, which is the most dangerous, is the conflict over sovereignty and administration, meaning that "despite the presence of Arab tutelage [that is, Jordan's custodianship] and management of the Haram with the presence of more than 500 employees inside and outside the sacred compound, there are attempts to take sovereignty not only outside the gates, but to move to the stage of managing the place, under the pretext of taking care of the intruders, which will entail interference in the administration of endowments and the management of guards, in addition to many other departments.

What also irks them is activity at the Bab al-Rahma [the Golden Gate] Cemetery - the setting of an iron wall south of the cemetery on an endowment land tract overseeing al-Husaini Hill.

For those who follow me, this language of storming, Judaization, taking-over, et al. is almost as incendiary as Hamas kites.

In the meantime, Haaretz reports:


Jordan, Saudis and Palestinians Warn Israel: Erdogan Operating in East Jerusalem Under Your Nose; Israel is 'sleeping at the wheel,' they caution

And Israel Hayom has it so:

In bid to buy influence, Turkey hands out money in east Jerusalem

Turkey wants a foothold.  It is suggested to cut that short.

And Amit Segal on Channel 10 TV just now, as I am writing, informs us that MKs will be allowed to ascend the Temple Mount.  Confirmation: once-every-three-months.

I am guessing if Jordan keeps quiet, Netanyahu will bump Turkey out of Jerusalem entirely, including sponsoring Temple Mount interference.

^