Turkey Reincarnating Itself as a Neo-Ottoman Empire

The threat from Turkey is deeply historio-ideological and religious.

How do I know?

Read on:

August 25, 2025

'Jerusalem Unites Us': Gaza Conference in Istanbul highlights Islamic duty toward Al-Aqsa

Delegates on Democracy and Freedom Island debate sanctity of Al-Aqsa Mosque, lessons of history, and practical strategies for global Muslim unity as Israel’s genocide on Gaza rages on

'Jerusalem Unites Us': Gaza Conference in Istanbul highlights Islamic duty toward Al-Aqsa

Delegates on Democracy and Freedom Island debate sanctity of Al-Aqsa Mosque, lessons of history, and practical strategies for global Muslim unity as Israel’s genocide on Gaza rages on

The eight-day Gaza Conference's fourth day continued Monday on Democracy and Freedom Island in Istanbul, with a series of workshops on the protection of the Al-Aqsa Mosque, the historical lessons of the medieval Crusades, and strategies to strengthen unity across the Muslim world.

In the morning session, participants split into groups to discuss “the value of Al-Aqsa Mosque, the threats it faces and what must be done for its protection,” while another group examined “the duties of Muslims toward Al-Aqsa.”

The discussions underscored the centrality of Jerusalem to the Islamic faith and the shared responsibility of safeguarding its sanctity.

The afternoon program turned to historical and political questions, with one group analyzing “the causes that initiated the Crusader occupation” and another reflecting on “the reasons that would bring it to an end.”

...On the role of religious leaders, he stressed the need for spiritual revival: “If the Muslims are close to Allah, then Palestine will be close to their hearts. But if the Muslims are far away from Allah, Palestine won’t be.”

He recalled how an Israeli prime minister once remarked that “as long as the Muslims are not (performing) fajr (dawn prayers) in the masjid, they are still safe.”

For Gabriels, this reflected the urgent responsibility of scholars “to bring the Muslims closer to Allah and closer to their Deen (religion) and closer to the Quran.”

He emphasized that the Palestinian issue is not only political but moral and universal: “The issue of Gaza, the issue of Palestine, the issue of Al-Aqsa, it’s not a Palestinian issue. It is an issue of humanity and more so an issue of Muslims.”

MEMRI's report relates to the resolutions:

"A call for all countries, especially the Islamic ones, to immediately sever all their relations with the occupying Zionist entity and with anyone who supports it – including political, economic and military [ties] – in accordance with the principles of the Islamic shari'a and international law, which enjoin [us] to battle tyranny and restrain the occupation and its ongoing violations.

"The shari'a forbids maintaining commercial ties, or anything resembling them, with the occupying Zionists, or to allow their ships to traverse the waterways of the Islamic countries. This ruling applies to individuals, companies and governments.

"A call on Muslim scholars to urge mass demonstrations and protest strikes, and on governments to respect the civil rights of their peoples and remove all restrictions on public liberties – especially on freedom of expression and the right to demonstrate peacefully and express support for Gaza and opposition to the continuation of the war – as required by international charters of human rights.

"The decisions of the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court must be implemented, and the international justice system must commence proceedings against the perpetrators of the crimes of extermination, war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza… We demand that the Islamic countries and the free countries establish criminal tribunals in their territory to prosecute the war criminals…

"The IUMS contends that the countries likely to be harmed by the 'Greater Israel' plan [i.e. Jordan, Lebanon and Syria] bear the responsibility of dealing with  the enemy's plans and initiating tangible and pragmatic measures to deter it and confront it…"[10]

And most recently, this analysis from November last month:

Turkey’s return to great power status   November 6, 2025

Sumantra Maitra

A resurgent Turkey is returning to its Ottoman roots as an essential and influential pivot in the Eurasian balance of power.

Vigilance is required.

^

To What State Does that Artifact Belong?

I read that the U.S. – Jordan Cultural Property Agreement was signed on December 16, 2019.  It aims to "restrict the import of Jordanian artifacts to the United States of America, which includes coins, manuscripts, stones, minerals, ceramics, glass, mosaic plates and ancient bones, seashells and human, animal and plant remains, whose history ranges from about 1.5 million years BC to about 1750 AD".  It also stresses the "need to return Jordanian artifacts that was confiscated in the United States of America to the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan".  In addition, there is the goal of "increasing awareness of the Jordanian civilizational and cultural heritage".

Far be it from me to interfere with archaeological preservation but I am wondering about a problem.

Up until 1922, the territory of that kingdom by the desert was part, and so it was known, of Palestine. 

If there is an artifact in the US from, say, 1100 BCE, does it belong to Jordan, a future Palestine or, perhaps, Israel, the state that ruled the area at that time? Please recall, it was named Palestine by the Romans only in 135 CE.

This is confounding me.

Did Assistant US Secretary of State for Educational and Cultural Affairs Mrs. Marie Royce who signed the document or her superiors give a thought about that?

^

Beresheet Crashes - British Get Their Revenge

The British finally got their revenge for those Mandate troubles we caused them:

Israeli Lunar Spacecraft Loses Main Engine,

Crashes on Surface of the Moon

"The UK contribution to the Beresheet mission is a LEROS 2b rocket engine, developed and built at Nammo Westcott in Buckinghamshire. Originally designed for manoeuvring satellites into their final orbits and for deep space missions, the LEROS will power the lander during its transfer to the lunar surface, ensure a safe landing, and will also hop the lander to its second location"

(this was a humorous satirical observation, in case someone is taking this seriously)

___________________________

UPDATE

Engineers believe a technical glitch — likely in the component that measures the spacecraft’s altitude in relation to the surface — triggered a chain reaction of events that caused the main engine of the spacecraft to stop. Without the main engine running as a braking mechanism, it was impossible to slow Beresheet’s speed from 1,700 kilometers per hour (1,000 mph) to 0 just above the moon’s surface. Engineers were able to restart the engine, but by this time the spacecraft was too close to the surface to slow down sufficiently.

 ^

Foreign Ministry Haughtiness

These past three days I have been attending the Global Forum for Combating Antisemitism in Jerusalem.

It was impressive and ultimately important.  Although I caught two spelling errors in the titles on the opening evening's movie (its, not it's and hatred, not hatered), those were  minor things to what did, however, cause me to be critical of some other elements of the program.

Under the ministership of Binyamin Netanyahu and his deputy, Tzipi Hotovely, the first session had three persons: Dan Meridor, someone who fled the Likud, returned but is quite an opponent of Netanyahu, Shlomo Avineri, a veteran Mapainik who founded Chug 77 to oppose the Menachem Begin government that won the elections in 1977 as well as redirect Labour Party's political agenda and a relatively politically non-descript European Jewish establishment figure. And they brought in Israel's government's behavior towards Hungary in quite a critical fashion with no one to offer a different voice.

In another session on intersectionality on the campuses, again, the panel was imbalanced. Entitled "Antisemitism in the Far Left - Intersectionality as a Cover for Hate Speech in Current Progressive Activism", it was chaired by Jonathan Arkush, President, Board of Deputies of British Jews with David Bernstein, President and CEO, Jewish Council for Public Affairs, a Bill Clintonite, Dave Rich, Associate at the Pears Institute for the Study of Antisemitism, an organization that is quite problematic politically in England, 
Nadine Epstein, Editor-in-Chief, Moment Magazine, the periodical founded by Leonard Fein, a radical leftist and Sohrab Ahmari, Senior writer, Commentary Magazine, an Iranian Catholic who, oddly enough, was the staunchest defending Zionism, Israel and facing down forcefully anti-semitism.

The third day I was bestirred at a session entitled "The Denial of Jewish History in International Organizations: The case of Jerusalem in the United Nations and UNESCO" chaired by Dan Mariaschin, CEO and Executive Vice President, Bnai Brith. 

The keynoter was Irina Bokova, former UNESCO Secretary General and she was fine. Of the respondents, Peta Jones Pellach, Director of Educational Activities, The Elijah Interfaith Institute, Ivo Goldstein, former Croatian Ambassador to UNESCO, Shimon Samuels, Director for International Relations, Simon Wiesenthal Centre, it was David Roet, Former Deputy Permanent Representative of Israel to the United Nations who, for me, highlighted a background problem I discerned: biased planning.

Samuels had discussed how the Palestinians were, year-by-year, turning UNESCO into a forum for anti-semitism by the theft of national cultural locations, stripping them of their Jewishness. One was the Western Wall which was exclusively called Al-Buraq in UN documents with "western" simply being a direction rather than referring to the Temple. He was upset at such blatant identity theft and rearranging history.

At question time, and Josh Wander caught my question and the reply, I noted that Yasser Arafat, right after Oslo, had always referred to the Wall as Al-Buraq and he did so purposely based on the findings of the 1930 International Commission whose

aim and object...have been to inquire into and to pronounce a verdict upon the disputes that have arisen between Arabs and Jews in connection with the practice of the Jews to resort to the Western or Wailing Wall (by the Arabs called Al Buraq) for the purpose of devotion.

and which decided

To the Moslems belong the sole ownership of, and the sole proprietary right to, the Western Wall, seeing that it forms an integral part of the Haram-esh-Sherif area, which is a Waqf property.

To the Moslems there also belongs the ownership of the Pavement in front of the Wall and of the adjacent so-called Moghrabi (Moroccan) Quarter opposite the Wall, inasmuch as the last-mentioned property was made Waqf under Moslem Sharia Law, it being dedicated to charitable purposes.

I have blogged about it several times, for example see here from 2007.

My question was: why did the Foreign Ministry fail in seeing already 20 years ago where this was heading with Samuels now bemoaning the situation.

Roet, at the far left,

Credit: Yisrael Medad

first replies by making fun of the suggestion that was made to refer to the West Bank as Judea and Samaria.

Odd. That was the whole point of Samuels complaint: the Arabs are stealing our national legacy, our geography and our place names.  

Perhaps if 20 years ago or even 50 years ago the genuine and historically correct terminology had been used, the world today would not be voting for UNESCO resolutions that erase our past.  Roet displayed not only institutional failure but haughtiness. He was deriding both the truth and a political view that promotes standing up for rights.

If Roet can't stand up for the rights of Israel's national heritage sites, how can we trust him for other matters? A lousy Israeli diplomat, I'd say.

He then continues with hubris and suggests that it is I who am harming the situation of anti-Semitism as instead of targeting those who do Israel and Jews harm, I am attacking the Foreign Ministry.

But I had just proven then his policy was the harmful one.  

He ignored the Foreign Ministry failure and sought to blame me.

Is he not smart? Too "smart"? Coovering up decades of Foreign Ministry failure and wrongheadedness?

All this reminds me of something the prophet Tzefaniah composed in Chapter 3 of his book:

Woe to her [Jerusalem] that is filthy and polluted...Her prophets are wanton and treacherous persons; her priests have profaned that which is holy, they have done violence to the law...For then will I [God] turn to the peoples a pure language, that they may all call upon the name of the LORD, to serve Him with one consent...In that day thou shall not be ashamed for all thy doings, wherein thou hast transgressed against Me; for then I will take away out of the midst of thee thy proudly exulting ones, and thou shalt no more be haughty in My holy mountain...The remnant of Israel shall not do iniquity, nor speak lies, neither shall a deceitful tongue be found in their mouth...

I hope Ambassador Danny Danon takes note.

P.S.  After a night's sleep, I improved on this.

And here is Israellycool.

And the JPost report leaves out the tiff, although she was there taking notes.

^ 

The 1931 Status Quo. Yes, That One

With all the talk about a policy of status quo regarding the administration of the Temple Mount, I think some history needs be cleared up.

There is the current 1967 "status quo" 

[Moshe] Dayan thought, and years later committed the thought to writing, that since the Mount was a “Muslim prayer mosque” while for Jews it was no more than “a historical site of commemoration of the past…one should not hinder the Arabs from behaving there as they now do and one should recognize their right as Muslims to control the site.” Dayan believed that the new order he designed on the Mount was the best way to prevent the national-territorial conflict from turning into a religious one that would be much more dangerous.
The basic elements of the status quo he devised included:

1. The Waqf, as an arm of the Jordanian Ministry of Sacred Properties, would continue to manage the site and be responsible for arrangements and for religious and civil affairs there.

2. Jews would not be permitted to pray on the Temple Mount, but they would be able to visit it. (This right of freedom of access to the Mount was also eventually anchored within the context of the Protection of Holy Places Law.)

3. Israel, by means of its police force, would assume responsibility for security in the sacred compound, both within the site itself and regarding the wall and gates surrounding it.

4. Israeli sovereignty and law would be applied to the Temple Mount as to the other parts of Jerusalem, to which Israeli law was applied after the Six-Day War. (This stipulation was approved more than once by the Israeli High Court of Justice.)

5. It was later decided that the only entrance to the Temple Mount through which Jews would be permitted would be the Mughrabi Gate, located in the center of the Western Wall, whereas Muslims would be able to enter the Mount through its many other gates.  As for tourists it was established that they would enter through three gates: the Mughrabi Gate, the Chain Gate, and the Cotton Merchant’s Gate.  Today, the entrance of tourists is permitted only through the Mughrabi Gate.

6. Over the years the raising of flags of any kind was prohibited on the Mount.

and it was confirmed publicly, unfortunately, by Israel's Prime Minister in October 2015:

The Temple Mount will remain as is and will be managed as it is now. Arrangements for visits by Jews to the Temple Mount are safeguarded; there will be no change in them, just as the prayer arrangements for the Muslims.

and expressed more pithily:

“Muslims pray on the Temple Mount; non-Muslims visit the Temple Mount”

He shouldn't have been so comprehensive and public. 

There is the 1928 White Paper "status quo".  Here it is as reported by the JTA:

British Government Issues White Paper on Wailing Wall 
London (Nov. 27) 
–Asserting that the status quo, as established under the Turkish regime, was infringed by the Jewish worshippers at the Jewish Holy Site on September 24, the Day of Atonement, the White Paper of the British Government concerning the Wailing Wall incident, made public today, contains a statement of the facts and a declaration that the administration of Palestine intends to maintain the established Jewish right of access to the Holy Site.
 The White Paper, written by Col. Leopold H. Amery, Secretary of State for the Colonies, refers to the communique of the Palestine Government dated the 26th of September and explains that the intervention of the police was caused, as the Jewish action constituted an infraction of the status quo of the Wall. The paper further explains the Jewish rights to the Wall during the Turkish regime, underlining the ruling of 1912 prohibiting Jews to erect a screen on the wall pavement*. The White Paper emphasizes this year’s innovations at the Wall on Yom Kippur were made the cause of the complaints of the Mufti in charge of the Wakf (Moslem religious property) to the Palestine Government necessitating immediate action, according to the practice not to create precedent contradictory to the status quo the Palestine government is obliged to maintain under the terms of the mandate.
 Concerning the complaint that no Jew was among the police executing the order, this happened because, upon the urgent request of the Chief Rabbinate, all Jewish policemen had been released from service for the Yom Kippur holiday. In future, steps will be taken insuring a Jewish officer’s presence at the Wall on all such occasions. The further complaint that the Palestine government should have consulted Jewish authorities before taking action, is not substantiated, because if the infringement of the status quo was committed with the knowledge of these authorities, they were aware of the possible consequences from the experience on Yom Kippur, 1925 [As the Shaw Report noted, page 29, As a result of an incident, which occurred in September 1925, a ruling was made which forbade the Jews to bring seats and benches to the Wall even though these were intended for worshippers who were aged and infirm]. If, however, the Jewish authorities were ignorant of the innovations introduced, they cannot reasonably expect the Palestine government’s countenancing the unauthorized act of subordinates.

The British Government regards it as their duty and have the intention to maintain the established Jewish right of access to the pavement in front of the Wall for the purposes of devotion.

___________

*

As Seth Franztman notes:

In 1912, chief rabbi of the Ottoman Empire Haim Nahoum appealed to the sultan to permit the Jewish community to bring benches and chairs to the Wall to aid the elderly...The Ashkenazi religious court judge Mendel Hacohen Pakover noted that in 1900, on certain major holidays, he encouraged religious Jews to bring a screen to separate men and women. The Muslim community regarded all of these activities as changes to the status quo, and part of a Jewish conspiracy to undermine the rights of Muslims in the city – one that should be opposed violently if need be.

___________


Now, let's outline the 1931 "status quo", decided upon by an International Inquiry Commission, quite a demeaning document, actually:

SCHEDULE I.

A. To the Moslems belong the sole ownership of, and the sole proprietary right to, the Western Wall, seeing that it forms an integral part of the Haram-esh-Sherif area, which is a Waqf property.  To the Moslems there also belongs the ownership of the Pavement in front of the Wall and of the adjacent so-called Moghrabi (Moroccan) Quarter opposite the Wall, inasmuch as the last-mentioned property was made Waqf under Moslem Sharia Law, it being dedicated to charitable purposes. Such appurtenances of worship and/or such other objects as the Jews may be entitled to place near the Wall...shall under no circumstances be considered as, or have the effect of, establishing for them any sort of proprietary right to the Wall or to the adjacent Pavement...

B. The Jews shall have free access to the Western Wall for the purpose of devotions at all times--subject to the explicit stipulations hereinafter to be mentioned...it shall be permissible to place near the Wall the Cabinet or Ark containing the Scroll or Scrolls of the Law and the Table on which the Ark stands and the table on which the Scroll is laid when being read from, but only on the following occasions, viz.:--

(a) At any special fast and assembly for public prayer that the Chief Rabbis of Jerusalem may order to be held in the consequence of some public distress or calamity, provided due notice shall have been given by them to the Administration;(b) on New Year's Day and on the Day of Atonement,and also on any other special "holy days" that are recognised by the Government as such days on which it has been customary...(2) No objection or obstacle shall be raised to the Jews, in their individual capacity, carrying with them to the Wall hand-books or other articles customarily used at their devotions either as a general thing or upon special occasions, nor to their wearing such garments as were of old used at their devotions.(3) The temporarily enacted prohibitions against the bringing to the Wall of benches, carpets or mattings, chairs, curtains and screens, etc., and against the driving of animals at certain hours along the Pavement are to be made absolute, as is also the injunction as to keeping the door at the southern end of the Wall locked during certain hours. The right, however, for Moslems to go to and fro in an ordinary way along the Pavement shall be respected and remain inviolable as hitherto.(4) It shall be prohibited to bring to the Wall any tent or a curtain or any similar object with a view to placing it there--even though for a limited space of time.(5) The Jews shall not be permitted to blow the ram's horn (Shofar) near the Wall nor cause any other disturbance to the Moslems that is avoidable; the Moslems on the other hand shall not be permitted to carry out the Zikr ceremony close to the Pavement during the progress of the Jewish devotions or to cause annoyance to the Jews in any other way.(6) It is to be understood that the Administration shall be entitled to give such instructions as they may think fit respecting the dimensions of each of the objects that it is permissible for the Jews to bring to the Wall, respecting the particular days and hours above referred to...(7) It shall be prohibited for any person or persons to make use of the place in front of the Wall or its surroundings for all political speeches or utterances or demonstrations of any kind whatever.(8) It shall be held to be a matter of common interest to Moslems and Jews alike that the Western Wall should not be disfigured by having any engravings or inscriptions placed upon it or by having nails or similar objects driven into it, and also that the Pavement in front of the Wall should be kept clean and be properly respected by Moslems and Jews alike; it is herewith declared to be the Moslems' right and duty to have the Pavement cleaned and repaired, if and when that is necessary, upon due notice being given to the Administration. (9) Owing to the Wall's character as an historical monument its fitting maintenance shall be entrusted to the Palestine Administration, so that any repairs to it that may be necessary shall be carried out by them and under their supervision though only after consultation with the Supreme Moslem Council and the Rabbinical Council for Palestine.(10) If any repairs to the Pavement that are necessary are not attended to by the Moslems in due time, the Palestine Administration shall take the necessary steps to have the work done.(11) The Chief Rabbis of Jerusalem shall be required to nominate one or more officials to be their authorised representative or representatives for receiving the instructions and other communications that will be issued from time to time by the Palestine Administration regarding the Western Wall, the Pavement in front of it and the formalities to be observed with regard to the Jewish devotions near the Wall. 

SCHEDULE II.2.--(a) The Jews may bring daily to the Pavement before the Wall a stand containing ritual lamps, and may place on the stand a zinc case with glass doors in which such lamps are lighted. They may bring also a portable wash-basin and a water container on a stand. None of the objects above mentioned shall be affixed to the Wall or to any wall of the adjoining Waqf buildings.(b) From sunset on Friday evening to sunset on Saturday, and from sunset on the eve of any Jewish holy day recognised by the Government to sunset of that holy day the Jews may place at the Northern end of the Wall a stand containing prayer books, and at the Southern end of the Wall a table on which to stand a cabinet or ark containing Scrolls of the Law and another table on which the Scrolls are laid for reading. The tables and cabinet or ark and the stand shall be removed at the end of the Sabbath or holy day as the case may be.(c) On the two holy days of the New Year Festival and on the Day of Atonement each Jewish worshipper may bring a prayer-mat which may be placed on the Pavement before the Wall but so as not to obstruct the right of passage along the Pavement.3. No benches, chairs or stools shall be brought to or placed on the Pavement before the Wailing Wall. No screen or curtain shall be placed on the Wall or on the Pavement, for the purpose of separating men and women or for any other purpose.4. Between the hours of 8 a.m. and 1 p.m. on Sabbath days and Jewish holy days recognised by the Government, and between the hours of 5 and 8 p.m. on the eve of such days, and throughout the eve and Day of Atonement, save between the hours of dawn and 7 a.m., no animal shall be driven along the Pavement before the Wall.5. The wooden door giving access from the Pavement to the Zawieh at the Southern end of the Wall shall remain locked on the eve of the Sabbath and Jewish holy days recognised by the Government from 5 p.m. and throughout such days until after sunset.

So, what we have is a degrading status quo that denies historical truth and Jewish rights. 

One more element is required for understanding what is wrong here: knowing that Jordan ignores its requirements according to a peace treaty.

The Jordan-Israel Peace Treaty:

ARTICLE 9PLACES OF HISTORICAL AND RELIGIOUS SIGNIFICANCE

1. Each party will provide freedom of access to places of religious and historical significance.

1. In this regard, in accordance with the Washington Declaration, Israel respects the present special role of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan in Muslim Holy shrines in Jerusalem. When negotiations on the permanent status will take place, Israel will give high priority to the Jordanian historic role in these shrines.

1. The Parties will act together to promote interfaith relations among the three monotheistic religions, with the aim of working towards religious understanding, moral commitment, freedom of religious worship, and tolerance and peace.

and

ARTICLE 11MUTUAL UNDERSTANDING AND GOOD NEIGHBOURLY RELATIONS

1. The Parties will seek to foster mutual understanding and tolerance based on shared historic values, and accordingly undertake:

1. to abstain from hostile or discriminatory propaganda against each other, and to take all possible legal and administrative measures to prevent the dissemination of such propaganda...

Today, the King declared that

Tampering with status quo in Jerusalem would impact region

But who is tampering with that status quo?

And without working with Israel

His Majesty, the Custodian of Islamic and Christian holy sites in Jerusalem, reiterated that Jordan will continue to protect the holy sites in the city, through working with the international community.

And it seems this was discussed

a habitual encroachment by Israeli forces on the Al-Aqsa compound. 

There is no status quo and no fulfillment of the Israel-Jordan Peace Treaty.

And that is a shame.

^

GraphicZionism: On the Iran Agreement

^

The "If" is Missing (UPDATED)

So, that commission, on which William Schabas will serve as Chair, what's it supposed to do?

The newly-appointed independent, international commission of inquiry of the UN's Human Rights Council, we read, is slated

to investigate all violations of international humanitarian law and international human rights law in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, particularly in the occupied Gaza Strip, in the context of the military operations conducted since 13 June 2014. of the three-person commission mandated by the Council at its last special session...whether before, during or after, to establish the facts and circumstances of such violations and of the crimes perpetrated and to identify those responsible, to make recommendations, in particular on accountability measures, all with a view to avoiding and ending impunity and ensuring that those responsible are held accountable, and on ways and means to protect civilians against any further assaults.  The same resolution requested that the commission of inquiry present a written report to the Human Rights Council at its twenty-eighth session in March 2015....

So innocuous-sounding, right?

a.  where's the "if"?  If committed.  If violated. 

b.  what has "East Jerusalem" to do with Gaza?

c.  why pick June 13th?  Was not Hamas firing off rockets before?*

________________

*

EOZ expands:

June 13th? Operation Protective Edge began on July 8. So why is the UN choosing June 13th?
The answer tells you all you need to know about how biased the UNHRC is.
Hamas kidnapped and murdered Naftali Fraenkel, Gilad Shaer and Eyal Yifrah on June 12th.
Israel started searching for them in the Hebron area on June 13th.
The commission is being given a framework where they are supposed to believe that the kidnapping and murder were not acts of aggression, but Israel's response was.

^

UN Wipes Israel Off Its Web Site (UPDATED)

If you go here, the UN General Assembly's official site, you can read that today's speaker No. 12 is

• Israel

  H.E. Mr. Benjamin Netanyahu
  
  

  Prime Minister

But if you go to select the speaker and country to review his or her remarks, there's a problem:

That's right.

Israel has been removed for the UN.

And "Palestine"?

Read Netanyahu here.




P.S.  Some say that those are the speeches that have been made and that Bibi hadn't handed in prepared remarks.  But Bibi's speech has been up for over an hour now at his site so what's doing at the UN?

___________________

UPDATE

 


Israel is now back up there.

Of course, they could have had "Israel" listed with a note "transcript not yet available".  But that would have required some thinking.  And imagination.

^

And Israel Apologizes?

.

For further reading:-

Barry Rubin.

Michael Koplow.

At EOZ.
^

My LATimes Op-ed on the Obama Visit

Here's the Opinion web page:

That Ami Ayalon is so ... moderate - and he got double the words I was allowed.

My op-ed:-

Obama in Israel: Can he overcome low expectations?

Obama's upcoming visit to Israel offers a chance to revive a relationship crucial to both countries.

By Yisrael Medad

March 8, 2013

Later this month, President Obama will visit Israel, a country intended by an act of international law to be the reconstituted Jewish national home. The visit will be highly charged, but at the same time, many Israelis have low expectations for what could come of it.

The president's protracted but unsuccessful attempts to stifle Iran's nuclear weapons program, his insistence on zealously challenging Israel's right to a united Jerusalem and his inability to pressure the Palestinian Authority to fulfill its obligations are among the chief reasons for the lack of excitement in Israel.

Still, as befits the representative of Israel's most faithful ally, Obama will be treated with respect, for it is our hope that the visit will help the president come to a truer understanding of the needs of Israel and the reality of the region. In the meantime, he might want to contemplate a few issues.

In September 2009, at the United Nations, Obama referred to Israeli communities established across the former Green Line as the "settlements." His exact words were: "We continue to emphasize that America does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements."

I live in such a community, Shiloh, which sits less than 30 miles north of Jerusalem, and I can't imagine how my village and its inhabitants can be considered illegitimate. As archaeological excavations prove, the site was where Jews had lived for many centuries until the 2nd century. Our community, along with other cities, towns and villages, was established in territory where Jews had even lived in the 20th century, until forced to move by Palestinians during the period of the British Mandate and Jordanian occupation. How can reclaiming land that was lost through what some would term ethnic cleansing be considered illegitimate?

The president should be careful about using the word "illegitimate," by the way. A lot of Israelis are particularly sensitive to it because it is a word favored by those who think our state shouldn't exist. In an October 2006 live broadcast, for example, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad labeled Israel a "counterfeit and illegitimate regime that cannot survive."

Israel's presence in Judea and Samaria is quite legitimate. For 90 years, our enemies rejected all partition proposals and employed terror against us. Finally, in a war of defense in 1967, Israel assumed the administration of what are now commonly called the Palestinian territories. It's true that their status is disputed. But would it not be apartheid if Jews were prohibited from living there? Should Arabs be banned from Israel, where they are 20% of the population?

Moreover, a land-for-peace approach cannot resolve a problem that's not territorial. There were no "settlements" before 1967, but there was Arab terror, and a war broke out. Indeed, our communities could be a bridge to peace and coexistence. Until Israel is accepted as the Jewish national state, no border is sufficient.

Another matter of deep concern to Israelis is the case of Jonathan Pollard, a U.S. intelligence analyst who supplied classified information to Israel (an ally of the United States) that he felt was vital to its security. He has already served more than 25 years of a life term for his actions, much longer than in similar cases. He should be pardoned.

Not only Israelis but also at least one U.S. federal judge and many former government officials and elected representatives have made clear in statements that Pollard's situation is unfair and deserves a presidential act of grace.

When it comes to Israel, Americans too question the president's positions. In a recent poll by the website the Hill of 1,000 people, for example, only 13% of respondents said the president's policies toward Israel were too supportive, whereas a full 39% said he was not supportive enough, up from 31% in 2011. These numbers should be of concern to Obama.

The president's upcoming visit could be an opportunity to reorient the administration's outlooks and policies and to reestablish the foundations of our countries' long-standing friendship and strategic relationships. It could also assist the principles of democracy, peace, security and civic well-being in the face of a disappointing Arab Spring. Weakening Israel would endanger America as well.

Yisrael Medad resides in Shiloh and acts as a foreign media spokesperson for the YESHA Council of Jewish Communities in Judea and Samaria.

======================

UPDATE



Two letters and one response:

I firmly agree with Ayalon that a two-state solution is vital if Israelis are ever to know peace and total acceptance in the world community. Yisrael Medad, who wrote the other Op-Ed piece in this package, speaks for the settlers who choose to live in Judea and Samaria, also known as the West Bank.
The simple solution is to establish a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, with the stipulation that the hundreds of thousands of settlers can choose to remain. Israel has many non-Jewish citizens, so why can't a new Palestinian state tolerate the Jewish settlers?
Martin J. Weisman
Westlake Village

If Medad truly believes the Jewish settlements beyond the 1967 armistice line are legitimate and should be permanent, then he should support the logical next step and give all the adult legal residents in those areas the vote in Israeli elections. This would create a one-state solution with an Arab majority. Otherwise, Israel will be maintaining a non-democratic apartheid state in the West Bank.
David Ben-Gurion, a founder of modern Israel, recognized in 1948 that for Israel to be a Jewish, democratic state, the Zionists had to accept partition, with a Jewish majority in Israel and Arabs outside the Jewish state.
Medad not only undermines Israel's democratic Zionist principles and security, he also asks the United States to forswear its own democratic principles and security interests.
David Perel
Los Angeles

Yisrael Medad at 03:17 AM March 15, 2013As for David Perel's points, that I "should support the logical next step and give all the adult legal residents in those areas the vote in Israeli elections. This would create a one-state solution with an Arab majority."
a) I do support that.  After peace which means acceptance of Jewish national ethos.  And after a law is passed prohibiting political parties who seek to subver the state of Israell as the Jewish national home.  In Finland, parties can exist only if they express respect for democratic prinicples and in Austria, it's a criminal offense to endanger national independence or constitutionally mandate form of government, for example.  I think such would protect Israel.
b) there is no current threat of an Arab majority nor is there a demographic problem that cannot be dealt with.

^

Middle East Country Quiz From Amnesty

Guess which Middle East country in this news story is not mentioned:- Middle East executions soaring, says Amnesty

Human rights monitors are alarmed by a sharp rise in executions in the Middle East at a time when the overall number of countries using capital punishment worldwide is falling. During a year of tumultuous political change and violence throughout the Middle East and north Africa, the region led the world in the use of the death sentence, according to a report on Tuesday by Amnesty International. Iran, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Yemen accounted for the vast majority of the 558 executions recorded last year by Amnesty in the Middle East and north Africa. The number of executions rose 50 per cent in 2011 from the previous year, the Amnesty report said. ...Iraq appears to be accelerating its use of capital punishment, with 68 killed in 2011, but 69 reported to have been executed so far this year. Worldwide, only 20 countries carried out executions last year. While most Arab countries retain laws allowing death sentences for a variety of crimes, authorities in Algeria, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Morocco and Qatar have refrained from implementing them. Meanwhile, Tunisia for the first time in recent years did not impose a single death penalty last year, following the revolution that ousted President Zein al-Abidine Ben Ali.

That's right, Israel. Israel is located in the Middle East. It didn't execute anyone but doesn't merit a mention, this way or that. Now, can you guess why? Oh, the Palestinian Authority is mentioned, 5 executions, in the actual report itself (there at p. 32-33) but still, Israel is not included. Israel lcan't even get a of nod of appreciation from Amnesty. ^

Three Arab Assaults on Jewish Historical Cultural Sites

One:

A five-person gang of would-be thieves allegedly raided an ancient historical site in Israel over the weekend, apparently attempting to loot valuable relics and causing irreparable damage along the way.

The alleged thieves, all Palestinians from the West Bank town of Beit Ula, are suspected of sneaking into Israel from Judea and Samaria and vandalizing the site. The historical area can be traced back to the time of the Bar Kokhba revolt

...The thieves allegedly came armed with a sophisticated metal detector and an array of digging tools and equipment, and attempted to execute an amateur excavation in the hopes of unearthing historic coins and ancient underground hideouts. In the process, the perpetrators broke down ancient walls and destroyed buildings that are thousands of years old.

..."We are talking about a most severe case. The bandits caused devastating and irreversible damage to the ancient site. The devastation caused was unrestricted and unprecedented, even for the relatively small size of the site," said Amir Ganor, director of the Antiquities Robbery Prevention Unit on Sunday. "Unfortunately the site has been almost completely destroyed, Ganor added. "In one fell swoop, these bandits, with a blatant disregard and following a greedy quest for financial gain, managed to erase layers from our history."

Two:

The Jerusalem District Police on Sunday closed the Mughrabi Bridge, which connects the Western Wall and the Temple Mount in Jerusalem's Old City, and is the only access point to the holy site for Jews and tourists...Hamas officials on Monday said that Israel's closure of the Mughrabi Bridge marks the beginning of an assault on on the Temple Mount, known to Muslims as the Al-Aqsa compound, which houses the Al-Aqsa mosque.

Hamas officials previously said implementing the closure would be a "criminal act which constitutes a flagrant violation of the sanctity of Al-Aqsa Mosque and a provocation to the feelings of millions of Muslims." Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat, meanwhile, told AFP last week that the closure of the temporary bridge "shows their determination to judaize Jerusalem and to take over the city's Muslim holy places."...

MK Danny Danon (Likud), chairman of the Knesset Immigration, Absorption and Diaspora Affairs Committee...said on Sunday, "We need to exercise sovereignty over Jerusalem not just by law but in practice. We can't risk the safety of Jewish worshippers and security forces because of threats coming from foreign sources. If the Temple Mount is open to Muslims, it must be open to Christians and Jews as well. It is possible to allow access to the Temple Mount from alternative locations until a new bridge is built."

P.S. Take note of this reaction.

Three:

Palestinian officials are openly talking about using UNESCO to prohibit Jews from worshipping at Hebron’s Tomb of the Patriarchs...Karl Vick of Time got himself a scoop sure to raise red flags:

Now that Palestine has been voted into UNESCO, the United Nations Education, Scientific, and Cultural Organization, officials are preparing applications for the organization’s marquee designation: a World Heritage Site. Candidates are abundant. Bethlehem’s Church of the Nativity stands atop the cave where believers kneel to kiss the spot, confidently marked by a starburst, said to be where Jesus Christ was born. Jericho, which marked its 10,000th birthday last year, is among the oldest continuously inhabited cities on the planet. And Hebron boasts the final resting place of Abraham, whose covenant with the Almighty led to Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

There’s not much about the site that’s in doubt, including what Palestinian officials aim to do with the property if they get control of it — stop Jews from praying there.

The stated reason: The massive stone structure built atop the cave by King Herod, a Jew, and held for a time by Christian Crusaders, has since the 14th century been a Muslim house of worship. The Ibrahimi Mosque has minarets, rugs, washrooms for ablutions and anterooms lined with racks for storing shoes.

“It’s a mosque!” says Khaled Osaily, the mayor of Hebron. “You don’t have to be an architect to see it! Will you allow me to pray in a synagogue or a church?”

...of course...right now, anyone can pray at the Ibrahimi Mosque...

This must be combatted, vigorously.

^

Exactly What is "Occupied"?

What is going around the blogosphere is this:

Professor - Associate - Gil Anidjar teaches a class* at Columbia University at its Middle East Institute called "Theories of Culture in the Middle East".

In one of his recent lectures, he was reputed to have said (or maybe he didn't but the point still needs to be dealt with):

"The so-called Occupied Territories...I say so-called because the other areas are also occupied but they are just not called that..."

I can only presume that he - and his students - thought what was being referred to was the region of Judea and Samaria in the first instance ("occupied Territories"), and the rest of Israel, between the Green Line to the Mediterranean Sea in the west, in the second instance ("the other areas").

However, there is another interpretation:

Jordan, as we all know (we do, do we not?), is occupied by the Hashemite family who hail from Saudi Arabia.  Abdullah I, the current king's great grandfather, entered the territory and proceeded in a northernly direction in November 1920.  Here's one summary:

In November 1920 Abdullah, Faysal's brother, arrived in Ma'an (at that time claimed as part of Hejaz, based on the old Ottoman Vilayet of Hejaz) with 2,000 armed supporters intent on gathering together tribes to attack the French, who had forced Faysal to relinquish his newly founded kingdom in Syria. To defuse the situation - and with a bit of 'horsetrading' -, the British decided that Abdullah would take over as ruler of what was to become known as Transjordan

and here's a more official Jordanian version:

In November 1920, Emir (later King) Abdullah led forces from the Hijaz to restore his brother’s throne in the Kingdom of Syria. However, the French mandate over Syria was already well planted, and Abdullah was obliged to delay his pan-Arab goals and focus on forming a government in Amman. Since the end of the war, the British had divided the land of Transjordan into three local administrative districts, with a British “advisor” appointed to each. The northern region of ‘Ajloun had its administrative center in Irbid, the central region of Balqa was based in Salt, and the southern region was run by the “Moabite Arab Government,” based in Karak. The regions of Ma’an and Tabuk were incorporated into the Kingdom of the Hijaz, ancestral home of the Hashemites. Faced with the determination of Emir Abdullah to unify Arab lands under the Hashemite banner, the British proclaimed Abdullah ruler of the three districts, known collectively as Transjordan.

Once Abdullah made his aggressive move, parts of the country there were supposed to be part of the Jewish national home territory were transferred to TransJordan and Britain arranged the 'postponement' of the article in the Mandate decision concerning the right of 'close settlement' by Jews therein:

Article 6  -  The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes.

Notice that the term "Arabs" does not appear.  The land that was to become a country and eventually a state was slated to be Jewish whereas the rest of the population was defined as "other sections" with no identity and that is because it didn't make a difference if they were Arabs for they had no claims.  They were "others": Arabs, Muslims, Christains, Europeans, and whatnot.  To the Jews, by a decision of international legality, and Jews only, belonged the political primacy.

Jordan, today, occupies parts of the historical Jewish national home.  Between 1948 and 1967, it occupied Judea and Samaria.  In April 1950, it illegally annexed those regions, an act recognized by England only.

Only at Columbia, I guess, could such a weird ideology be promoted and thought of as  academic truth rather than what it is - not quite an historical fact.
P.S.  Of course, if Anidjar denies expressing such sentiments, and I sent this post to him, I will retract.


__________

* maybe this one: Middle East W3000, Theory-Culture: Middle East/South Asia, Section 001, Call Number: 87097, Instructor: Gil Anidjar, Points: 4, Day/Time: TR 2:10pm-4:00pm, Location: 313 Fayerweather.

=================

UPDATE

After reading myself here, I realize there are a few spelling errors and syntax I needed to correct.

^