Jabotinsky on Progressivism and Nationalism

Excerpts from Ze'ev Jabotinsky's article On nationalism published January 30, 1903:

The Fatherland newspaper, referring to the Russian guardian patriots, says: “It seems to many of them that if people of non-native Russian origin show an ardent commitment to their native land, their land, to the language God gave them, and to all the features their native way of life and needs, then in this devotion to their foreign features, there is certainly some kind of malevolence against Russia "...

... it is necessary to do justice to the Russian progressives: on this point they think in exactly the same way as the Russian guards.

Complete agreement. Allow me to replace only two or three words in the tirade of the Fatherland newspaper, and this tirade addressed to the guardians can be safely attributed to the liberals: to their land, to the language given to them by God, and to all the peculiarities of their native way of life and needs, then in this devotion to their national identity lies some kind of malicious intent against progress...

...The same ordinary progressive who everywhere insists that the ideals of a decent person should be social ideals, and by no means nationalistic, and that nationalism is ugh.

I asked these persons: “Isn’t it possible, gentlemen, to somehow combine nationalist sympathies with your broad social ideals?” And the rank and file shook their heads and determined: - No way. And they proved it to me with the following comparison:

We, progressives, wish, by the way, that there would be no wars, no national persecutions, that individual nationalities would fraternally merge and forget the borders and borders separating them. And the nationalists hamper the merger, trying to preserve its isolation for each nationality. Their ideal is directly hostile to ours ...

That's why I want to say: "you don't know your own," when this same progressive in a minute falls on the guard for disrespect for a foreigner.

...Russian progressives use the word "scientific" quite liberally. And this does not prevent them from looking at the national question in a completely childish way. I'm not talking about the fact that they see the future in a rosy light. This is a perfectly legitimate optimism. For me, too, the future is drawn relatively in a rather pleasant light.

I also hope that such an order will be established in the future, when that social soil is created on which humanity will become healthier in body and spirit. And I also believe that then there will be no war and no national persecution. And that then, no matter what wilderness of a foreign country I find myself in, everywhere I will feel myself among good neighbors and comrades.

But this is not enough for a Russian progressive. He dreams of more. He wants me, having got into a foreign land in these future blessed days, not only not to feel a hostile attitude towards myself, but not even to notice any difference at all between the people there and my compatriots.

To make me feel completely at home there...What about national characteristics?

...And if this continued, if the abyss between the social strata were to deepen, then, indeed, the "vertical" divisions of humanity, i.e., national differences, would soon be completely obscured by the immensity of the "horizontal" divisions of class differentiation.

But ... but it seems that the wagon of progress is not rolling in this direction, but just in the opposite direction, and it is the progressives who should least of all forget about this. Mankind is moving towards softening and gradually completely smoothing out the class barriers. To give all citizens equally favorable conditions for the development of spirit and body.

This, in the whole sense of my faith, is the direction of history.

And the further we go along this direction, the closer spiritually the intellectual and the peasant will become to each other.

Until, finally, they find themselves next to each other and speak, as an equal with an equal, thoughts of the same range.

The whole mechanics of what we call progress is directed towards the elimination of class dissimilarity.

And when it is eliminated - then what will happen?

...But when the class dissimilarity disappears, it is precisely then that we will see the national dissimilarity with particular clarity.

For the progress of these dissimilarity cannot be eliminated.

Progress will inspire the nations with equally just views on social questions, progress will give them equally strong technical means to fight against nature. But progress will not paint the Italian sky the same color as the Finnish sky, will not bring plains to Switzerland and will not turn Russia into a mountainous country.

Natural factors create race.

A complex, seething tangle of economic factors distorts and modifies racial characteristics to such an extent that the influence of race almost completely disappears in the historical process. To the point that in our time the concept of race is almost ignored by science.

But if progress ever regulates this maelstrom of diverse economic interests, combining them in one synthesis, then the principle of race, hitherto obscured by other influences, will straighten out and flourish.

Not only will national peculiarities not be smoothed out by progress, but, on the contrary, they will receive more space, more freedom to develop ...

...The more diverse the composition of the orchestra, the more beautiful the symphony, because the violin conveys what the flute would not convey, and there are places that are not suitable for the clarinet and must be played on the harp.

For the development of sciences, arts and poetry, for this whole symphony of the creative human spirit, a rich orchestra is also needed, and the fuller and more diverse, the better.

Each instrument has its own timbre, and each nationality has its own special spiritual warehouse.

We must cherish these timbres of nations, improve them and prevent the violin from playing the trombone, so that the Czech becomes like a Frenchman.

Life is not about cutting everyone to one size, but about diversity, in harmony with myriads of dissimilar individuals.

Nationalism is the individualism of peoples.

^ 

Al-Aqsa and Over a Century of False Rumors

The recent spate of false reports, incomplete details and misconstrued facts about the Temple Mount is not new.

The British High Commissioner had to go the Geneva long ago to dispel the ones then being spread by the Mufti and a delegation he sent out to Mecca and other Arab capitals.

August 1922, a century ago via EOZ:

and in October a report about the "Zionist flag unfurled over Omar Mosque":

On the delegation mentioned in this 1922 report, see my article. And here:

And here.

And in 1924:

Of course, the rumors are older than that. Here is from Chaim Weizmann's letters, April 1918, when he arrived in liberated Palestine with the British and had to run to Egypt to quell similar rumors:

And this:

^

My November 1976 Trip to Moscow

In November 1976,  together with George Evnine/Yevnin,  flew off to Moscow for four days.

Just now, a letter I wrote at the time relating details was returned to me and it describes the trip to my wife's aunt:

In Red Square

^

A Perfidious Jordanian

We read that Jordan's King stresses need for Israel to cease provocative measures in Al Aqsa Mosque, calling for the respecting of the historical, legal status quo in Jerusalem

And he "reiterated that protecting Jerusalem and its holy sites will remain a priority for Jordan, directing the government to dedicate all capacities to safeguard these sites, as well as the historical and legal status quo in the holy city and its Arab, Islamic and Christian identity."

So, what have we?

A. An accusation that it is Israel that engages in provocative behavior. ot the Jordanian-funded Waqf, not the Isalmic clerics, the Palestinian Authority inciting violent behavior, the youngsters and some others throwing rocks, shooting off fireworks.

B. A complete ignoring a Jerusalem's Jewish identity.

C. A refusal to fulfill the country's obligations to Article 9 of the Jordan-Israel Peace Treaty, that

Each Party will provide freedom of access to places of religious and historical significance [and] The Parties will act together to promote interfaith relations among the three monotheistic religions, with the aim of working towards religious understanding, moral commitment, freedom of religious worship, and tolerance and peace.

D. Denial of history.

Maybe Israel should revisit that treaty?

UPDATE

Statement by PM Bennett

(Communicated by the Prime Minister's Foreign Media Adviser)

(Monday, 18 April 2022):

"Over the past week, a Hamas-led incitement campaign has been waged against Israel. Here's the truth: Israel is doing everything so that all peoples, as always, can celebrate the holidays safely - Jews, Muslims and Christians. We expect everyone not to join the lies and certainly not to encourage violence against Jews. The State of Israel will continue to keep our capital, Jerusalem, open to all.”

^

Ze'ev Jabotinsky at 21 - Excerpts from an Anti-Anti-Zionist Article

I present excerpts from Vladimir Jabotinsky's "Science and Common Sense" which the then not yet twenty-two-year-old published in the Odessa News newspaper of September 8, 1902. It very well may be the very first known Zionist statement by the future writer, thinker, public figure and political leader. And it predates his supposed conversion to Zionism as a result of the pogrom in 1903 in Kishinev.

Jabotinsky responds to an anti-Zionist piece by Iosif Menassievich Bikerman (1867-1942) published in the Russkoje Bogatsttwo [Russian Wealth]

Mr. Bikerman's article made a big impression...This is the experience of a real scientific assessment of Zionism...This article has scientifically proven that Zionism is a utopia. "Scientific". 

...Poems of a non-poet are album literature, these are not poems, but rhymes. And in the same way, this scientificity for fifty dollars, the scientificity of one's own home-made dressing, the scientificity arranged for a balalaika, and therefore accessible to the first person you meet - all this is landscape and toilet scientificity, suitable for flirting with young ladies, and not for a weighty conscientious dispute. To think scientifically, one must be a scientist, that is, a producer in the fields of science, and not a simple consumer of its products...enough, in fact, to be afraid of this shout: "Utopia!" Stupid word from the vocabulary of cowards. Much that a hundred years ago seemed like a utopia is now strong and marching, and advancing, and conquering.

...when a mass of people in unison embraces the whole of one ideal, this means that it was not the “feuilletonists” who whispered it to her. The power of things whispered to her. Those ideals that are whispered by the force of things are not utopias. They are a real need. They are the future reality.

...he has only one argument against Zionism:

“World history,” writes Mr. Bikerman, “does not know a case when any group of people — a clan, a tribe, a people, a horde — would have taken it into their heads to create a state one fine morning, and having thought of it, would have created it. Both in ancient and modern times, states were the result of the activity of the human masses, but never served as the goal of this activity.

I.e: “What has never happened before, cannot happen again.” I.e: - All the laws of historical movement are already known to us, and nothing that we have not yet seen and foreseen is not supposed to happen.

I don't think it's scientific...No serious theoretician of history would allow himself to state categorically that what has never happened before will never happen again. Only someone self-satisfied with semi-knowledge, not obliged to cherish either the dignity or the prestige of science, is capable of uttering such prophecies in its name ...

Examples of mass emigration were repeated both in ancient times and in the coming times. Zionism and offers mass emigration.

...Mr. Bikerman also reproaches the Zionists for trying to lure their people along the path of greatest resistance. And this is futile, because an irresistible law of nature tells all energy to follow the path of least resistance. This, of course, is correct. No energy will follow the path of greatest resistance. 

Why did the first Christians in Rome, or the same Jews in the Iberian Peninsula, or the Huguenots in France, prefer persecution and emigration instead of assimilation quietly and calmly, that is, accepting the faith of the strongest? This, of course, does not mean that they all followed the path of greatest resistance, for it is logically unthinkable to follow the path of greatest resistance. It simply means that, for many different reasons, it was easier and more profitable for them to endure persecution, die at the stake, go bankrupt and emigrate than to give in.

You can never know exactly which path at a given moment presents the greatest or least resistance.

...Another thing is purely practical objections to Zionism. They are made without a pretentious tone, they follow from the sober considerations of sane people, and it is pleasant to answer such objections. These objections are often very valid.

Will Turkey give in? Will the powers allow it? Will Palestine provide enough food? Are Jews capable of agriculture?

All these are important and complex questions, and nothing can be said categorically about them, simply because nothing can ever be confidently asserted about the future. But, in any case, there are no less practical arguments for , and good arguments, than against...will the Jews make Palestine a "land of honey and milk," if not, but, in any case, they will make it a livelier, more cultured and, therefore, more profitable region than it is now. 

...Whether the Jews are capable of agriculture, whether the soil of Palestine is capable of producing cereals in sufficient quantities - all questions could be answered only with numbers in hand. I can only remind you that in Finland there are completely bare cliffs where people have applied black soil and live on the fruits of this black soil. It is possible to adapt, not immediately, of course, but after two or three generations, to everything, not only to agriculture. Especially the Jews, who have long proved their ability to adapt to any, even the most incredible conditions of existence.

One can laugh at the money game with the term "scientific"; practical arguments should be thoughtfully and seriously considered and argued, but against the third category of objections raised by Zionism, one can only protest indignantly and uncompromisingly.

...Is nationalism regressive? To love one's nationality more than all other nationalities is as natural as to love one's mother more than all other mothers. Just as a person has the right to protect and develop his individual characteristics, so the nation has the right to cherish its national characteristics. 

– Zionism distracts the Jews from universal cultural work, from concern for the interests of all mankind.

It is a strange claim that all people must work in the same field. One can be a friend of all mankind, but work for the good of one nationality, because the good of one nationality is part of the good of mankind. Does Zionism dream of tearing the Jews away from spiritual affinity with Europe? Zionism wants to give the Jews a place where they can maintain this intimacy, develop it, enjoy it - only without being humiliated, without enduring persecution, without the risk of losing their national identity.

One can argue against Zionism—find it unworkable or undesirable. But to speak of its reactionary character, to see in its leaders traitors to the ideals of the common human good, is not to argue, but to dishonor, to dishonor crudely and frivolously the dream born of all the sobs, of all the sufferings of the Jewish people; it means to invite people to your shop not by washing, but by rolling; this means responding with a curse to the tearful prayer of the tormented Ahasuerus and slandering and slandering his centuries-old reserved ideal.

Ideals stand above ignorance and are not afraid of slander.

And Jabotinsky applying himself just a half year later: 

On Zubatov, Czarist Russian police administrator.

I decided to update this with excerpts from a second article published in June 1903

Kadimah 

I know three objections to Zionism...The third objection is:

“Your movement is calling people back to fanaticism, to misanthropy, to tribal enmity."

I consider this objection embittered, and I usually do not answer it, but fall silent and mournfully look at the one who threw this untruth to me, and I marvel, saddened, at his anger.

Strange outrage. You can be distrustful of what you find unrealizable; but indignation against someone else's ideal is understandable only when this someone else's ideal is the ideal of violence, enslavement, outrage. Meanwhile, whatever the fate of Zionism in the future, it carries in any case the noble ideal of emancipation. Where does this bitterness, this rage come from, and not from strangers or reactionaries; and from the side of blood brothers and people who boast of an advanced way of thinking?

...There is nothing else to justify all the passion of these unrighteous attacks; because on our part we have not deserved them in any way, and have always been and conscious of ourselves as honest friends of progress, freedom of spirit and brotherhood; and from the moment our movement emerged in an enlightened milieu, its motto has been Kadimàh , a beautiful and deep word that means "to the east" and at the same time "forward"...

...We are told:

“Your movement did not spring from any positive striving. It is caused by anti-Semitism: since it is difficult for Jews in the Diaspora, you want to take them to Palestine. This means that all this was not started at all in order to create a new nest of culture. Your chain is negative, not positive: flight, not striving. First of all, you need a shelter, an almshouse, a fortress, where you would be sheltered from malice, and not a factory for the production of new values. Compassion drives you, not a burst of creativity. Choose for yourself any motto you like: "pity", "intercession" - but not the word "forward". Running was never moving forward.

Well, that's right. Running was never moving forward. Flight is backward movement. Flight is the last concession. Whoever runs has already given up. Whoever runs, he already thereby says: I refuse to fight. I no longer defend what I undertook to defend. I cede to you what I wanted to consider my property.

Flight is a movement backwards and cannot be anything else, because in it lies the concession of the very principle for which the struggle was waged. This is the main thing. Without the element of concession, there is no escape. If I made a mistake with the door and ended up in someone else's apartment, then, noticing the mistake, I apologize and leave; but this is not an escape, because I had no intention of taking possession of this strange apartment. But if I deliberately burst into it in order to take possession of it, and were forced to abandon this goal and leave, then my departure would be a real flight; for he is a fugitive who, yielding to force, renounces the principle for which he stood up.

But the Jews did not then come to the lands of the diaspora in order to take possession of them or establish themselves in them. We did not even come - we were squeezed into these lands. Nineteen centuries of our history are not about what we did, but about what others did to us. Others squeezed us into Spain, forced us out of Spain and squeezed us into the east of Europe; we walked where we were pushed, and stopped when the inertia of the push stopped. Some stopped in Holland, others only in Romania; but neither one nor the other came there on purpose for the purpose of capturing or settling down. Falling from exhaustion on Romanian soil, they did not say to themselves: I want and will live here! They said: I can't go any further; I will stay here - maybe they won’t torture me here as much as in the land of Sepharad ...

We came to the countries of the diaspora, not having the goal of establishing ourselves. In our movement then there was no purpose at all, there was only a reason .

And now we see that we made a mistake with the door and got to the wrong place, where our place is, and we want to leave. This is not an escape, because when we came to these lands, we did not bring any goal with us, and now we must not give up any goal.

However, no. We brought one chain with us: the preservation of our nationality, which was then symbolized for us in religion. Spain offered us equality for apostasy; but we preferred torture and exile. So, coming from Spain, we wanted to remain Jews. This was our only goal. We carried this single goal through the fire and water of our long history. And we do not abandon this goal: we are faithful to it today more than ever: for this we want to leave forever from foreign cities, in order to remain Jews!

We have not given up or yielded in what is and has been the goal of our historical struggle; therefore our campaign will not be an escape, but a triumph. But fugitives will be those who yielded and surrendered, those who could not bear the constraints and ceased to be Jews; preaching of renunciation, calls for apostasy, invitations to humble yourselves in spirit and become Germans or Frenchmen, since it is difficult to remain Jews—this is what will truly be stigmatized with the name of cowardice and flight.

And so we come to the main point - to apostasy. Flight is apostasy. And if we needed only flight, then we would preach not Zionism, but apostasy .

The masses under the influence of the current influence are always directed along the path of least resistance. Anti-Semitism represents a strong external pressure: but in order to be saved from it, there is no need to colonize Eretz-Yisrael. There is a path much less difficult - the path of apostasy. Escape is the path of least resistance. Change your faith, and today you will acquire all rights before the law, and tomorrow or the day after tomorrow, with the help of mixed marriages, you will be recognized as your own and by society. If this merging takes time, then, in any case, it will be easier for you than buying out abandoned land and creating a new homeland on the ruins ...

Anti-Semitism could not give rise to Zionism. Anti-Semitism could only give rise to the desire to flee from persecution along the path of least resistance - that is, apostasy. But in order for a call to national self-consciousness and revival to sound instead of preaching apostasy, something was needed besides anti-Semitism, an internal stimulus, an internal and positive imperative was needed. This imperative lies in the life-giving instinct of national self-preservation, which has given us the strength to pass through the order of history.

The Arab fell asleep under a bush. At dawn he was bitten by a flea. From the bite he woke up, saw the dawn and said:

Thanks to this bug. She woke me up; now I will perform ablution and get to work.

But when he began to perform ablution, the flea bit him a second time. Then the Arab caught her and strangled her, saying:

“It is evident that you were proud of the fact that I praised you; and indeed, you helped me wake up: but not by your prodding will I pray and work ...

Here is the role of anti-Semitism in the Zionist movement. We do not deny that he helped us wake up. But only. If, on waking up, we straightened up, washed ourselves with fresh water and set to work, it was not for the sake of the miserable insect that woke us up, but for the sake of the life instinct that is inherent in us.

If we wanted to flee, we would call for apostasy; if we needed an almshouse, we would call for apostasy, because apostasy is easier and more likely to save our skins. But it is not we, but our opponents who preach this easy way of renunciation; we Zionists reject capitulation and call for the hard work of creation . We call the Jewish people to historical creativity . Pointing to the east, we do not say to the people: run, hide from persecution in this hole; we point to the east and proclaim "forward": Kadimàh .

^

On the "Demise of Israel in 2020"

Seems that some of the recent violence may be based on a "prophecy" by a Sheikh assam Jaber. I red about it here, p. 34 - 39.

So I searched. Translations via Google.

1.

When the establishment of the state of "Israel" was announced in 1948, an old Jewish woman entered the mother of Muhammad al-Rashid, crying. This country will last 76 years.

This story from Baghdad was recorded by the Palestinian Islamic researcher Bassam Jarrar in his book (The demise of Israel 2022.. Quranic prophecy or digital coincidences?), published in the early nineties of the twentieth century, quoting from a lecture written by the Iraqi writer Muhammad Ahmed Al-Rashed entitled (The New World Order), so the researcher concluded that the The 76 years mentioned in the lunar calendar used by the Jews, which correspond to 1443 in the Hijri calendar and 2022 in the Gregorian calendar, and this tale is the beginning of the story of the book and the prophecy.

And based on the book and the prophecy found in it, and its content is the demise of “Israel” in 2022 AD, a large number of people believed in the prophecy, and they preached it as if it were a divine promise of definitive proof and significance, not just mathematical calculations, speculative evidence and significance, and a speculative numerical interpretation of the verses of the Holy Qur’an, in a clear confusion between Prophecy in its prophetic or Qur’anic sense and its human concept; The prophetic and Qur’anic prophecy is transmitted from God Almighty through the revelation of the Prophet – may God’s prayers and peace be upon him – and is found in the prophetic or Qur’anic text, and it is certain of proof and significance, such as the prophecy of the Roman victory over the Persians in a few years and the prophecy of the conquest of Mecca. As for human prophecy, it means telling about the unseen that exists in the future ahead of its time, as speculation and speculation, such as the researcher’s prophecy of the demise of “Israel” in 2022 AD, and the fulfillment of the promise of the afterlife mentioned in Surat Bani Israel, and documented in his book (The demise of Israel 2022.. Quranic prophecy or digital coincidences?) .

The first chapter of the book is the interpretation of the Qur’anic prophecy in Surat Al-Isra, related to the demise of “Israel”, known as (The Promise of the Hereafter) in two verses: “So when the Promise of the Hereafter comes, they will offend your faces,” and “Then they will come to you.” That the first Israeli corruption and exaltation took place before Islam after the reigns of David and Solomon - peace be upon them both - and that the other Israeli corruption and transcendence began with the establishment of the state of “Israel” in 1948 AD, and that we are on the verge of the stage of the promise of the hereafter to destroy the Israeli corruption and exaltation, represented by the abolition of the Jewish Zionist state. This rational vision, committed to the rules of Quranic interpretation, was the first mujtahid in it, the Azhari scholar Abdel Moez Abdel Sattar in the sixties of the twentieth century, and Dr. Muhammad Sayed Tantawi recorded it in his book (The Children of Israel in the Qur’an and Sunnah).

The second chapter of the book is the subject of digital interpretation to confirm the credibility of the Qur’anic prophecy, and to determine the date of the fulfillment of the prophecy. On the number (19), the problem started with the two numbers (76-19), so the researcher wrote two studies about the miracle of the number (19), during which he discovered that the number (19) is the basis for a historical equation related to the history of the Jews and the demise of their state, so he wrote a third study and predicted through Numerical calculations and numerical mathematics, derived from the verses of Surat Al-Isra, that the demise of "Israel" in 1443 AH corresponding to 2022 AD, using the method of converting letters into numbers according to the ancient historical sentence system in the numerical (abjad haws) order.

The method of numerical interpretation and numerical interpretation of the Holy Qur’an, on which the prophecy of the demise of “Israel” in 2022 AD was based, is a method tainted by a lot of confusion and confusion, and leads to results: always speculative, often many errors, and sometimes contradictory; This is because this method is not subject to specific scientific standards or specific research controls, and is used in a selective manner directed by the researcher’s will. And sentences, and between numbers and numbers, in a speculative way, some of them reach a kind of mathematical sorcery and mathematical tricks. And the use of this approach in the process of anticipating the future and predicting the events of the unseen is more troublesome and problematic, especially if this foresight and prediction are related to a major central issue such as Palestine, and in particular determining the time of the promise of the afterlife and the demise of the supreme entity and the Israeli corruption.

2.

Bassam Jarrar identifies the three months of 2022, which he expects to witness the “most important events” that will “lead to the demise of the state,” according to his belief.

“The probability of it being fulfilled is more than 90%,” Bassam Jarrar says in an interview with the Ultra Palestine website, stressing that he is not worried that the prophecy will not be fulfilled. Jarrar identifies the three months of 2022, which he expects to witness the "most important events" that will "lead to the demise of the state," according to his belief.

According to Jarrar, "the prophecy of the demise of Israel in 2022" was launched from a story he heard in a lecture by Muhammad Ahmed Al-Rashed, a leader of the Muslim Brotherhood in Iraq, in which he says that a Jewish old woman told his mother on the day the establishment of "Israel" was declared that this state would not last more than 76 years. year.

This story motivated Jarrar to research the possibility of the validity of this hypothesis, to announce his “prophecy” in “Marj al-Zohour” in southern Lebanon, when the Israeli occupation authorities expelled him there with cadres and leaders of Hamas and Islamic Jihad, before he later published his book. The demise of Israel 2022, a prophecy or a digital coincidence.

Jarrar says that his new job is not limited to Surat Al-Isra, but rather "in verses and surahs related to it."

Basically, this “prophecy,” according to Jarrar, was based on numerical calculations related to the story of “the children of Israel were corrupted twice on earth” at the beginning of Surat Al-Isra, which is Surah 17 of the Noble Qur’an, and begins by talking about the journey of the Prophet Muhammad to Al-Aqsa Mosque, And it ends at the end of the seventh verse, which announces “the demise of the Israeli state,” according to Jarrar’s interpretation.

In his speech, Jarrar says that his new work is not limited to Surat Al-Isra, but rather "in verses and surahs that are related", the most recent of which were 4 lectures that were published in the month of Ramadan/2021, which include new issues in this context.

Jarrar points out that the numerical miracle (on which this prophecy is based) is based on mathematical systems, describing it as "purely scientific" and rejecting it as a metaphysical matter.

He says that the research he has "conclusive" the issue that 2022 is the year "the demise of the state, that is, the authority, and not the demise of the Jews."

Jarrar explains that the announcement of this "prophecy" came "surprisingly" at the time, due to the absence of previous research based on what he calls "the numerical miracles in the Qur'an," noting that the announcement gained great popularity among Lebanese and Arab newspapers at the time.

In response to a question about his feeling of responsibility for the disappointment of those who are convinced of what he says in the event that the “prophecy” is not fulfilled, he replied that this “prophecy” gave people hope for liberation, and thus not to accept the loss of their rights in light of “attempts to liquidate

The case" that was taking place at the moment of declaring the "prophecy", adding that "it is not excluded that there will be work in order to be the person on whose hand this prophecy will be fulfilled," according to his saying.

3.

Ramallah - “Al Quds Al Arabi”: YouTube data indicates nearly 160,000 views of the documentary film, “The Complete Story 2022” (64 minutes), five days after its launch on the “Islam Noun” page of the Noun Center. For Quranic research and studies run by Sheikh and Islamic thinker Bassam Jarrar, who prophesied the demise of Israel in 2022.

The film, which Al-Quds Al-Arabi learned that one of the 48 regions of Palestine was based on, came to increase the heated Palestinian and Islamic debate, in addition to an old case of controversy between parties supporting this prophecy and others opposing it, in light of the fact that the date of its realization has become very close.

According to Palestinian Sheikh Bassam Jarrar, director of the center, the end of the occupation state is certain, and that is “95% of the time” in light of all indicators supporting this, which is what he learned from what he calls the numerical miracle of the Holy Qur’an.

During the past five days, links to the film were exchanged on social networks, and it was commented on in the dialogues and discussions of supporters and opponents.

The most prominent criticism directed at the film was that it was a “propaganda” of the Sheikh’s prophecy, and he lacked objectivity, as he explained and elaborated on the Sheikh’s statements and his justifications, and comfortably commented on the overall criticism directed at him, as he brought in guests who either supported the Sheikh’s statement or rejected it, but “softly”, and that Although there is a large group of sheikhs and religious scholars who view this prophecy as heretical and blasphemous.

Islamic scholar Sari Orabi, who appeared in the film as holding a position rejecting Sheikh Jarrar’s prophecy, wrote a clarification on his private page on Facebook, trying to clarify his position on the film and the Sheikh’s statement, where he said: “I received many questions after the documentary was broadcast… and my approval or disagreement with this thesis.” It does not change anything, and its owner is the most able to discuss the matter with his supporters and opponents.”

Orabi considered this type of film “not a scientific lesson, and it is not suitable for an explanation of a thesis, but rather a tale of the story, how it began and how it went.” The film certainly falls short of explaining it scientifically and methodically.”

He added: "I tried to present my opinion, which does not notice sufficient material support for this thesis. I see merit in the opinions that do not see material supporters close to the idea, as well as some efforts made by some brothers to try to criticize it from within, and I have tried to mention several aspects of its criticism, some of which appeared In the movie, some others did not appear.

Orabi does not agree with “those who say that the Sheikh’s prophecy is a type of fortune-telling, for this is an exaggeration of prejudice, and takes it out of context in terms of being an attempt to question the Qur’an.”

Orabi believes that rejecting the idea, whether based on internal follow-up and criticism, or political assessment, or simply by standing at headlines and impressions, is a natural thing as long as it is presented to the public domain, and people vary in their viewpoints and the directions of their thought.

Orabi considered that the fear of “the effects of the negative prophecy in the event that reality does not believe it is legitimate and capable, but prejudice and exaggeration of fears is the brother of exaggerating the emotional attachment to this prophecy.”

Orabi adopts a call to reduce prejudice, intensity, emotion and fears, which is reinforced by the film.

The Syrian researcher Ahmed Dadush, who appeared in the film, told Al-Quds Al-Arabi that he found a tendency among the advanced Muslim scholars to block the doors of prediction, as well as the tendency of the contemporary audience to challenge the numerical miracle.

He continued, "However, Sheikh Jarrar was able, in my opinion, to present his discovery with premises worthy of consideration." He added: Sheikh Jarrar put forward his theory as any mujtahid does while he is investigating the truth. He does not claim to reach the truth, nor does any scholar claim that as it is known, so the Sheikh and the film makers left the door ajar, and there is no challenge to the theory itself.

Regarding the film’s objective approach to its own voice and its opposition to this prophecy, as it is far from being fulfilled, Daadoudsh confirmed that the selection of the film’s guests was successful. Years ago, there were many responses to the Sheikh’s theory who lacked the simplest conditions for discussion.”

Iyad Abu Zneit, a researcher at the Yabous Foundation for Strategic Studies, spoke about the 2022 controversy between denial and ratification. Considering that denying the demise of Israel in 2022 is not a departure from the religion, and not infidelity, and the owner of the idea himself believes that it is a coincidence, and opposing the idea or believing it is not a pillar of faith. Here, no global or local event can be linked to the demise of Israel in 2022 with its significance.”

Abu Zneit addressed his words to those who believe that Israel will not last more than 80 years, considering that this is not at all accurate, as our weakness and their work may continue, and believing in the inevitability of demise on a specific date is a dangerous matter that may raise the ceiling of hope and send people down. As for the saying that God, Glory be to Him, changes between a moment and a moment, this is true, but it is dependence and withdrawal, for the Hour may arise in a moment!”

He added: "With the inevitable belief in the demise of Israel and its occupation, but we are still a people who multiply controversy, and are transferred at work, and there is no demise except with tools, and just as the occupation arose with plans and implementation, it will not disappear without that."

Abu Zneit stressed that far from any prophecy, whether it was fulfilled or not, Herzl said to those gathered with him at the First Zionist Congress in Basel, Switzerland in 1897: “If your intention is true, it is not a myth, when they told him that the establishment of the State of Israel is a fantasy.”

He continued: “And Al-Mutanabbi told us centuries before Herzl: “According to the people of determination come wills,” and determination in Arabic is the contract of intention and insistence on action.

According to Abu Zneit, the Arab mind is described as a regressive mind, meaning that it refers confronting its problems to a metaphysical issue that relieves it of the burden of responsibility. The truth is that we are not looking for reasons to confront Israel because it is costly financially, in terms of thinking and sacrifice.” He concluded: "All indications today are that the conflict will continue until 2050."

The journalist, Fares Sarfandi, strongly criticized the sheikh

So, now we know.

^ 

That "Palestine Manhole"

If you ever see a tweet with the picture of this "Palestine manhole", (obviously this is the British Mandate for Palestine-to-become-the reconstituted-Jewish-homeland), that is claimed to prove "Palestine" existed, show them these other pictures with the commercial symbol enlarged and a Palestine Post (a Jewish newspaper) advert.

The manufacturer was Vulcan Foundaries, a Jewish factory. And "Vulcan" is in Hebrew.

Thanks to Sharon Altshul Marks and Lion Hart.
^

The Year Non-Moslem Entrance to the Temple Mount Became the Status Quo

On February 18, 1229, at the end of the Sixth Crusade, the Treaty of Jaffa was signed between Sultan al-Kamil and Frederick II which permitted Christians to reoccupy the holy places of Jerusalem, except for the Temple area which remained under the control of the Moslem religious authorities.

Jerusalem was handed over to Christian rule for ten years, with Moslems denied access to all but the al-Aqsa enclave in the city which was to remain in Moslem hands and where Moslem religious observances would be allowed to continue unobstructedal. The historical record has Kamil saying:

‘We have allowed only ruined churches and monasteries. The al-Aqsa enclave and what is in it consisting of the Dome of the Rock and the rest of shrines are in the hands of the Muslims as before and the sign of Islam is on what is there [al-Aqsa enclave].

Pope Gregory IX wrote to Duke Leopold of Austria (and other prelates and rulers), denouncing Frederick II’s treaty with al-Kamil (18th July 1229):

Secondly, and even more disgraceful and to be abhorred and greeted with astonishment, he has impudently and irreverently ejected that same [faith] from the Temple of God, in which Christ was given and where he established his first cathedral seat when he sat in the midst of the doctors, replying to them, and in His seat he has placed that lost man Mahomed, allowing his evil doctrine and law to be preached and proclaimed in the Temple of God. He has imposed silence on the herald teaching the truth, and entrusted guard on that temple and the keys of His enclosure to the Saracens. He has decreed that no Christian shall enter it, unless having first been questioned from the Temple mount he shall reveal his faith to a pagan. From this it is manifestly clear that it is left to the judgement of a Saracen whether a Christian ought to enter the Temple of God.

1229 - the year non-Moslem entrance to the Temple Mount became the status quo.

^ 

Zionism and Anti-Semitism in Concert, a la 1903

Nowadays. we read of how Zionists and anti-Semites cooperate.

Is that a new slant?

No.

Read on:

Reply to MR. T. Renaudo

(Voice of a Zionist)

Ze'ev Jabotinsky, Odessa News", Deber 17, 1903

In yesterday's issue of Odessa News, Mr. Theophrastus Renaudot* insists that Nordau and Drumont, that is, the Zionists and anti-Semites, have points of contact; He does not draw any conclusion from this to Mr. Renaudeau, but from the whole tone of the letter it is clear that the conclusion is unfavorable for the Zionists. The author even says: “The anti-Semites are stretching out their hand to the Zionists. Progressive people - who eschew both the nationalism of Drumont and the nationalism of Herzl and Nordau - can only treat this spectacle with an unpleasant feeling.

Frankly, I do not understand how one can seriously say that anti-Semites and Zionists are at the same time. The former do their best against the Jews, the latter do their best for the Jews: what kind of unity is there, what is there in common between one and the other? No doubt, if the Zionists want to bring the Jews out of foreign lands into their own, many anti-Semites may find that the Zionists play into their hands by freeing foreign lands from the Jewish element. But you never know who can play into someone's hands: sometimes, saving a drowning man, you run the risk of playing into the hands of a usurer who wants to tear off an old debt with high interest from this drowned man. Does this mean that the savior is at one with the usurer?

And yet, this is what is most important, and it would be good if M. Renaudot and his like-minded people deign to remember this firmly. The point of view of Zionism is that the salvation of the Jews is only in themselves. “Make your own story” has become our motto. Therefore, we go our own way and do not look back at strangers. Of course, we are sorry that "people of progress" (however, Mr. Renaudot, by no means all!) still sometimes look at us "with an unpleasant feeling." But we ourselves in our souls deeply and honestly recognize ourselves, too, as "people of progress" first of all. Therefore, we are and will continue to pursue our line calmly and proudly, caring least of all whether outsiders like or dislike us, be it Drumont, whom we despise, or M. T. Renaudeau, whom we respect.

---------------

* Theophrastus Renaudeau is the pseudonym of the journalist I. I. Dmitriev, who published correspondence from Paris in Odessa News.

^

The Arabs Who Fled Mandate Palestine, Came from...?

Is it possible that a great number of Arabs who fled Mandate Palestine in 1948 actually were Arabs from across the Middle East who had recently arrived for better employment opportunities?

Al-Jazeera source

^

8zg5o

Jerusalem's Demography 1880-1948

Is Jerusalem a 'Jewish city'?

Today's anti/non-Zionists refuse to acknowledge Jerusalem's Jewish history and status or the fact that a concept of "East/West Jerusalem", at the most, was a 19 year aberration in the city's 3000 year history.

One measure is demography. What was the percentage of the city's Jewish community amongst the various populations prior to the city becoming "Israeli"? The city, by 1870, already had a Jewish plurality. And the succeeding years?

For reference:

The first table presents the growth of Jerusalem's population and as it is in Hebrew, we need read from right to left.

The years are 1880, 1900, 1910, 1931 and 1948.

In the walled Old City, the population dropped from 19,000 to 2,000 and of course, on May 28, 1948, the Jewish Quarter, the last of the areas where Jews still lived, surrendered.

In the New City, the Jewish population grew from 2,000 to 98,000.

The lower table focuses on the Old City with its Jewish and Arab population in 1880, 1910, 1922 and 1931, the last two years from the official British census counts (here and here). hy there are slight differences,  do not know.

In any case, the Arab terror riots of 1929 and then 1936-39 quite clearly caused an ethnic cleansing result of Jews from the city where Jews had lived consistently since the 12th century and in previous centuries, from 135 CE, at the will of foreign subjugators and rulers as feasible.

A second reference source of Jerusalem populations figures broken down to Arabs and Jews:

The figures are in the 1000s.

^

The Jewish "Palestine Resistance"

When, in 1946, the term "Palestine Resistance" meant the Jewish fight for freedom and liberation from the repressive British mandatory regime:

Source

^

The Anti-Semitism of Degas

From A Compulsive Perfectionist by Colin B. Bailey

The most dramatic—and saddest—aspect of Degas in the 1890s relates to his increasingly outspoken anti- Semitism and his reaction to the efforts to rehabilitate Captain Albert Dreyfus, who had been found guilty of espionage in December 1894 and sentenced to life imprisonment on Devil’s Island.8 

As evidence tending to exonerate Dreyfus and implicate the highest echelons of the French military came to light in 1897, Degas’s relations with the Halévy family became more and more fraught. The Halévys’ elder son, Élie, noted in November 1897, “I have a Jewish name, even though I am Protestant.” (Degas also harbored an irrational dislike of Protestants.) The Halévys associated with journalists and intellectuals committed to proving (and publicizing) Dreyfus’s innocence. At their Thursday dinner on November 25, 1897, the day on which Le Figaro published Émile Zola’s first article in support of Dreyfus, Ludovic expressly forbade any discussion of the topic (“Papa was very annoyed, Degas very anti- Semitic”). Although no one knew it at the time, the last family dinner that Degas attended at the Halévys took place on January 13, 1898, the day on which Zola’s “J’accuse” appeared on the front page of L’Aurore. Their ebullient younger guests, whose company Degas usually relished, offended him with their pro- Dreyfusard opinions. He canceled the following week’s dinner on the day itself, writing to Louise:

You will have to excuse me tonight, and I would rather tell you right away that I am asking you to do so for some time. You could not have thought that I would have the heart to continue being cheerful and entertaining. The time for laughter is over. You kindly introduced me to these young people, but I constrain them and they are unbearable to me. Let me remain in my corner. I’ll be happy there. There are many good moments to remember.

The decision must not have been easy for Degas to take. Unaware of this crisis, on the evening of January 20 nineteen- year- old Julie Manet— another anti- Dreyfusard who would contribute funds to La Libre Parole for the repatriation of Jews to Jerusalem— went to Degas’s apartment to invite him to dinner. “We found him so worked up into such a terrible state against the Jews,” she noted in her diary, “that we left without asking him anything at all.” “To live alone, without any family, it is really too hard,” he had confided to Madame Giuseppe De Nittis in May 1877. In his rupture with the Halévys, Degas administered a selfinflicted wound.

...Degas, who initially appeared to Kessler like “an elegant grandfather . . . an apostle, untouched by the world,” became agitated when conversation turned to the Bernheim family, who dealt in his work. Referring to the father, Alexandre, who had established the business, Degas exclaimed, “How can one chat with people like that? Let’s see, with a Jewish Belgian who is a naturalized Frenchman! It’s as if one wished to speak with a hyena, a boa. Such people do not belong to the same humanity as us.”

Kessler recorded that Degas’s most deranged invective was reserved for compulsory education: 

“It’s the Jews and the Protestants who do that” [Degas said] . . .Degas became completely angry, thundering against the popularization of art and the unrestrained increase in  exhibitions, pictures, and artists...?

Amused and horrified in equal measure, Kessler left the dinner concluding that the artist was “a deranged and maniacal innocent.”

8 For what remains the best introduction, see Linda Nochlin, “Degas and the Dreyfus Affair: A Portrait of the Artist as an Anti- Semite,” in The Dreyfus Affair: Art, Truth, and Justice, edited by Norman L. Kleeblatt (University of California Press, 1987). Degas was joined by Renoir (and to a lesser degree Cézanne) in their at times violent anti- Dreyfusard positions; Monet  and Pissarro were ardent supporters of Dreyfus’s cause. Degas and Renoir both broke with Pissarro over the Dreyfus Affair.

^

My Exchange with NYRB's Editor Following a Beinart Piece

After I read something Peter Beinart published at the New York Review of Books back at the end of January, I initiated corrspondence with the NYRB by first submitting a short letter-to-the-editor:

From: Yisrael Medad 
Sent: Sunday, January 31, 2021 9:02 AM
To: Editor 
Subject: Letter for Publication

Peter Beinart asserts that "Those Palestinians who can [vote in Israeli national elections] —the 'Arab Israelis' who hold Israeli citizenship—mostly vote for Arab parties that are, by custom, barred from Israel’s coalition governments" (What the Lincoln Project Gets WrongAbout Israel-Palestine, NYRB, Jan. 27). That assertion needs to be corrected.

Arabs have been enfranchised to cast their ballots in Israel's elections since 1949. In fact, the parties that traditionally received the most votes usually were Communist. That Israel, even until today, tolerates Communist parties supported mainly by the Arab minority, as well as pan-Arab nationalist factions, is a testament to its vibrant democracy. Moreover, these parties are not so much "barred" as not invited to join due to their principled ideological position which is anti-Zionist. It is not a racist policy as Arabs, as well as Druze, have served in government as ministers and deputy-ministers when members of other parties. Members of these anti-Zionist parties have been member of the Knesset Presidium.

 The reply within two days:

February 2

Dear Yisrael

Thanks for this communication, but we do not believe there is any need to correct Beinart’s assertion. Further, I am afraid you are misinformed.

First, one of two leading parties in the Arab Joint List is Hadash, which supports a two-state solution and is thus, by definition, not anti-Zionist. Second, many governing coalitions in Israel in the past have included non-Zionist ultra-orthodox parties representing, in some cases, Jews who do not recognize the state of Israel. In short, it is a canard that Arab parties are not admitted to coalition governments of Israel because they do not pass some ideological test of Zionism. The salient political fact is simply this: that no Israeli Jewish politician is willing to govern in coalition with the elected representatives of Arab citizens of Israel.

In other words, Beinart's assertion was completely correct, and the counter-assertion is incorrect.

Best wishes, 

Matt Seaton

Editor, nybooks.com

My retort:

February 2

Dear Matt,

I think you have been misinformed.

Hadash is Communist and thus, by definition, anti-Zionist. It may recognize Israel as a state but that is not the same.

The Joint List comprises, as you surely know, four parties. "Leading" or not is an irrelevancy. But just as an aside, if the Ra'am Party pulls out, according to tonight's news, it will drop from 15 to 9 so how can one even judge what "leading" means?

As for the ultra-Orthodox parties, they define themselves as Zionist but claim their Zionism is Torah-based, whatever that means. Most actually do get to serve in the IDF in one form or another, something Arabs, the vast majority anyway, are loath to do. They even refuse in the main (I am sorry but exact figures are not at my fingertips) to do national service.

Moreover, to assert that "no Israeli Jewish politician is willing to govern in coalition with the elected representatives of Arab citizens of Israel" is a "salient political fact" is wrong as I pointed out that Arabs, elected in Arab lists as well as Jewish lists have served in coalitions.

I am sorry for disputing this so strongly but my suspicion is that you were provided that information and the person that did it either is ignorant or is purposely beclouding the issue.

As I have had letters previously published in the NYRB, I find it odd not to take a chance on me by publishing my letter, it isn't that long at all, and have Peter Beinart respond, you know, an element of open debate in his own name.

I trust your sense of 'fair play' would actually work in my favor.

Thank you for your reconsideration.

Yisrael

On February 11, I checked the latest issue and then wrote the following:

I see the new issue has appeared. My letter is not visible.

Can I assume my letter will not ever be published? Or is Peter still composing a response?

Yisrael

And the conclusion is:

Hi Yisrael

I'm afraid we don't publish letters in response to online-only pieces, unless the matter at dispute rises to the level of meriting a full Exchange between a correspondent and the author, and this didn't.

Best wishes, Matt

So, I made a pitch:

From: Yisrael Medad 

Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2021 2:41 PM
To: Matt Seaton  Subject: Re: Fw: Letter for Publication

 

Thanks.

Would submitting a piece to the online edition be a possibility for me then?

And the answer was:

Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 9:44 PM Matt Seaton wrote:

Of course, you may submit. But I would advise you against offering a right-to-reply type response piece to the Beinart; it's not something we do, and we simply would have to turn that down flat.

I inquired as to how many words and was informed "optimal length for us is 1500-2500w".

On February 18, I submitted the following:

Is It To Be Competing Narratives or Narrative Cancelling?

We are now in an era, 45 years on since the UN General Assembly Resolution 3379 was adopted determining “that Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination" and 30 years since it was rescinded, when presumed intellectual conversation can call for the dismantling of the Zionist project, openly suggest in one of America’s leading newspapers there is no need that a Jewish ‘home’ be a Jewish state in that it be replaced by an entity called “Israel-Palestine”, a senior level church officer can echo a New Testament blood curse, applying it to Israel and a Congresswoman can retweet a meme that Israel be eliminated by applying to it borders that delineate another state if afterwards in was deleted. As the conversation gets less intellectual and progressively ideological, even theological, the demands made in relation to Israel worsen in tone, become malefic and eventually, generate a sense of freedom for acts of illegality and eventually terror. This is not marginalization but cancellation.

It is not that anti-Zionism has never been a legitimate topic of debate. Of course it has. Indeed, a very small minority of fanatic obscurantist Jews, inheritors of the Satmar Hungarian rejection of all human efforts to re-establish a Jewish state, are quite active and find solace in misrepresented Talmudic sources. There are Jews who support and promote all forms of national identity, including one termed Arab Palestinian, but deny the same to those, Jews and non-Jews, who wish to see Israel continue to exist and flourish. There are anti-nationalist Jews steeped in progressive or communist or socialist theories who cannot bring themselves to identify with Zionism.

A century ago, some 300 American Reform Rabbis attempted, in a letter published in the New York Times, to abort President Woodrow Wilson’s approval of Palestine becoming reconstituted as the historic Jewish national home. The American Council for Judaism took up the anti-Zionist baton following the 1937 Reform Judaism’s decision rejection of the same. The Jewish Bund prided in its anti-Zionism. The ultra-Orthodox Agudah preferred to see themselves as the true Zionists, refusing to acknowledge full legitimacy of the World Zionist Organization even while eventually forming an awkward coalition with it.

These days, we witness the endeavours of a plethora of Jewish anti-Zionist groups, including the backing of a sham Twitter account of a long-dead anti-Zionist Rabbi, but it need be made clear that anti-Zionism, once a position of theoretical debate, is an historical fossil. At this time, with Israel's establishment and continued flourishing, if actively advanced, it is no longer a philosophical matter but one of eliminationist ideology (as illustrated by a Congresswoman’s T-shirt) that promotes staticide, that is the destruction of a state and endangering lives of upwards of 9 million humans as well as millions of Jews who would (not might) need to flee to it due to an upsurge in anti-Semitism. An op-ed recently published at the New York Times argues against sanctions that are in place against Iran, a state sponsoring regional and even global terror that also views a need to eliminate Zionist Israel, even through an act of legislature, yet its author supports sanctions on Israel due to Jews residing in Jerusalem suburbs, Hebron, the burial place of the Jewish people’s patriarchs and matriarchs or my community village, Shiloh, where scientific archaeological excavations conducted over a century by Danes, British, Israelis and Americans, have proven the Biblical narrative.

Moreover, in the immediate sense, persons and institutions who might also be non-Israeli such as Jewish and non-Jewish students who do support Israel, find themselves under verbal, psychological and even physical attack on campuses not only from fellow students or off-campus radicals but their lecturers as well. Already in 1990, pro-Palestinian promoters were aware of the need for progressive political support even as the messaging - “they [Jewish Americans] control Capitol Hill…they have big money and fear on their side” (at 2:38-43 in the clip) – is blatantly adoptive of anti-Semitic memes. We have now reached the point when the moderator of an international affairs commission of a Christian fellowship of 350 churches from more than 110 countries, representing over 500 million Christians worldwide stated, falsely, that people are killed every day as a result of the Israel-Palestinian conflict adding “the blood of the people of Palestine will be sought from” Israel’s supporters thus employing a meme of classic anti-Semitism.

Bret Stephens, who thinks that hard-core anti-Zionism is indeed a form of anti-Semitism, penned, “If anti-Semitism is a form of racism, and racist language is intolerable…might we someday forbid not only advocacy of anti-Zionist ideas, but even refuse to allow them to be discussed?” In connection with what can and what cannot be discussed, I wish to take Stephens question one step further and ask: if the negation of a people’s national identity and aspirations is legitimate, indeed, if it is acceptable to even refuse to acknowledge that an ethnic community also possesses national characteristics – as does anti-Zionism – cannot another people’s claim to national identity undergo scrutiny, debate and even negation?

As an example, British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs Ernest Bevin, himself quite unsympathetic to the idea of a Jewish state, nevertheless had no compunction, in his words in the House of Commons on 18^th February, 1947, to admit that “the Arabs...are therefore unwilling to contemplate further Jewish immigration into Palestine. They are equally opposed to the creation of a Jewish State in any part of Palestine”. Is it possible to express that point of view today, especially as regards the position of Hamas?

Can one point out that the term “historic Palestine”, geographically, always encompassed the territory that Jordan occupies? Can one point out the Jordan was the occupier of the West Bank until 1967? Can one note that the term “West Bank” was created only in April 1950 when Jordan annexed that area? Can it be recalled that in the United Nations Partition proposal of November 29, 1947, when delineating the borders between the Arab State and the Jewish State, a recommendation that was dashed when Arab-initiated violence broke out, never employed the then-unknown term “West Bank” but rather “Judea” and “Samaria”?

Is it possible to recollect that between 1920-1948, a Jewish population of several thousands who had been, in part, residing in Judea and Samaria for centuries, in Hebron, Gaza, Nablus and Jerusalem’s Old City and environs, as well as newer communities in the Etzion Bloc and on the shore of the Dead Sea, were ethnically cleansed in a terror campaign instigated and led by the most senior Islamic cleric in the country, a campaign which included murder, rape, burnings and pillaging?

Is it allowed to point to the uniqueness of UNRWA, the United Nations agency that provides humanitarian care for Arab refugees from Mandate Palestine? That all the world’s millions of refugees have one agency and the relatively few from Palestine have another? That to have been a “refugee” all one needed was to have lived in Mandate Palestine for but two years previous to May 1948? That the status of refugee is applied solely to the descendants of males and also includes adopted children? That the true figure of actual refugees is less than 200,000 according to a US State Department July 2018 report?

Is it permissible to know what topics are mentionable and what are to be banished from all mention? And why? Are there any agreed upon definitions of such? Or is but one narrative the accepted framework while the other is denounced and deprecated?

Are acts of destruction committed by Arabs at locations of Jewish legacy sites, such as was found after the 1967 war on the Mount of Olives and over 30 synagogues in Jerusalem’s Old City discussable? Hasmonean Palaces outside of Jericho, additional archaeological sites or at the Temple Mount when a new, underground mosque was carved out of Solomon’s Stables? Moreover, is the claim of a 10,000 year old Natufian origin of the contemporary Arabs, made by the late Saeb Erekat, open for discussion or to do so would be causing major micro-aggressions?

If one is to hurl a charge of “illegal occupation”, is it permissible to bring up the 19-year occupation and annexation of Jordan or does one simply accept the proffered explanation that that occupation was entirely legal in that the Arabs of Palestine requested to be ruled by Abdullah I, even if the Mufti Al-Husseini had the monarch assassinated in 1951? When is a narrative a genuine reflection of history and when is it but a cover-up for bad politics or even plain revisionist history?

Zionism is, the narrative has it, a settler-colonial enterprise. But did not the Arabs come out of the Arabian Peninsula in the first third of the seventh century and, in a wave of conquest, subjugation and occupation, overrun many lands including, in 638 CE, the Land of Israel, ruled by the Persians who had conquered it in 614 CE from the Byzantine Empire, the continuation of the Roman Empire that had conquered Judea in 135 CE and altering its name to Palestina? What is a narrative, what is propaganda and what is the historical truth?

Having long abandoned anti-Zionism, Isaac Deutscher admitted in 1954 that that anti-Zionism “was based on a confidence in the European labour movement, or, more broadly, a confidence in European society and civilisation which that society and civilisation have not justified.” Does there exist among too many contemporary Jewish progressives a similar presumption of over-confidence? Or does their psychological and ideological opposition to the concept of Jewish national identity overcome rational incisiveness to what is actually occurring around them?

The more, it would appear, Israel strengthens its position including diplomatic successes with Arab Islamic states, significant economic advances and major contributions to the rest of the world in the fields of science, health, agriculture, engineering and the like, the more the verbal abuse increases. Bristol University professor David Miller raged, “It's not enough to say Zionism is racism, Israel is a settler colonial society...The aim of this is…to end Zionism as a functioning ideology of the word.” Jews, who have long suffered from racist ideologies of Aryan and White supremacism, have now been turned into people who benefit from a ‘white privilege’ while the majority of Israel’s population is basically brown and black and Israelis are out-and-out “white supremacists”. Furthermore, university students are being told “Zionism isn’t about self-determination, it’s about Jewish supremacy” and that “white supremacy [equates] with Jewish supremacy.” This is not solely verbal abuse but incitement to violence. It is the new form of the oldest hate, now practiced by so-called progressive leftists.

Israel is not a state à condition que. It is a state, as the 50-member League of Nations decided in 1922, that once existed and need be reconstituted, based on the historical connection of the Jewish people with the territory of their national home. Two fundamental rights were recognized for the Jews in their Land of Israel: the facilitation of Jewish immigration and the encouragement of “close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands”. For sure, the rights and position of other sections of the population should not be prejudiced but those rights of the existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine were defined as “civil and religious”, not national nor political. Simply, Israel is.

No longer can there be suppression of discussion. No longer improper application of academic terminology. No longer ignoring the problems with the rival people claiming a more supreme right to the territory on the eastern shore of the Mediterranean Sea. The debate over Zionism and the activities intended to oppose Israel as the Zionist state, the result of a 3,000-year old national identity legacy of the Jewish people, has evolved into a violent one, whether on campus or at work places. It does not solely target “Zionists” but seeks to highlight Jews as Jews, which, incidentally, proves, if backhandedly, that Zionism is indeed authentic Judaism.

Yisrael Medad is Research Fellow at the Menachem Begin Heritage Center in Jerusalem, resides in Shiloh and comments on political, cultural and media affairs.

But the response was:

Hi Yisrael

Thanks for a look at this submission. I'm afraid I will have to decline it as we already have a piece assigned and in the pipeline about Hebron and the related political, territorial, and archaeological disputes, and this would clash too much with that. I hope you are able to find the right platform for your piece.

Best wishes,

Matt

All I could do is respond:

Editorial discretion is a wonderful tool.

I look forward to see how much I clash.

Yisrael

And the article that did eventually appear in the issue of March 19 is

A Day in the Life of Abed Salama

Nathan Thrall

One man’s quest to find his son lays bare the reality of Palestinian life under Israeli rule.

^