Were Those Coins Used For Tips?

Tips? Coins?

Sure,

Joseph was with a butler and baker, no?

Here, in Genesis 40:

1 And it came to pass after these things, that the butler of the king of Egypt and his baker offended their lord the king of Egypt. 2 And Pharaoh was wroth against his two officers, against the chief of the butlers, and against the chief of the bakers. 3 And he put them in ward in the house of the captain of the guard, into the prison, the place where Joseph was bound. 4 And the captain of the guard charged Joseph to be with them, and he ministered unto them; and they continued a season in ward.

Joseph?

Coins?

And the connection you're asking?

Here it comes -

'Al-Ahram' Reports: Coins from Era of Biblical Joseph Found in Egypt

According to a report in the Egyptian daily Al-Ahram, by Wajih Al-Saqqar, archeologists have discovered ancient Egyptian coins bearing the name and image of the Biblical Joseph.

Following are excerpts from the article: [1]

"Koranic Verses Indicate Clearly That Coins Were Used in Egypt in the Time of Joseph"

"In an unprecedented find, a group of Egyptian researchers and archeologists has discovered a cache of coins from the time of the Pharaohs...Some of the coins are from the time when Joseph lived in Egypt, and bear his name and portrait.

"There used to be a misconception that trade [in Ancient Egypt] was conducted through barter, and that Egyptian wheat, for example, was traded for other goods. But surprisingly, Koranic verses indicate clearly that coins were used in Egypt in the time of Joseph.

"Research team head Dr. Sa'id Muhammad Thabet said that during his archeological research on the Prophet Joseph, he had discovered in the vaults of the [Egyptian] Antiquities Authority and of the National Museum many charms from various eras before and after the period of Joseph, including one that bore his effigy as the minister of the treasury in the Egyptian pharaoh's court…

"Dr. Sa'id Thabet added that he had examined the sarcophagi of many pharaohs in search of coins used as charms or ornaments, and that he had indeed found such ancient Egyptian coins. This [find] prompted researchers to seek and find Koranic verses that speak of coins used in ancient Egypt, [such as]: 'And they sold him [i.e. Joseph] for a low price, a number of silver coins; and they attached no value to him. [Koran 12:20].' [Also,] Qarun [2] says about his money: 'This has been given to me because of a certain knowledge which I have [Koran 28: 78].'"

"According to Dr. Thabet, his studies are based on publications about the Third Dynasty, one of which states that the Egyptian coin of the time was called a deben and was worth one-fourth of a gram of gold...

..."The archeological finding is also based on the fact that the inscribed face bore the name of Egypt, a date, and a value, while the engraved face bore the name and image of one of the ancient Egyptian pharaohs or gods, or else a symbol connected with these. Another telling fact is that the coins come in different sizes and are made of different materials, including ivory, precious stones, copper, silver, gold, etc."

..."One Coin... [Had] an Image of a Cow Symbolizing Pharaoh's Dream about the Seven Fat Cows and Seven Lean Cows"

"The researcher identified coins from many different periods, including coins that bore special markings identifying them as being from the era of Joseph. Among these, there was one coin that had an inscription on it, and an image of a cow symbolizing Pharaoh's dream about the seven fat cows and seven lean cows, and the seven green stalks of grain and seven dry stalks of grain. It was found that the inscriptions of this early period were usually simple, since writing was still in its early stages, and consequently there was difficulty in deciphering the writing on these coins. But the research team [managed to] translate [the writing on the coin] by comparing it to the earliest known hieroglyphic texts…

"Joseph's name appears twice on this coin, written in hieroglyphs: once the original name, Joseph, and once his Egyptian name, Saba Sabani [??? Genesis 41: 45 And Pharaoh called Joseph's name Zaphenath-paneah; and he gave him to wife Asenath the daughter of Poti-phera priest of On] , which was given to him by Pharaoh when he became treasurer. There is also an image of Joseph, who was part of the Egyptian administration at the time...

[1] Al-Ahram (Egypt), September 22, 2009.

[2] This is the Koranic name of Biblical Korah.

Now, I have my doubts about this but if the Egyptians are going with it, heck, I don't mind.

Construct We Must

Call us what you will - enclaves, or settlements, or simply revenant Jewish communities, but the construction goes on:


Can't see?

Here's a closer view:

You all come back in a year or so, okay?

Goldstone Continues His Stone-Sinking

GOLDSTONE IS THE CRIMINAL

(Article by Ben-Dror Yemini, Ma'ariv, 25.9.09, p. B 4-5)

Let's start at the end. Richard Goldstone perpetrated a moral crime. Not against the State of Israel but against human rights. He turned them into a weapon for dark regimes. Goldstone was not negligent. He did this with malice.

The criticism that was made in the first days following the report was on the basis of preliminary study. But time passes. And the more that the details of this report are revealed, the more it becomes clear that it is a libel. A libel with legal cover. A libel that was prepared in advance to incriminate the State of Israel, in the service of Libya and Iran. Goldstone willingly took up the loathsome role. He supplied these countries with the goods. The claim that "the discourse of rights" has become the dark forces' most effective tool is a familiar one. The Goldstone report is the supreme expression of this. Its legal terminology is exemplary. It gushes about international human rights treaties. But it cannot hide the result: It is a libelous indictment of the State of Israel, in the service of the axis of terrorism and evil. Yes, there is marginal – very marginal – lip service regarding criticism of Hamas. Goldstone's ilk is a sophisticated lot. They now reiterate from every stage, and Goldstone does it well, that they were actually objective. Here, they also leveled criticism at Hamas. How enlightened of them!

Goldstone sold his soul for an endless series of lies. Even Mary Robinson, who is not known as an admirer of Israel, understood that, "This is unfortunately a practice by the [UN Human Rights] Council: adopting resolutions guided not by human rights but by politics. This is very regrettable." She refused to take the post. Goldstone took it and carried it out with excessive enthusiasm. If international law worked as it should, if the representatives of dark regimes did not have an automatic majority in it, Goldstone would have to stand trial. But this is impossible. And therefore, not only Israel but every moral person, every person for whom human rights are important, must declare Goldstone a criminal. Here is the proof.

***

Let's start with what is not in the report. In its almost 600 pages there is not one word – there simply isn't! – about Hamas's ideology. Hamas has a covenant. This covenant is the basis for the conflict between Israel and the demonic entity that has arisen in Gaza. This covenant is pure anti-Semitism. This covenant makes it clear that Hamas is no different from the Taliban. On the contrary, it is worse. The leaders of Hamas also declare – in their own voices – their solidarity with the Taliban, their desire to take over the entire free world, their hatred of Jews and their abrogation of the ceasefire with Israel. But there is not one word in the Goldstone report about this. Contrary to the general impression, Israel is not Hamas's main victim. As in other

cases where radical Islam grows, most of Hamas's victims since Israel's withdrawal from Gaza – have been Muslims. Hamas's Kassam rockets, suicide terrorists, abductions and military operations do not stem from the occupation or the blockade, as the Goldstone Mission either claims or hints. All of these actions stem from an Islamo-fascist ideology that massacres mainly Muslims. Even during Operation Cast Lead, Hamas killed more Palestinians than Israelis. Goldstone and his cohorts did not hear about this.

It was one thing if Goldstone had just ignored the link between ideology and actual practice. But in addition, when he jumps to Israel, he takes the trouble to disparage the Zionist enterprise. Thus, for example, in Article 207 of the report, in a footnote, he tells about confiscated Palestinian property. Not that it has any relevance. But the sophisticated Goldstone had to provide Hamas with justifications. Historic accuracy? Certainly not. This is another product of the industry of lies. Because the property robbed and confiscated from Jewish refugees who were forced out of Arab countries was greater than Arab property left behind in Israel. But let us not confuse Goldstone by investigating the truth.

***

There is no need to go far in order to expose the lies. It is possible to start with the first paragraph. There, Goldstone says that he was granted the authority, "to investigate all violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law that might have been committed at any time in the context of the military operations that were conducted in Gaza." Really?

At this stage, let us go to the UN Human Rights Council decision to appoint the mission. Article 14, regarding the mission's authority, says: "To investigate all violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law by the occupying Power, Israel, against the Palestinian people throughout the Occupied Palestinian Territory, particularly in the occupied Gaza Strip, due to the current aggression, and calls upon Israel not to obstruct the process of investigation and to fully cooperate with the mission."

The difference is Heaven and Earth. Goldstone, I repeat, is not stupid. He is a sophisticated jurist. He understands that the Human Rights Council decision puts him in a bind. There is no demand for an investigation. There are instructions to investigate only Israel, while fixing blame in advance. Thus Article 14 and thus others in the same document. How does Goldstone square the circle? First, he does not mention Article 14 – which is the source of his authority – throughout the entire report. And second, in cooperation with the Council President, who was authorized to appoint the mission (but not to change its responsibilities), the authorization is improved in order to present a false objectivity. You see, Goldstone will claim in fawning interviews – we were authorized to investigate both sides. He is lying and he knows that he is lying.

It is not only the lie in the first paragraph. It goes on. In order to supply the goods, Professor Christine Chinkin, an expert on international law, was recruited to the mission, for example. There is only one problem. Before being appointed to the mission, Chinkin signed a petition that determined in advance that Israel had perpetrated war crimes. Can someone who took a position in advance sit on the mission? And indeed, the mission was presented with a legal suit for her dismissal. The suit was denied. There is absolutely no difference between the "judge's" pre-determination and the Council's. And when dozens of jurists petitioned the mission to dismiss Chinkin, Goldstone rejected them. It is clear why. The identity between the judge and the Council was absolute.

We must tarry another moment on the Council's decision. Any enlightened person should give deference to human rights and the international bodies dealing with them. This Council is the UN's most important body. And indeed, it seems that 33 countries participated in the vote on establishing the mission. And the results: Not one western democracy supported the decision; most abstained. One country voted against – Canada. The third-world countries voted in favor, as did all of the Islamic countries.

Can such an automatic majority – of non-democratic countries – be taken seriously? Certainly not. The Council will not send a Libyan representative to discuss human rights The representative from Pakistan, a country which caused millions of refugees only two months ago, in the framework of a just struggle against several hundred Taliban fighters – will find it hard to talk about "collective punishment" on CNN. For the charade of accusing Israel, one needs an internationally renowned jurist. He'll do the work. The automatic dark majority does not need to convince itself. It needs someone to publish articles in The New York Times and Ha'aretz, and appear on the BBC.

This is how to turn Israel into a pariah. This is propaganda that even Goebbels the genius didn't dream of. He is also a Jew; he even has a "Zionist" past. There could be no casting more perfect.

***

A precise study of the report reveals how the libel was perpetrated. This is no cheap, old-fashioned libel. This is a much more sophisticated libel. Now it is called a "narrative." The Goldstone mission builds the narrative one stage after another. Does libel start with the Kassams that began to fall in 2001? No way. Does the Executive Summary say anything about the thousands of Kassams that have been fired since and have turned the lives of the residents of southern Israel into hell? Not with Goldstone. After the clauses regarding the appointment of the mission members, relevant international law, methodology and Israel's non-cooperation, the mission gets down to business. The findings. The factual determinations and the verdict.

***

And indeed, the narrative begins with Article 27 (of the Executive Summary), entitled "The Blockade." According to the article, Israel imposed a blockade. Why? What happened? How did it start? Were there thousands of rockets? Did Hamas take military control of the Strip, while massacring dozens – maybe hundreds – of Palestinians? There is not a word in the opening account. Neither is there any mention of Hamas's internal terrorism against innocent Palestinians.

And this isn't all. If there is a blockade, it is not only Israel's responsibility. The Hamas regime has a long border with Egypt. It seems that this border is completely open. Hundreds of tunnels operate there on a regular basis and deliver everything the Hamas regime wants. The mission's Executive Summary makes no mention of the tunnels, the open border with Egypt or the smuggling. And what does the report say about the blockade? "Gaza's economy is further severely effected by the reduction of the fishing zone open to Palestinian fishermen." This is an amazing example of the mission's being recruited for the industry of lies. And the Palestinians established industries before the "blockade"? See, there is free movement of materials, through the tunnels. The problem is that Hamas has chosen only one raw material. Explosives. And there is also a flourishing industry. The production of rockets. "For the Palestinian people," claimed Fathi Hamad, a Hamas member of Parliament, "death became an industry." This even appears in Article 475. But Goldstone, the Devil's advocate, insists on blaming Israel. The same Fathi, in the same speech, admits with his own voice that Hamas, " created a human shield of women, children, [and] the elderly." This is also cited in the report. But Goldstone, " does not consider it to constitute evidence." (Article 476) Certainly. When the result has been pre-determined, even the explicit, filmed and recorded admission of a senior Hamas official, like the video footage of the use of children, will not change the conviction. Is it possible to call such work by Goldstone "negligence", or is it a crime, in the service of a terrorist regime?

Article 28 simplistically determines that Israel is the occupying power. Why? Because. Only in Article 88 does the mission see fit to mention the disengagement. As if it had no bearing on the story. As if Israel had not proven that it had no interest in the Strip. As if Israel had not fulfilled all of its obligations. As if Israel had not left the Palestinians to their fate, so that they could govern themselves, without a single soldier or settler.

Article 29 says that Israel embarked on Operation Cast Lead. Were there barrages of rockets beforehand? They appear later on but not in the Executive Summary. Apparently, they are not relevant. This is how one constructs a lie. Start with a blockade. Then a criminal assault. That's the Executive Summary.

The mission's lie repeats itself when it presents a false picture of permanent Israeli aggression. In exactly the same way, the mission says, in Article 193, that Israel began Operation Defensive Shield and caused the killing of hundreds of Palestinians. There is not even one word about the series of terrorist attacks on cafes, restaurants and buses. There is not one word about the Passover massacre at the Park Hotel in Netanya, in which 30 Israelis were murdered – a massacre which broke Israel's long restraint.

Article 30 deals with the number of casualties but ignores – of course – any study which proves that most of the Palestinian casualties were Hamas personnel. In order to strengthen the impression, the report presents the number of Palestinian dead as opposed to the number of Israelis. The proportionality creates the result. So many Palestinians were killed. So few Israelis. According to this logic, NATO perpetrated war crimes in bombing Yugoslavia in 1999, because the results were similar to those in Gaza: Over 1,000 Yugoslav dead (mostly civilians) and zero casualties among the NATO forces. Thus in Afghanistan as well. Far more Afghans, civilians and fighters, have been killed than NATO soldiers. Does this turn the NATO countries and soldiers into war criminals? And there will yet be proportionality issues. Pakistan sought to get rid of the vexing problem caused by several hundred Taliban fighters. It caused thousands of dead and millions of refugees. Thus also in Lebanon, when it was obliged to fight a few hundred Fatah al-Islam fighters. Their refugee camp, Nahr al-Bared, was destroyed. Hundreds were killed and tens of thousands became refugees.

The world understands that these are the proportions of dealing with terrorists, who hide among civilians. But when Goldstone comes to Israel – he refuses to understand even though Hamas's threat to Israel is greater than the Taliban's threat to Europe or Fatah al-Islam's to Lebanon. Goldstone knows the new battlefields. But he ignores because the goal was to demonize Israel. And therefore, he must lie and mislead.

Article 32 deals with Israel's bombing of Palestinian Authority buildings, rejects the Israeli claim that these were part of the, "Hamas terrorist infrastructure," and determines that these were, "deliberate attacks on civilian objects in violation of the rule of customary international humanitarian law." Certainly. If they ignore the fact that Hamas is a terrorist entity that uses terrorism mainly against innocent Palestinians as well – the result is that this is a legitimate political body. Maybe even a charitable organization. Now it is possible to understand why the mission ignores the Hamas Covenant. It is no coincidence. It is easier to square the circle that way.

***

How is Hamas absolved of responsibility for serious crimes? The Goldstone report cites hundreds of inquiries that were carried out by various groups. One of the groups cited is, of course, Amnesty International, which has provided countless hostile reports against Israel. These are cited extensively. But there was another Amnesty report, issued on 21.2.09. This surprising report reviews a series of incidents in which Hamas eliminated dozens of Fatah members, during the time of Operation Cast Lead, in Gaza. And here's the surprise: Of all the reports, it is this one which is not mentioned in the Goldstone report. There is mention of attacks on Fatah personnel (in Article 80, for example), but with exaggerated effort to minimize the significance of the matter.

The general impression is that Goldstone is much more critical towards Fatah than towards Hamas. For example, Goldstone blames Fatah for the "refusal to cede control of the security institutions" in favor of the Hamas (Article 190), causing the confrontation between the factions. Hamas, according to the whole report, is a completely legitimate body that should control the security institutions. Goldstone stubbornly refuses to see the very anti-Semitic and terrorist nature of Hamas, an entity whose very existence is a crime against humanity.

***

It is possible to continue, article after article, in order to expose the construction of the deceptions and the lies. The mission details 36 factual events that prove, as it were, that Israel perpetrated war crimes. In their reduced framework below, let us examine the attack on the Abd Rabbo family. This event became one of the most prominent symbols of Operation Cast Lead, received widespread coverage and was mentioned in many reports. The Goldstone report devotes ten articles (768-777) to this incident. The mission repeated the claim that family members waived a white flag and that its daughters were murdered in cold blood by Israel. This claim is not only negligent, it is also a malicious lie. Thorough checks have shown that family members agave different and contradictory versions. One of the claims was that this was cold-blooded murder because there were no Hamas personnel in the area. It seems that this claim has also been refuted, by contradictory testimony, even by Time magazine, to the effect that there were indeed Hamas personnel in the area. Moreover, it seems that Al-Hayat Al-Jadida reports that, ""The Abd Rabbo family kept quiet while Hamas fighters turned their farm in the Gaza strip into a fortress." The testimony is contradictory and the Time and Al-Hayat Al-Jadida reports were supposed to be before the mission. But there is not even a hint of them in the Goldstone report, which publishes a libel, even though it has already been contradicted. The objective has been marked. The facts will not confuse the mission.

***

The foregoing is only the tip of the iceberg. Space is too short to detail the parade of lies known as "the Goldstone Report." We have presented here only isolated examples about the method. Goldstone, who chose to collaborate with the dark majority, supplied the goods. The report deserves a much closer study. The State of Israel must establish a commission of inquiry, led by top-notch jurists, in cooperation with their colleagues from around the world, in order to examine article after article, claim after claim, and refute the libel. The deeper one digs into the report, the more it becomes clear that Goldstone is a criminal hiding under the umbrella of human rights. On behalf of human rights, he and his lies must be exposed. The truth must come to light.

----------

Links to translated articles: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Dror_Yemini

Is The New Word "Enclaves"?

One Eric B. Lipps of Staten Island doesn't like something about Israel and here's one paragraph from his NYTimes letter yesterday:

If President Obama cannot even get Israel to stop seizing land from Palestinians and building Jewish-only enclaves on it, it’s hard to see how his supposed new focus on such issues as “the status of Jerusalem, the fate of Palestinian refugees and the borders of a future Palestinian state” can possibly get anywhere. And if he’s not willing to stick to his position on what ought to be a comparatively easy issue, it’s hard to believe that he’s really serious about these much more contentious ones.

"Jewish-only enclaves" in the Land of Israel.

On Sept. 22, the NYT carried an AP story which included this:

Netanyahu insists there's no way he will halt construction in Israeli enclaves on land the Palestinians want for their state.

And, on Sept. 15, the NYT carries this from Reuters:

The World Court calls the settlements illegal and Palestinians say the enclaves could deny them a viable state.

Hmmm.

Well, yesterday, the very same day, in the very same newspaper of record, that we read Lipps' letter, I found this:

Manhattan Chinatown has not only maintained its urban roots, but is expanding. It has already subsumed most of Little Italy (including Columbus Park, named after a man who was an Italian-American hero despite mysteries about his origins). It has also moved in once Jewish-enclaves of the Lower East Side, including swallowing the Eldridge Street Synagogue. The synagogue may have been one of the first built by the Eastern European Jewish immigrants in their new homeland, but it now embraces its new neighbors with an annual Egg Roll and Egg Cream festival.

So, even in New York there were enclaves.

Jewish enclaves.

Gosh, what will come of this?

A Question of Grammar

In a story about a metal detectionist searching for historical finds in the ground, the fellow

...said that on the day of his discovery he reworked a mantra that he regularly used for good luck. “I have this phrase that I say sometimes — ‘Spirits of yesterday, take me where the coins appear’ — but on that day I changed ‘coins’ to ‘gold.’ I don’t know why I said it that day, but I think somebody was listening.”

Should that have been "...take me where the gold appears"?

Or is the use of gold there as a collective noun?

A Joint Ad

The ZOA, AFSI, UCI and CIPAC published this ad.

The text:

Dear President Obama,

Our organizations, representing the views of millions of Americans, are deeply troubled that current Mideast policy initiatives by your administration will compromise Israel`s security and undermine the longstanding U.S.- Israel alliance. You have expressed a willingness to consider a broad range of views. In this spirit, we urge you to address the concerns of the important segment of both the Jewish and Christian communities which our organizations represent.

Your calls for a freeze on construction in the so-called "settlements" only serve to promote the anti-Jewish bias of Israel’s enemies. Stifling the growth of thriving Jewish communities will not bring peace. Therefore, we urge you to take the following fundamental factors into account when formulating U.S. policy regarding the Middle East:

1. Israel is entitled to be recognized by all nations as a Jewish state that protects the rights of all of its citizens and freedom of worship for all faiths. The Jewish people became a nation over 3,000 years ago in the Land of Israel, which encompasses Judea and Samaria (the so-called "West Bank") as well as the city of Jerusalem. Based on the Jewish people’s deep historic and religious connection with the land, their fundamental right to settle throughout this land was explicitly recognized under international law by the League of Nations (Mandate for Palestine, unanimously adopted 1922). This internationally guaranteed right has never been abrogated or revoked by any international successor organization. Therefore, U.S. policy must support the right of Jews to live anywhere within the Land of Israel.

2. It should be understood that the United Nations recognized the State of Israel in 1948 based on the historic and biblical right of Jews to live in their ancestral homeland, not only because of the Holocaust. The Arab nations` refusal to accept this fact has been demonstrated countless times over the last 60 years by their hostile behavior towards Israel.

3. The "two-state solution" currently promoted by your administration is incompatible with the goals of peace. Establishing a terror-sponsoring Palestinian state in Judea, Samaria, Gaza, and in the heart of Jerusalem, where no Jews would be allowed to live, would seriously undermine Israel`s security as well as violate the internationally guaranteed right of Jewish settlement.

4. Israel, as a sovereign nation, has the unconditional right to designate an undivided Jerusalem as its capital. Jerusalem was established as the capital of the Jewish nation in biblical times. The city was divided by illegal Jordanian occupation of its eastern neighborhoods in 1948, and then reunified under Israeli sovereignty in 1967. Jerusalem stands today as a free and unified city. Therefore, U.S. policy must clearly reflect recognition of Jerusalem as Israel`s capital, and firmly reject any proposal which would redivide the city.

A just and lasting peace can be achieved in the Middle East only when the Palestinians and all the nations in the region first recognize Israel`s right to exist as a Jewish state. They must clearly demonstrate their recognition of Israel by permanently ending all acts of belligerency and incitement directed against Israel and the Jewish people.

Mr. President, we urge you to give these issues your serious attention.

Respectfully,

Hon. Marc Caroff
(President, Louis D. Brandeis District chapter of the Zionist Organization of America).
ZOA (local Brandeis District chapter): 301-384-7637; hsaaba@aol.com

Richard A.Hellman
(Founder and President, Christians` Israel Public Action Campaign).
CIPAC: 202-234-3600; RAHellman@cipaconline.org

Herbert Zweibon
(Chairman, Americans For a Safe Israel).
AFSI: 212-828-2424; afsi@rcn.com

Esther Levens
(Founder and CEO,Unity Coalition for Israel).
UCI: 913-648-0022; www.israelunitycoalition.org

Warren Manison
(Washington,D.C.representative, Unity Coalition for Israel)

What Would Justice Richard Goldstone Say?

I think the US officials reviewing the Goldstone Report and its ramifications should read this item carefully and perhaps ask the same questions I did before they find themselves in a new Goldstone report:

...Qari Hussain Mehsud, known for training Taliban suicide bombers, met with an AP reporter Thursday at a secret location in North Waziristan, near the Afghan border, just hours before a U.S. missile strike hit the tribal region and killed 12 people.

The U.S. has launched dozens of missiles to take out top Taliban and al-Qaida leaders in Pakistan's northwest over the past year. Although Pakistan routinely protests the strikes, it is widely believed to secretly cooperate with them.

One such missile strike in August killed Pakistani Taliban chief Baitullah Mehsud, and Qari Hussain Mehsud's comments appeared to be the latest attempt by militants to end speculation of a rift among insurgent commanders following the killing.

...The militant commander, who looked to be in his 40s and had a curly black beard and mustache, was surrounded by dozens of other militants and local residents. At one point, he assured those gathered that Islam allowed suicide bombings.

a) the report says "12 people" died.

all civilians? all terrorists? all freedom fighters/resistance fighters, etc.? a mixed bag?

b) US has launched "dozens" of similar attacks. any stats analysis (how many fired, how many killed, identity of killed, military value)?

c) militants, and insurgents used but never terrorists (despite 'e' below)

d) surrounded by citizens. there out of identity, support, curiousity?

e) propagating suicide bombings

Daoud, Don't Forget History

My acquaintance, Daoud Kuttab of Ramallah, writes this in his letter in today's NYTimes:

Palestinians will welcome any change to that law so long as it takes into consideration protection of a population that has lived under more than 40 years of a foreign military occupation.

What do we do legally about a people whose homeland has been under occupation for almost 2000 years, conquered and administered by military force?

Oh, that was solved back in 1922.

The Land of Israel was mandated to Great Britain

for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, to entrust to a Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of the territory of Palestine...[and]...the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country; and

Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country; and...confirming the said Mandate, defines its terms as follows:

The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble, and the development of self-governing institutions, and also for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion. [note: no "Palestinian Arabs" are mentioned]

The Mandatory shall, so far as circumstances permit, encourage local autonomy.

An appropriate Jewish agency shall be recognised as a public body for the purpose of advising and co-operating with the Administration of Palestine in such economic, social and other matters as may affect the establishment of the Jewish national home and the interests of the Jewish population in Palestine, and, subject always to the control of the Administration to assist and take part in the development of the country.

The Zionist organization, so long as its organization and constitution are in the opinion of the Mandatory appropriate, shall be recognised as such agency. It shall take steps in consultation with His Britannic Majesty's Government to secure the co-operation of all Jews who are willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home.

The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of the Government of any foreign Power [no partition or territorial compromise!].

The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections [again, no Arabs mentioned] 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. ["close settlement", exactly what I'm doing]

The Administration of Palestine shall be responsible for enacting a nationality law. There shall be included in this law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine.

Pictures From Yesterday's UN Rally - with comments

Photos from yesterday's rally at the UN sent to me by Sholom Alfassa:


1. Which Ahma do you like best? This one?


2. Or this one?


3. This gets a special catewgory prize for 'best sign'. It modular and cann be brought to any demo, pro or con, anywhere at anytime. Of course, if you asked a Hadassah lady, she'd just say she's multi-tasking:


4. Now, what we do without the nutty Neturei Karta kooks? Anyone for dismantling them?


5. "Because we are Jews against Israel" is the only reason Ahma tolerates you. Otherwise, you'd be pigeon feed yourself.


6. A better coalition.


7. And my friend and fellow activist, Rabbi Avi Weiss (l.) with a happy Jew:



(Kippah tip: BT)

It's The Intention, My Dear

Al-Jazeera on Netanyahu - when a news outlet, even in the guise of commentary, slides into agitprop:

Jacky Rowland Al Jazeera's correspondent in Jerusalem said: "He was trying to convince his audience that Iran wasn’t just a problem for Israel but for the rest of the world.

"The only point of applause was when he repeated the formula of 'two states for two people' and I think it reflects the not very high regard that Israel is held in UN circles.

"He was trying to draw an analogy between the very crude small rockets fired from Gaza [into Israel], with the kind of bombs that Nazi Germany was dropping on major British cities and vice versa during the second word war.

"It's rather ludicrous to make those comparisons as the munitions are in no way comparable.

Jacky



is a former BBC Foreign Affairs correspondent so you have to excuse her lack of, well, morals.

Jacky, if a man attempts a sexual assault on you, does it make a difference to you if he can't, er, well, you know (at least that biological bit), but paws a little, getting you disheveled or not? Of course, he can't be tried for rape in court but he really did intend to do the dirty and he probably caused you a slight anxiety attack or whatever.

Now, multiply that by several thousands of rockets, mortars and such over eight years and you might comprehend that your throwaway "crude" and "ludicrous" remarks ares not only intellectually silly but morally corrupt.

Of course there is a comparison: both Nazi Germany and Hamas intended to kill as many civilians and destroy as many homes, factories and schools as possible.

And Gt. Britain, you know, the place you come from, burnt down, leveled and obliterated German towns, et al. in retaliation, something Israel didn't do in Gaza. So, actually, the real comparison is between England and Nazi Germany vs. Israel and Gaza and who do you think performed better from a humanist perspective of all four?

Yep - Israel.

And who displayed ignorance, bias and unfairness if not - Jacky Rowland.

Tsk, tsk.


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

And check out Ehud Barak's op-ed in the Wall Street Journal.

So Typically Israeli

The uniqueness of your average Israeli.

The sidewalk on Keren Hayesod near Jabotinsky Street is only so wide.

If there is a parking meter stuck there, it becomes less wide.

So, where does someone place the paper collecting bin?


That's right, just opposite the meter.

Squeeze through - it's your problem.

My Letter in the Times Literary Supplement

Here:

Seraphim

Sir, – Susan Weingarten, in noting (Letters, September 11) that the first appearance of “seraphim” is in the Book of Isaiah, is quite correct if she is referring solely to angels. The Hebrew word “seraph”, from the root to burn or scorch, however, appears in Deuteronomy 8:15, as being one of the elements faced by the Children of Israel in their forty-year trek through the Desert: “who led thee through the great and dreadful wilderness, wherein were serpents, fiery serpents \[seraph\], and scorpions”. This recalls the incident when, while encompassing the land of Edom, the Children of Israel once again murmured against God’s plan and “the Lord sent seraph serpents against the people. They bit the people and many died”, as recorded in Numbers 21:6.

YISRAEL MEDAD
Shiloh, Mobile Post Efraim 44830, Israel.

Again, Why I Don't Like the Term "Settlers"

The word to describe Jews living in Yesha, that is, Judea and Samaria, is revenant. Someone who returns after a long absence to his ancestral homeland.

Not "settler".

In a review in the Times Literary Supplement of James Belich's "REPLENISHING THE EARTH: The settler revolution and the rise of the Anglo-world", we read this:

...recent chroniclers and analysts of the Anglo-Americanization of the world in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, the filters used have been those that show up the “imperialism” of the process...

...Belich’s approach brings out two further features...First, “settlerism” was transnational, in several senses, quite apart from the obvious one that it pushed beyond national frontiers. Other peoples did it besides Britons...

The second is that this kind of colonization was not necessarily a case of the centre “exploiting” the periphery. Settlers positively sought out “oldland” goods and capital rather than having them forced on them. They arguably gained more from the exchange than the metropoles did. At the very worst, “exploitation was mutual”. The cultural ties between them were also voluntary. It was the Australians who wanted to retain their British identity, rather than its being forced on them, and Britain which eventually cut the tie between them...

Belich’s own analysis of “Anglo” settlerism in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries will be the most contentious section of this book. He is insistent that neither Britain’s early start (which in fact was quite late), nor her institutions, nor any particular virtues or other qualities of the “Anglos”, had much to do with it. Instead he relies on a strict typology of what he takes to be its different stages: “incremental”, “explosive”, “recolonisation”, and “decolonisation”, of which the middle two are further subdivided into “boom”, “bust” (the second) and “export rescue” (the third), which apparently operated in virtually every successful case of “Anglo” settlerism in this period...What he is describing here, surely, are the normal travails of free market capitalism as socialists see them, anywhere, including in metropoles (today, for example), but exaggerated in settler contexts because they were so free...

All this comes from uncoupling “settlerism” from “imperialism” (or from other sorts of imperialism: it depends on your definition), which is the most valuable insight of this book. One effect of it is to free the former from some of the stigmas attaching to the latter; but then, settlerism had quite enough stigmas of its own. Belich deals with most of them, and one in particular: the injury (to put it mildly) done to most of the indigenous races that stood in the settlers’ path...

Settlers went to places that were foreign to them, that were strange, that didn't belong to them.

We Jews came home, to the landscapes of our history, where we developed as a people, where our religion was fashioned, where our kings and prophets and priests acted and spoke, where our language and literature flowered.

No imperialists we; no exploiters; no strangers.

We live in the Land of Israel, in Judea, in Samaria, in its hills, and plains and along its shores.

We are revenants.

The Bigger The Letters

The Shabbat between Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur is called Shabbat Shuvah. It is customary that the Rabbi of the community conduct a special sermon.

Here are the posters announcing the appearances of our two Chief Rabbis. In the upper one, the Ashkenazi Chief Rabbi's name, Yonah Metzger, is quite prominent. Larger even than the title "Shabbat Shuvah Sermon":


The second, lower poster has Rabbi Shlomo Amar, the Sefradi Chief Rabbi, in smaller letters than the sermon.

As it should be.


P.S. Thanks to DovBear for relating to this post (and to Yoni for bringing it to my attention).

Menachem Begin on International Law

Menachem Begin, The Knesset, July 18, 1977, upon returning from his first trip to Washington as Israel's sixth Prime Minister:

...The term "Palestine entity" has also been used. We made it clear that any proposal of this kind will inevitably lead to the establishment of a state known as "Palestinian." And a Palestinian state, as is presumably being proposed by President Sadat of Egypt, in Judea, Samaria and Gaza, linked by an exterritorial strip, that is, under Arab sovereignty... is a threat to the existence of the Jewish state.

We have no need of quotations to know what the organization which was authorized by the Rabat Conference to represent all the Palestinian Arabs wants. Then there will be continuous bloodshed. That is not theory. A similar situation obtained for nineteen years, and we had continuous bloodshed. We were attacked in Jerusalem, near Tel Aviv, in Ashkelon and Ashdod, in the north, the east and the south, every week, if not every day. It is characteristic that in making this demand the Egyptian President does not promise peace or a peace treaty but what is known as non-belligerency, something which has no status in international law, in other words, non-peace. If that situation were to obtain the Middle East would lose every chance of peace, because then, as I demonstrated to the president and his advisors, the Arabs would take another look at the map and ask themselves: why should we make peace with Israel? Their cannon would be nine miles from the sea facing Netanya, ten miles by way of Kalkilya, twenty miles from Tel Aviv, ten miles from Beersheba, etc. Modern Soviet artillery has a range of over thirty miles. There is no doubt that if a Palestinian state were established it would not be long before it received all the most up-to-date and sophisticated weapons from the U.S.S.R...and a Soviet base was established there.

It is no coincidence that at the recent conference in Moscow chaired by Leonid Brezhnev both Castro and Arafat participated....

T. Toubi (Democratic Front for Peace and Equality): And if it is independent, like Israel, will you agree to that state then...?

The Prime Minister, M. Begin: ...As I have already said, no, on no account will we agree to a Palestinian state....I am telling the House and the nation what would happen if it were to come into existence. But it will not come into existence.

M. Wilner (Democratic Front for Peace and Equality): Then there will be peace and security....

The Prime Minister, M. Begin: That would be the reality, an extremely grave threat to Israel's existence and to the lives of every man, woman and child in Israel. As well as a threat to the free world, of course. We know what is happening in the Middle East. From Ethiopia to Libya. Is a Soviet base needed in the heart of the Middle East too, from which it will be possible to spread in every direction? The answer is obvious. We have made our position on this point absolutely clear, so that there should be no room for misunderstanding. We completely and utterly reject the establishment of a state known as "Palestinian," in any shape or form. Any proposal beginning with what is known as a "Palestine entity" will undoubtedly lead to the establishment of such a state. We say an unequivocal "no" to that idea, whatever its shape.

There are those who claim that by saying no to a Palestinian state we are adopting a negative attitude, but that is not so:...As in the case of the ten commandments, for example, negation implies a positive injunction....Thus, by saying no to a Palestinian state we are making a positive statement about the chances of peace and the prevention of bloodshed....We have been asked not to establish new settlements across the Green Line, but we have made our position clear on this subject too.

There are places in the U.S. called Hebron, Shiloh, Bethel, Bethlehem, etc. Those names indicate the deep connection between the American people and the Bible. Let us suppose that the governors of the states where those towns are situated were to declare that any American citizen could go and live there-except Jews. There would be an outcry throughout the U.S. at this discrimination. That is why we ask whether it is acceptable for a Jewish government to prevent Jews from buying land in the Land of Israel and building their homes in Bethlehem or Hebron or Shiloh...? In other words, we insist on the inalienable rights of Jews to live in the Land of Israel. There is no reason why Jews and Arabs can live in Jaffa and Haifa, Ramle and Lod, Acre and Nazereth and elsewhere, and cannot live side by side, in peace and mutual respect, in Judea and Samaria, Gaza and Rafah. There is no justification for that, and that is the government's position.

The U.S. Secretary of State said yesterday that the settlements violated international law....With all due respect, I would like to tell him that that accusation is groundless. Israel upholds international law, but if someone is relying on the Geneva Convention of 1949, which is intended to protect the civilian inhabitants of occupied territories, I would like to say, first, that Jewish settlement activity on no account harms the Arabs of the Land of Israel. We have not dispossessed a single Arab of his land, nor shall we do so. The decision taken by the government yesterday refers to three existing settlements-Eilon Moreh, Ofra and Ma'aleh Adumim. No Arab land was appropriated in order to establish them....It is true that the previous government was in doubt about the permanency of one settlement, Eilon Moreh...but the attitude of the present government is different. We think that Jews have every right to live at Eilon Moreh...as well as in the other settlements...and that no injustice has been caused to a single Arab family. We will act similarly in the future, too. Jewish settlement activity will not be associated with dispossession and injustice of any kind to a single Arab inhabitant anywhere in the Land of Israel.

T. Toubi (Democratic Front for Peace and Equality): That's nonsense. The facts are different. Life has proved that every new settlement involves the dispossession of a people dwelling in its homeland.

The Prime Minister, M. Begin: With regard to international law, Israeli rule in the Land of Israel is not a rule of occupation. The Knesset ruled thus in 1967, when it passed a law saying that the government was entitled to issue an ordinance extending the jurisdiction, law and administration of the state to every part of the Land of Israel. That is the law. That is our law. That is the law that was adopted by the house of representatives of the sovereign State of Israel...and which empowers the government to act accordingly...meaning that no part of the Land of Israel can be regarded as occupied territory....

M. Pa'il (Sheli): Perhaps the Speaker would explain to us why that Knesset left Jordanian law in effect in Judea and Samaria, and Egyptian law in Gaza and Rafah.

The Prime Minister, M. Begin: There is no contradiction. As you know, when the state was established certain laws were left on the books while others were annulled, including the White' Paper banning Jewish settlement in the Land of Israel.... Consequently, the Minister of Defense extended our law to parts of the Land of Israel regarding which it was unclear whether it applied, and he did so by an administrative order, by virtue of the power vested in him. There is nothing new in that nor is there any contradiction....

As for the claim that we have violated international law, when is a country which has occupied the territory of another country regarded as an occupying power? When it is clear that the first country had sovereignty over the area taken away from it by war. The question is whether the government of Hashemite Jordan had sovereignty or acknowledged sovereignty over Judea and Samaria....The answer is absolutely not. Jordan invaded the western Land of Israel in violation of all international law. That was aggression. It caused bloodshed, destroyed synagogues and tried, together with Egypt and Syria, to destroy Israel's independence the day after it had been proclaimed....Does an act of injustice, of aggressive invasion, grant any right...?

Arab World Cover-up

And you thought covering up flesh was only a Hareidi Jerusalem/Bnei Brak thing?

How Scooby-Doo is advertised in the world:

and in the Arab world

(Kippah tip: Copyranter)

He Wouldn't Be Muslim, Would He?

Who?

The transferred police officer here:

New York Police Official in Terror Unit Is Removed

The New York Police Department has removed a senior official from one of its two sometimes competing antiterrorism units, after it played a role in disrupting a sensitive federal terrorism investigation...

The transfers, which removed one official from the Intelligence Division and replaced him with another from the Counterterrorism Bureau, came in recent days amid intense activity in the case...in the effort by Intelligence Division detectives to seek assistance from the imam, a disclosure that contributed to a significant disruption in the investigation.

...The decision to show photographs of the main suspect and several other men to the imam, Ahmad Wais Afzali, who had provided information to the Police Department in the past, forced the authorities to conduct raids and arrest the suspect sooner than they might have otherwise.

The development, according to several law enforcement officials, could make it harder for the authorities to identify and develop evidence against others involved in what prosecutors have said was a plot to detonate bombs in the United States.

Maybe not:

The official transferred out of the Intelligence Division, Deputy Inspector Paul Ciorra, was the intelligence collection coordinator. He has been moved to the Trial Division, which oversees administrative hearings for police officers accused of misconduct. His union leader, Roy T. Richter, noted that the shift would not have been made if he had been transferred for disciplinary reasons.

and we have a Jew in there, it seems:

One former government official with knowledge of the matter said there was no indication that the deputy inspector had done anything wrong and that the decision to approach the imam had been made at the highest levels of the Intelligence Division. The unit is led by David Cohen, a former top C.I.A. official. The former official said the deputy inspector was moved to absorb the blame.

And a blog broke it! -

The first suggestion that a transfer occurred after the terrorism inquiry’s
disruption was reported on Monday by Leonard Levitt at NYPDConfidential.com.

If Only

Egypt's culture minister says a Western conspiracy "cooked up in New York" prevented him from becoming the next head of the UN's agency for culture and education.

Farouk Hosny says "European countries and the world's Jews" wanted him to lose.

He spoke to reporters at the Cairo airport Wednesday upon his return from Paris.

Wall Painting

Everytime I pass this, on Aggripas Street just down from the Shuq, I can but admire:

Taken at 7:50 AM while waiting for the barber.

Dear President Obama, Secretary Clinton and Other Washington Officials

On the assumption that someone in Washington would think that my opinions and thoughts are important to them regarding President Obama’s speech before the UN yesterday, and if they would want to know my reactions and would be willing for me to convey them to Washington, I actually have just really one point:


I take umbrage at the characterization of President Obama of my residential community as "illegitimate". More than illegal, that term used conveys to me a sense of moral repugnancy which I find hard to accept.

Jews lived in Judea and Samaria right up until the end of the Mandate, in Hebron, Shchem (Nablus), Gaza, Jenin, Jerusalem's Jewish, as well as Muslim and Christian, Quarter and other places throughout the historical Land of Israel. The Arabs, since 1920 in an organized fashion, conducted a campaign of ethnic cleansing to remove the Jews with horrific violence from locations that had lived in for centuries as well as from newly built communities in areas promised to the Jews as their reconstituted national home by the League of Nations, where they could exercise their right to "close settlement on the land" as guaranteed by the League of Nations Mandate.

The Jews through their official representatives accepted the principle of "territorial compromise" in 1923 when Transjordan was separated from the Mandate and in 1937 when the Peel Commission partition plan was proffered as well as the November 29, 1947 UN Resolution on Partition. The Arabs consistently refused any political arrangement and surely refused to compromise on land.

For Mr. Obama to term the situation of Jews living in their homeland, as distinct from any eventual political resolving of the conflict, as "illegitimate" is wrong, is mean-spirited and simply invites further Arab attempts to kill us, to dislodge us from our homes and to destroy a sacred legal trust that the United States Congress assumed in 1922-24 (please see below*).

I was quite disappointed.

I hope my thoughts are passed on to those who count.


------

* I am referring to this:

The Lodge-Fish joint resolution of both Houses of Congress of the United States unanimously endorsed the "establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people," confirming the irrevocable right of Jews to settle in the area of Palestine - anywhere between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea:

"Favoring the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people."

"Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled. That the United States of America favors the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which should prejudice the civil and religious rights of Christian and all other non-Jewish communities in Palestine, and that the holy places and religious buildings and sites in Palestine shall be adequately protected." [italics in the original] (June 30, 1922).

President Warren G. Harding signed the Lodge-Fish joint resolution of approval to establish a Jewish homeland in Palestine (September 21, 1922). Writing to the Zionist Organization of America, Harding stated:

"A long-time interest, both sentimental and practical, in the Zionist movement causes me to wish that I might meet the members of the organization and express the esteem which I feel in behalf of the great movement" (June 25, 1922).

President Herbert Hoover stated:

"On the occasion of your celebration of the 15th Anniversary of the Balfour Declaration, which received the unanimous approval of both Houses of Congress by the adoption of the Lodge-Fish Resolution in 1922, I wish to express the hope that the ideal of the establishment of the National Jewish Home in Palestine, as embodied in that Declaration, will continue to prosper for the good of all the people inhabiting the Holy Land" (October 29, 1932).

President Calvin Coolidge ratified the Convention between the United States and Great Britain - a relationship governed by international law.

The U.S. (not a member of the League of Nations) Government maintained that her participation in WWI and her contribution to the defeat of Germany and the defeat of her Allies, entitled the United States to be consulted as to the terms of the "Mandate for Palestine."

The outcome of this request was a Convention [Treaty] between the United States of America and Great Britain with respect to the rights of the two governments and their nationals in Palestine. The Convention which contains the entire text of the "Mandate for Palestine" including the preamble word-for-word was concluded and signed by their respective plenipotentiaries in London on December 3, 1924; Ratification advised by the Senate, February 20, 1925; Ratified by President Calvin Coolidge, March 2, 1925; Ratified by Great Britain, March 18, 1925; Ratifications exchanged at London, December 3, 1925; Proclaimed, December 5, 1925.

The United States of America upon ratifying the said Convention formally recognized the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country.


Source