Tuesday, March 30, 2021

A Comment on the Pollard Interview

The Friday, March 26, 2021 Hebrew edition of Israel Hayom carried a long interview with Jonathan Pollard.

There is a swipe at the Knesset Lobby in a short Q & A at its end

I translate:

The Knesset Lobby?
They did nothing. Zero. It was a joke.
A group came to visit me once, at Butner Penitentiary, after returning from Washington.
They excitedly related that they were at the Capitol.
I asked them, 'did you talk about me?' and they stammered 'no'.

While I cannot say that the incident happened or not, I can say that as regards the Pro-Pollard Lobby in the Knesset between 1987, when it was founded by MKs Geulah Cohen and Edna Solodar, and until 1994, when it was then headed by MK Rechavam Zeevi, and with me as coordinator, the Lobby was active, effective and supportive.

Jay's memory has either lapsed or anything pre-EZ is purposely erased. A great disrespect to Geulah and Edna, their interventions with the suport of dozens of MKs, the assistance by the-then Israel UN Amabssador and many others. Diplomatic, political, and other aid was done. The Pollard Family was brought to the Knesset on several occasions and lobbying was done, even as it was an uphill fight.

The archives of that period exist and so a future academic research study will probably be made.


Morris Pollard on Why Is Jonathan Pollard in Prison? - 2008

The following was presented to me at a meeting I had with Dr. Morris Pollard, Jonathan Pollard's late father in his hotel room in Jerusalem. He was making yet another trip to the Knesset on behalf of his son. The date the document carries is October 2008. I have added, here and there, links (and will continue to do so).

Why is Jonathan Pollard in Prison?
Morris Pollard, Notre Dame, IN

Frequent inquiries regarding Jonathan Pollard’s continued incarceration point to one of the most troubling aspects of what has come to be called “The Pollard Affair.” Jonathan has been in federal prison for 23 years, and up to this point in time we did not know what and who ignited the vicious attacks directed against him. Jonathan was arrested and indicted by the grand jury on one count of transmitting classified information to Israel “for the benefit of Israel,” and the damage report stated “without damage to United States security.” The indictment: Jonathan informed Israel that Iraq had developed weapons of mass destruction. While treason was never mentioned in the indictment, propaganda promoting his sentence was more in line with those who committed treasonous acts.

Prior to his arrest in 1985, Jonathan ,a civil service analyst in the office of Naval Intelligence, had observed satellite photos of buildings in Baghdad, Iraq, that had been marked by unknown U.S.security personnel with the letters “WMD” (Weapons of Mass Destruction). He learned that contrary to the treaty existing between the United States and Israel, that Israel had not been informed of this threat. His superiors denied knowledge about those photos, did not know why this information was not transmitted to Israel, and suggested that perhaps an explanation required higher security clearance. Jonathan felt morally obliged to inform our ally, the Israeli government, of the danger it faced from weapons of mass destruction in the hands of the malevolent Saddam Hussein. In doing this, Jonathan broke the law.

The treaty pledged mutual exchange of vital information between Israel and the United States. The breach of the treaty was announced by then Deputy Director of the CIA “Bobby Ray” Inman. He was so furious that the Osirak nuclear reactor center in Baghdad was destroyed by Israel (June 7,1981) that he arbitrarily curtailed the vital flow ensitive classified information to Israel. Years later, Inman’s words were revealed in The Wall Street Journal (August 6, 1998) by Boston University Professor Angelo Codevilla, who was witness to that event as a member of the Senate Select Intelligence Committee. By his act in changing the treaty between the U.S. and Israel, Mr Inman broke the law. The Constitution of the United states in Article 6 [2] describes valid treaties as “the law of the land”.

The Israeli government’s rapid response to the information Jonathan gave them, in securing gas masks for her citizens and mandating that each Israeli household seal a room against a gas attack. This response by Israel gives convincing evidence that Israel was not aware of Iraq’s Weapons of Mass Destruction. But what other information, of importance to Israel was omitted by the CIA during the previous 4 years? Equally important, who promoted and supported the WMD program in Iraq, and is Israel still receiving “curtailed”information ?

The Israeli response to the information from Jonathan created hysteria among certain members of the United States Administration. Jonathan was placed in solitary confinement without bail. The media was informed that Jonathan Pollard “knew too much” and that "he was a threat to the security of the United States". The intensity of the propaganda promoted such a pervasive “lynch mob” atmosphere that Jonathan’s attorney, Richard Hibey,* and the United States Prosecuting Attorney, Joseph Di Genova, recommended to Jonathan that he forego a trial by jury and sign a plea agreement for a sentence of” less than life “in exchange for his complete cooperation. However, soon after the plea agreement was signed, the attacks in the media were intensified with government-released announcements (especially from Secretary of  Defense Caspar Weinberger) that “Jonathan Pollard was the most dangerous spy in the history of our country” and that ”he should be shot”. United States Prosecuting Attorney Joseph Di Genova joined Weinberger in accusing Jonathan of “treasonous acts”, and secret testimony against Jonathan, submitted to the court under oath by Weinberger, was sealed in the name of “national security.” To this day, access to his testimony has been denied to Jonathan’s subsequent defense attorneys who had clearance to view “top secret” information.

Defense attorney Hibey refused to tell me anything about the status of the case because I was “not his client”. Errors by Richard Hibey, retrieved from the Court Record, were so blatent and so egregious that it is not reasonable to presume that they were simply accidental. He failed to protest the fact that presiding Judge Aubrey Robinson did not advise Jonathan of his right to file a direct appeal (this is considered grounds for a “reversible error” and could cause a sentence to be over-turned). Hibey failed to challenge: a) the arbitrary breach of the plea agreement, in view of the fact that there was no ”evidentiary hearing “on that subject; b) the unsupported accusations of “treason” by Weinberger and Di Genova; and, c) Weinberger’s secret sealed testimonies. Hibey, as revealed in the record presented confidential attorney-client conversations to presiding Judge Robinson. He constantly assured Jonathan that his (Hibey’s) errors would be reversed when the case would be appealed to a higher court. And surprise! Hibey, without telling anyone, including his client, did not sign the petition for appeal within 10 days after sentencing, thereby forever blocking Jonathan’s chances of mounting a direct appeal of his sentence. His client was condemned to life in prison. Hibey’s misconduct can be viewed as intentional incompetence. 

In my final meeting with him, in the privacy of his office, he revealed, in anger, his personal animosity against Israel that governed his failures as Jonathan’s defense attorney.

After Jonathan was sentenced to life in prison. he was immediately transferred to a Hospital for the Criminally Insane in the Federal Correction Facility in Springfield, Missouri. After incarceration in the” bedlam” of that Hospital for 10 months, Jonathan was” rescued” by Congressman Lee Hamilton, who handed a copy of Jonathan’s clinical record to me with the printed statement that “Jonathan Pollard was not in this hospital as a patient.” Jonathan was then transferred to the notorious maximum security Federal Prison in Marion, Illinois, where he was held in solitary confinement in a basement cell for over seven years. Our visits with Jonathan, his mail, and telephone calls were monitored by federal agents. Jonathan frequently asked me, in their presence, “why am I being punished so severely for dealing with an ally”? I had no logical explanation. Americans who actually spied against the United States for Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Greece, China, South Korea, The Phillipines, South Africa and the Soviet Union were ignored by Weinberger, “by the anonymous government sources,” and by the CIA. Was this a “special agenda”that was aimed at Jonathan and not at the criminals noted below?

Jonathan is now in a medium security Federal Prison in Butner, North Carolina. He was transferred there only after public inquiries were made about the reasons for his continued incarceration in solitary confinement in Marion. At intervals, coinciding with appeals for leniency by Jonathan’s present attorneys, U.S. government “sources” issued reminders of the” serious crimes” committed by the “traitor” Jonathan Pollard. The “crimes” were never identified ; and no person ,no organization ,nor did anyone in the media demand identification of Jonathan’s alleged crimes and proof of the accusations.
The CIA illegally released records of “allegations of unsolved crimes ”that were attributed to Jonathan, to reporter Seymour Hersh who published the CIA records as “facts” under the title “The Traitor” in the New Yorker Magazine (1-1-1999). Jonathan was there portrayed as a “master spy”responsible for unsolved heinous crimes involving the sales of highly classified information and the destruction of our intelligence network in the Soviet Union .This ,in spite of the facts that he lacked security clearances for access to such programs ,nor was he formally charged with “treason”.

Years later, Americans in our security services, whose crimes had been attributed to Jonathan , were apprehended ,and are now serving long sentences for spying for the Soviet Union. They include: CIA agents David Barnett, who sold the names of 30 American agents; William Kampiles, who sold the Operating Manual of the K11 satellite; NSA Agent David Boone sold “the Manual of Secret Codes” ;and long time moles CIA Chief of Counter-intelligence Aldrich Ames and Senior FBI agent Robert Hanssen who were paid millions of dollars to destroy our intelligence apparatus in the Soviet Union along with the execution of many of our agents . No one in the United States administration,(including Caspar Weinberger) nor in the CIA fomented adverse public opinion against these indicted and convicted criminals. Nor were they publically-accused of “treason”.

Jonathan’s case, placed before the United States Circuit Court of Appeals by attorney Theodore Olson, was denied by two of the three judges, based on a “technicality”: there was no signed petition for appeal to be submitted within 10 days after sentencing ,from Jonathan’s former defense attorney Hibey . The third Judge, Stephen Williams, declared in his dissenting opinion that “because Jonathan Pollard’s plea agreement was arbitrarily breached by the lower court, the case is a fundamental miscarriage of justice.” One of the three judges, not identified in the record, then asked United States Prosecuting Attorney Fisher “How can it be justified that the Secretary of Defense used the term ‘treason’ and that the government lawyer used the term ‘treason’ in a case in which the government could not and did not charge treason?” Mr. Fisher responded “I think it is regrettable that that word was used by the Secretary of Defense.”

Jonathan’s frequent question “Why am I being punished so severely”. Accusations from government officials that “he knows too much” were clarified in 1993 by Alan Friedman, a prominent award-winning investigative reporter with the Financial Times of London and The Wall Street Journal. He wrote a documented book titled The Spider’s Web: The Secret History of How The White House Illegally Armed Iraq, Bantam Press. 
Friedman’s prologue states that 
”evidence now gathered tells a sorry tale of abuse of power by some of America’s highest level government officials. Some of our highest government administrators showed a frequent disregard for established laws and Constitutional procedures. 

Many of the things that were done were in violation of acts of Congress and of U.S. Arms Export laws. Among those who were identified with the illegal activities included George Herbert Walker Bush, James Baker, and others as the architects of a series of secret policies that illegally committed billions of American taxpayer dollars and allowed the reckless export of United States technology to some of the Iraqi dictator’s most cherished and lethal weapons projects. They believed that neither the public nor Congress could be trusted with the truth of America’s deepening involvement with Saddam. The Pentagon Chief (Caspar Weinberger) perceived Iraq as America’s secret ally against Iran.”
In the midst of all these activities, a former White House official recalled “there was substantially no leadership. Reagan was sleeping through it all ”. This may have been the early manifestation of Alzheimers disease in President Reagan..
“On July 8, 1992, twenty members of the House Judiciary Committee signed a letter addressed to Attorney General William Barr, asking that an independent prosecutor be appointed to look into charges of real crimes such as conspiracy to defraud the U.S., obstruction of justice, falsification of records, perjury, and financial conflict of interest by high .Executive Branch officials. The Committee was most disturbed about the mishandling and cover-up of investigations looking upon U. S. Policy toward Iraq..No attorney general of the U.S . had ever turned down a request from Congress to appoint a special prosecutor. Attorney General Barr was the first to do just that. The Bush administration’s attempts to hide the truth about their American policy was a more insidious threat to the proper functioning of democratic government than any weapon Saddam could have employed”{from chapter-“As the Cover-up Unravels”}.
To this day, few people may know about this illegal affair because within weeks after The Spider’s Web was delivered to book stores, the books had disappeared from their shelves. Clerks in Barnes and Noble Bookstore could not understand, from their store records, why the books had “disappeared.” Recently, I acquired a ”second-hand”copy of the book .

When Jonathan Pollard told Israel that he observed satellite photographs of buildings in Baghdad that had been labeled “WMD,” he was not aware of the source of the photographs, but he did recognize the significance of the letters “WMD.” The cabal responsible for the illegal operation probably figured that since Jonathan “blew the whistle,”on their operation, he must also know of their crimes. This very likely ignited the “cover-up” campaign by Caspar Weinberger to silence Jonathan Pollard.

However, if Jonathan did know of the crimes described in The Spider’s Web, he would certainly have revealed them to the Grand Jury ,convened to judge the worthiness of the case against him. Jonathan’s silence over 23 years of punishment for unspecified crimes that were emphasized by the word “treason” were not challenged by defense attorney Richard Hibey nor by the sentencing Judge Aubrey Robinson (who showed poor judgment in contravening the flawed use of the word “treason “in our Constitution and he condoned the inflammatory accusations of “treason” by Caspar Weinberger). Efforts aimed at compromising Jonathan’s future credibility by placing him in a hospital for the criminally insane, failed through intervention by Congressman Lee Hamilton. 

The seven years of silence during Jonathan’s solitary incarceration in Marion Prison was not experienced by any of those criminals noted above, who were convicted for committing identified heinous crimes against the United States. Jonathan’s silence must have convinced the cabal that their campaign to silence him did not need a cover-up ,that he obviously did not know of their criminal activities. In early 2002, Caspar Weinberger, in a tape- recorded interview with respected investigative reporter Edwin Black, responded to Mr. Black’s question “in your published memoir ’In the Arena,’ why was the Pollard incident left out of your book?” Weinberger casually replied, “because it was, in a sense, a very minor matter, but made very important.” Asked to elaborate, Weinberger repeated “as I say, the Pollard matter was comparatively minor. It was made far bigger than it’s actual importance.” Pressed on why the case was made far bigger than it’s actual importance, Weinberger replied “I don’t know why, it just was.” (New York Jewish News, June 21, 2002). Thus, Weinberger admitted in his comments, that his secret testimonies, under oath,against Jonathan were not true; so why is his testimony still sealed, and why is Jonathan Pollard still in prison?

Every time Jonathan’s case comes up for a clemency hearing, the government propaganda machine publicly demonizes him. This propaganda was – and continues to be - highly pervasive , emphatic and confusing to the media, as exemplified by a report in the New York Times (May 6, 1987), that “Jonathan Pollard was sentenced to life in prison for ‘treason’”; and, in theWashington Post, that he had a jury trial (January 1, 1999), thus illustrating the confused “mind-set” even among professional journalists.  Further, at a public meeting in Israel (May 2007),  the current U.S. Ambassador to Israel, Richard M. Jones, announced that” the United States showed mercy to Jonathan Pollard by not executing him for his crimes”. This ignited a furious response among the Israelis; and he apologized on the following day. Since ambassadors rarely initiate policy statements, who authorized Jones to deliver that inflammatory message? And what ”crimes” were committed ?

When President Clinton was considering clemency for Jonathan during the waning days of his second term, a letter signed by 60 Senators was sent to President Clinton urging him to deny clemency in “the interest of Justice and the National Security.” The letter was signed by Senators Lieberman and McCain. I wonder if any of the senators demanded that his “ crimes” be identified, the proof thereof, and the content of the secret testimony by Weinberger. Note that more than 23 years after Jonathan’s arrest, no evidence has yet to be presented of any damage caused to the United States by his actions, nor by any consequence that would even begin to justify his continued incarceration. Jonathan Pollard was not indicted, he was not tried, and he was not convicted of treason. He is not a terrorist, nor did he maim nor murder any one! Sadly, Jonathan Pollard is the target of a cover-up of a crime that was unknown to him.

What do we know now, 23 years later, that we did not know then? Without realizing it, Jonathan “stumbled” unknowingly into what was a secret conspiracy by U.S.Government Adminstrators to promote and support, through the CIA, the development of WMD in the hands of the dictator Saddam Hussein. The American people would be appalled that the CIA would knowingly entrust any WMD to a known vicious sociopath who, without remorse, murdered thousands of innocent Kurdish Iraqi men, women and children with poison gas in August 1988. Without prior knowledge and preparation for such a catastrophe, Israel might have suffered the same treatment .The treaty that was conceived for preventing such a catastrophe was “erased” by then Deputy Director of the CIA Bobby Inman, in cold disdain for probable tragic consequences. My objective assessment of the cynical intent by this CIA official was to leave Israel in a vulnerable position, to the will of Saddam Hussein.

Now, Weinberger is dead. However, with the retraction of his cover-up attacks against Pollard, why is it that his secret testimonies have not been declassified ,in accord with President Clinton’s Executive Order of October 1995, on intelligence that sets a 10 year shelf-life on state secrets. It is of added interest to note that after reading the secret testimony of Weinberger, Senator Charles Schumer "found nothing there that justifies a life sentence”.

No one, including my son, should be serving a life sentence that is based on secret testimony by a witness (Caspar Weinberger) whose history includes multiple counts of perjury and obstruction of justice. (“Firewall-The Iran Contra Conspiracy and Cover-up” by Lawrence E Walsh, Norton Press, 1997). He was pardoned by the elder Bush before court action We do not know of any crimes that Jonathan committed, other than that of passing information to an ally that was entitled by treaty to that information. If the action by Pollard can be called “treason” by Weinberger, was he calling Israel the enemy? His views were rejected by judges in the U.S.Circuit Court of Appeals and rejected by U.S. Attorney Fisher. 

It was a highly significant change of perception by Caspar Weinberger: from his early promotion of “ maximum sentence” for Pollard, including execution, to his more recent admission that “the Pollard matter was comparatively minor. It was made far bigger than it’s actual importance “. Thus, in the name of justice and accountability it is timely that the sealed testimony, made under oath by Caspar Weinberger be unsealed, including his message to Judge Robinson , prior to sentencing ,when he promoted “ maximum sentence”. But, let us not overlook the damage to Jonathan by his defense attorney Richard Hibey who, without the knowledge of his client, refused to sign the Petition for Appeal within 10 days after sentencing ,thereby condemning Jonathan to life in prison .By this maneuver, further assessment of his errors and of errors of judgment by the lower Court were, on a technicality, blocked. Hibey gave perfidious comfort to the criminals whose crimes were covered-up, and his client was, and is to this day being punished severely.

Decades ago it was clearly predicted by Reverend Theodore M. Hesburgh that ”the Jonathan Pollard affair is a festering sore that will not go away”.  After reading this article, I hope that you will also agree with him and with Thomas Burke when he said, “It is necessary for good men to do nothing for evil to flourish”. 

It is urgent that we restore the rule of law and due process, and for the good name and honor of the American justice system to review the totality of the case against Jonathan Pollard, which I believe, would lead to his commutation and release after 23 years of severe incarceration.

So, why is Jonathan Pollard in prison?

* Hibey is a Lebanese Maronite.


Thursday, March 25, 2021

Lord Curzon Wasn't Really an Anti-Zionist

Promoters of Palestinianism point to Lord Curzon as a possible savior who could have prevented the British Government's pro-Zionism World War One policy. Here is one source.

One of them is Karl Sabbagh who wrote in the Guardian back in 2017

If only Lord Curzon, who succeeded Balfour, had been foreign secretary in 1917 we might have had a very different outcome. He wrote in a private letter to Balfour at the time: “I do not myself recognise that the connection of the Jews with Palestine, which terminated 1,200 years ago, gives them any claims whatsoever.

But in his December 5, 1917 report to the Cabinet he seems quite clear about the future political siutation of Jews in Palestine:    

There will be a national home for Jews in Palestine and it will be equal to the "chance" that the Arabs will have.


Yet Another Unpublished Letter-to-the-Editor

On March 17, 2021, the UK Guardian published an oped by Salem Barahmeh entitled, "The Israeli and Palestinian elections offend democracy – each in their own way".

I wrote a letter-to-the-editor and it was emailed the following day:

In his March 17 op-ed, Salem Barahmeh, of the Palestine Institute for Public Diplomacy, conveniently blames Israel for the lack of democracy in the Palestinian Authority. Israel has never prevented President Mahmoud Abbas, last elected 16 years ago, from initiating elections. The responsibility for the regime Abbas oversees which among other actions severely restricts the freedoms, liberties and rights of its population too numerous to list cannot be assigned to Israel. At some time in their history, the Arabs of Palestine must assume accountability for their own actions or lack thereof.

In bemoaning the fact that upwards of 700,000 Jewish Israelis are living in the territories claimed by the Palestinian Authority, Barahmeh ignores the pre-state period of 1920-1948, when thousands of Jews who were living in those same areas such as Jerusalem's Old City and its environs, Hebron, Gaza, Nablus, Etzion Bloc and other locations then called by the United Nations in its 1947 partition plan as Judea and Samaria, were removed due to both a campaign of terror promoted by the then Mufti Amin El-Husseini and the hostilities Arabs launched after rejecting that internationally supported compromise arrangement which the Jewish community of Mandate Palestine did accept. Had Jews not been targeted in an ethnic cleansing operation, just  as twenty percent or more of Israel's current citizenry are Arab, there should be no reason 20% of Palestine's residents, if not citizens, could be Jewish.

Yisrael Medad

Shiloh, Israel

I waited a few days and I don't see it.

So now it's public here.


Monday, March 22, 2021

UK Labourites in Russia Spring 1917...and the Jews

In the spring of 1917, a delegation of the British Labour movement set out for Russia.

The background:

And on Jews, in their report:


Here they are:


Sunday, March 21, 2021

What Was The British Cabinet Thinking in May 1915?

From the May 1915 reports on British strategy regarding the intended political and diplomatic results of World War One:-


Did Balfour Mean a "State" When He Wrote "Home"?

In Balfour's mind, did a Jewish national "home" mean a "state"?

From a May 2, 1918 memorandum published in a July 1918 collection:


Thursday, March 18, 2021

Promoting Palestine

I have previously noted the use of garments and jewellry to further the promotion of the cause of Arab Palestine.

I have found another: THE PALIROOTS MOVEMENT.

As the note at their website:

Founded in 2016, the PaliRoots mission is to bring awareness to the world about the Palestinian culture by crafting specialty products inspired by its people and identity.

The outcome? An entirely new generation of Pali Gear was born, inspired by the land and culture of Palestine, catching the attention of Palestinians, supporters, and celebrities worldwide. Many people have never been to Palestine, Palestinians and others alike. Yet, there is a deep care and admiration that extends around the globe for the Palestinian identity.

The PaliRoots brand was created to explore, celebrate, and share Palestinian culture in a modern and positive way.

We encourage all people to embrace their culture, especially those who feel division and fear because of their differences from mass society. PaliRooters have learned that these differences can be a place of strength, identity, and newfound friendships.

How is that culture portrayed?


And they even have a seal of hospitality:

And a kaffiyeh bandana sexily worn:

The only thing missing is...Israel.

All the maps suggest the traditional Palestinianism principle that there is no Israel, no Jewish national identity, no historic nor cultural connection of Jews with the Land of Israel and, graphically obvious, no territorial compromise such as a Two State Solution.

Some culture.

P.S. There is another outlet called Disarming.  There's a contradiction in terms.


Wednesday, March 10, 2021

Who Suggested "Two Banks Has The Jordan"?

'Two Banks Has The Jordan' was only a Jabotinsky/Revisionist demand that the Jewish National Home extended east beyond the Jordan River?

Tuesday, March 09, 2021

Weizmann and Feisal 1918

The famous Chaim Weizmann - Emir Feisal meeting of 1919 resulting in an understnding if not outright agreement is well documented and debated. The central element was that Feisal agreed in principle that there would be an Arab State and there would be Palestine with "respective territories". Future "definite boundaries" between them will be determined.


measures shall be taken to encourage and stimulate immigration of Jews into Palestine on a large scale, and as quickly as possible to settle Jewish immigrants upon the land through closer settlement and intensive cultivation of the soil.

A bit less so is their June 1918 metting.

From the political report of June 20, 1918:


Expecting a King's Visit at the Temple Mount

From the intelligence summary, Eastern Report, No. LXI. March 27, 1918:

The "Hussein" there is the father of Feisal and Abdullah, Hussein bin Ali, Sharif of Mecca, who would later assert himself as the Caliph replacement for the Sultan of Turkey for eight months in 1924.

He is buried in the western wall of the Temple Mount.

When he eventually visited (he was there in 1924), I do not as yet know.


And from May 9


So Where Did Solomon's Temple Stand?

Is the Temple Mount where Solomon's Temple stood?

Let's ask James Silk Buckingham who published this in his 1827(9) book, "Travels in Mesopotamia Including a Journey from Aleppo to Bagdad By the Route of Beer, Orfah, Diarbekr, Mardin, and Mosul; With Researches on the Ruins of Nineveh, Babylon, and Other Ancient Cities", Vol. 1, p. 221:

But that didn't stop the propaganda attempts at the time based on religion:

And the falsehood continues until this day.

The Palestinian Authority:
“[Israeli] plots are being woven against it [Jerusalem] to forge its identity”
“The stones in the ground are fabricated graves planted [by Israel] to prove… an ancient Israeli and Jewish presence”
“The greatest liar is [Israel]… stealing our heritage”
”[Jewish history is] delusional myths and the arrogance of power”
”They [Israel] imagine that by this brute force they can invent a [Jewish] history”
“Their so-called 'Temple' - the greatest crime and forgery in history"



From Jeff Dunetz:

The Official 1925 Supreme Moslem Council (Wakf) Guide Book To Al-Ḥaram Al-Sharif (Temple Mount) recognized the presence of the Jewish Temples atop the Mount.  Shown below is paragraph two which appears on page four, it says, “It’s [the Temple Mount] identity with the site of Solomon’s Temple is beyond dispute.”


Jews Being Best Friends to Jews

On October 17, 1917, M. P. A. Hankey, Secretary of Great Britain's War Cabinet, distributed to the Ministers from his office at 2, Whitehall Gardens, S.W. the responses of Jewish leaders to the proposed Balfour Declaration.

Among the replies was this one from Sir Stuart Samuel, Chairman of the Board of Deputies, elder brother of Herbert Samuel.

Note the underlined words:

Non-Jewish opinion would, I think, be conciliated if a statement were made
simultaneously that the Holy Places in Jerusalem and vicinity would be internationalised, or at any rate not be placed under entirely Jewish control.


The State Department Press Room as a Battleground for Pro-Palestine Propaganda

Said Arikat, the Washington correspondent for the Al Quds Daily is at it again. Phrasing his questions in the linguistics of pro-Palestine proaganda.

At the State Department Press Briefing on March 8, 2021 we had this exchange with Ned Price:


QUESTION: Thank you, Ned. Happy International Women’s Day to everybody, and there are dozens of Palestinian women who languish in Israeli prisons. Most of them are there under something called administrative detention. Some of them are nursing babies, some are grandmothers, some are girls, and I wonder if you have a position on this continued awful administrative detention that is being practiced against the Palestinians.

MR PRICE: I don’t have a specific response for you. If there’s anything we would want to offer specifically on that, we’ll follow up. I think generally what I would say – and I’ve had an opportunity to speak to this in recent days – look, our goal is a two-state solution, a two-state solution in which Israel lives in peace next to a viable Palestinian state. And we stand by that two-state solution because it’s not only consistent with our values and in our interests, but it’s actually consistent with the values and interests of those in the region. A two-state solution ensures Israel’s continuing identity as a Jewish and democratic state, just as it fulfills the Palestinians’ legitimate and rightful aspirations for dignity and for self-determination in a state of their own.

QUESTION: But until then, I mean – fine. I mean, that – but until then, what – practices like these – I mean, I can go on and on and on. Last June, for instance, a young cousin of mine was shot dead in cold blood – Ahmed Erekat – on June 22nd. His body is still there. The Israelis have not turned back – this to his family just to torment them. There are 67 cases like this. I just want to ask you, I mean, what are you doing different than, let’s say, your predecessor? The embassy remains in Jerusalem despite being against international law, the office remains closed, resuming aid to UNRWA has not taken place, and I can go on and on and on. So how are you different from the previous one?

MR PRICE: Said, we as an administration do indeed look forward to deepening our engagement with the Palestinian people and the Palestinian leadership. I’d rather not make comparisons, but I will say that is our priority. That is our policy. As part of that, we are reviewing the diplomatic presence that you alluded to. We are ensuring that it will enable us to fully conduct our complete range of activities, including engagement with the Palestinian people, with the Palestinian authorities, public diplomacy, assistance, diplomatic reporting. We’ve talked about our commitment to – for funding for Palestinians, including Palestinian refugees. We are committed to all of that. It is – I think you will see concrete manifestations of that going forward.

QUESTION: Last one on this —

QUESTION: Could you just —



MR PRICE: I don’t want to —

QUESTION: When are we going to see these demonstrable —

MR PRICE: I – we have said consistently that these are priorities of ours. It is the policy of the Biden administration and you will see it going forward.

QUESTION: Sorry, you said we’re reviewing the diplomatic presence you’ve alluded to. Do you mean the – where the embassy is based?

MR PRICE: I mean in – look, there are final status issues, but the details of our diplomatic presence in Israel, including in Jerusalem, those are the details we’re looking at.

QUESTION: Are you reviewing where the embassy is based? Are you thinking about moving it back to Tel Aviv?

MR PRICE: No, I’m sorry, I did not intend to suggest that, yes.


QUESTION: The former administration took the word or the designation as occupied territory for the West Bank. Do you stand by that? Are you maintaining the same thing? What are the – what is the – what is the status of the West Bank in your view?

MR PRICE: Well, as a historical matter, I think it is undeniable that Israel occupied the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem during the 1967 war.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR PRICE: Again, our policy is a two-state solution, a two-state solution in which Israel – Israelis and Palestinians live side by side in peace and security in states of their own.

QUESTION: But when do you expect these moves that you were talking about when I just said when? I mean, sometime soon in the – or is there really no timeline on it? Because I mean, if you’re looking at this from the Palestinian perspective, they’ve been waiting decades, right, for some kind of – so —

MR PRICE: We certainly understand the urgency of it. You have seen this administration’s commitment to humanitarian assistance in key arenas, and you – we have spoken of our commitment to humanitarian assistance for Palestinians as well.

Propaganda-disguised as journalism.



Monday, March 08, 2021

That "Zionist Flag" Unfurled Over the Dome of the Rock

 A staple of Arab propaganda has been the intent of Zionists to take over the Temple Mount.

An example from a Mandate-era pamphlet:

The "Zionist Flag":

Now, let's provide context.

Haj Tewfik Hammad was a witness at the Shaw Commission Inquiry investogating the 1929 Riots.

He was a leading inciter, Vice-President of the first Palestine Arab Congress and formerly representative of Palestine for many years in the Turkish Parliament and an early trouble-maker in 1923, for example. He was Mayor of Nablus/Shchem and a Vice-President of the various Arab Congresses that were convened in the 1920s.

He was asked about the flag:

That "flag" and all the others submitted as 'proof' were nothing more than Simchat Torah pennants waved by the children when celebrating in the dance circles with the scrolls of the Torah during the holiday or an innocent montage.

The witness said that “the country was anxious over its destiny and was becoming alarmed owing to “the well-known Jewish ambitions to rebuild Solomon’s Temple on the site of the Mosque of Aksa.” Aouni Bey Abbi Sadi, in examining the witness, asked whether the Zionists have designs on the Moslem Holy Places, to which Hammad replied “yes.” To the question “what makes you think so?” Hammad replied “many pictures with the Zionist flag over the dome rock.”

To Aouni’s question, “What do you understand by the Zionist flag?” Hammad said that “when the emblem is hoisted over a particular place it announces the possession of that place.” Here Aouni reintroduced the famous household pictures and cartoons from “Dos Yiddische Folk” of New York April 30, 1920, soon after the Sat Remo decision. The cartoon was end titled “A Dream Realized,” and accompanied by a poem written by Philip M. Raskin. “It Has Happened.”

And from a second JTA report:
The assertion of the Moslem Elder of Nablus that there is not a single person in Palestine who does not share his conviction that it is the ambition of the Jews to gain control of the entire country in order to rebuild the Wailing Wall, was badly shaken under cross-examination by Sir Boyd Merriman.

Displaying a keen interest in the political and religious acquaintances of Hammad, Merriman asked him: “Have you discussed your anxieties with the Moslem Supreme Council?” “Yes,” answered the witness. “Have you discussed your anxieties with the Grand Mufti?” Merriman continued. Again the answer was in the affirmative. “We are united in our belief on the question,” he asserted.

“Did you tell the people of Nablis what you thought the Jews intended to do?” Merriman queried. “No,” answered Hammad.

“Have you discussed the Jewish designs on the Mosque with your fellow notables of Nablus?” asked Merriman. “Yes, on many occasions,” was the Arab’s reply.

“Have you told them what you believe?” Merriman persisted.

“Sometimes I told them. Sometimes they told me ‘we have the same information’,” Hammad stated.

“When did you begin to think the Jews had designs on encroaching on the Wailing Wall?” Merriman wanted to known.

“I had the same feeling before the war, but it increased with the issuance of the Balfour Declaration,” asserted Hammad.

Is this matter still a problem?

For sure.

An Israeli policeman, with an ensignia patch on his uniform caused problems in 2017 as it was perceived as:

raising the Israeli flag on the shoulder of one of its officers inside the Al-Aqsa mosque

Then MK and Deputy Foreign Minister Tzipi Hotovely, standing in the Jewish Quarter overlooking the Temple Mount in 2015 also caused controversy:

Even fellow Moslems who have made peace with Israel are 'flying a red flag' and are seen as Zionist agents. Poor Emiratis.



From today ---

PA: Jews are “defiling Jerusalem,” “invading the Al-Aqsa Mosque” when they visit the Temple Mount


Friday, March 05, 2021

TE Lawrence's "the Jewish section"

On September 7, 1917, this covering letter was sent by TE Lawrence to Gilbert F. Clayton who was a British Army intelligence officer and after World War One, a colonial administrator. At this time, he was supervising those involved in the Arab Revolt. 



Dear General Clayton

I enclose a note which I wrote to Sir Mark Sykes. Some of it is really thirst for information, and other is only a wish to stick pins into him. If you approve will you send it on? One must have the Jewish section cleared up: and I fancy we may (if we win) clear up the French section ourselves. If you approve part and dislike part,  please black out the bad and send it as mutilated.

Yours sincerely,

T E Lawrence

[in Clayton's hand] Not Sent 

The site explains that on July 6, 1917, a legion of Arab riders captured the heavily-fortified seaport of Aqaba, after what was thought to be an impossible journey: a torturous six-hundred-mile ride through the desert, and descent from the interior to the unguarded eastern side of the town.

The daring assault was conceived of, and led by, a sole English officer, Captain T.E. Lawrence...and what he wanted, desperately, was Arab hegemony from Damascus all the way down through the Arabian peninsula. Standing in the way of his visionary Kingdom, however, stood the Jews, the French and, as he would ultimately come bitterly to comprehend, the British establishment itself.

Here Lawrence famously writes to his superior at the Arab Bureau, General Clayton, to ask whether he should send a just-penned letter to Sir Mark Sykes in which he inquires, inter alia, about Zionist aims. “One must,” he tells Clayton, “have the Jewish section cleared up; and I fancy we may (if we win) clear up the French section ourselves.” Clayton, as noted in autograph at the bottom of the letter, advised Lawrence not to forward his letter to Mark Sykes – but a record of the unsent letter survived nonetheless. That missive is crucial to understanding exactly why Lawrence wanted the “Jewish section cleared up” – and addresses, en passant , Lawrence’s conflict with the Zionist pioneer Aaron Aaronsohn and, by extension, those Zionist converts within the British establishment, like Sykes (and Balfour, Orsmby-Gore, Deedes and Meinertzhagen), whom Aaronsohn had influenced.

We need recall that the letter is penned two months prior to the issuing of the Balfour Declaration. In other words, he is aware, in the middle of his military campaign and in the middle of the desert, that the Jews are to be able to rule over territory.

The enclosed content:

“General Clayton showed me a letter from you which contained a message to myself - and this has prompted me to ask you a few queries about Near East affairs. I hope you will be able to give me an idea of how matters stand in reference to them, since part of the responsibility of action is inevitably thrown on to me, and, unless I know more or less what is wanted, there might be trouble. “About the Jews in Palestine, Feisal has agreed not to operate or agitate west of the [Wadi] Araba-Dead Sea-Jordan line, or south of the Haifa-Beisan line . . . “You know of course the root differences between the Palestine Jew and the colonist Jew: to Feisal the important point is that the former speak Arabic, and the latter German Yiddish. He is in touch with the Arab Jews (their H.Q. at Safed and Tiberias is in his sphere) and they are ready to help him, on conditions. They show a strong antipathy to the colonist Jews, and have even suggested repressive measures against them. Feisal has ignored this point hitherto, and will continue to do so. His attempts to get into touch with the colonial Jews have not been very fortunate. They say they have made their arrangements with the Great Powers, and wish no contact with the Arab Party. They will not help the Turks or the Arabs. Now Feisal wants to know (information had better come to me for him since I usually like to make up my mind before he does) what is the arrangement standing between the colonist Jews (called Zionists sometimes) and the Allies . . . What have you promised the Zionists, and what is their programme? “I saw Aaronson in Cairo, and he said at once the Jews intended to acquire the land-rights of all Palestine from Gaza to Haifa, and have practical autonomy therein. Is this acquisition to be by fair purchase or by forced sale and expropriation? The present half-crop peasantry were the old freeholders and under Moslem landlords may be ground down but have fixity of tenure. Arabs are usually not employed by Jewish colonies. Do the Jews propose the complete expulsion of the Arab peasantry, or their reduction to a day-labourer class? “You know how the Arabs cling even to bad land and will realise that while Arab feelings didn't matter under Turkish rule . . . the condition will be vastly different if there is a new, independent, and rather cock-a-hoop Arab state north and east and south of the Jewish state. “I can see a situation arising in which the Jewish influence in European finance might not be sufficient to deter the Arab peasants from refusing to quit - or worse!”

Lawrence’s reading of the upcoming Arab-Zionist situation was clear: a Jewish state established in Palestine, he feared the Arab movement would come to an end. But, indeed, that was the whole purpose of the Balfour Declaration. Hence, his interest in “clearing up” the Jewish and French “sections", i.e. geopoliticall territories. 

But even as he was promising Prince Feisal an empire consisting of the Ottoman territories from Damascus to the Arabian peninsula, the British and French had already decided to carve the region up between them - regardless of the wishes of the Arabs, the Jews, or anyone else who might be living in the territories in question.


*Lawrence’s reference to Aaronsohn’s remarks is particularly interesting, inasmuch as Aaronsohn left an account of the meeting at which he made them. “This morning I had a conversation with Capt. Lawrence,” he wrote in his diary on 12 August 1917. “An interview without any evidence of friendliness. Lawrence had too much success at too early an age. Has a very high estimation of his own self. He is lecturing me on our colonies, on the spirit of the people, on the feelings of the Arabs, and we would do well in being assimilated by them, by the sons of Arab etc. While listening to him I imagined to be present at the lecture of a Prussian scientific anti-Semite expressing himself in English. I am afraid that many of the archaeologists and reverends have been imbued by 'l'esprit boche'. He is openly against us. He is basically of missionary stock.” Aaronsohn’s assessment of Lawrence as an anti-Semite stands in stark contrast to Chaim Weizmann’s opinion that Lawrence’s relationship to the Zionist movement was a very positive one, in spite of his strongly pro-Arab sympathies.


Tuesday, March 02, 2021

A Return to the Hansell Memorandum?

From a State Department Press Briefing conducted on March 1, 2021 by Ned Price, Department Spokesperson:

QUESTION: Just briefly on Israel and Palestine. Has the State Department reversed the – Mr. Pompeo’s determination that the settlements in the occupied territories are not necessarily illegal?

MR PRICE: So we wouldn’t comment on any internal deliberative processes here, and that’s a rule across the board. What we would stress is that our focus is on encouraging Israel and the Palestinians to avoid, as I said before, unilateral steps that exacerbate tensions and that make it more difficult to preserve the viability of a two-state solution.

QUESTION: So is it under review, then? Is it under review?

MR PRICE: Again, we’re not going to comment on any internal deliberative process.

QUESTION: Well, wait, wait, does that – that suggests that there is a deliberative process going on.


QUESTION: So the previous administration, when it came to a conclusion that it did not think that the Hansell Memorandum * was appropriate or accurate, came out and announced it. Will this administration, if it determines that either you’re going to keep it – the previous administration’s position – or change it, will you announce it? Or is that now a deliberative process that you won’t talk about?

MR PRICE: What I would stress is that what will not change is our longstanding position – our position and the longstanding position of successive administrations, is that —

QUESTION: Well, except for the last – well, except for the last one.

MR PRICE: — is – is encouraging – is discouraging, excuse me – unilateral steps that would put a two-state solution further out of reach. If we have —

MR PRICE: If we have something more to say on this, we will say it.

QUESTION: So there is no change right now?

MR PRICE: We have nothing – we have nothing more to announce. If we do, we will announce it.

QUESTION: All right.

And on the issue of UNRWA, there was this exchange:

QUESTION: Now, Ned, last week you issued a statement on the meeting of the AHLC, the Ad Hoc Committee. Now, there was no mention normally – on Palestine – there was no mention of UNRWA or restoring aid, or let’s say aiding the hospitals in East Jerusalem and so on. So tell us about what’s going on with UNRWA. Are you resuming aid to UNRWA? Is it going to be retroactive aid? Is it happening now? Is it not happening?

MR PRICE: Said, I think as you’ve heard me say before, we intend to provide assistance that will benefit all Palestinians, including refugees. We are in the process of determining how to move forward on resuming all forms of that assistance consistent with U.S. law.

QUESTION: But we’re not talking about refugees, we’re talking about UNRWA. Are you going to resume aid to UNRWA?

MR PRICE: Said, we have said before —

QUESTION: Very simple, UNRWA is – you’ve aided UNRWA all throughout its existence. Now, are you going to resume that aid, or are you not going to resume that?

MR PRICE: I don’t have anything new for you today beyond saying and reiterating that we intend to provide assistance that will benefit all Palestinians, including refugees.



That memorandum concluded that

the establishment of the civilian settlements in those territories is inconsistent with international law

On the flaws of that opinion see

International Law Professor Eugene Kontorovich

International Law Professor Avi Bell (in converstion with Eve Harow)

Former Ambassador Alan Baker 

The Kohelet Forum and its Conference

Former Ambassador David M. Friedman

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu