An Observation on Israelis and Archaeology

Ariel David of Haaretz reported on a new find, one that appears here and deals with An Israelite Residency at Mahanaim in Transjordan?

It deals with  "the site of Tall adh-Dhahab al-Gharbi in the valley of the az-Zarqa River, the biblical Jabbok, in Jordan. We discuss a group of incised ashlar blocks found there, probably dating to the first half of the 8th century BCE. We suggest that the blocks originated from an official building, a residency or a gate complex, not yet excavated, and propose thematic similarities with visual imagery from Kuntillet ʿAjrud. We then show that this site can be securely identified with biblical Mahanaim and point to several biblical verses that may hint at the existence of a North Israelite residency there."

Credit: Pola et. al./Ruhama Bonfil / The Hebrew University of Jerusalem

And he needed to add two, let's call them 'hesitations'.

The first:

To be clear, no one is proclaiming that evidence has been found confirming the historicity of this or other biblical narratives linked to this region. Rather, the evidence of a strong administrative Israelite presence in Transjordan helps us understand why key foundational biblical stories were set in this area, say the study's authors, Prof. Israel Finkelstein of Haifa University and Prof. Tallay Ornan of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem.

And the second:

A word of caution must be sounded again: identifying the names of biblical places like Mahanaim or Penuel doesn't necessarily say anything about the historicity of biblical stories that take place there. It simply means that – based on the geography, the modern names of the sites, the biblical descriptions and the archaeological or historical evidence – scholars think that these are the real locations that the authors and readers of the Bible would have had in mind as a setting for their stories.

I am almost tempted to write "God forbid that anything that could seemingly confirm the Biblical narrative would be accepted as as close to the scientific truth as possible.

^

Introducing Rashid Rida on Zionism

Anyone who follows pro-'Palestine' Islamic propaganda will recognzie in the excerpts below the source material for the virulent antisemitism, exaggerations and misrepresentations emanating from the Palestinian National Authgority official bodies as well as activists on behalf on 'Palestine'.

They originate from Rashid Rida.

Another scholar claims "As one of the most influential advocates of Arab nationalism and pan-Islamism, we shall argue, Riḍā’s critiques of Zionism and Jewish expansion in Palestine were part of his anti-colonial activities against the ‘Christian’ west." Nevertheless, he notes that Rida asserted as to Jewish goals, "allegedly, they schemed to possess Jerusalem and its neighbouring regions to establish their Kingdom of Israel and turn it into the Temple of Solomon, against the desire of Christians and Muslims (ʿAbduh and Riḍā [1328] 1910, V:139–140)."

He further quotes Rida "Under the title “King of the Jews, their Temple, their Messiah and the True Messiah,” Riḍā stated that the Jews arrogantly disobeyed their prophets, who regularly warned them against God’s punishment if they abandoned His commandments (Al-Manār 30/7: 546–556)."

And Rida becomes starkly clear in this excerpt:

One of Islam’s greatest manifestations, according to Riḍā, was the confirmation of glad tidings of Jesus as a prophet of God and not his son. In this reading, God entitled Muslims to inherit the Holy Land and to build the Al-Aqsa Mosque in the place of the destroyed temple in order to establish the worship of God alone. Riḍā repeated the traditional Muslim view that God placed those who believe in Jesus above the unbelievers (Qur’an Āl ʿImrān 3:55), but that He had struck the Jews with humiliation by making them lose their kingdom until the Day of Resurrection. The Jews, Riḍā said, would follow the Antichrist as their assumed king fighting under his banner in the Holy Land, but Muslims would finally achieve victory upon them and kill them, and the true Messiah would appear and reveal the truth by destroying the Antichrist (Al-Manār 30/7: 554).

And in this:

Muslims did not persecute the Jews but treated them with justice and mercy. He observed that the Jews started to permit each other to reside in Jerusalem around the western side of the wall of the Al-Aqsa Mosque (Al-Buraq), performing the rituals and sacrifices against the will of Muslims and Christians in the world. They had strong hope to multiply their numbers to own the Holy City and the rest of Palestine in preparation for the appearance of the Messiah again as the King of Israel (Al-Manār 30/5: 391). 

Rida also employed the term nakba already in early 1935:

A few months before Riḍā’s death, the Egyptian historian and religious scholar ʻAbd al-Wahhāb al-Najjār (1862–1941) gave a lecture at Jamʿiyyat al-Shubbān al-Muslimīn (Association of Young Muslim Men) in which he maintained that the Jewish Zionist presence in Palestine was to be like a short “summer cloud” that would clear up soon after a great shock, followed by the defeat of the Jews after the restoration of the kingdom of David and the appearance of the Messiah (Al-Manār 34/8: 607–612)...After the lecture, Riḍā stood up and disagreed with al-Najjār in his arguments. Instead of following this apocalyptic way of thinking, Riḍā requested Arabs and Muslims to “take admonition in the Jewish Zionist nakba (catastrophe) by means of the worldly affairs and social natural laws” (Al-Manār 34/8: 608). By this he urged his Muslim readers not to see the Jewish success on the basis of their religious zeal but due to their work to achieve their political goals. 

Rida "called upon Arab Christians and Arab Muslims, supported by other Muslims in the world, to get the benefit of uniting themselves against the growing power of the Jews. In his own words: The doctrine of the Jews in restoring the King of Israel by means of the Messiah is [39] a denial of the religion of Islam and a clear rejection of Christ Jesus, Son of Mary, may blessings and peace be upon him. It was, however, Christ with whom their prophets had preached, but they had denied him. It was also him who warned them against the ruin of their Temple of Solomon so that there would not remain any stone of it."

Here are more excerpts of another researcher:

A reading of Rida’s depictions of Jews as the embodiment of vices and the orchestrators of global-scale conspiracies is useful to the broader discussion on the proliferation of anti-Semitic ideas in the contemporary Arab world. Translations of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion have been available in Arabic since the mid-1920s, and by the late 1920s they were already incorporated as an argument against Zionism. Following the 1948 war, the Protocols proliferated as an explanation for the Arab defeat. However, Rida viewed Jews as the masters of anti-Christian and anti-Muslim conspiracies already at the turn of the century, with no experience of defeat in mind and no foundational hateful European textbook to guide him. It appears that he was acquainted, albeit not through primary sources, with French anti-Semitic expressions as well as with their refutations in France. Anti-Semitic allegations in Istanbul also did not escape him. Ironically and to a large measure, Rida’s developed anti-Semitism reads as accommodation of his original admiration of Jewish virtues with his realization that Zionism was a serious threat...

...Under the title “The Life of a Nation after Its Death: The Zionist Association of the Jews,” Rida revised his earliest impression of Jewish nationalism, and, always the journalist, flattered himself (without justification in this case), for having already written about the Zionist movement in 1898, “when no one else took notice of it.” His analysis failed to distinguish between Zionists and Jews, and disclosed that he was unaware that the movement had won the hearts of only a minority of Jews around the world....

...Apparently confusing, at least in part, Herzl (whose name was not mentioned in the entire article) with the British-Jewish author and Zionist leader Israel Zangwill (1864 – 1926), Rida wrote that Zangwill had recently negotiated the purchase of Jerusalem as well as predicted a massive Jewish return to Palestine and the transformation of the land by the people of Israel into a shining lighthouse in all fields – social, political, judicial, cultural, and agricultural. Rida went as far as positing that Zangwill was wrong in reprimanding the rich Jews for not donating to Zionism...

In 1903, Rida addressed the Jews again...He wrote that no people in the world demonstrated such communal unity and ethnic solidarity as the People of Israel (Sha‘b Isra’il); however, he added that the Jews tended to divert the resources of the nations among which they lived to their own benefit, and harmed themselves by their excessive egotism. This, he argued, was the reason for the persecution of the Jews and their expulsion by all the peoples and nations. Hinting at Jewish ungratefulness, he concluded that while they could find a safe haven only in the Ottoman Empire, they now sought to gain independence and renew their sovereignty in Palestine...

...On January 1908, following a long period of silence, Rida addressed Zionism again, although indirectly. In a Quran exegesis, he disputed the Jewish hope for a Messiah who would renew Jewish sovereignty. He also suggested that the Jews’ dispersion throughout the world, their lack of expertise in warfare and agriculture, and their focus on professions that required little effort, like charging interest-based loans, were impediments that would prevent the realization of their dream of renewed sovereignty. The weakness of the Jews, he argued, was a punishment from God for their infidelity. Only two years later, Rida changed his mind about the potential of Zionism...In December 1910, he presented the Zionist danger in even graver terms: should the Jews realize their plan to take over alAqsa, they would expel the Muslims and the Christians from the Holy Land...

...[In 1914 he wrote] that if Zionist ambitions were ever realized, they would not allow a single Muslim or Christian to remain in Palestine, as they believed that it belonged to the Israelites alone. Furthermore, the Promised Land that the Zionists sought to conquer was not what Muslims defined as Palestine; rather, according to Jewish scriptures and conventions, Palestine stretched to Syria and the Euphrates. Rida based his warning of the prospect of ethnic cleansing on the argument that in the book of Deuteronomy God ordered the Jews not to spare a single soul upon entering the land...

...in an appendix to a Quranic exegesis from 1924, he cautioned that the “Arabs of Palestine,” who were confronted by “two of the world’s strongest nations [the British and the Jews],” could only be saved if they united with the rest of the Arab peoples and tribes to defend Palestine as well as the holy shrines in Mecca and Medina. Yet the underlying objective of this warning – in itself exceptional for his writing during the early 1920s – was not to call for action, but to denounce Sharif Hussein and his family and praise the Sa‘uds. Rida portrayed Hussein’s family as supporters of those who were seeking to implement the “satanic plan” to deprive the Palestinians of their land, i.e., the British and the Zionists. He cautioned the Palestinians against cooperating with the Sharifian family, explaining that while they could boast a distinguished lineage (as descendents of the Prophet Muhammad), they lacked knowledge and honesty...

...until mid-1920...he noted, in an objective manner, that the Jews considered Palestine as their sacred, ancestral land, but neither debated that claim nor insisted that Palestine was a Muslim land that must never be conceded to the Jews as such. That changed in 1924, but in a way that was far from affirming that Muslims were the rightful owners of the land or would eventually have the upper hand against the Zionists. In a Quranic exegesis, Rida suggested in an almost even-handed manner that God had promised the land to both the Israelite sons of Abraham and to the Arab sons of Abraham, who had also been promised additional lands. The promises were kept for both Israelites and Arabs when they acted righteously, but when they sinned they were punished and the land was taken from them...

...Already in October 1928, only days after the tensions over the Wailing Wall began, Rida portrayed events in Palestine as a struggle between Judaism and Islam, as well as between Britain and Islam. In this struggle, the British were assisting the Jews as part of Britains’s “ambitious” and uncharacteristically illconceived plan to subordinate the Arab nation and impose British rule on the Arabian Peninsula and the three holiest shrines – in Mecca, Medina, and Jerusalem. In this struggle, the ultimate goal of the Jews was the destruction of al-Aqsa, the third holiest shrine in Islam, and its replacement with a new Jewish temple...

...Rida elaborated [in December 1929] on the prophecies of a Muslim victory over the Jews, reiterating that those were more reliable than the Jewish prophets’ prophecies of Jewish victory. He mentioned the prophecy that the Jews would give fanatic loyalty to the Dajal, a false Messiah, fight against Muslims and Christians in Palestine and other lands, and be defeated, as well as the Prophet’s words, narrated by ‘Abdullah b. ‘Umar: “I heard Allah’s Messenger saying, ‘The Jews will fight with you, and you will be given victory over them so that a stone will say, ‘O Muslim! There is a Jew behind me, kill him!’”...Zionism, he argued, was a striking example of Western moral corruption, because in Palestine the English had done something they had not done anywhere else: they had created a new people based on the ingathering of a rabble from all corners of the earth, allowing the rabble to usurp the land of another people and to exploit and discriminate against the population in a historically unprecedented way. Thus, for the first time, in late 1929, the Jews were denied in Rida’s journal not only a right to Palestine, but also the right to be considered a nation.

^

Gaza: A Brief Modern History Outline

Pre-1917 - Gaza part of the Ottoman Empire

1917 - Gaza conquered by British Army and subsequently becomes part of Mandate Palestine

1948 - Gaza conquered by Egypt and is ruled under a military governor. 

1948-1956 - Gaza is main base for Fedyeen terrorists infiltrating Israel

1956-1957 - Gaza is briefly under Israel military occupation

1967 - Gaza is militarily occupied by Israel following Egyptian initation of hostilities

2005 - Israeli Disengagement of total withdrawal from Gaza

2006 - Operation Summer Rains

2007 - Hamas assume Gaza governorship

2008 - Operation Hot Winter

2008/9 - Operation Cast Lead

2012 - Operation Pillar of Defense

2014 - Operation Protective Edge

2021 - Operation Guardian of the Walls

2023 - Swords of Iron War

To Be "Occupied Territory", It Must Have Been Part of a State

Are the so-called "Palestinian territories", that is Judea and Samaria, "occupied"?

Here is a section from Principles of International Law, by Hans Kelsen, 1952

The principle that enemy territory occupied by a belligerent in course of war remains the territory of the state against which the war is directed, can apply only as long as this community still exists as a state within the meaning of international law. This is hardly the case if, after occupation of the whole territory of an enemy state, its armed forces are completely defeated to that no further resistance is possible and its national government is abolished by the victorious state. Then the vanquished community is deprived of one of the essential elements of a state in the sense of international law: an effective and independent government, and hence has lost its character as a state. If the territory is not to be considered a stateless territory, it must be considered to be under the sovereignty of the occupant belligerent, which—in such a case—ceases to be restricted by the rules concerning belligerent occupation. This was the case with the territory of the German Reich occupied in the Second World War after the complete defeat and surrender of its armed forces. In view of the fact that the last national government of the German Reich was abolished, it may be assumed that this state ceased to exist as a subject of international law. If a belligerent state ceases legally to exist as an effect of the defeat, as, e.g., the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy in the First World War, or the German Reich in the Second World War, no peace treaty or any other treaty can be concluded with this state for the purpose of transferring the territory concerned, or parts of it, to the victorious or any other state.

On the territory of the abolished state a new state or some new states may be established. This was the case with the territory of the defeated Austro-Hungarian Monarchy, which was the territory of two united states. On this territory the Czechoslovakian and the Austrian Republics, and part of Poland have been established. This is also the case with the territory of the German Reich on which two new states came into existence; the western German state, called the Federal Republic of Germany; and the eastern German State, called the German Democrat. Republic. But the new state or the new states, which have not been at war with the victorious state, cannot conclude a peace treaty and are not entitled to dispose of other territory but their own. That the Austrian Republic was forced to conclude a peace treaty with the Allied and Associated Powers, although this new state was not at war with the states which by their victory brought the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy to dismemberment, and that the Austrian Republic was forced to dispose in this treaty of territory of the disappeared state which never was territory of the Austrian Republic, was based on the fiction that the Austrian Republic was identical with the Austrian Monarchy. In the case of the German Reich, the governments of the occupant powers maintained the fiction; that it continued to exist even after the abolishment of its last national government, and on the basis of this fiction it was assumed that the territory of the German Reich occupied by the four victorious powers was not under their sovereignty, but remained under the sovereignty of the German Reich. But the administration of the occupied territory was in no way in conformity with the rules concerning belligerent occupation. 

It sounds like Kelsen is arguing that Israel wouldn't have had any legal reason to follow the Geneva Conventions laws of occupation in the territories. They were not considered Jordanian or Egyptian territory and they certainly weren't "Palestinian". To apply the humanitarian components of Geneva is proper, of course, and Israel voluntarily did so. But this sounds to me that even if you hold that the prohibition of "transfer" of a population to the territory includes voluntary relocation, that this would not apply to the West Bank or Gaza after 1967.

There was a discussion in the UN's Law Commission  in relation to the Draft Declaration on Rights and Duties of States about the whether all conquest is forbidden or not. James Brierly, the great American authority on international law, suggested making clear that the ban on territorial acquisition only applied to illegal war, and the motion was adopted by the drafting committee. I Yearbook Int law commission 143 (1949)

Similarly, when there were quibbles about whether annexation is always banned, or whether there might be various exceptions, the Secretary observed: “It might be suggested that in order to constitute a crime under international law an annexation must be carried out through the use of armed force, with a view to destroying the territorial integrity of another State”  I Yearbook 137 (1950)

It is not surprising France and other major countries wanted to make clear that annexation and title by conquest were not ALWAYS forbidden: most European frontiers were substantially revised 1947-50 in favor of the victors/victims of WWII, and against the loosers/other victims.

I don’t think you will find any pre-’67 international law treatise that says that the laws of belligerent occupation apply to non-sovereign territory. The question had not been raised so it was probably not addressed in many treatises, but that’s because the answer was blindingly obvious and it was exactly the opposite of what everyone says about Israel today.

^

The Palmach and the Arabs Up Until November 1947

I have in the past dealt with the issue of the presumed "better morality" of the Palmach pre-state defence units under the aegis of the left-wing socialist Zionist parties, Ahdut Ha'Avoda and HaShomer HaTzair. Their claim was always that the Irgun and the Lechi were but fascists and blackguards and roughnecks.

However, Palmach members also were involved in activities that today would land them in an international tribunal for 'war crimes'.

I blogged about the attack on an Arab village.

I also blogged about castrations of Arab rapists.

 The Book of the Palmach 

published in 1957 contains more instances which I will briefly summarize.

Starting on page 602 and continuing until 605, under the heading "Guerrilla Actions" or "Small-scale Combat", several anti-Arab reprisal attacks are described.

For example, in the autumn of 1943 (the actual time was March 1942), a three-man squad of Pluga Alef entered a Bedouin encampment near Waldheim (today's Alonei Abba) 

to avenge the murder of Alexander Zaid. Zaïd was murdered on July 10, 1938 when ambushed by an Arab gang while on his way to meet members of kibbutz Alonim. The killer was Qassem Tabash, a Bedouin from the al-Hilaf tribe. He was killed in reprisal in front of some 20 of his fellow tribemen.

By the way, the Palmach eliminated two Germans at the Templar village there as well in 1948.

In February 1944, a squad from Pluga Alef were in the vicinity of Masada on a training trek. Near Ein Gedi, they were set upon by armed Beduoin brigands and, in defending themselves, killed two in an exchange of fire.

During the spring of 1945, the Palmach was involved in leading clandestine immigration overland from Lebanon. On occasion, they were set upon by Arab gang members who demanded, with threat of death, a payment as if a toll crossing. To halt this practice, members of Pluga Gimel disguised themselves as Arabs, crossed into Lebanon, engaged the gang members in conversation and then opened fire and killed several. This put an end to the attempts to threaten Jews coming into the homeland.

In the spring of 1947, Arab terror was resurrected. Two Jews were murdered in mid-May and the Palmach determined that a cafe in Fajja village, some 2 kilometers east of Petah Tikva,  was a gang headquarters for members of the Arab Al-Suwerka tribe. It was subsequently attacked on May 21. 

Palestine Post, May 22, 1947

More on this incident here.

Another incident occured in August 1947 at the Cafe Hawai. Following a murderous robbery attempt, the Palmach and Hagan made a reprisal raid a week later:

Palestine Post, August 17, 1947

On October 7, 1947, a Palmach unit set out on a reprisal raid against a murderous gang near Kfar Syrkin who had killed two Jews previously that week.

Palestine Post, October 7, 1947

That evening, a Palmach squad set out to the orchards near Rosh Ha'Ayin to find the gang. In the battle, three gang members were killed, as well as a Jaffa prostitute who was spending the vening there, and one was wounded.

Palestine Post, October 8, 1947

A few incidents happened in the fall on the Negev protecting the supply and transportation lines to the kibbutzim there.

As a result of the start of the Arab-Israel War of 1947-49, the situation only worsened.

^

Jabotinsky Providing his Testimony to the Peel Commission

Found here:

On the testimony, February 11, 1937.

The photograph is also at the Jabotinsky Archives.

^

Al-Aqsa as "exclusive property"

In his UN General Assembly meeting address, Mahmoud Abbas said:

Al-Aqsa Mosque and its surroundings, ladies and gentlemen, are the exclusive property of Muslims, and this was approved by the League of Nations in 1930, and we will not accept anything else, no matter the circumstances.

To what is he referring?

An International Commission was appointed by Great Britain following the 1929 riots. It was done with the approval of the Council of the League of Nations and its purpose was "to determine the rights and claims of Moslems and Jews in connection with the Western or Wailing Wall at Jerusalem".

Among its conclusions is this:

(3)  The Ownership of the Wall and of its Surroundings.

The Commission has to pronounce a verdict on the Jewish claims, and the Jews do not claim any proprietorship to the Wall or to the Pavement in front of it (concluding speech of Jewish Counsel, Minutes, page 908)...Subsequent to the investigation it has made, the Commission herewith declares that the ownership of the Wall, as well as the possession of it and of those parts of its surroundings that are here in question, accrues to the Moslems.  The Wall itself as being an integral part of the Haram-esh-Sherif area is Moslem property.  From the inquiries conducted by the Commission, partly in the Sharia Court and partly through the hearing of witnesses' evidence, it has emerged that the Pavement in front of the Wall, where the Jews perform their devotions, is also Moslem property.

I am not sure that this conclusion was "approved".

In any case, Mount Moriah was conquered and occupied by Moslem Arabs in 638 CE

^

Making a Correction

Researching for an article on the "Saison", I checked the Hagana history volume and a footnote directed me to the Palestine Post and a column entitled "Reflector"

But it turned out to be "Reflections".

^

High Commissioner Harold MacMichael and Southern Syria

In mid-1944, Harold MacMichael, the High Commissioner for Palestine, was convinced that an Arab entity of "Palestine" was artificial and was the southern region of Syria.  It had no inedependent history of its own:

The "Cairo Report", the summary of a conference held there over April 6-7, 1944, can be found in F.O. 371/40135 [E2987G].

From this academic article.

^

Kalman Liebskind on the Media

Excerpted in translation from Kalman Liebskind's column of September 6, 2024 entitled "Who Do You Hate More? Sinwar or Netanyhau?"

"Our mainstream press mentions the same Sanhedrin court. In almost every important issue on the agenda, there are no disputes, there are no arguments for and against. Everyone thinks the same. Everyone talks the same. And as a citizen - not as a journalist, just as a citizen - it's scary. Because in the weighty issues on our agenda, it cannot be that in every discussion between the right and the left and between the opposition and the coalition, one side is always right and one side is always wrong.

And in our case, it is impossible to take seriously a press that proceeds entirely from the premise that its side - the one that seeks to fully accept Hamas's demands - is the just one, the humane one, the one that cares for the abductees, and the other side - the one that demands to be insistent with Hamas and not yield - is made up of a collection of heartless people who are not interested in the fate of the abductees and all that matters to them in life is that Netanyahu remains in power.

This week, Shmuel Rosner and the Jewish People's Policy Institute published a survey conducted immediately after the announcement of the murder of the six abductees. Two positions were presented to the respondents regarding the abductees deal, and they were asked to answer which of them was closer to their own position. 49% of the Jews answered that "Israel must not relinquish control of the Philadelphi corridor, even if because of this there would be no kidnapping deal." 43% answered that "Israel should give up control of the Philadelphi corridor to allow a deal to release hostages." 

Leave the nuances for a moment. Leave aside the fact that Hamas did not respond positively to the deal in question. Let alone the fact that the terrorist organization is not satisfied with the Philadelphi corridor but wants many other important things. Leave aside the fact that we have seen different and varied polls in their results, to a large extent depending on the poll taker and the wording of the questions. Also leave aside the question of what you would answer if you yourselves were asked.

The results of all the surveys, and as mentioned, regardless of their exact bottom line, show that there is a serious disagreement in Israeli society on the question of the right price to pay in the deal. And the fact that the media, which are supposed to reflect this controversy, make sure not to do so, and conduct aggressive propaganda in favor of one position and the complete delegitimization of the other position - is nothing but a professional crime.

Because what is happening these days in the media is something that even I, whose opinion on the Israeli press I have been posting here for many years, have not seen for a very long time. Everything is allowed. Everything is normal. The red lines, if there were any, were completely erased. One by one, all the reporters, moderators, presenters and commentators stepped forward and explained, some with blunt words and some with even more blunt words, that the Israeli government was to blame. A brutal terrorist organization is massacring innocent Jews, and the Israeli press places all the blame on its own government. Hamas's job is to murder us, our own job is to submit to all of its demands, and if we don't do it, fully - it is quite clear that our hands are covered in blood. We have a government of traitors, we have a government of murderers, we have a government of the irresponsible, we have a government that Hamas was willing to do anything to free its abductees, but it stubbornly says no. I ask seriously: what is the difference between the position of the leader of Hamas, and the position voiced this week by our current affairs broadcasts?

And this is not new. Our press has failed miserably in its almost singular role in every contact we have had with the enemy in recent decades. In the Oslo agreement, in the withdrawal from Lebanon, in the Disengagement, in the Shalit deal. In all these events, which ended in rivers of Jewish blood, there was no press that asked questions, there was no press that demanded answers, there was no press that raised doubts, there was no press that criticized.

I know the constant responses that come whenever I make claims of this kind, responses that wonder "why do you deal with the press all the time?". The answer is simple. Because I believe in the role of journalism and its power to correct, check, investigate, monitor, and prevent disasters before they occur. And in all these respects, Israel has no press. There is a huge collection of people with political positions, legitimate positions, of course, who flock like a herd after every political step that fits their agenda without stopping for a moment and without doing their job.

^

Let's Go Back A Year

Using the Meir Amit Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center, which is part of the Israel Intelligence Heritage and Commemoration Center, the government institution for commemorating the legacy of the Israeli intelligence community, I went back to the end of August 2023 to see and be reminded what was the situation, as regards open intelligence, of the events leading to the Hamas attack on October 7.

Aug. 30-Sept 5

The Palestinian terrorist organizations in the Gaza Strip continue to develop and improve their rocket systems. An attempt to smuggle explosives from the Gaza Strip to Judea and Samaria was foiled. For the third consecutive week, Palestinians demonstrated at the border security fence. The national authority for return marches in the Gaza Strip has begun rebuilding the return camps and preparing them for the possible renewal of the marches. The leaders of Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) met in Beirut with the Iranian foreign minister and Hezbollah’s secretary general.

Sept. 6-12

On the eve of the Jewish High Holidays, the Israeli media reported that senior IDF officers warned Hamas through intermediaries not to engage in escalation. Hamas denied the reports and emphasized it would continue to fight Israel in every arena.

On September 12, 2023, the joint operations room of the military-terrorist wings of the Palestinian organizations held its fourth “military” maneuver, which included live fire, rocket launches towards the sea and a simulated attack on an Israeli position. Hamas banned protest demonstrations near the security fence after that became a condition for the resumption of activity at the Kerem Shalom Crossing, which was suspended after an attempt to smuggle weapons. The chairman of Qatar’s National Committee for the Reconstruction of Gaza participated in the negotiations for reopening the crossing.

Sept. 13-20

This past week riots were renewed along the Gaza border, and Palestinians threw IEDs and hand grenades, burned tires and launched incendiary balloons. One Palestinian was killed by IDF forces in the southern Gaza Strip and five others were killed by an explosive device in the eastern Gaza Strip before it could be thrown at Israeli soldiers. The apparent cause of the riots was the breakdown of talks between Mohammed al-Emadi, chairman of Qatar’s National Committee for the Reconstruction of Gaza, and the Hamas leadership regarding the amount of Qatar’s financial support for the Gaza Strip, and other excuses included the arrival of Jewish worshipers at the Temple Mount compound on Rosh Hashanah and the Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails. Following the riots the Erez Crossing remained closed to laborers and businessmen who wanted to enter Israel.

Sept. 20-27

This past week violent clashes continued along the border security fence in the Gaza Strip. Palestinians shot at IDF forces and threw IEDs. The number of incendiary balloons launched at the Israeli communities near the border rose, causing several fires. In response, the IDF attacked several Hamas positions near the Gaza border. Several boats sailed from Gaza port in a staged “protest flotilla.” Israel left the Erez crossing closed to the entry of Palestinian workers into Israel (a situation which has lasted more than 12 days). International and Arab efforts at mediation have yet to bear fruit. Reports continue about the Hamas administration’s severe financial hardship.

A meeting was held in Beirut by the deputy head of Hamas’ political bureau, the secretary general of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) and the deputy secretary general of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP). They expressed support and pride for the activities and attacks of the “resistance” [terrorist attacks] in Judea and Samaria and emphasized the importance of escalation and armed “resistance” [terrorism] against Israel.

Were there indications that Hamas was deterred? 

^

'Palestine' as Southern Syria 1936-1939

'Palestine', as a geo-political entity, did not exist as a defined country. It was a territory, a region.

During Ottoman Empire rule it consisted, at various times, of different and alterating administrative units such as sanjaks and vilayets.

Several blogs posts I have published (here; and here, for example) detail the usage of 'Southern Syria' into the 1920s by local residents as well as political activists.

I add one more, from a study by Lori Allen of SOAS. It points to the consciousness of Palestine as Southern Syria, not an independent entity, during the 1936-1939 period:

^

Bella Hadid and a Map of Palestine

I came across this picture of Bella Hadid displaying a map of Palestine: 

As to the circumstances or the date of the map, I found this here:

Qatar National Library مكتبة قطر الوطني  · November 2, 2022

We were delighted to welcome Palestinian-Dutch supermodel Bella Hadid to the Library where she was acquainted with the historical items in our Heritage Library

I do not know what she learned from that map, but here are a few others that indicate that the boundaries of "Palestine" were, shall we say, a bit fluid.

One thing I can state with certainty, is that the Land of Israel, termed Palaestina with the Roman conquerors and Filastin by the Arab occupiers, always had the Jordan River flowing within it.

^

"Two Banks Has the Jordan" - From the Other Side

One the main and principled political and ideological elements of the Revisionist Movement founded by Ze'ev Jabotinsky is the claim for the integrity of the homeland.

In a practical sense, that meant that the Palestine Mandate should have extended to both sides of the Jordan River, instead of Article 25 of the Mandate decision allowing Great Britain to postpone the application of the reconsitution of the national Jewish homeland east of the Jordan River.

Jabotinsky wrote the words to a song on the matter.

A map representing the demanded borders was always prominent

And the Irgun adopted it as well.

Well, now I've found a Telegram account in Jordan and look at the map:

^

The Status Quo and Two Nails

From 

a story of two nails:

^

There Was a "Third Palestine"?

One could think that one 'Palestine' in more than enough.

A new book has been published. 

Written by scholar Walter D.Ward, it is not at all political but a study on the economics of a region. It "provides a comprehensive examination of the evidence for the economy of the later Roman province of Third Palestine, which roughly corresponds to southern Jordan, the Negev desert in Israel, and the Sinai Peninsula."

Where was that province?

In other words, there were two other "Palestines", all three really weren't one country and it was all Roman.

Some geography from the book:

So, they assertion that "Palestine" derived from the Roman Empire and that "Palestine" of the Arabs was never really a singly unit country is not some 'hasbara' claim but well-grounded in academic research.

As is well-known:

"in 132 CE in the period of the Bar Kokhba revolt the province [of Judea] was expanded and renamed Syria Palaestina. In 390, during the Byzantine period, the region was split into the provinces of Palaestina Prima, Palaestina Secunda, and Palaestina Tertia. Following the Muslim conquest of the Levant in the 630s, the military district of Jund Filastin was established."

Filastin is not an Arabic term but the transliteration from the Latin, just a Nablus is actually Nea Polis. Palestine is not Arab not original.

__________

UPDATE

The Arabs referred to as "Palestinians" claim descent from the Phoenicians.

But there's a catch:

"The Phoenicians...crisscrossed the sea connecting a vast geographic area...with an extensive network of settlements...and settled as immigrants"

Settlements?

^

When the CIA Said 'It Won't Work'

In 1947, the UN would be voting on a plan of partition to solve the 'problem' of the Palestine Mandate.

What did the CIA think?

Here:

It is apparent that the partition of Palestine into separate Arab and Jewish states (and an international zone), with economic union between the two states, as recommended by the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) on 29 November 1947, cannot be implemented. The Arab reaction to the recommendation has been violent, and the Arab refusal to cooperate in any way with the five-nation United Nations Commission will prevent the formation of an Arab state and the organization of economic union. The Arabs will use force to oppose the establishment of a Jewish state and to this end are training troops in Palestine and other Arab suites.

^

The Islamic Conquest of Judea

The Islamic conquest of Judea, how did it go?

Here is Andrew Bostom:

Relying upon the definitive study of this period, Moshe Gil's 1992 A History of Palestine 634-1099, and other corroborating scholarly sources, the following is a summary of the devastating and decidedly "non-liberating" consequences of these jihad campaigns, characterized by massacre, pillage, enslavement and deportation of the indigenous Palestinian Jewish, Christian and Samaritan populations.

The entire Gaza region up to Caesarea was sacked and devastated in the campaign of 634 C.E., which included the slaughter of 4000 Jewish, Christian and Samaritan peasants. Villages in the Negev were also pillaged, and towns such as Jerusalem, Gaza, Jaffa, Caesarea, Nablus, and Beth Shean were isolated. In his sermon on the Day of the Epiphany 636, Sophronius, Patriarch of Jerusalem, bewailed the destruction of the churches and monasteries, the sacked towns and villages, and the fields laid waste by the invaders. Thousands of people perished in 639, victims of the famine and plague wrought by this wanton destruction. The Muslim historian Baladhuri, maintained that 30,000 Samaritans and 20,000 Jews lived in Caesarea alone just prior to the Arab Muslim conquest; afterwards, all evidence of them disappears. Archaeological data confirm the lasting devastation wrought by these initial jihad conquests, particularly the widespread destruction of synagogues and churches from the Byzantine era, whose remnants are still being unearthed. The total number of towns was reduced from 58 to 17 in the red sand hills and swamps of the western coastal plain (namely, the Sharon). Massive soil erosion from the western slopes of the Judaean mountains also occurred due to agricultural uprooting during this period. Finally, the papyri of Nessana were completely discontinued after the year 700, reflecting how the Negev also experienced destruction of its agriculture, and the desertion of its villages.

When Caliph Umar ibn al-Khattab visited Jerusalem during 638, mainly to end some of the wanton destruction wrought by his jihadist forces, he immediately built an unostentatious mosque on the Temple Mount — hardly an act of "reinstating Jewishness and Judaism" to Jerusalem! Moreover, Umar's treaty of submission for the Christians included abiding their prohibition on Jewish settlement in Jerusalem. Three years later, in 641, Umar did allow very limited Jewish re-settlement of Jerusalem, but for politico-religious reasons, advantageous to the Muslim rulers: to spur economic activity and weaken Christian claims of exclusivity to the city. By the end of the 7th century, the triumphal Dome of the Rock was constructed on the Temple Mount under the Umayyad Caliph Abd al-Malik and his sons, giving Jerusalem a Muslim, not a Jewish "aura of sanctity," transforming it, "into a center of attraction to visitors from all over the Muslim world."

The jihad conquest of Palestine created an Islamic state under Sharia jurisdiction for the surviving Jews, Christians and Samaritans, with all its accompanying religious and socio-political discriminations. There was nothing "liberating" about the jihad waged against the vanquished "dhimmi," per Qur'an 9:29:

"Fight against those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth [i.e., Islam] from those who were given the Scripture - fight until they give the jizyah1 willingly while they are humbled."

This verse, and its interpretation by seminal Muslim Qur'anic commentators and jurists, was the key rationale for Sharia-based restrictions on non-Muslims' religious practices, as well as their pauperizing taxation, disarmament and inequality in penal law.

Although interrupted, in part, for nearly two centuries by the Kingdom of Jerusalem (1099–1291 C.E.), the oppressive imposition of Islamic law in Palestine persisted for over a thousand years, in total, through the mid- to late 19th century under Ottoman rule.

^

Jabotinsky on the Ethics and Morality of Zionism

 Zionism and Ethics

Ze’ev Jabotinsky, Di Tribune, Stockholm, May 10, 1916

There is an opinion that the Jewish people have no “moral right” to claim control of Eretz Israel. The claim that it is immoral is that since the Jewish population of Eretz Israel is only 100,000, while the Arab population is 600,000, this would mean the demanding that a minority rule over the majority. Jews have no right to risk and harm themselves by insisting on such unfair demands. The only right we have is “free repatriation and settlement activity”, but nothing more…

…If power is in the hands of a government hostile to the very idea of Jewish settlement, then such a government will be able to nullify any paragraph without any effort. And for this there will be no need to prohibit repatriation and settlement activity directly, which would simply contradict the terms of the paragraph. There are thousands of other means for this purpose. Thus, for example, without mentioning the Jews, one can establish laws on the right to own property, or on the acceptance of citizenship, or municipal and political laws for repatriates, and so on. In this way, it is possible to bring about a situation where settlement activity itself (one way or another) will run up against an iron barrier. In the end, with the help of all sorts of "proclamations" and "administrative procedures", one can do with this or that paragraph whatever one pleases.

Therefore, the paragraph concerning free repatriation does not give any guarantees. It follows that we must abandon the idea of guarantees and get used to another idea, the essence of which is that the fate of settlement in Eretz Israel depends on the good will of this or that government. Or we must go straight to the point and demand real and genuine guarantees. The most reliable guarantee is this: to grant us power in the form of a "charter" or in any other form.

This is precisely what the Basel Program demands. But the people who signed it twenty years ago suddenly came to their senses and decided that it was immoral. And now they are trying to find a way to accumulate capital and preserve their innocence at the same time. One of them wrote to me not long ago: “I would propose an agreement that would be both fair and even democratic: we should not demand a ‘charter’ for ourselves, but simply autonomy for Eretz Israel. The parliament should be elected by the entire population, both Jewish and Arab. The right to vote should be granted to everyone who can read and write, regardless of nationality or sex.

The masthead of Di Tribune 

Under this system we would get approximately the following figures: the Jewish population of Eretz Israel is only 100,000 people, but all adult men and women can read and write; thus, the Jewish population with the right to vote would be approximately 40,000 people. The number of Arabs reaches 600,000 people, but almost the entire female population does not meet the stated condition, that is, half of the population immediately drops out; and even among the male population, especially in the villages, the art of writing and reading is not very widespread. And if we continue and go along this path, then it will be possible to introduce a system of educational qualifications.

This system exists in England and Belgium. It is based on the fact that people with, say, a secondary education have the right to two votes, people with a higher education - to three votes. If such a system is introduced, then we Jews will have an absolute majority in the first parliament. The first parliament should be elected in 10 years, and during this time we will be able to properly strengthen our position in quantitative terms. How do you like this plan?"

I do not know how to answer such a question. This may indeed be a wise plan, but it has a weak point, namely, that at its core lies the idea that such an idealistically just matter as handing over Eretz Israel to the persecuted Jewish people so that they can establish their national home there, such a deeply ethical moral matter appears so immoral and unjust that it must be covered up with all sorts of fabrications.

It is also characteristic and noteworthy that only the Jews come with such claims to “ethics”...It seems that only the Jews are required to be super-ethical. Moreover, our moralists themselves do not at all want local Arabs to be in power in Eretz Israel. They want the country to be governed by some power that is sympathetic to the Jewish settlement and its activities. Some believe that such a power could be Turkey, others prefer England. But both sides think that it would be extremely "fair" if the English or the Turks were in power in Eretz Israel, although their numbers reach approximately thirty thousand. Such a situation, as you see, would be fair. But when the Jews demand the right to rule in Eretz Israel, there is no justice in this, since there are only one hundred thousand of them.

…No one demands that a "charter" be issued to those one hundred thousand Jews who have succeeded in getting into Eretz Israel, despite the barbed wire entanglements which the Turkish regime places before them. Eretz Israel must be handed over to the whole Jewish people. And this people numbers eleven or twelve million people, that is, in fact, twenty times more than the six hundred thousand Arabs who live in Eretz Israel today. In the course of four years the Jewish people can send over six hundred thousand new repatriates across the ocean. And if we take into account the entire stock of its “emigration”, that is, the entire mass that can be considered potential repatriates without fear of making a mistake, then we get a population equal to eight or even nine million people.

We demand Eretz Israel in the name of these masses, and not in the name of the "Yishuv" that exists today. And our aspiration is not to obtain a "charter" only for those who have settled already in the country, but for the entire Jewish people. This people, by virtue of its perfection, will manage the settlement in the holy land, will plant culture on it, will attract investors to it; the handful of current residents of Eretz Israel - both Jews and Arabs - are an insignificant minority in comparison with this people.

Sometimes the Jews make a funny impression, despite the fact that their faces express honesty and sentimentality. They love to sigh over the bitter fate of their opponents, and sometimes even their enemies. I know dozens of Jews who, even now, after all that has happened, feel sorry for the poor Poles because the Lord God put them in an awkward position and brought upon them such a misfortune as the Jewish question. Thank God, our relations with the Arabs are better than our relations with the Poles. And so we sigh over their fate much more often and with greater rapture. Unhappy people, we say they are, because Eretz Israel is, in fact, part of the Arab territory, because they have lived on this land for many, many years, and suddenly we have arrived and want to become masters there. I look at the moral side of the current situation with somewhat different eyes.

The tribes that speak Arabic inhabit Syria, the Arabian Peninsula, Yemen, Egypt, Tripoli, Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco and Mesopotamia. In a territory whose area (excluding the Arabian Peninsula) is as large as the area of all of Europe (excluding Russia), and is quite sufficient to feed a billion people, there lives only one national group - thirty-five million people. On the other hand, there is the Jewish people, a people persecuted, deprived of a homeland, who have no place of their own in the whole world. They strive for Eretz Israel because they have no other home and because everything that has brought glory to Eretz Israel in world history, all the splendor that was and is in it, all the superhuman functions that the country has performed, all this is the fruit of the spiritual development of the people of Israel. Compared with the entire vast territory inhabited by the Arab peoples, Eretz Israel constitutes only a hundredth part.

I do not know whether it is possible to speak of ethics in our time when such questions are discussed. But if it is possible, let me ask, what is ethics, in essence? Is it based on the fact that one should have much, another little? Is it based on the fact that the land, which is the basis of life, is concentrated in large quantities in the hands of one people, who are not even able to cultivate it, while another people, exiled and wandering like a dog in foreign lands, looks with great envy from behind a fence at the tempting desert? Where did this kind of ethics come from? And how can it be called ethics at all?

If they came with sword in hand to take Eretz Yisrael, we would be right before God and man, just as a beggar is right who takes from a rich man. The ethics concerning land relations between nations is, in essence, the same ethics accepted among the people of whom it is said in the Bible: from time to time there is a great harvest, and then he who has no land demands his share from he who has land in abundance. Instead of two million square kilometers, the Arabs will populate a territory of one million eight hundred thousand square kilometers. And thanks to this, a Jewish state will exist on earth, and one of the most pressing problems of history will come closer to its solution.

It is quite clear that the Arabs living in Eretz Israel have every right to demand that they not be expelled from there. That is a different matter. That is beyond any discussion and no one is going to expel them from there. There is plenty of space in Eretz Israel. The population density in Eretz Israel today is approximately twenty souls per square kilometer. In neighboring Lebanon, there are seventy souls per square kilometer; in Germany - one hundred and twenty; in Italy - one hundred and twenty-four; in Belgium - two hundred and fifty-seven; and in some densely populated areas of Egypt - three hundred and sixty-two. This is not the place to engage in puzzles and calculate how many people can live in one square kilometer in Eretz Israel in acceptable conditions.

But if we take Lebanon as an example, where the natural conditions are much worse than those in Eretz Israel, then, even then, if we calculate, we will find that in Eretz Israel there is room for at least another fifty inhabitants per square kilometer. It follows that we do not lay claim to the twenty occupied places, but to the fifty free ones, or to those deserted and abandoned places which, if only they fall into our hands, we can, with our labors, applying all our abilities, transform into an economically developed region and bring the population density in Eretz Israel closer to the level of civilized European countries. And in this way the question of the legitimate interests of the population of Eretz Israel now living will be resolved.

If there is a need to provide guarantees for the existence of their religion, language, property, personal rights, and the like, guarantees against possible tyranny or persecution on our part, then we are ready to provide them, regardless of whether the protection of their rights is handed over to a special international commission or to the consuls of the great powers. But no ethics can recognize either that they have a right of veto against Jewish settlement, or that a handful of half-savage people have the right to hold in their hands a territory that can feed millions, turn it into a desert, and close its gates.

I am not one of those people who believe that in the current situation it is naive and even unnecessary to express one's opinion in politics about the moral side of the issue. It is clear that the powers that be do not take the moral side into account, but the Jewish people cannot and should not give up their demands. We stand our ground and demand that the world hand over the land of our future into our hands, in the name of our entire history and in the name of all our suffering. In the name of that endless guilt that weighs down the conscience of the world. And it is strange to hear that there are people who do not understand this. But it is even stranger that the people who have doubts about the ethics of the "Basel program" are almost all Jews.

I myself had occasion during the war to talk about Zionism with political figures in England, France, Italy, Greece - and I have never heard such statements from anyone. People who are constantly in contact with government circles in England on questions of Zionism, and they have never encountered such excuses. The healthy political mind of a healthy people decides simply and clearly: it is impossible to imagine a settlement without real power. If the very fact of settlement is "ethical", then the power is ethical. If in relation to such countries as England, France, Italy, which in addition to colonies have enough of their own land, if it is ethical for them to settle colonies, then it is even more ethical in relation to a people deprived of any land at all. And only from the Jews are cries of protest heard. From this we can conclude that in this matter we are not talking about moral rights at all, but about fear of the idea itself.

^