David Blatman's Call for Violence

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

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

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

Therefore, organization is required.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Blatman ends his op-ed with a call:

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

This is what Blatman wrote and what Haaretz printed.

Support for insurrection.

Labeling Gantz a Nazi.

Suggesting Netanyahu is destroying Israeli democracy.

Think about that.

___________________

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

מי ינהיג את המרי

31.01.2019

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

פרופ׳ בלטמן הוא היסטוריון באוניברסיטה העברית

^

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.

^

How Many Homes, Mr. Toner?

An excerpt from the Press Statement of Mark C. Toner, spokesperson of the US State Department, October 5, 2016: -

We strongly condemn the Israeli government's recent decision to advance a plan that would create a significant new settlement deep in the West Bank.

Proceeding with this new settlement, which could include up to 300 units, would further damage the prospects for a two state solution. The retroactive authorization of nearby illegal outposts, or redrawing of local settlement boundaries, does not change the fact that this approval contradicts previous public statements by the Government of Israel that it had no intention of creating new settlements. And this settlement's location deep in the West Bank, far closer to Jordan than Israel, would link a string of outposts that effectively divide the West Bank and make the possibility of a viable Palestinian state more remote.

300 units?

Hmm.

These 300?

Israel gave final approval on Wednesday for plans to build 300 new homes in a Jewish settlement in the occupied West Bank, announcing the move as it carried out a court demolition order against two vacant apartment blocks in the same enclave.

Oh, sorry, that was in late July 2015 at Bet El.

These 300?

Israeli Defence Minister Shaul Mofaz...gave approval for the construction of 300 new homes for Jewish settlers in the West Bank. The construction was planned for Maale Adumim, the largest Israeli settlement in the West Bank, and further expansion was anticipated for the smaller settlements of Nokdim and Bracha. 

No.  That was back in December 2005. Eleven years ago.

These 300?

Moves jeopardise any hope of peace talks, say Palestinians.  Israel to build 300 new settlement homes in West Bank

Nope. That was in May 2013.

These 450 perhaps?

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has approved the marketing of land for the construction of 454 homes in two settlements

No.  That was last November in Jerusalem.

Maybe it was this announcement of "hundreds" in early July 2016?

The Israeli government has approved the construction of hundreds of new housing units in West Bank settlements and neighborhoods in the eastern part of Jerusalem, the Prime Minister's Office confirmed to CNN.Of those settlements, 560 will be built in Ma'ale Adumim, which is already one of the largest settlements in the West Bank.Another 240 will be built in Jerusalem in neighborhoods that Israel says are Jewish but Palestinians claim as the future capital of a Palestinian state in the eastern part of the city.

These 300?

Israel has authorised construction of 300 new homes at a Jewish settlement in the occupied West Bank,

No, that was at Talmon in June 2009.

Oh, by the way, did you know there's this address in Lafayette, Louisiana

300 Old Settlement Rd,

Lafayette, LA 

Is the State Department being wagged by Peace Now, who claims it is all near me?

Or maybe Netanyahu is making the same announcement of approval year-in, year-out?


____________

Caught this twitter tweeting:

But it's not settlements. It is an idea about moving a settlement that the people in question have rejected.

Worse: Not homes. Possible plans about homes likely to not be realized, for years if ever.

But here there is condemnation of building that has high chance of never happening, and not about new settlers, but moving old ones.

And also this:

missing #Obama renouncing #Bush-#Sharon 2004 deal.

And now, this:

'We're not building a new settlement'
The Foreign Ministry responded to the American attacks on building in Judea and Samaria earlier.

 "98 units in Shilo do not constitute 'a new settlement.' The units will be built on state land within the confines of the existing community of Shilo. They are meant to solve a housing problem for the residents of Amona who were forced to leave their homes in accordance with a demolition order by the Supreme Court," the Ministry said.
The Ministry also emphasized: "Israel is still obligated to the Two-State solution, in which a proclaimed Palestinian State recognizes Israel as the Jewish State. The real obstacle to peace is not the settlements, but the continual Palestinian rejection of Israel's existence."

________________

Today's comeback:

Verbal clashes between Israel and the U.S. over resettlement plans of the illegal outpost of Amona escalated Wednesday evening, after a Foreign Ministry statement rejected American criticism and claimed that the construction plans approved last week do not constitute the creation of a new settlement."The settlements are not the obstacle to peace," said the Foreign Ministry statement.The Prime Minister's Office did not issue an official response, but Haaretz has learned that the Foreign Ministry statement was worded and approved by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his advisers alongside Foreign Ministry staff.The 98 housing units approved in Shilo do not constitute a "new settlement," read the statement. "This housing will be built on state land in the existing settlement of Shilo and will not change its municipal boundary or geographic footprint. The units are intended to provide a housing solution for the residents of Amona who must leave their homes in accordance with the demolition order issued by Israel's High Court of Justice."The Israeli Foreign Ministry statement added that Israel remains committed to the two-state solution, "in which a demilitarized Palestinian state recognizes the Jewish state of Israel.""The real obstacle to peace is not the settlements – a final status issue that can and must be resolved in negotiations between the parties - but the persistent Palestinian rejection of a Jewish state in any boundaries," said the statement.

^

Careful When a Journalist 'Explains' Something to You

Here's a description of the latest incident in which Binyamin Netanyahu is portrayed in a scandalous fashion, a descritpion which I think is fair :

On Saturday evening, Netanyahu gave interviews to Israeli television channels from New York....One of the issues raised during the interviews had to do with values. Netanyahu was asked if he regretted the phone call he had made to Charlie Azaria, the father of Sgt. Elor Azaria, who is on trial for manslaughter after being filmed shooting a seriously wounded Palestinian terrorist to death in Hebron. He replied that he had no regrets.
 Channel 2's Udi Segal asked him if he had telephoned parents of other soldiers who allegedly disobeyed the army's orders, and Netanyahu replied: "No, but I did call many parents who were in distress over the fact that their sons had been killed or had gone missing."

But then the writer, Nahum Barnea, "explains" the scandal:

The comparison between the parents of a soldier who is on trial for manslaughter and the parents of missing soldiers Hadar Goldin and Oron Shaul is outrageous, not least because of the unbridgeable abyss between fighters who sacrificed their life for the state and a soldier accused of a serious crime. It is outrageous because of the abyss separating between the parents...And it's outrageous because it offers Israelis in general, and those who serve in the army in particular, a distorted value system which must not be accepted. Soldiers are not children. They are adults,

However, it is Barnea making a bad comparison.

Netanyahu was asked about making a phone call to relieve distress of a parent who is concerned his child, while in uniform, is perhaps not being treated fairly, in a lawful fashion or, because of the situation the parent finds himself in, physically. medically, economically or psychologically.

Let's not forget that in that phone call to the soldier on trial, the Prime Minister did not identify with the soldier's action but informed the father that he must trust the system.  

“I have full faith in the IDF and its chief of staff, and that I think you, too, should have faith in the commanders and examination, just as the people of Israel need to stay united around its army. We only have one army, with many more challenges ahead of us,” Netanyahu added. 

If anyone, it was the former Defense Minister Moshe Ya'alon who injected a prejudicial tone into the public discourse, saying then

when someone has his hands up, or is already neutralized, that’s when you arrest,” he added. “Whoever supports these kinds of acts [the soldier’s] is damaging the values of the Israel Defense Forces.”

in what was a blatant attempt to subvert justice and interfere with the future trial and the then on-going investigation.

But the media went into a shark frenzy, Yedioth Ahronot plastered the above column on page 1 and Netanyahu had to clarify 

The Prime Minister’s Office issued a clarification on Sunday, in which Netanyahu stated, “I am sorry if my words were misunderstood.” He continued to say that “In no way did I compare the suffering of bereaved families—a suffering I am very familiar with—to that of other parents who are also suffering. There is no comparison and can be no comparison.”

Haaretz went further, of course:

Prime minister openly supports Elor Azaria and demonstrates empathy toward his family, even if it's seen as challenging the military justice system.

wrote Amos Harel and Gili Cohen.

Netanyahu, declares the first principle of Israel journalism, is guilty.

The second principle is he can never be correct.

And if he isn't guilty and is correct, then the third principle is that he must be doing it for an ulterior reason.

^

Biblical Diplomacy Suggested?

From a review of Secretary John Kerry's latest efforts:

Netanyahu and Abbas both doubled down on their positions and refused to take even the most minimal step to restore calm,..Kerry’s meeting with Abbas was no better. Sources briefed on it said Abbas refused to take even minimal confidence-building measures like condemning stabbing attacks, or at least not voicing support for the perpetrators. Abbas kept asking what Kerry had brought him from Netanyahu, and when he realized the answer was nothing, he began threatening to turn the keys of the PA over to Israel or start new diplomatic and legal campaigns against Israel at the United Nations.Afterward, Kerry phoned Netanyahu while en route to the airport and told him, “I’m out of ideas,” a source briefed on the conversation said.
The White House had already concluded that Netanyahu and Abbas were a lost cause, but now, Kerry’s aides are coming to the same conclusion.
“Our begging and pleading isn’t helping,” one American official said. “Maybe what’s needed is simply for the situation on the ground to force the sides to take action.”

2 Samuel 2:14 

And Abner said to Joab: 'Let the young men, I pray thee, arise and play before us.' And Joab said: 'Let them arise.'

^

Netanyahu to Kerry: First Fire The Official Who Called Me Chickenshit

Remember this:

The other day I was talking to a senior Obama administration official about the foreign leader who seems to frustrate the White House and the State Department the most. “The thing about Bibi is, he’s a chickenshit,” this official said, referring to the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, by his nickname.This comment is representative of the gloves-off manner in which American and Israeli officials now talk about each other behind closed doors...

Well, Netanyahu may be telling Kerry, that guy gets identified and fired first.  And second, he wants to know who called him

Over the years, Obama administration officials have described Netanyahu to me as recalcitrant, myopic, reactionary, obtuse, blustering, pompous, and “Aspergery.” 

and only then he'll deal with Ran Baratz. 

As for this:

"I can't stand him. He's a liar," Sarkozy said of Netanyahu, according to the website.Obama replied, "You're tired of him; what about me? I have to deal with him every day," the site reported.Arret Sur Images ("Freeze Frame") said journalists had listened in on the conversation but had agreed not to report it. The Reuters and Associated Press news services confirmed that report Tuesday

Netanyahu already dealt with that.


_____________________

UPDATE (h/t=DG)


Why Baratz may think Kerry is an 'idiot'.

^

Was Netanyahu Wrong?

After these blogs, here and here, I bring you something I found at Bernard Lewis' 1999 book, "Semites and Anti-Semites: An Inquiry Into Conflict and Prejudice", pages 146-7

The "Final Solution"?

The extermination of World Jewry?

UPDATE

And see now Elder.  And this.

UPDATE II

"There is no doubt in my mind whatsoever that the Mufti had an important role in the Holocaust," Boris Havel of Croatia's ministry of foreign affairs, the author of a recent journal article about Husseini, wrote The Washington Post in an email. "By the end of 1930s Germany still allowed its Jews to emigrate. No Jews were allowed to emigrate after Mufti established himself in Berlin. The Mufti has been calling on killing Jews since early 1920s, i.e. even before Nazi regime came to power in Germany." (In an email, Havel his views "do not reflect the official policy or position of the Institution by which he is employed.")
One book, "Icon of Evil: Hitler's Mufti and the Rise of Radical Islam" (2008) - citing Hitler's alleged comment to Husseini "the Jews are yours" - argued that the Mufti's sit-down with the Fuhrer was pivotal.

Spoerl's paper.


And, starting in 1939, we learn from this study:

American diplomats in Cairo began to send reports about Arabic language broadcasts coming from Germany and Italy in summer 1939. Kirk sent the first of his dispatches about them to Washington on September 13, 1941. 

...The transcripts reveal the intertwining of Nazi ideology and the Nazi narrative of World War II with themes of Arab nationalism as well as those of what we would now call fundamentalist or radical Islam. The transcripts reveal Germany, and fascist Italy’s efforts to present themselves as partisans of Arab independence against British colonialism. Husseini celebrates Rommel’s victories. Many broadcasts repeat the general themes of radical anti-Semitism, describe World War II as a Jewish war and some call on the Arabs to kill the Jews in their midst...the Sichherheitsdienst and German military intelligence was reporting back to Berlin that if Rommel’s North Africa Corps was victorious and was able to enter Cairo and Palestine, it could count on support from some elements of the Egyptian officer corps as well as from the Moslem Brotherhood.43 They reveal that an Einsatzgruppe in Rome was armed and prepared to depart to Palestine to murder the Jewish population there had Rommel been successful at Al Alamein ...

_________

UPDATE

"...thanks to Netanyahu's words we come out of this with a benefit, because he dealt with the centrality of the mufti who for some reason has been taken off the historical stage in everything related to the Holocaust...When Haj Amin al-Husseini met Hitler in November 1941, he told him that there's a stark similarity between Nazism and Islam...Husseini was responsible for establishing SS units in the Balkans. He was friendly with senior SS commanders, and was responsible for Berlin Radio broadcasts in all the Islamic lands."

"His Berlin Radio broadcasts would always end by calling to slaughter the Jews.

"...The Prime Minister’s remarks were not far from reality.  There was a plan by the Mufti to burn the Jews from Arab countries and Jews in Palestine after the German victory in the battle of El Alamein in 1943. Haj Amin al-Husseini was an officer in the Turkish army. I have no proof, but apparently he knew about the Armenian Genocide and drew his ideas from that. None of the historians have referred to that...he played a part in the Farhud - the pogrom against the Jewish population of Baghdad on June 1 and 2, 1941, following the British victory in the Anglo-Iraqi War.

“The Mufti was responsible for the killing of hundreds of Jews; he planned to build incinerators in the Dotan Valley to implement the ‘Final Solution’ in the Middle East,”

MORE

An addition

And just as I wrote:

Focusing on the details of the meeting is a key error that has plagued much of the commentary about Netanyahu's statement. The real question is what impact the Grand Mufti and those he ordered, inspired and incited had on the Holocaust. What role did the Grand Mufti and his Palestinian followers have in preventing Jews from escaping the Nazis and getting to the only territory that would take them, the Jewish community in British-run Mandate Palestine?
Here the evidence is clear: The Mufti influenced the Germans to directly prevent the escape of Jews who otherwise might have survived the war, and he provoked his followers to violence in the Palestine Mandate, leading the British to enact the infamous White Paper. That new British policy called for greatly restricting Jewish immigration for five years, after which any further immigration would have required Arab ascent:
This again prevented Jews from escaping from the Nazis in Europe, and thereby helped implement their extermination.
That is, at the very moment when the desperate Jews of Europe most needed a haven to escape to, the Mufti had played a key role in slamming the door.

.

^

Dina Porat - Historian

Here is Prof. Dina Porat of Yad Vashem:

“The mufti did not speak to Hitler in terms of ‘you should do this,’ or ‘what do you think of a final solution?’ Nor is it recorded that the mufti told Hitler to ‘burn them.’ Hitler never asked anyone what to do with the Jews,” Porat said. She did say, however, that Hitler told the mufti that he would “’continue his plans,’ meaning that he had already begun, and certainly not because the mufti asked him to.”
According to Porat, “all of the facts show that during Hitler and the mufti’s meeting, the ‘final solution’ was already under way.”
Porat explained that Hitler’s plan to exterminate European Jewry dated back to years before his meeting with Husseini, noting references to it in “Mein Kampf,” which was published in 1925, as well as the 1933 Nazi party charter and remarks in the Reichstag in 1939, when Hitler threatened to “exterminate the Jewish people.”

I am not getting into the argument whether Netanyahu was historical correct, I did that here, or whether he simply could have phrased himself better.  I'd just like to point out how Porat herself is misleading.

If she can go no further back than 1925 for the beginning of Hitler's extermination plans, well, then, the Mufti preceded him.

Credit

He instigated, initiated and participated in the April 1920 murderous riots against the Jews of Jerusalem and probably was indirectly involved in the 1921 pogroms.  His hatred of Jews, his religious intolerance for them and his plans to exploit his position as Mufti to kill Jews was much more entrenched politically and administratively than Hitler in those early stages.

You could even read it at Wikipedia:

From as early as 1920, he actively opposed Zionism, and was implicated as a leader of the 1920 Nebi Musa riots. Al-Husseini...was charged with inciting the Arab crowds [in 1920] with an inflammatory speech and sentenced in absentia to 10-years imprisonment by a military court, since by then he had fled to Syria...but was pardoned by the British. Starting in 1921, al-Husseini was appointed Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, using the position to promote Islam, while rallying a non-confessional Arab nationalism against Zionism...

So, Prof. Porat, who was actively trying to eliminate Jews more?

__________

P.S.  And the Mufti's plans for crematoria in the Dothan Valley?

^ 

Netanyahu's Wall Mesage

What is very remarkable in this picture (from this series) of  the GPO's Amos Ben-Gershon is not only the rare meeting of Arab MKs with Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu.

Take a look at the picture on the wall:

Look carefully:

The Temple Mount.

Thank you, PM Netanyahu.

________________________

P.S.

Someone asked for a comparison:

P.P.S.


Danny Seidemann got a bit carried away:

^

What Status?

This has been communicated by the Prime Minister's Media Adviser:

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu spoke this afternoon (Thursday, 5 February 2015), with King Abdullah II of Jordan. ..The Prime Minister noted the importance of the Jordanian ambassador's return to Israel and of the joint commitment to maintaining the status quo at the holy sites.

Joint?

Really?

Exactly how?

Does Jordan respect the Jewish claim to the Temple Mount on Moriah?  Does it wish for coexistence? Respect for religious freedom?

How does Jordan see this situation?

Here

Jordanian diplomacy made its most significant 2014 win in early November by successfully lifting the Israeli closure of Al Aqsa Mosque and repelling Israeli aggression [???] on Al Haram Al Sharif...Following incursions of Israeli security forces into Al Aqsa Mosque, Jordan withdrew its ambassador to Israel, Walid Obeidat, over violations in East Jerusalem.
 Parallel to the escalation of violence in East Jerusalem, King Abdullah led a diplomatic offensive [???] by contacting influential political centres, efforts..."King Abdullah and Jordanian diplomacy did their utmost to neutralise Israeli escalation of violence and incitement at Al Haram Al Sharif, using practical and diplomatic efforts to curb attempts of right-wing Zionist circles to seize Muslim shrines," [veteran diplomat and columnist Hasan] Abu Nimah said.

Somehow, I don't think the two leaders are communicating the same message.

And then there's this:

Netanyahu asserted Israel’s respect of the Hashemite custodianship of the holy sites in Jerusalem and the historic role of Jordan, in pursuance of the Jordanian-Israeli peace agreement, expressing the Israeli government’s commitment not to alter the status quo at Al Haram Al Sharif and Al Aqsa Mosque. King Abdullah reiterated Jordan’s rejection of any Israeli measures that may threaten or undermine the sanctity of the holy mosque, endanger the shrine, or lead to changing the status quo of the holy site.

Is there any sanctity at the site for Jews?   Any Jordanian commitment?

What's the Jewish status?

^

What About the Other 'Status Quo'?

...we've watched with growing concern the fact that Islamist parties, including the Muslim Brotherhood, including Hamas, including Abu Mazen, the Chairman of the Palestinian Authority, have joined in a campaign of inflammation, calling for any action, including violent action, to stop Jews from exercising their right to merely enter the Mount. This is an arrangement that has been there for many decades, since the Six Day War. We stand by the rights of Jews to go to the Mount. They pray in the Western Wall, but they do have a right to go there. We stand by the right of Muslims to go to the Mount and pray in the al-Aqsa Mosque. They've been doing that for many, many decades and will continue to do that. But we reject all this incitement to violence and we will do everything we can to restore calm and order.

Statement by PM Binyamin Netanyahu at a meeting with High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Mogherini, November 7, 2014.

If he had actually used the term 'status quo', that would have been excellent public diplomacy.

And in the phone call to the King he flubbed it (Update).

^