"Palestinians" were Syrians

From MYTHS ABOUT PALESTINIANS by Kathleen M. Christison, (1987) Foreign Policy, (66), 109. 

^

Palestine or Palestine of Syria?

From Emigration from Syria by Najib E. Saliba, Arab Studies Quarterly, Vol. 3, No. 1 (Winter 1981):

"Palestine", during the end of the Ottoman period, was not a separate country.

^

When Jabotinsky Wrote An Article Entitled "Zionist Fascists"

The term "fascism" has been applied to Ze'ev Jabotinsky unrelentingly since 1921 and his involvement in the Petliura Affair.

The Zionist Left, Ben-Gurion and especially HaShomer HaTzair, were quite accusing during the 1930s.

Some antagonistic sources are here and here. More neutral ones are here and here. He wasn't a fascist, by the way. Chaim Weitzmann met Mussolini four times but Jabotinsky declined as Mussolini's policies were intolerable for Jabotinsky, even if to advance Zionist aims. He did, though, exploit contacts among pro-fascist Italian Revisionists in 1934 to found the Betar Naval Academy in Civitavecchia. He criticized Abba Achimeir, a member of his Revisionist movement who was enamored of fascism in the late 1920s and early 1930s until Hitler's anti-semitism became blatant.

However, in fact, an article did appear penned by him which carried the title "Zionist Fascists". It was published, in a shortened edited version in English translation under the title "Zionist Fascists" in the organ The Zionist, Volume 1, Issue Number 6, dated June 1926. The original Russian-language piece appeared in November 1925 in Rassviet.

Jabotinsky wrote it after his first appearance at a Zionist Congress, the 14th Congress of 1925  held in Vienna, Austria, a short few months after founding the Revisionist Union of Zionists.  Jabotinsky demanded a more activist policy for the Zionist movement and opposed the inclusion of non-Zionists within the Jewish Agency. His speech, in Hebrew, was reported in Davar (p. 2). The ruling leadership attempted to quash his independent, oppositionist stand.

I found the original Russian (1) and translated it, comparing to a Hebrew translation found in הרוויזיוניזם הציוני בהתגבשותו that appeared in 1985.

It shows that, at least in 1925, for Jabotinsky, as well as for his presumed audience, the term "facism", basically meant an overbearing, dominant leadership that was fairly intolerant of criticism and wasn't enthralled with democracy. Moreover, the article argued for a much more democratic Zionist movement that what he faced at that time.

Judge for yourselves:

Fascists of Zionism.

V. Jabotinsky, Rassviet, No. 51, Paris, November 11, 1925

I.

There is no other name for the trend that now dominates official Zionism. 

It has no program nor any theoretical ideology either. There is only a cult of "leaders", and the bearers of the official banner themselves admit this. I saw it in Kovno, in Frankfurt am Main, in Brno, in Chernivtsi [Tshernowitz] and all over. In discussion meetings or just in interviews, after letting them criticize our heresy (high duties lead to higher living costs, England will not agree to agrarian reform, and the legion is militarism, etc. [that is, the Revisionist program]), I always asked them the same question: 

"Okay; let's assume that Revisionism is no good. But what do you propose — you, the majority of the 14th Congress? How will you provide markets for the sale of Palestinian goods? How are you going to get agricultural colonization off the ground, at prices of almost 20 pounds per dunam? And how will you ensure the protection of hundreds of scattered Jewish settlements with a garrison of 1,500 people? Please show me the program." 

This question always and everywhere acted in a magical fashion: half of the opponents became vague, the other half began to stutter or fall into abstract eloquence (in Brussels, one local talent answered my question with a speech about the theory of knowledge in connection with [Henri-Louise] Bergson’s system. Really.), and in the end a frank confession: “We don’t have a program in this sense, and it’s not our business. We have leaders, we trust them; they know what needs to be done and they will do it as soon as the opportunity arises.”

I am not discussing today the question of who these “leaders” are, what their human and political value is, and whether they have already twenty times, or at least once in their lives, presented the government with a demand for agrarian reform [the claim was that the local Ottoman land system inherited by Mandate Palestine as inefficient, destructive, and in need of reform such as the land tenure system]. We are not talking about these “leaders,” but about the psychology of the majority. It has now been completely and utterly reduced to the cult of individuals, and it manifests and proclaims it with all the grace of unprincipled and carefree cynicism. Programs, directions, beliefs are all worthless. The whole point is that A, B and C are at the head of the movement. They will do everything that is necessary and possible and if they don’t do something, it means it’s either not necessary or it's impossible.

This was once a case in a Balkan kingdom of parties, even directly named after the surnames of their 'tzaddiks': Rallists for G. Rally, Theotokists for G. Theotokis. What the difference between the programs was unknown and unimportant. Perhaps an even more vivid analogy can be found if you decide to take a walk through the annals of medieval Islam. The textbook says that Caliph Omar ordered the burning of the library of Alexandria, because if these scrolls say the same as in the Quran, then they are superfluous. And if they say something that did not occur to Mohammed, then they are harmful. Mohammed knew the whole truth and set it all out in the Quran, but the rest is unnecessary.

This is the psychology that was revealed at the 14th Congress, which now dominates the thinking amongst Zionist officials. To discuss it seriously is somehow awkward: it is outside the bounds of culture. Nevertheless, it is necessary to discuss it, if only to disassociate ourselves from it.

II.

The cult of personality is now in great fashion everywhere. The Italian example has partly had an influence in this respect, which will probably continue to poison the atmosphere until it ends in inevitable shame. As for us, in Zionism, the English psychology and terminology, which many of us hurried to adopt, played a role in the same direction. As we know, the idiotic notion of "leader" is also of English origin. You hear phrases now like "it is the person, not the program, that counts."

Of course, this is not news in Jewish life. The old ghetto did not seem to know any other principle of orientation. The direction of the flock was determined unquestioningly by authority. There were two types of authority: of the "scholar" and of the "plutocrat" or gvir. The scholar knew the Talmud well, the gvir skillfully conducted his business.The congregation therefore believed that they could get all sorts of information about the governor and about the typhoid epidemic. When the "leader" changed his views, the flock also changed them. All this was not dangerous at that time, since there was no objective possibility at all to fight either the epidemic or the governor. Unfortunately, we have transferred the skills of the ghetto to Zionism — and not only in this one respect.

No one argues against the fact that personality can sometimes play a major role in history. If there had been no Napoleon or Garibaldi, not even Marx or even the Besht, Europe or, in particular, Jewry, would now be nothing like what they have actually become. There are, of course, "leaders" of parties. But personalities of this caliber do not arise on demand.They cannot be turned into a permanent institution; there is no such principle as "let there be a leader". And it is impossible to build a durable political system on this principle.

Moreover, no one anywhere is building a political system on this principle, with the exception of fascism and the three backwaters mentioned above: the Balkan kingdom, the old ghetto, and, unfortunately, the Zionist organization in its current composition. The English piously preserve the notion of "leader" simply out of habit, bowing to tradition, but in reality, when seriously needed, they have as little regard for this tradition as for all others. In elections to the lower house, they argue not about who is the best "leader"- Lloyd George, Macdonald, or Baldwin - but about which party has the most suitable program. It happens that the Conservatives win, although no one denies that Lloyd George has a real talent for leadership, and Baldwin is merely a middle-sized gentleman. And in France, parties win or fall quite regardless of whether the best "leader" is [Raymond] Poincaré or [Paul] Penlévé. It is the same - with one temporary exception - in every civilized country: the political struggle can proceed only along the lines of programs, without any reference to the personal genius of the representatives and secretaries.

Again, no one ever raises the question - except in the Middle Ages and in the provinces - that "if the opposition’s demands were reasonable, wouldn’t the current prime minister himself understand their rationality? After all, he’s so smart!" Civilized peoples have become accustomed to the idea that although Gladstone is smart and Disraeli is smart, and both "understand", yet they understand differently, and that is why they belong to different parties, and nothing can be done about it. Gladstone will not accept tariff reform, Disraeli does not believe in Home Rule. 

Therefore, the role of the opposition is not at all reduced to the fact that, without trying to convince a single convinced opponent, a mechanical majority removes the ruling party and takes its place. To do this, the opposition appeals to a non-partisan judge, i.e., to the mass of voters. And the duty of this mass in the elections is not to establish who is more talented, educated, tactful or effective - Disraeli or Gladstone - but to find out whether tariff reform is necessary or not, whether Home Rule is useful or harmful. The fair struggle of parties is anonymous by nature. This is the only way the masses in cultural societies understand their political duty. The Quran is a good book, Mohammed is a great prophet, but it does not follow from this that there is no truth outside the Quran and Mohammed.

III.

To take a different point of view means to get bogged down in a swamp of absurdities, and worse, in a quagmire of social disorder. If at the head of the Zionist movement there must necessarily be “personalities” possessing such and such personal qualities - and if these individuals must be preserved at all costs, regardless of their program - and if therefore the Congress, following the example of the 14th, must adapt its decisions not to its own moods, but to the leaders - then why do we have a struggle of opinions, why elections, why debates at the congress - and the congress itself? The entire Zionist community then turns into an unnecessary absurdity. A person or group who has a new thought must then simply present it to the "leaders". If the “leaders” reject it outright, then this is the end of the matter: there is no point in continuing to fight, there is no point in recruiting supporters, there is no point in speaking at the congress - after all, this is not in the Quran, which means the book will be burned, for Mohammed must remain a prophet under all conditions.

It becomes even more absurd when, in the end, new “leaders” will have to be chosen—which is inevitable in a long-lasting enterprise. We will choose them, then, again based on personal qualities: oratorical talent, knowledge of languages, manners, acquaintance with feudal rulers and local governors, those with “personal magnetism”, etc. If at the same time the city turns out to have voters have different favorites, it will be interesting to listen to this paperwork. How to measure, with objective persuasiveness, qualities completely immeasurable? In English, you can still arrange an exam. But where are the scales for such an essential detail as, say, "personal charm" as applied to the average type of the English Minister of the Colonies? I think it's superfluous to apologize for the lightness of my tone but strictly speaking, this whole "ideology" deserves nothing but mockery.

That is why I called the notion of a "leader" an idiotic notion. I repeat: the English themselves do not take it seriously but we believe in it with the fervor of a provincial who has entered a restaurant in the capital for the first time and bowed to the gilded doorman. In England, each party elects a representative and, according to the old custom, awards him the title him "leader". However, in reality, he is simply the chairman of the Central Committee. He maintains his post as long as he obeys the instructions of the party congress, and in case of disagreement, it is not the congress that abandons its views, but the chairman simply leaves. With us it is the other way around. One can't help but remember the saying: if you put him in a position to pray to God, he will bruise his forehead.

This is all about absurdities; but there are also ugly outrages. The mere fact that young people growing up in our country are indoctrinated with the rule: not to reason, not to move their brains, but to go where the god-inspired ones tell them to go - this alone is a public disgrace. The disgrace is the boom around individual names, the very injection of the term "leaders", which creates the impression that our movement is alive not with thousands of ordinary bearers of enthusiasm, not with the sweat of pioneers old and new, not with the blood spilled in Gallipoli, in the Jordan Valley and in Tel Hai, not with the pennies of ordinary people and the moral hard labor of those who collect these pennies, going from house to house - but is alive only thanks to the incidental talent of two or three individuals. 

But even worse ugliness will result if the opposition accepts all this clerical whistling as a dogma and also admits that "it's not about programs, but about personalities”. For then what can be done by those who, as honestly and sincerely as their admirers, believe neither in their divine inspiration, nor in their special talent, nor in the intellectual subtlety of their "leaders"? Instead of arguing about the benefits of agrarian reform, they will have to engage in blaspheming Mr. A. or Mr. V., while praising Mr. S., their own candidate. All this belongs in a bazaar, not in a decent movement.

In our time, in the European cultural scene, there is only one country where something similar is observed. Fascism, too, has no clear program - no such provisions and demands which would not be a rehash of what every other patriotic and bourgeois party has said a hundred times. That is why the program there is replaced by faith in a "leader." The latter concept is so alien to the Italian tradition that there was not even a suitable word for it in the everyday dictionary: we had to take the Latin "dux" and re-Italianize it into "duce". Henceforth, the truth is what the "leader" says, that is, what is not in the Quran is to be burned. But in Italy, at least, behind all this, there is a fighting temperament, youth, national pride. In our case, it is all used to justify the schutz judentum [lit.: Jews protected by the Crown who acted as go-betweens], or the abandonment of national ideology for the sake of attracting moneybags. And in Italy this blindness will end badly. In ours, it will be even worse, and sooner.

It is true that we do not have a physical club with which to subdue the opposition but we have surrogates of no less squalid and impure character. The most popular of these is simple slander. Those who deny the "leaders" are thereby declared to be opponents of the Keren-Hayesod [the funnding arm of the World Zionist Orgnaization]. Worse, they are said to advise Jews not to go to Palestine. They need to be "boycotted."

When a person from the opposition comes to Chișinău [formerly Kishinev], and he is greeted in the streets by a crowd of ten thousand people, the local Zionist Committee considers it its duty to announce somewhere in the Events section of the local newspaper that the committee in this meeting 'will not be participating'. (It is obvious that in a few years, if the executive will pass into other hands, and if Mr. Sokolov, then an opposition figure, will come to Chișinău to state his views, it then will be necessary to 'boycott' him). 

But there are worse subsitutes for truncheons. In one city, the pro-Revisionist secretary of the Zionist committee is removed from office. In another, the teacher at the Jewish gymnasium is offered an ultimatum: either to leave school or to abandon the role of chairman of the [new] activist group. Lackeyism and boorishness always go hand in hand. It is obviously impossible to defend an unprincipled position by pure means.

  

IV

But an assault on an unprincipled position can and should be carried out by pure means, i.e., principles, namely: 

1. The struggle within Zionism is to be conducted only on the basis of programs. Proper names cannot play any role in this. An honest program is essentially anonymous. 

2. Congress votes not for an Executive or against an Executive, but for this or that program. Only after this do they see whose name is signed under the winning program. No matter whose name it is - Wolfgang von Goethe or Ivan Bezrodny - its bearer is entrusted with drawing up the executive agenda. We will achieve this. And, judging by the ideological collapse that I now saw in the ranks of Zionist fascism from Riga to Bucharest, soon.

___________________

(1) Here's the first paragraph, as an example:

Фашисты сионизма. В. Жаботинский

Никакого другого имени для направления, господствующего теперь в официальном сионизме, не придумаешь. Программы у него нет, теоретической идеологии тоже; есть только культ «вождей», и носители официального знамени сами в этом сознаются. Я это видел в Ковне, во Франкфурте-на-Майне, в Брюнне, в Черновцах и повсюду. В дискуссионных собраниях или просто в собеседованиях, дав им покритиковать нашу ересь (высокие пошлины ведут к вздорожанию жизни, на аграрную реформу не согласится Англия, а легион есть милитаризм, и т. п.), я всегда задавал им один и тот же вопрос: «Хорошо; допустим, что ревизионизм никуда не годится. Но что же вы предлагаете — вы, большинство 14-го конгресса? Как вы-то обеспечите рынки для сбыта палестинских товаров? Как вы-то сдвинете с мертвой точки земледельческую колонизацию, при ценах чуть ли не по 20 фунтов за дунам? И как вы-то обеспечите защиту сотни с чем-то разбросанных еврейских поселков при гарнизоне в 1500 человек? Будьте любезны, предъявите программу». Вопрос этот всегда и всюду действовал магически: половина оппонентов стушевывалась, вторая половина начинала заикаться или впадать в отвлеченное красноречие (в Брюсселе один местный талант ответил на мой вопрос речью о теории познания в связи с системой Бергсона: факт), и в конце концов раздавалось откровенное признание: «Программы в этом смысле у нас нет, и не наше это дело. У нас есть вожди, мы им доверяем; они знают, что нужно сделать, и они это сделают, как только явится возможность».

^ 

Eighteen Years On

A close friend, N.S., sent me the snippet in which I appeared being interview by Ricard Dawkins in his January 2006 program, Root of All Evil. Earlier posts here, and also here.

"The Root of All Evil", later renamed The God Delusion, is a documentary written and presented by Richard Dawkins in which he argues that humanity would be better off without religion or the belief in any god . The documentary first aired in January 2006, as two 45-minute episodes (excluding commercial breaks), on the UK 's Channel 4 . Dawkins' book The God Delusion, published in September 2006, examines the issues raised in the documentary in greater detail.

Me:

From the transcript:

Dawkins: I’m in Jerusalem’s old city, trying to understand the role deeply-held faith plays in the bitter conflict here. One of the first things you notice is the edgy watchfulness, the different ethnic and religious communities live cheek-by-jowl, but there are security checkpoints throughout the old city, and one section above all is under heavy guard. For the Muslims, the compound enclosing the Dome of the Rock and Al-Aqsa mosque is, after Mecca and Medina, the third holiest site in Islam. It was from here, they believe, that the prophet Mohammad flew up to heaven. As bad luck would have it, the Jews believe the same place is the site of the long-destroyed first and second temples, the holiest shrine in Judaism.

Jews are not allowed to worship inside the compound, their prayers are restricted to the ruined western, or wailing, wall.

Yisrael Medad, Mount of the Lord Advocacy Group: “When Jesus came here to overturn the tables, there was no mosque in view.” “When the Arabs conquered this part of the world, they established the Al-Aqsa mosque.” And then they put over where we think is the main temple compound, where the altar was, where the holy of holy was, they put another building called the Dome of the Rock, it was not properly a mosque, and we at the present moment are simply not allowed in there, inside the compound, identifiably as Jews. 

The Muslims reject these Jewish claims.

Quite short, that. In actuality, we stood at the location overlooking the Kotel for over a half-hour and I think I stood my ground admirably.

Pics I grabbed at the time:

Thank you N.S.

^

What Happened to the Starvation? And the Famine and Malnutrition?

On March 18, 2024, an Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC) was published.

It read:

The IPC acute food insecurity analysis conducted in December 2023 warned of a risk that Famine may occur by the end of May 2024 if an immediate cessation of hostilities and sustained access for the provision of essential supplies and services to the population did not take place. Since then, the conditions necessary to prevent famine have not been met and the latest evidence confirms that Famine is imminent in the northern governorates and projected to occur anytime between mid-March and May 2024.

According to the most likely scenario, both North Gaza and Gaza Governorates are classified in IPC Phase 5 (Famine) with reasonable evidence, with 70% (around 210,000 people) of the population in IPC Phase 5 (Catastrophe)...The famine threshold for household acute food insecurity has already been far exceeded and, given the latest data showing a steeply increasing trend in cases of acute malnutrition, it is highly likely that the famine threshold for acute malnutrition has also been exceeded. The upward trend in non-trauma mortality is also expected to accelerate, resulting in all famine thresholds likely to be passed imminently.

The southern governorates of Deir al-Balah and Khan Younis, and the Governorate of Rafah, are classified in IPC Phase 4 (Emergency). However, in a worst-case scenario, these governorates face a risk of Famine through July 2024.The entire population in the Gaza Strip (2.23 million) is facing high levels of acute food insecurity. 

The IPC latest report, published June 4 reads (FRC=Famine Review Committee):

The FRC does not find the FEWS NET analysis plausible given the uncertainty and lack of  convergence of the supporting evidence employed in the analysis. Therefore, the FRC is unable to make a determination as to whether or not famine thresholds have been passed during April. As the FRC does not find the FEWS NET analysis plausible for the current period, the FRC is unable to endorse the IPC Phase 5 (Famine) classification for the projection period. However, this FEWS NET projection is in line with the FRC projection done in March 2024, which has not yet been updated.

In other words, there is no starvation, nor famine nor malnutrition in Gaza.

^

What Rabinovich Could Have Said

Back on February 1, 2024, Emily Bazelon moderated at the New York Times a conversation with six participants.  Entitled "The Road to 1948", it was to discuss "how the decisions that led to the founding of Israel left the region in a state of eternal conflict."

Participating were Salim Tamari, sociologist at Birzeit University in the West Bank, Abigail Jacobson, history professor at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Leena Dallasheh, historian working on a book about the city of Nazareth, Derek Penslar, history professor at Harvard University, Nadim Bawalsa, historian and associate editor for The Journal of Palestine Studies and Itamar Rabinovich, history professor at Tel Aviv University.

It is very instructive not only as regards the historical facts (and non-facts) included but how too many fudge issues and spin them.

One particular statement caught my eye, that of Rabinovich, at the very end. It is illustrative of how an Israeli, with a trump card in his hand, lets it drop from his fingers and, moreover, uses it in a way that is detrimental to Zionism. 

Here he is:

I want to speak about the destructive power of nationalism. What we have here is the collision between two national movements that were born at about the same time. In 1905, the Lebanese [Maronite Christian] intellectual Najib Azoury published a book in which he said these two national movements would have a destructive effect on the whole region. At the end of World War I, three multinational empires collapsed, the Ottoman, the Austro-Hungarian and the Russian. None of them was great at that point. But look at what they were replaced by — mostly ethnic conflicts and the collision between national movements in Eastern Europe, the Balkans and the Levant.

Rabinovich is quite familiar with Azoury's book, Le réveil de la nation arabe 

(and see here), is, indeed important, as it refers to a Palestine as a country:

La Palestine était donc ouverte de partout aux invasions étrangères 

And, more importantly, it refers to the Zionists:

Les Juifs de nos jours ont parfaitement compris les fautes de leurs ancêtres ; aussi cherchentils soigneusement à les éviter dans la reconstitu¬ tion de ce qu’ils appellent leur ancienne patrie, en acquérant la partie de la Palestine que leurs aïeux n’avaient pu posséder, et en occupant avant tout les frontières naturelles du pays ; voilà deux points des plus importants dans le plan d’action des Sionistes. [The Jews of our day have perfectly understood the faults of their ancestors; they also carefully seek to avoid them in the reconstitution of what they call their ancient homeland, by acquiring the part of Palestine that their ancestors could not have possessed, and by occupying above all the natural borders of the country; These are two of the most important points in the Zionist action plan.]

Azoury also wrote:

"Zionist and Arab nationalist aspirations were likely to come seriously into conflict...two important phenomena are emerging at this moment in Asiatic Turkey. They are the awakening of the Arab Nation and the latent effort by Jews to reconstitute on a very large scale the ancient Kingdom of Israel... They are destined to fight each other continually until one of them wins."

Rabinovich could have used the quotation to indicate that even the Arabs were aware, at the beginning ocf the 20th century, that the Jews were an ancient people in the country and had a Kingdom and additional elements of history, a narrative contemporary Arabs refuse to recognize, denounce and deny.

He could have quoted Azoury regarding demographic figures, page 22:

If we only count the rural population, the West Bank is no more inhabited than the other part of Palestine, despite its larger surface area...From Léontès to the Bir-Sabeh plateau, the rural population hardly exceeds 100,000 inhabitants. By adding the urban population of Hebron, Gaza, Jaffa, Jerusalem, Nablus, Caiffa, Saint-Jean-Acre, Tyre, Nazareth, Tiberias and Safed, we arrive at 170,000 souls. To this must be added the 30,000 nomadic Bedouins of the Bir-Sabeh Plateau, which gives us a total of 200,000 inhabitants. In this number we do not count the Jews who also number 200,000; because we are only considering, for the moment, the population that lives off the ground.

I cannot confirm his data but that is a remarkable accounting.

Azoury possessed a negative view of Jewish aspiration, writing on page 46 of a Jewish "encroachment" (l’envahissement). On page 48, he refers positively to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion ("L’étude approfondie que nous faisons...servira aussi à montrer à ceux qui liront Le Péril juif universel, combien les circonstances présentes sont favorables aux projets des Sionistes dans le pays qui fût le rêve de leurs ancêtres et qui, au¬ jourd’hui encore, excite tant leurs convoitises" - "The in-depth study we make...will also serve to show those who read The Universal Jewish Peril how present circumstances are favorable to the projects of the Zionists in the country which was the dream of their ancestors and which, even today, excites their desires so much").

In other words, given an opportunity to make a firm, uncompromising Zionist statement based on an Arab's writing, and there is much he could have said based on Azoury, Rabinovich 'drops the ball'.

^

Non-Arab Minorities in the Middle East.

Have you seen this short clip?

A Jew without army is a Yezidi!

If Jews didn’t have their own army, they would have faced the same fate of Yezidis by lSlS Terrorists!

Watching/listening brought back memories.

As a Betar member and Revisionist Zionist, I got to know the first stirrings of what would become the Canaanite Movement.

Its first ideologues were Uriel Halperin (to become the poet Yonatan Ratosh) and Ada Gurevich (A.G. Horon) in the late 1930s influenced by French pro-Phoenician thought. A new book is out (not yet in my hands): The Hebrew Falcon: Adya Horon and the Birth of the Canaanite IdeaThe Hebrew Falcon: Adya Horon and the Birth of the Canaanite Idea. An older bookolder book. Another source is here.

When I served a Betar emissary in the UK 1975-77, I developed a hasbarah presentation based on a booklet Horon had published showing how the Middle East was not truly Arab but Arab dominated and occupied and that all minorities should unite, including Israelis. I asked the official bodies I worked with (Jewish Agency; Embassy) to assist but they just looked at me dumbfoundedly. 

The Maronite Lebanon civil war broke out shortly thereafter. Oh well. In any case, the dozen or so times I lectured before audiences was amazing when the idea began to sink in.

^

Were IDF Troops Moved to Hawara Prior to Oct. 7?

A staple claim of Israel's Left is that a day or so prior to October 7th, significant enough numbers of soldiers were moved from the Southern Front Command to the area of Samaria and, specifically, to Hawara to protect the succah that MK Tzvi Succot had set up in the town 

as a protest against repeated terror attacks against Jews traveling through the town. That move of soldiers supposedly affected the ability of the IDF to defend the Gaza Envelope area from the Hamas-led invasion and slaughter. It wasn't clear exactly how many but the rumor made its rounds. The assertion was the "settlers" had "blood on their hands". One tweet claimed 25 battalions were moved over (that's thousands of soldiers).

Here's from a news report quoting Roy Sharon of Kan News, Channel 11:

Over 100 soldiers diverted from Gaza to Judea and Samaria just days before massacre. Two troop companies were relocated from the Gaza Division to Judea and Samaria two days before the Hamas massacre.

It went on:

"Two companies from the Commando Brigade that were reinforcing the Gaza Division during the holidays (as part of a General Staff standby, not as a routine security force) were called from the Gaza envelope to the Huwara region two days before the massacre. Over one hundred soldiers were indeed diverted from the jurisdiction of the Gaza Division to that of the Samaria Brigade," Sharon wrote.

He noted that "to the best of my inquiries, these companies (that left the Gaza Division) were not replaced with other forces; the IDF Spokesperson did respond to this question as well." Sharon also mentions the fact that just a day ago, he reported that the IDF did not move forces from Gaza to Judea and Samaria.

Now Sharon claims: "Unfortunately, the information that IDF officers gave me was erroneous (yesterday they explained that they did not remember/know that two companies came from the Gaza envelope)."

Some of the stories that appeared (in Hebrew) are here; and here. The IDF Spokesman denied the facts but they belief in their supposed truth persisted. Already on Oct. 6, Naor Narkis tweeted that soldiers had been transferred to guard the MK's succah and he was endangering them unnecessarily.

We now have the actual internal IDF document that established, prior to Oct. 6, the manpower order to move troops over:

and it proves that troops were set to be moved from the South to Huwara already in August as part of a quarterly program arrangementand moreover, the military document proves that on the day before Oct. 7, forces from the area surrounding Gaza had not been sent to protect MK Zvi Sukkot's protest tent in Huwara.

As explained,

...the transfer of the forces to reinforcement positions throughout Samaria was part of a quarterly IDF plan from as early as August last year, and therefore is not connected to MK Zvi Sukkot's protest tent.  According to the quarterly plan from August, which was disclosed by the head of the Samaria Council, no battalions were brought there from Gaza, but according to the same pre-planned reinforcement program, a force of [dozens of] soldiers from the Egoz unit – as defined in the document as "General Staff Reserve" (meaning soldiers not belonging to the Gaza area) - replaced a group of soldiers..."

In fact, those soldiers arrived a half-day prior to the terrorist incident which led to the protest succh being erected. 

Sometimes, one just cannot trust the news. Especially when Jews resident in Judea and Samaria are involved.

^

Moshe Sneh's Role in the King David Explosion

Recently, a new biography on Moshe Sneh has appeared, authored by Nir Mann, dealing with the period of his life when he commanded the Hebrew Resistance Movement.

Based on a review by Yossi Kister that appeared in Ha'Umma, in its issue 234, I summarize some new material on the King David Hotel explosion, portions which appeared in various articles Mann published.

Sneh pushed a line that was termed "activist" in those days in the Yishuv which meant that the fighting forces would attack rather than respond. As a result, between the end of 1945 and the summer of 1946, relatively large-scale and well-coordinated insurgency operations took place against British installations, rail lines, bridges and othe targets.

Already in May 1946, Sneh managed to get its Committee 'X' to authorize a new series of objects, one of which included the King David Hotel's southern wing. It was that section of the hotel that had been appropriated by the Mandate Government already in 1939 for offices. In 1946, senior officials, both in the civil and military departments, were in that wing.

However, on May 8, 1946, David Ben-Gurion had written of his unwillingess to continue offense actions. Sneh's policy was saved, as it were, by Britain's unwillingness to permit increased immigration which undermined the position furthered by Moshe Sharett and other moderates. In reaction to the "Black Sabbath" operation of the British, a further decision was taken to act in a triple operation.

Some ten days prior to the King David operation, the personal political secretary of Chaim Weizmann, Meir Wesigal, visited Sneh and instructed him to cease all military operations. As a result, Sneh tendered his resignation on July 17. However, despite the initial authorization given to both the Irgun and the Lechi for the planned actions at the Hotel and the nearby Royal Air Force Intelligence offices, Sneh did not inform neither Menachem Begin or Natan Yellin-Mor regarding his resignation.

His handwritten note to Begin of July 19 simply asked Begin, a second time, to delay the operation for a few days. Begin waited a few days and the new date was fixed for July 22. However, Begin was not apprised of the resignation. Moreover, he was unaware that Sneh on the day of the explosion was in Haifa sneaking aboard a commercial ship and the next day left the country clandestinely for Paris, there to join Ben-Gurion for a Zionist conference.

In a sense, Begin, and the Irgun, were left "holding the bag". The Hagana-led United Resistance Movement had insisted that the Irgun assume all responsibility even though the regular policy was that only the URM would appear as the sponsoring organization in announcements.

If Sneh had informed Begin of all the background, had told him he was no long the head of the URM (to one interviewer in his later years he said he didn't tell Begin to further delay the operation as he was no longer in command (!)) or even ordered him to halt the plans, there may have been a difference although I am not sure. 

In any case, the King David Hotel explosion was a joint Hagana-Irgun operation authorized by the highest echelons.

^

Hebrew in Latin Characters

Ze'ev Jabotinsky enthusisasts know that one of his ideas was to have Hebrew appear in Latin characters. Joseph Nedava termed it the Latinization of the Hebrew script. He wrote a book, called Taryag Millim, to raise interest. In 1931, JTA reported:

The substitution of Latin characters in the Hebrew language, too, has been urged, notably, by Mr. Ittamar Ben Avi, the son of Eliezer Ben Jahuda, the Hebrew lexicographer, and Mr. Vladimir Jabotinsky. He was sure, Mr. Jabotinsky has written, that the movement would have a great influence on the development of Hebrew by enabling many people who could not read the present Hebrew script to read Hebrew books and papers. Efforts in this direction, he said, have also been made by Dr. Bodenheimer in Cologne and by the Hebrew poet, Dr. Jacob Cohen.

Here is an example, in Jabotinsky's handwriting from 1928, notes he wrote in Hebrew Latin characters:

What I didn't know is that a periodical appeared in Tel Aviv, named Deror that attempted to put this into actual practice. A page:

It wasn't a success and the initiative never gained traction. ^

The Jewish Cordoba

I have blogged multiple times here on what I see as a parallel between the conflict between Catholics and Moslems over the Cordoba Cathedral and that of Jews and Moslems at the Temple Mount.

In short, I ask why can Moslems demand equal rights to a church, including prayer therein, that Moslems occupied and turned into a mosque after conquering Spain and then following the Reconquista, they were prohibited from doing so yet, when Jews retook the Temple Mount where Moslems had built an Islamic compound after conquering and occupying Judea, Jews demanding equal prayers rights and additional privileges are somehow in the wrong.

Read here; here; and here. And let's not forget the Hagia Sophia (and here).

And now what do I read?

Medieval synagogue discovered under Spanish church

Remnants of a medieval synagogue were discovered during restoration of altarpiece in Santa Maria la Blanca church in Seville. Archeologists performing restoration work on the apse and altarpiece of the Santa Maria la Blanca church in Seville, Spain, have uncovered the remnants of a medieval synagogue Ark.

I checked here:

Santa María la Blanca is the only church in Seville which has the remains of three religions. Formerly a mosque, it was made a synagogue on the orders of King Alfonso X in 1252, and was then consecrated as a Christian temple in 1391

The church:

The outline of the ark:

"In our work we have documented the rear wall of the main altar, made with solid bricks of variable dimensions but around 29x14.5x5 cm, prepared for rope and firebrand as it is a load-bearing wall. This wall has a thickness of about 94 centimeters," explained archaeologist José Antonio Valiente. The hejal that was discovered in 2012, like the mihrab of the mosque, is a rectangular space, open in front, "the wall documented during this performance would correspond to its rear closure, on the right side wall as shown. If you look straight ahead, it would include the space where the sacred books of the Torah would be placed and which is oriented to the east according to the canons of these religious buildings," the archaeologist explained.

If you are visiting Seville, go here:

Its in the Juderia, the old Jewish quarter.

Yes, the synagogue that existed there is well-known but finding the Ark is new:

José María Rincón, the director of the restoration, said that the Ark had been concealed by the wall-sized, gilded baroque altarpiece, built in the mid-1600s. Rincón called the discovery “a unique opportunity to witness an element unseen for 350 years, soon to be veiled once more, likely never to be seen again.” The Ark was in “an exceedingly precarious” condition, he continued. 

All confimed.

But we Jews cannot even do archaelogical work at the Temple Mount.

^

How Many? (Or, Gaza Arithmetic)

How many casualties are there amongst Gaza's population?

It depends.

At the New School last week, it was up to 40,000 dead.

Ken Roth has it as more than 34,000 and 77,700 injured.

UN data suggests large revision in Gaza war casualty figures. In reports released on May 6 and 8, previous estimates based on info provided by the Hamas-run Gaza Ministry of Health, the Government Media Office in Gaza, and Israel were seemingly halved. On May 6, the UN disclosed that 34,735 individuals had reportedly lost their lives in Gaza, with over 9,500 women and over 14,500 children among the reported casualties. However, just two days later, on May 8, revised figures showed a total of 34,844 fatalities, including 4,959 women and 7,797 children.

Then again, the UN Halves Its Estimate of Women and Children Killed in Gaza.

At OCHA on May 10, one can read that "Between 7 October 2023 and 9 May 2024, at least 34,904 Palestinians were killed in Gaza and 78,514 Palestinians were injured, according to MoH in Gaza."

Yesterday, the BBC reported that "more than 34,900 people have been killed in Gaza since then, according to the territory's Hamas-run health ministry."

Reuters, today, reads: "The Palestinian death toll in the war has now surpassed 35,000, according to Gaza health officials who fear many more bodies are lost under the rubble."

According to UPI, "The death toll in Gaza has since surpassed 35,000 people, according to Gazan health officials, who claim many of the victims are women and children."

And today, AP reads similarly: "Israel’s offensive has killed more than 35,000 Palestinians, mostly women and children, according to the health ministry in Gaza."

However, are those figures reliable?

Are they statistically possible?

Could there be flaws?

Has the data been reviewed and checked?

Are perhaps they are faked?

Maybe there's no evidence of errors?

What's really going on?

They a scam?

Perhaps manipulated?

Wait. Is this an old story?

And why is it important?

UPDATE:

UN blames ‘fog of war’ for major overcounting of Gazan child deaths

And Israel's official estimation: in excess of 14,000 terrorists; 16,000 civilians

^

Latest Non-Published Letter to the Editor at NYTimes

Witnessing the actions led by pro-Palestine student groups on college campuses as well as listening to and reading their slogans, one cannot but be confused and confounded as to how a supposedly "anti-occupation" movement insists upon occupying property that does not belong to them nor have they permission to reside in them. That is, until one realizes that rules of logic do not necessarily apply to the issue of "Palestine" .

Yisrael Medad

Shiloh, Israel

^

Does "Civitavecchia" Sound Familiar?

A new post reviews the Italian Fascist's regime's involvement in the training of Israel's future sailors.

The Betar Naval Academy was 

a Jewish naval training school established in Civitavecchia, Italy in 1934 by the Revisionist Zionist movement under the direction of Ze'ev Jabotinsky, with the agreement of Benito Mussolini.The titular head of the Academy was the Italian maritime scientist Nicola Fusco but Betar leader Jeremiah Halpern ran the School and was its driving force. The Academy trained Jewish cadets from all over Europe, Palestine and South Africa and produced some of the future commanders of the Israeli Navy.

A topic that is not well studied by academics is the Israeli Navy creation with help from Fascist Italy in the 1930s. Many of us don't know that Mussolini had links with the Jewish of Italy, when he started his political movement that was later called "Fascism"(please read in Italian the interesting essay).

Maurizio Rava was governor of Italian Somalia and was born in a Jewish family in Milan. He enthusiastically joined the "National Fascist Party" ('Partito Fascista' in Italian language) during World War I: in 1919 he was a cofounder of the "Fascio" of Roma. In the 1920s Rava was vice-Governor of Italian Libya and a general in the fascist militia. From 1 July 1931 to 6 March 1935 Rava was the "Governor" of Italian Somalia. But in the late 1930s he faced problems within the party because of Nazi Germany's influences against Italian Jews.  However he was always respected by the fascists (read here). After being nominated "senator", he died in 1941 because of wounds received in Italian Libya, when was a general of brigade fighting the British. In the last years of his life he was very close to Italo Balbo (the second in charge in fascist Italy after Mussolini) and promoted some links with the Israeli Navy.

Links to Jabotinsky Revisionism

Indeed Rava was linked to Jabotinsky (the main leader of the "Zionist Revisionism") who promoted the "Betar" (youth organization of the Revisionism) and who did the 1931 Betar Conference where was decided to promote the so called "maritime idea" of the 'Rodegal association' (read in Italian). In this conference the captain Irmiyahu Helpern was allowed to create a jewish  "group for maritime self-defense", that was to be prepared in the Italian navy school of Civitavecchia (located near Rome). 

Maurizio Bendes, responsible for the Betar in Italy, started to contact the Italian authorities for the authorization to open a section school for Jews in the Civitavecchia military compound.

The Jewish Italian Revisionists obtained the official approval from the Italian admiral Thaon de Revel in January 1935. The same Mussolini agreed with this request since early 1934 and welcomed the contacts with the Jewish organizations (previously he had met 3 times with the Jewish leader Chaim Weizmann). Mussolini never met Jabotinski (who has been a student at the Sapienza University of Rome law school and always showed sympathies for the Italian Fascism before it suffered the influence of Hitler). Jabotinski ordered to the young Jewish members of the "Betar" the use of "brown shirts"  similar to the "black shirts" of Mussolini, and was nicknamed the "Revisionism Duce" (LEONE CARPI, Come e dove rinacque la Marina d'Israele, la scuola marittima del Bethar a Civitavecchia - Nemi, Roma 1965)

In 1933 the Italian Foreign ministry (Mussolini was also Foreign Minister) began circulating internal policy documents arguing that a strong Jewish state would be in Italy's best interests, against British control of Palestine and the Middle East .

Although Jabotinsky had still not been able to arrange a meeting with Mussolini it became clear that the Italian government did view the Revisionists as potential ideological partners at the end of 1933. It was this change that facilitated the creation of the Betar Naval Academy in the Italian port city of Civitavecchia.

Nicola Fusco, the nominal head of the Academy, was administrative secretary of the local Fascist Party and the relationship between the cadets and the fascist establishment was close.

Brief History of the Academy

In October 1934, the first 28 Jewish official students arrived in Civitavecchia to be trained in the Maritime School; in the next three years there will be almost 200 graduates. On the uniforms they carried an anchor, the Menorah (the seven-branched candlestick) and the lictorian bundle, and in some official ceremonies they hailed in Roman style, as recalled by the then group leader Avram Blass, later become admiral of the Israeli Navy.

In 1936 the Second Course began, inaugurated by the Chief Rabbi of Rome. Meanwhile, a 60-meter motor sailboat was also purchased, the 'Quattro Venti', renamed "Sarah I", which in the summer of that same year sailed towards Palestine, where it was welcomed with great celebrations by the Jewish community. It is the first merchant of the modern history of Israel.

First commander of the "Sara I" was a professor of the school, Tiberio Paone. The second course was inaugurated on March 29, 1936, in the presence of the Chief Rabbi of Rome. The members increase considerably, going up to 52, with the Poles who were the largest group. The second educational cruise is limited to the Italian ports and the French airports of Nice and Marseille.

In February 1937, Commander Fusco was invited to London to meet with the leaders of the Zionist movement, including Jabotinsky, and some businessmen. There was a discussion about the creation of a Jewish fishing port to exploit the sea in front of the coasts of Palestine.

The third course opened in February 1937 with about seventy students. In the lessons were introduced fishing concepts. In order for the students to receive practical fishing lessons, a trawler, renamed "Neca", was purchased at a judicial auction in Porto Santo Stefano. It was then joined by a smaller one, the "Lea". The cruise of summer 1937 had Palestine as a destination, where at the arrival of "Sarah I" grand celebrations were unleashed in honor of the students of the school. The Palestine Post reported that visitors from Tel Aviv, Jerusalem and the settlements visited the ship to greet the "Jewish seagoing pioneers".

But in 1938 the school had to close after the fourth course was held. The sad reason: Mussolini government has now changed its political acceptance towards Judaism, under the terrible influence of Adolf Hitler and his Nazism. But the courses were very successful and the Revisionists also contacted in December 1935 and in April 1937 the Italian consulate in Haifa to see if they could send some youths to train with the Italian air Force (The Jews in Fascist Italy; p.262 ) 

Future commanders of Israeli  Navy and the start of "Sayetet 13"

However the Academy trained nearly 200 Jewish cadets from all over Europe, Palestine and South Africa and produced some of the future commanders of the Israeli Navy.

^

A Conversation on X with a Professor

Basically starts here, with him responding to me reaction so:

Re: "That is the least disruptive way of occupying space on a campus”

Actually, it's one of the worst as it takes over external space where more students need to pass by and hear the epithets. More students see it.

You're a professor?

https://nytimes.com/2024/04/19/us/at-columbia-the-protests-continued-with-dancing-and-pizza.html

9:08  19 באפר׳ 2024

-----

Angus Johnston @studentactivism

"Protests should be restricted to places where nobody will see them" is a fascinating take.

-----

Yisrael Medad

@ymedad

I did not write that.

Infering is fraught with danger.

I argyed that the professor's defense of the pro-Pal Columbia U. lawn-in was illogical.

And given the violent nature of those demos, an invitation to do injury in the name of "non-violent protest".

-----

Angus Johnston

@studentactivism

You said that a form of protest which “takes over external space where more students need to pass by and hear” is bad. My gloss on that is a straightforward paraphrase, no inference required.

-----

Yisrael Medad

@ymedad

https://nypost.com/2024/04/20/us-news/columbia-jewish-alums-warn-violence-against-jewish-students-is-imminent/

Jewish alumni from Columbia University warning that violence against Jewish students may be imminent.

“At present, new, unauthorized protests are disrupting classes and creating an irrefutably unsafe environment for Jewish students,”

-----

Angus Johnston

@studentactivism

Speech is either 1A protected or it isn’t. If it is, let the protest continue. If it isn’t, take action against specific speakers. Mass arrests of everyone in an occupation isn’t that.

My claim is not that Columbia violated the law. But also, Columbia doesn’t have an unrestricted right to suppress student speech-—not while it receives federal funding.

-----

Yisrael Medad

@ymedad

Federal or private funding should not act as an impediment or facilitator of student speech.

But to the point: haranguing and threatening students is not free speech. It is a normative element that precedes physical violence, especially using hateful terms & expletives.

-----

Angus Johnston

@studentactivism

Using “hateful terms and expletives” is, in most cases, protected speech. And AGAIN, one person using hateful terms isn’t reason to arrest another.

-----

Yisrael Medad

@ymedad

True.

But for a university administration it probably indicates lack of civility, intention to threaten, act in a violent way and generally use the campus property for possible nefarious illegal deeds and so well within their right to order the punks off the lawn.

^