You are here

Middle East

J Street: From Blocking Back to Quarterback?

Daled Amos - Mon, 12/11/2018 - 16:02
"Our No. 1 agenda item is to do whatever we can in Congress to act as the president’s blocking back."
J Street co-founder Jeremy Ben-Ami, "The New Israel Lobby," September 9, 2009

And in order to do whatever they could in Congress to support Obama, J Street took -- and continues to take -- a different approach than AIPAC.

AIPAC supports the policy of whoever is elected to lead Israel. In order to do that, AIPAC backs the idea of bipartisan support:
AIPAC is not a political action committee (PAC) and we do not rate or endorse candidates for elected or appointed office. AIPAC members in all 50 states are encouraged to be politically active and develop relationships with their members of Congress to help educate them about the importance of U.S.-Israel ties.J Street is different on both counts:

o J Street does not support the policy of Israel's elected leaders. Instead, they follow their own agenda
o J Street has their own Political Action Committee, supporting only Democrats - Democrats who support the "two-state" solution:
JStreetPAC was established in 2008 as the first-ever federal political action committee (PAC) to explicitly promote American leadership to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.Also, as part of their agenda, J Street has deliberately discarded the idea of bipartisan support for Israel in favor of support for their agenda, by supporting only Democrats in Congressional elections.

The one-sided approached has, of course, resulted in some lopsided endorsements.

For example, there is Rashida Tlaib, whom J Street endorsed despite the fact that Rashida Tlaib
o supported Palestinian terrorist Rasmea Odeh
o supported Islamic Relief, which has links to the Muslim Brotherhood.
o criticized California’s Kamala Harris for discussing cooperation between California and Israel on water management, agriculture, and cyber security
o accused Harris of “racism” for meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
o retweeted a post from Linda Sarsour supporting Ahed Tamimi, who was jailed for incitement and assaulting an IDF soldier -- and upon release voiced support for suicide bombing.Rashida Tlaib. Public Domain

J Street did end up withdrawing their support for Tlaib.

Why?

Not because of her anti-Israel views or support for terrorists.

In their statement about withdrawing support for Tlaib, entitled "J Street Will Not Endorse Candidates Who Do Not Endorse a Two-State Solution," J Street makes clear what their priorities are:
While we have long championed the value of a wide range of voices in discussion of the conflict and related issues, we cannot endorse candidates who conclude that they can no longer publicly express unequivocal support for a two-state solution and other core principles to which our organization is dedicated.The statement then continues:
Rashida Tlaib’s election as the first Palestinian-American woman Member of Congress will be a historic milestone for the Palestinian-American community and for the United States as a whole. We strongly support and are encouraged by her commitment to social justice, and we are inspired by her determination to bring the voice of underrepresented communities to Capitol Hill. We wish her and her campaign well, and we look forward to a close working relationship with her and her office when she takes her seat in Congress next year.Other questionable Democrats that J Street has supported include Representative Mark Pocan, who last year anonymously reserved official Capitol Hill space for an anti-Israel forum organized by organizations that support boycotts and Representative Hank Johnson, who referred to Israelis living in Judea and Samaria as 'termites'

But at least they supported J Street's two-state solution!

In last weeks midterm elections, the Democrats regained control of the House, helped in part by the $5 million dollars that J Street used for Democratic candidates.

And what was J Street's reaction?

J Street president Jeremy "blocking back" Ben-Ami wrote an email to supporters that:
"After last night's victories, we can finally begin to retake the reins of America's foreign policy and make gains in our fight for a better future for Israelis and Palestinians."Jeremy Ben Ami. From YouTube Video

That's one statement you will not hear from AIPAC.

But this is the same J Street that
o despite their repeated denials to the contrary, in 2008 and 2009 received funding from George Soros,  o in 2009, claimed it "refuses to embrace" the Goldstone Report, which criticized Israel on its conduct during Operation Cast Lead. Yet when a resolution was sponsored in Congress condemning the report, and Goldstone circulated a document defending it, the source of the report was traced back to Mort Halperin of the J Street advisory council. In fact, J Street went so far as to facilitate visits for Goldstone to the Hill o already in 2009, had connections with NIAC, a pro-Iranian advocacy group that would become instrumental in pushing the Iran deal -- which J Street still supports. o brought "Breaking the Silence" to speak at Princeton University during Yom HaZikaron and Yom Haatzmaut.And now J Street blatantly tells its supporters that their goal is to control foreign policy?

J Street is not pro-Israel.
J Street is not pro-Peace.

J Street is just pro-J Street.

-----
If you found this post interesting or informative, please it below. Thanks!
Categories: Middle East

"Tablet" Listed 8 Antisemitic Candidates. What Does Their Performance in the Midterm Elections Suggest About Antisemitism in the US?

Daled Amos - Fri, 09/11/2018 - 15:26
One of the issues in Tuesday's midterm elections was the prominence of Democratic candidates who are anti-Israel, thus raising with it the question of Antisemitism. That latter issue was all the more prominent following the massacre of 11 Jews in Pittsburgh.

Perhaps with that in mind, Tablet Magazine concentrated on 8 candidates a week before the election in an article analyzing "eight candidates who have expressed blatantly anti-Semitic views, or who openly associate with anti-Semites." Tablet focuses on 4 Republicans and 4 Democrats and followed up with a second post, reviewing how the 8 candidates faired.

Here are the candidates that Tablet selected:


John Fitzgerald
Republican, California's 11th Congressional District

Fitzgerald made the list because he is a Holocaust Denier:
“Everything we've been told about the Holocaust is a lie,” John Fitzgerald told the Hitler-glorifying radio host Andrew Carrington Hitchcock. “My entire campaign, for the most part, is about exposing this lie.”

Arthur Jones
Republican, Illinois' 3rd Congressional District

Jones was put on the list for the same reason:
A frequent speaker at KKK and Aryan Nation events, Jones isn't as layered and intricate as the other candidates on this list: He's a neo-Nazi who openly celebrates Adolf Hitler, denies the Holocaust, and disapproves of Donald Trump because of the Jewish members of his family.

Rep. Danny K. Davis
Democrat, Illinois' 7th Congressional District

David is one of the 8 because he is a vocal supporter of Farrakhan
“I personally know [Louis Farrakhan], I've been to his home, done meetings, participated in events with him,” Democratic Rep. Danny Davis told The Daily Caller's Peter Hasson. “I don't regard Louis Farrakhan as an aberration or anything, I regard him as an outstanding human being who commands a following of individuals who are learned and articulate and he plays a big role in the lives of thousands and thousands and thousands and thousands of people.”

...Under pressure from J Street and other progressive organizations, Davis condemned Farrakhan. But it was forced and disingenuous—not least of all because he has in fact been defending Farrakhan and his acolytes since he was an alderman in Chicago

Rep. Andre Carson
Democrat, Indiana's 7th Congressional District

Carson is another supporter of Farrakhan:
Carson is reported to have attended multiple meetings with Farrakhan and has met with the Nation of Islam hate-group leader while in Congress. He also joined New York Rep. Gregory Meeks and current deputy Democratic National Committee chair Rep. Keith Ellison, then a congressman from Minnesota, at a 2013 dinner hosted by Iranian President Hassan Rouhani. Farrakhan was also present at that dinner. Carson also joined Ellison in visiting Farrakhan at his hotel room, Farrakhan said in December 2016, and he appears to look forward to continuing his visits.

Rep. Steve King
Republican, Iowa's 4th Congressional District

Tablet links King's racism to his support for the mayor of Toronto:
His bigotry knows no borders, as evidenced by his endorsement of a virulent anti-Semite named Faith Goldy for mayor of Toronto...
In an April interview, she recommended For My Legionaries, a book by a Romanian fascist that repeatedly assails the alleged “parasitism of the Jews” and calls to combat “the Jewish menace.”

Lena Epstein
Republican, Michigan's 11th Congressional District

Epstein's claim to the list lies not on what she said, but on what she did in addressing the massacre of Jews in Pittsburgh:
It was Lena Epstein who chose to invite a non-Jewish “messianic” rabbi to her campaign event outside Detroit on Monday to pray for the victims of Saturday's massacre in Pittsburgh. She has since doubled down on defending that decision.

Ilhan Omar
Democrat, Minnesota's 5th Congressional District

While referencing Omar's comments about Israel, Tablet focuses on her tweet from 2012:
As a Minnesota state representative, Ilhan Omar was a fierce and consistent critic of Israel as well as an enthusiastic advocate of restoring America's diplomatic ties with Iran. Neither of these positions is inherently anti-Semitic, and Omar enjoys the support of leading Democrats, including Sen. Chuck Schumer.

But in May, a conservative political writer from Minnesota resurfaced a noxious 2012 tweet of Omar's:
The language here is of vital importance since the idea that Jews, or Jewish entities, control the world via mystical, dark powers is a staple of anti-Semitic conspiracy thought, as illustrated by these bigoted cartoons from different anti-Jewish sources in the last century:

...But, again, narrowly political positions about how to address the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians—including Tlaib's—are not inherently anti-Semitic. But it is textbook anti-Semitism to attribute supernatural—and thus unseen, and consequently terrifying—powers to Jews or the Jewish state.

Leslie Cockburn
Democrat, Virginia's 5th Congressional District

Cockburn is on the list because of her husband, an anti-Israel conspiracy theorist, whose book she co-authored:
Leslie Cockburn is the co-author, with her husband, the notorious Israel-hating British conspiracy theorist Andrew Cockburn, of Dangerous Liaison: The Inside Story of the U.S.-Israeli Covert Relationship.The book accuses Jews of global power and influence, involved in everything evil that occurs in the world.


Bottom line we have:

2 Holocaust Deniers
2 Farrakhan Supporters
1 White Supremacist
1 Supporter of a Messianic Jew
1 Anti-Israel Muslim
1 Conspiracy Theorist

How do you think each of them did?

Keep in mind that the selection of 8 candidates is itself a small pool and Tablet does not claim their list is exhaustive. Clearly, they wanted to show fairness and selected an equal number of Republicans and Democrats.

Also, one can question who was included in -- and excluded from -- the list.

For example, while the Republican party withdrew its support from Steve King in October, his racism seems more obvious than his Antisemitism. It is odd they can only prove his Antisemitism from his association with Goldy, who forms the bulk of Tablet's proof of his Antisemitism, and not from his own consistent statements. But a racist is a racist.

Lena Epstein seems an odd choice among Holocaust Deniers and Farrakhan Supporters. The title of the Tablet article is "Citizens Must Know if Their Political Candidates Hold Hateful Views," and adding Epstein to the list seems a bit of a stretch.

Tablet does add Ilhan Omar, who belongs on the list based on her tweet. They are careful to make the point that not all anti-Israel criticism is automatically Antisemitism - and of course, they are right. But it is a fine line, all the more so when they refer to the controversial Rashida Tlaib as an example of someone who is anti-Israel but not Antisemitic. Many will argue on applying that distinction to Tlaib.

Let's get to the election results.

Trying to tie how each did in the election with their Antisemitism obviously requires a good deal of generalizing. We are not taking into account important factors such as their party, the state they campaigned in and obviously who their opponent was.

But maybe we can still tease out some patterns.


NamePartyForm of AntisemitismWon/LostJohn FitzgeraldRepublicanHolocaust DenierLostArthur JonesRepublicanHolocaust DenierLostDanny K. DavisDemocratFarrakhan SupporterWonAndre CarsonDemocratFarrakhan SupporterWonSteve KingRepublicanWhite SupremacistWonLena EpsteinRepublicanGave Platform to Messianic JewLostIlhan OmarDemocratAnti-Israel MuslimWonLeslie CockburnDemocratConspiracy TheoristLost

Some conclusions we can draw:
Holocaust Denial is still not fashionable. o  Farrakhan is still made of Teflon, and no matter how vicious his Antisemitic statements get, both he and those who praise and associate with him are immune from the consequences. o  Being a White Supremacist may rankle, but apparently, if racist statements are not constant enough to make a negative impression, and they are made in the context of policy and politics - it is possible to get away with it.o  I doubt that Epstein's misstep was responsible for her loss - it was perceived more as a careless mistake and not as an actual attack or statement. Besides, people were more eager to blame Pence. o  An Arab making anti-Israel statements gets a certain degree of Proteksia. People will bend over backward defending her right to attack Israel. o  Finally, a conspiracy theorist is still a conspiracy theorist. It may not have hurt her that much in the election, but it did not help.One thing seems clear.

We can see what kind of politics are not trending.
But we can also see what politicians can get away with.




-----
If you found this post interesting or informative, please it below. Thanks!
Categories: Middle East

When 11 Jews Are Murdered In Their Synagogue - Jews Blame Other Jews?

Daled Amos - Mon, 29/10/2018 - 17:12
If you’re blaming one person, one party, one movement for anti-Semitism, you really don’t understand the problem.
Jonathan Schanzer, Twitter

This past Shabbos a vicious Antisemite entered the Tree of Life Synagogue - where he shot and killed 11 Jews.

Tree of Life Synagogue, Pittsburgh. From their website
At issue is the spread of rabid Antisemitism, not only globally...


but now in the US
The attack on a Pittsburgh synagogue Saturday morning is the worst on worshiping Jewish people in American history, according to a Cincinnati professor and director of the American Jewish Archives.


"This is the first time in all American history that Jewish people apparently have been murdered while worshiping," said Gary Zola, who also teaches the American Jewish experience at the Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion in Cincinnati [emphasis added].The ADL has also described the "Pittsburgh shooting likely deadliest anti-Semitic attack in US history"

according to Joel Rubinfeld, president of the Belgian League Against Anti-Semitism, the deadliness of Antisemitism has now reached the level of Europe,  and he talks about the "Europeanization of American Jewry":
Relatively lax security at American synagogues “simultaneously impressed and worried me,” said Rubinfeld, who visits the United States frequently and whose community and country have seen several major deadly terrorist attacks in recent years.

“In Europe, the prospect of deadly expressions of anti-Semitism is a part of life that we grow up with,” said Rubinfeld, who was present at the Grand Synagogue of Brussels when a terrorist shot four people there on Rosh Hashanah of 1982, wounding two of them seriously and the other two lightly. “I used to think this was a fundamental difference to the United States, but no more.”

The Pittsburgh shooting “will be a turning point for American Jews, who will need to reevaluate the vulnerability of their institutions” Rubinfeld said. “I think we’ll see a Europeanization of American Jewry in this respect.”

Currently, Jewish institutions are guarded by soldiers toting machine guns in Belgium and France, among other European countries, making an attack like the one in Pittsburgh “quite difficult,” Rubinfeld said. [emphasis added]Meanwhile, in New York City...


This is a sight we are used to seeing elsewhere.

In France

French soldiers guard the entrance to a Paris synagogue. Source: Arutz Sheva. Credit: Serge Attal / Flash 90
In Denmark:

Danish soldiers replace the police guard outside the Jewish Synagogue in Copenhagen, Denmark, on September 29, 2017. Source: The National. Credit: Mads Claus Rasmussen / Denmark OUT/AFP
In Great Britain:

Protection: Thousands support calls for armed security outside Jewish buildings in the UK. Source: The Evening Standard. Credit: PA
Condemnations of the attack were not slow in coming.
Jews, of course, were among those condemning the attacks.

But just who were they condemning?

Here is just a sampling of whom some Jews held responsible for the murder of 11 Jews:

From The Forward, on the very same day:
But Trump wasn't the only target.
In that last article by Faulding, the Jews who voted for Trump also bear some responsibility.

And Batya Ungar-Sargon, the opinion editor at The Forward, goes after Israel.



Now here are some Tweets by Jews who blamed other Jews -- and some even suggested going after them:

Here is a tweet by Julia Ioffe, a correspondent for GQ:


Here is a tweet by a Rabbi Mivasair, who describes himself as "Active in peace, justice; 4 yrs in Israel-Palestine" -- in response to Naftali Bennett announcing he is traveling to Pittsburgh to show solidarity. He explicitly holdes Naftali Bennett responsible:



Here is a Tweet by Aaron David Miller, a former Middle East analyst and negotiator in both Republican and Democratic Administrations, who is normally more level-headed.


This is from Franklin Foer, a staff writer at The Atlantic, who offers a prayer for the murdered Jews -- and then suggests going after other Jews.


Rabbi Jill Jacobs, Executive Director of Truah, took the opportunity to tweet she agrees with Foer about shunning Jews who support Trump and even thanked him for the idea -- but then thought better of the idea and deleted the Tweet, with neither comment or apology.


Here is a Tweet from Rebecca Vilkomerson, Executive Director of Jewish Voice for Peace which is responsible for so much of the anti-Jewish hatred that permeates college campuses.

Regardless of her motives, even she knew better than to attack outright:

The anti-Trump rhetoric has already reached fever pitch, so naturally, it feeds on tragedies like this.

We expect it.

But when a tragedy that should lead Jews to unite instead leads Jews to turn against other Jews, that is worse than a tragedy; it is a disaster.



-----
If you found this post interesting or informative, please it below. Thanks!
Categories: Middle East

Testimony In British Parliament Proves British Had Advanced Warning of King David Hotel Bombing -- and Laughed It Off

Daled Amos - Thu, 25/10/2018 - 17:15
On Monday, July 22, 1946, the Irgun set off an explosion that destroyed part of the King David Hotel used by the British military, killing 91 people and injuring 46.

King David Hotel after the explosion. Public Domain


An article in The New York Times in 1981 reported on a reunion of some of those involved in the attack. It gives background on what led to the attack, noting that the Haganah, the Irgun and Lehi all endorsed the plan:

They were provoked by a British Army action against Jewish leaders and settlements on June 29, 1946. On that ''Black Saturday'' about 25,000 troops smashed into homes and kibbutzim, arresting 2,500 Jews and confiscating weapons.

''One search party marched into the dining hall at Givat Brenner shouting 'Heil Hitler!' Mr. Clarke wrote. ''Another party scrawled red swastikas on the walls of the settlement's classrooms. While searching the Bank Hapoalim in Tel Aviv, a British officer shouted at one of the clerks, 'What you need is the gas chamber!'''This 4-minute excerpt from the documentary "Pillar of Fire" gives more background, both on what led to the bombing of The King David Hotel and the conflicting stories on whether there was any warning given:



The attack and its severity have come to be accepted as proof that Menachem Begin and his followers were terrorists, no better than Palestinian terrorists. In 2006, historian Tom Segev went so far as to write:
The terror attack on the King David Hotel in Jerusalem was in its day the equivalent of the Twin Towers.In his rebuttal of Segev, Yisrael Medad - an unofficial spokesperson for the Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria - notices a couple of significant differences:
  • No civilian casualties were intended. 
  • No suicide mission was planned.
Specifically:
There was a telephoned warning. It was received. Flash grenades and a petard were set off. Phone calls from within the hotel from a signals officer who witnessed the shooting of a British Major were made to three separate security stations. The British troops on the roof opened fire for a few minutes on the escaping Irgun soldiers. Nothing set off alarm bells but we do have testimonies that the Brits all thought it was a bluff. [emphasis added]One of those testimonies comes from Adina Hay-Nissan, who at the time was a teenage girl with the job of calling in the warning. At the reunion, she recalled that she called up the British command that was stationed in the hotel and warned them, ''This is the Hebrew resistance uprising. We planted bombs in the hotel. Please vacate it immediately. See, we warned you.''

There is corroboration of this, delivered before the British Parliament on May 22, 1979, by Lord Greville Janner. At the time, Prime Minister Begin was visiting England and comments were being made about his responsibility for the King David Hotel attack. Lord Greville addressed Parliament about the issue:
As your Lordships know, I am against terrorism of any kind and for any purpose. But I think we must be fair. I was informed that on a radio interview Mr. Begin a few days ago explained the line that his friends took when he said that under no circumstances did they plan attacks on women, children or civilians.

I think the House is entitled to know some facts that I came across in the course of some professional inquiries I have been making in respect of what happened at the time of the King David Hotel incident. I came across them not very long ago; I am saying this with the consent both of the people who have been in touch with me and also of the doctor concerned. I want to wipe away the suggestion that no warning was given. I propose to read a letter from a Dr. Crawford in Bournemouth. I quote:
"It was very kind of you to phone me today and I sat down at once to write to you". I met Dr. Crawford at another venture of Israel which is well known to many people—the Magem [sic] David, which is the Shield of David Ambulance and Health Services. I happened to meet him at a conference held in Bournemouth. Casually he told me that he knew something about this.

He says in his letter:
Further to our recent conversation in Bournemouth, I am writing to confirm that the officer"— he spoke about an officer whose name, I am sure, is known to those who were in Palestine— who wrote to me in 1946 concerning the King David Hotel 'incident' was Major-General Dudley Sheridan Skelton, CB, DSO, FRCS, formerly DGMS in India, Hon Physician to HM The King and to HE the Viceroy of India. He retired from the forces about 1937"— I think that it is of great importance that this attack should be properly and effectively met— when he was given the rank of Brigadier and was ADMS in the SE Command. It was in this area that I met him in the course of my duties as Assistant Medical Director of the Emergency Medical Services Hospital at Preston Hall Sanatorium, Maidstone, and I worked with him until my transfer to Bournemouth as Medical Superintendent of Douglas House Sanatorium in 1943, but we remained in contact with each other for some years. In 1946, he was head of a hospital in Palestine near Jerusalem and was a frequent visitor to the King David Hotel; apparently he was there on the very day of the explosion and he wrote me that 'a warning' was passed on to the officers in the bar in rather jocular terms, implying it was 'Jewish terrorist bluff'. But despite advice to 'ignore the bluff' he decided to leave and thus was out of the hotel when the explosion took place. I kept his letter for many years, but unfortunately, after the death of my wife in 1970 and my own severe illness in 1971, I sold my house and went into a flat and because of limited space I unwisely threw away a lot of my accumulated papers and correspondence, so the letter is no longer available; and Brigadier Skelton has long since died. I hope these facts will be of some help to you. Many of my friends knew this story at the time but few have survived; my sister-in-law will remember it clearly as she was friendly with the Brigadier and lived with us at the time. If you think it worth-while, I could contact her" [emphasis added]— I did ask him to contact her and she wrote a letter confirming what Dr. Crawford said.

As your Lordships are well aware, I do not approve of terrorists of any kind. The Prime Minister of Israel explained a few days ago what happened and I hope that the letter I have read out now will, in all fairness, answer the accusation that has been made about this incident. I am very grateful for the attention the House has given me...Lord Janner of Braunstone. Source: GibnewsIn his book "Palestine Investigated: The Criminal Investigation Department of the Palestine Police Force, 1920-1948," Eldad Harouvi writes that Chief Secretary John Shaw, who claims in the video above that there was no warning, was blamed by some for the casualties:
In his book, Harouvi reveals some interesting facts: First, the CID had intelligence showing the Hotel as a possible target for attack by the Irgun in December 1945 – 6 months prior to the attack. The CID asked to raise security in the hotel, including putting armed soldiers at the 'Regence' restaurant at the entrance of the hotel. The Chief Secretary refused to consider these suggestions, with the justification that there were not many places for recreation and fun in Palestine, and he did not want to foreclose another. He continued to refuse to take action (or even to pass on the information to the High Commissioner of Palestine) when the CID approached him again with newer information on the attack plan (the CID had the plan of attack, but did not know exactly when it would be carried out). Second, another fact that is not common knowledge is that the Irgun carried out a diversion bombing minutes after the bombs were planted in the King David Hotel, in which a wagon with explosives was blown outside shops next to the hotel. The CID's assessment was that this second bombing (which broke windows, but did not hurt anyone) was intended to cause panic and encourage evacuation of the building. One of the CID officers Harouvi interviewed for his book flatly blames Shaw for the death of so many, since he could have evacuated the building on time (pages 293-297).


This photo, described by Wikimedia Commons as "the explosion of a second bomb at the King David Hotel in Jerusalem," could be a photo of the first bomb that served as the diversion.

There were claims that Shaw not only knew about the warning but deliberately refused to act on it. Nothing was ever proved. In 1948 both a newspaper and a book repeated the accusation -- and in both cases were forced to retract and apologized because of lack of proof. Begin repeated the accusation in his book "The Revolt," but Shaw did not sue him on the advice of lawyers that since Begin did not refer to him by name but instead to a "high official" there was not enough basis for a claim of personal defamation.

Here is a letter to The Jerusalem Post, indicating that warning was given, while also supporting Shaw's claim that there was never any warning. [Hat tip: Yisrael Medad]



Yet years later, neither the letter that Lord Janner read, back in 1979, nor the other facts about the advance warning and possible negligence by the British themselves have made a dent in the efforts of those who want to tar Menachem Begin as a terrorist on a par with the Palestinian terrorists who target unarmed men, women and children.

Note that The New York Times at the time also reported the warning [Hat tip: Charlie in NY; DG].

...
What appears to have once been established fact has long gone down the memory hole.

-----
If you found this post interesting or informative, please it below. Thanks!
Categories: Middle East

Whether Testing For Either Indian or Khazar Lineage - Accept No Substitutes!

Daled Amos - Mon, 22/10/2018 - 20:00
Elizabeth Warren has come under fire -- again -- for her contested claim to being descended from Indians. Donald Trump, in particular, has hammered away at this claim, and in response Warren had herself tested.

The results of Warren's DNA test, appearing in The Boston Globe, seemed pretty impressive:

Senator Elizabeth Warren has released a DNA test that provides “strong evidence’’ she had a Native American in her family tree dating back 6 to 10 generations, an unprecedented move by one of the top possible contenders for the 2020 Democratic nomination for president.

Warren, whose claims to Native American blood have been mocked by President Trump and other Republicans, provided the test results to the Globe on Sunday in an effort to defuse questions about her ancestry that have persisted for years. She planned an elaborate rollout Monday of the results as she aimed for widespread attention.

The analysis of Warren’s DNA was done by Carlos D. Bustamante, a Stanford University professor and expert in the field who won a 2010 MacArthur fellowship, also known as a genius grant, for his work on tracking population migration via DNA analysis.

He concluded that “the vast majority” of Warren’s ancestry is European, but he added that “the results strongly support the existence of an unadmixed Native American ancestor.”
Senator Elizabeth Warren. Public Domain.
Credit: Wikipedia

So far, so good.

Almost.


Later, the article admits
The inherent imprecision of the six-page DNA analysis could provide fodder for Warren’s critics. If her great-great-great-grandmother was Native American, that puts her at 1/32nd American Indian. But the report includes the possibility that she’s just 1/512th Native American if the ancestor is 10 generations back.The number 1/1024 has also been bandied about.

This dilution of Warren's possible Indian ancestry gave rise to the following response on Twitter:


But there is another problem with Elizabeth Warren's DNA test:
According to a report by the Boston Globe, there is no Native American DNA available for genetic testing “because Native American leaders have asked tribal members not to participate in genetic databases.” (RELATED: Boston Globe Issues Major Correction On Liz Warren’s Ancestry Claims)

Therefore, in order to test for Native American ancestry, genetic researchers have to use samples from other parts of the world.

Carlos D. Bustamante, a Stanford University professor, used samples from Mexico, Peru, and Colombia to attempt to calculate how much Native American ancestry is in Warren’s DNA.

“To make up for the dearth of Native American DNA, Bustamante used samples from Mexico, Peru, and Colombia to stand in for Native American. That’s because scientists believe that the groups Americans refer to as Native American came to this land via the Bering Strait about 12,000 years ago and settled in what’s now America but also migrated further south,” the Boston Globe explained. [emphasis added]
That lack of Native DNA did not stop Bustamante.
Lack of proof does not stop those who claim Ashkenazic Jews are descended from the Khazars either.

There is a Christian Conference that is attacking Israel -- and Jews:



For example:




And also this:


Shlomo Sand, an historian with no background in genetics, is not alone in making this claim.

Eran Elhaik, described by Wikipedia as "an Israeli-American geneticist and bioinformatician [who] uses computational, statistical, epidemiological and mathematical approaches to fields such as complex disorders, population genetics, personalised medicine, molecular evolution, genomics, paleogenomics and epigenetics" has also come out in favor of the Khazar theory.

And he claims to have proof.

In 2013, he wrote, “The Missing Link of Jewish European Ancestry: Contrasting the Rhineland and the Khazarian Hypotheses” -- basing his proof on the comparison of genomes.

Somewhat similar to Warren's DNA test.

But this is where Elhaik's proof gets "Bustamanted" -- by historian Shaul Stampfer in a review of Elhaik's article:
...The trouble with obtaining Khazar DNA is that no population group today is recognized to have descended from the Khazars. Elhaik acknowledges this difficulty and deals with it efficiently. According to him, “Caucasus Georgians and Armenians were considered proto-Khazars because they are believed to have emerged from the same genetic cohort as the Khazars.”...Moreover, elsewhere in the article Elhaik himself refers to a study by Balanovsky et al., but fails to mention that it concludes that of all the national groups in the Black Sea region, the Georgians and Armenians were the least likely to have absorbed significant populations from other national groups. In other words, while there was DNA from eight Ashkenazi males in Elhaik’s study, there was no Khazar DNA at all. This makes it a bit difficult to come to significant conclusions about the Khazarian ancestry of Ashkenazi Jews. [emphasis added]Just how prevalent is this kind of sloppiness in academia?

Elder of Ziyon has recently been posting debunkings of academic journals which feature this kind of slipshod research and hypothesizing.

Unfortunately, it is nothing new.


-----
If you found this post interesting or informative, please it below. Thanks!
Categories: Middle East

Why Jews Are Indigenous To Palestine -- And Arabs Are Not

Daled Amos - Thu, 18/10/2018 - 16:05
When people argue about Israel, various words get tossed around. People will talk about "occupation," "disproportionate force" and "apartheid" -- words that have real-world meanings that tend to get lost.

Another word that is increasingly misused is "indigenous."

Here is Ariel Gold of Code Pink, tweeting last month:


Not only does she not apply the word "indigenous" to Jews, but according to her - it is the Arabs who are indigenous to Palestine.

Is she right?



Well, if you ask Saeb Erekat, the chief Palestinian negotiator, he will tell you he is "the proud son of the Canaanites," with a history in Jericho going back some 10,000 years. (hat tip Elder of Ziyon)

Saeb Erekat. Credit British Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
Source: Wikipedia

But let's be serious.

In 1946, the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry was assembled to examine the political, economic and social conditions in then-Palestine in order to make recommendations on the issue of Jewish immigration and settlement. The committee consulted representatives of both the Arabs and the Jews.

In Chapter VI of their report, the committee presented the Arab side:
Stripped to the bare essentials, the Arab case is based upon the fact that Palestine is a country which the Arabs have occupied for more than a thousand years, and a denial of the Jewish historical claims to Palestine. [emphasis added]Those were the good old days -- when the Arabs were satisfied just to deny the Jewish ties to the land, without feeling the need to exaggerate their own.

Basically, there are 3 ways that the Arabs could have found their way from Arabia to Judea:
  • Invasion, followed by occupation and settling the land
  • Conversion of Jews to Islam (which we have already discussed)
  • Immigration due to economic problems where they lived and/or economic opportunity in Palestine
But just how many Arabs living in Israel today are descended from the original Arab invaders from the 7th century?

In their article, Whose Palestine? -- a review of Joan Peters book 'From Time Immemorial' -- Erich Isaac and Rael Jean Isaac note:
But not only are the Palestinian Arabs not descendants of Canaanites, it is highly doubtful that more than a very few are even descended from those who settled the country as part of the Arab invasion of the 7th century. For over a thousand years following the Arab conquest, Palestine underwent a series of devastating invasions, followed by massacres of the existing population: Seljuk Turks and Fatimid reconquerors were followed by Crusaders who were followed by waves of Mongol tribes who were followed in turn by Tartars, Mamelukes, Turks, and incessant Bedouin raiders.They explain further that while various invasions cut down on the number of Arabs descended from those who originally invaded the land, the foreign Arabs who immigrated from abroad during the 18th and 19th centuries, further diluted the original Arab invader population:
  • Egyptians arrived in a number of waves, especially from 1832 to 1840.
  • Sudanese successfully pioneered in the swampy marshlands.
  • Tribes of Bedouin came from as far away as Libya to settle on the coastal plain.
  • Lebanese Christians resettled abandoned villages in the Galilee
  • Armenians, Syrians, and Turks settled in the coastal towns
  • French expansion in North Africa resulted in waves of refugees immigrating to Palestine
  • Many of the followers of the Algerian resistance leader Abd el Kader founded villages in the Galilee
  • Russian expansion into the Caucasus led to the emigration of many of its Muslim peoples (Circassians and Georgians) to Palestine
  • Austrian advance into the Balkans led to the emigration of Bosnian Muslims to Palestine.
  • Turkomans from Russian Central Asia and Kurds also immigrated
By 1931, instead of an Arab population that could trace itself to the 7th century (let alone thousands of years) a census of Palestine listing the birthplaces of the inhabitants of Jerusalem included in addition to Palestine itself: Syria Transjordan, Cyprus, Egypt, Iraq, Yemen, Persia, Turkey, Algeria, Moroco, Trioli, Tunis, Albania, France, Greece, Spain, Great Britain, the USSR, the US, Central and South America and Australia. [See "From Time Immemorial," p.227, quoting Census of Palestine-1931, vol I, Palestine; Part I]

Daniel Pipes quotes from 11the edition of The Encyclopedia Britannica, (1910-1911). The entry on 'Palestine' was written by the Irish archeologist Robert Alexander Stewart Macalister, who also notes that the population of Palestine at the time was anything but homogeneous:
The inhabitants of Palestine are composed of a large number of elements, differing widely in ethnological affinities, language and religion. It may be interesting to mention, as an illustration of their hetereogeneousness, that early in the 20th century a list of no less than 50 languages, spoken in Jerusalem as vernaculars, was there drawn up by a party of men whose various official positions enabled them to possess accurate information on the subject.Macalister describes the towns:
In each there is primarily a large Arab element...There are very large contingents from the Mediterranean countries, especially Armenia, Greece and Italy, principally engaged in trade. The extraordinary development of Jewish colonization has since 1870 effected a revolution in the balance of population in some parts of the country, notably in Jerusalem.Pipes summarizes the article:
This overview of Palestine mentions in no less than 20 foreign ethnicities other than the native fellahin (farmers) and the Jews: Assyrian, Persian, Roman, Arabian, Crusader, Nawar, Arabian, Turkic, Armenian, Greek, Italian, Turkoman, Motawila, Kurd, German, Bosnian, Circassian, Sudanese, Algerian, and Samaritan.In her article Were the Arabs Indigenous to Mandatory Palestine?, Sheree Roth points out the book 'The Rape of Palestine', written by William B. Ziff -- the co-founder of the Ziff-Davis Publishing Company. Published in 1938, Ziff's book notes that the hodgepodge of immigrants in Palestine consisted not only of those fleeing from somewhere or running to Palestine. Sometimes they were imported:
It was always the foreign soldier who was the police power in Palestine. The Tulunides brought in Turks and Negroes. The Fatamids introduced Berbers, Slavs, Greeks, Kurds, and mercenaries of all kinds. The Mamelukes imported legions of Georgians and Circassians. Each monarch for his personal safety relied on great levies of slave warriors. Saladin, hard-pressed by the Crusaders, received one hundred and fifty thousand Persians who were given lands in Galilee and the Sidon district for their services.

Out of this human patch-work of Jews, Arabs, Armenians, Kalmucks, Persians, Crusaders, Tartars, Indians, Ethiopians, Egyptians, Sudanese, Turks, Mongols, Romans, Kharmazians, Greeks, pilgrims, wanderers, ne'er-do-wells and adventurers, invaders, slaves...was formed that hodge-podge of blood and mentality we call today "Levantine."...Ziff fleshes out the list of immigrants mentioned by Isaac and gives some numbers:
In the fourteenth century, drought caused the immigration into Palestine of eighteen thousand "tents" of Yurate Tartars from the Euphrates. Soon followed twenty thousand Ashiri under Gaza, and four thousand Mongols under Moulai, who occupied the Jordan Valley and settled from Jerusalem south. Kaisaite and Yemenite tribes followed in their trail... In 1830 the Albanian conqueror Mehemet [Muhammad] Ali colonized Jaffa, Nablus, and Beisan with Egyptian soldiers and their Sudanese allies. Fourteen years later, Lynch estimated the thirteen thousand inhabitants of Jaffa to be composed of eight thousand Turco-Egyptians, four thousand Greeks and Armenians, and one thousand Jews and Maronites. He did not consider that there were any Arabs at all in that city.

One hundred years ago, [Jaffa] had a population of four thousand. Today it holds seventy thousand, overwhelmingly Arab, who are largely descendants of the Egyptians and Ethiopians brought in by the conqueror Ibrahim Pasha [Muhammad Ali's son]. The few thousand Jews who lived here fled during the 1936 riots, abandoning their shops and property.There are many ways to describe this Arab population -- but indigenous clearly is not one of them.

More importantly, considering the ongoing influx of all those different nationalities and ethnicities, Arab and otherwise, Jewish immigration whether in the 20th century, the 19th century and even earlier is certainly no less valid.

That is even truer considering the indigenous ties Jews have to the land.

According to the UNHCR Resettlement Handbook (2011):
Indigenous groups are descendants of the peoples who inhabited land or territory prior to colonization or the establishment of state borders. They often have strong attachment to their ancestral lands and natural resources, an attribute that can distinguish them from other minority groups. They may also have distinct social. economic and political systems, languages cultures and beliefs. Their right to self-determination has frequently been impeded by subsequent migration of other ethnic groups into the territory where they reside. (p. 201)There has been a continuous Jewish presence in Palestine. The Jews of Israel today are ultimately descendants of the Jews who lived on the land long before the Arab occupation of Palestine in the 7th century. The strong attachment of Jews to their ancestral lands is well established in terms of their distinct history, culture, sacred places, language and literature. And yes, this right to self-determination was frequently impeded: most recently by the invasion and migration of the Arabs -- and by the Palestinian Arabs today.

In contrast, Palestinian Arab history, culture, sacred places, language and literature are ultimately tied, as is true of all Arabs, to Arabia.

Along those lines, note that in 2007, the United Nations General Assembly passed the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples:
Article 11
1. Indigenous peoples have the right to practise and revitalize their cultural traditions and customs. This includes the right to maintain, protect and develop the
past, present and future manifestations of their cultures, such as archaeological and historical sites, artefacts, designs, ceremonies, technologies and visual and
performing arts and literature.

Article 31
1. Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain, control, protect and develop their cultural heritage, traditional knowledge and traditional cultural expressions, as well as the manifestations of their sciences, technologies and cultures, including human and genetic resources, seeds, medicines, knowledge of the properties of fauna and flora, oral traditions, literatures, designs, sports and traditional games and visual and performing arts. They also have the right to maintain, control, protect and develop their intellectual property over such cultural heritage, traditional knowledge, and traditional cultural expressions.By all rights, this declaration should apply in full to Israel's indigenous rights.

Instead, we have seen the UN violate its own declaration, for example through UNESCO attempting to usurp the indigenous Jewish ties to Hebron and Jerusalem and the indigenous Jewish connection and right to the Temple Mount.

When the UN decides to get serious about indigenous rights, they should let Israel know.



-----
If you found this post interesting or informative, please it below. Thanks!
Categories: Middle East

Hebron - The Land of the Hebrews

Daled Amos - Tue, 16/10/2018 - 22:38
ArtScroll is not generally considered to be a Zionist publisher.

They are known for their English translations of Jewish classic texts into English.
Their editions of siddurim are used all over.
The ArtScroll edition of the Talmud is indispensable.

But while their love of the people of Israel and the Land of Israel is clear, no one would consider ArtScroll to be in the forefront of Israel hasbarah.

So it is striking how their Stone edition of the Chumash handles the verse in Genesis 40:15.
After Joseph explains to Pharaoh's butler the meaning of his dream and asks the butler to mention him to Pharaoh, Joseph says:
For indeed I was stolen away out of the land of the Hebrews: and here also have I done nothing that they should put me into the dungeon. [King James Version]The ArtScroll Chumash explains what "land of the Hebrews" Joseph is referring to and why:


Not only is Joseph a "Hebrew" -- more than that, quoting the Ramban, Joseph comes from a territory, Hebron, where his family and his forefathers have lived for generations and to which Jews were closely associated. Hebron was not recognized by the Canaanites as a separate country, but it was their land where the Hebrews settled and lived all those millenia ago.

Maarat HaMachpelah, Cave of the Patriarchs. Public Domain. Source: Wikipedia

And generations later, the Jews will leave Egypt and return to reconquer that land to which they have that indigenous connection.

Going a step further, the explanation of the ArtScroll Chumash is echoed by S. D. Goitein in his book Jews and Arabs. Goitein, an ethnographer, historian and Arabist, notes the Jewish presence in Bethel, Hebron and Beersheba and writes:
Israel's sojourn in the desert is described everywhere in the Bible as a short interval between prolonged residence in Egypt and the conquest (or reconquest) of Canaan... (p. 26. Parentheses are Goitein's; emphasis added)The Jews were not just leaving Egypt to come to a promised land, but returning to a land where they already had roots.

Goitein examines the roots of the Jewish tie to the land and traces the basic migration based on the Book of Genesis. Abraham is described not only as the father of Yitzchak and Yishmael but also of Midian and others who were sent eastward while Abraham migrated with his family from Mesopotamia to Canaan -- and Hebron. Lot and Esau moved on to farmland to the east and south of Canaan, while Ishmael-tribes traveled into the Arabian Peninsula.

Goitein concludes:
We have, of course, no means whatsoever of determining the historical facts of this population movement. However, no other migrations would be compatible with the tradition preserved in the Bible; and they may well account for the astounding affinities between Israel and the Arabs, which are an indubitable fact.But Goitein was writing this in 1955.
Today there is support for the unique migration of Jews from Mesopotamia to Canaan.

In their article, The Gene Wars, discussing the genetic basis for comparing Israeli Jews with Palestinian Arabs, Diana Muir Appelbaum and Paul S. Appelbaum note a 2001 study, The Y Chromosome Pool of Jews as Part of the Genetic Landscape of the Middle East, a study that compared together:

  • Jews: Ashkenazi, Sephardic, and Kurdish
  • Arabs: Palestinian, Syrian, Jordanian, Lebanese, and Bedouin
  • Transcaucasians: Muslim Kurds, Armenians, and Turks
  • Eastern Europeans: Russians, Byelorussians, and Poles

The Muirs write that the results of the genetic testing not only echoes the movements of the Jews described in the Torah, it also points to Palestinian Arabs as relative newcomers to the land, coming from Arabia:
Although all of the Middle Eastern populations bore some similarities to each other (a fairly robust finding confirmed in other works), “Jews were found to be more closely related to groups in the north of the Fertile Crescent (Kurds, Turks, and Armenians) than to their Arab neighbors.” For some, this will evoke the biblical account of Abraham’s origins in Ur of the Chaldees, and raise the possibility that the story contains echoes of an ancient population movement. Alternatively, Jews, Kurds, Armenians, and Anatolian Turks may all carry the genetic markers of ancient indigenous populations of the Fertile Crescent, while Palestinian Arabs and Bedouin may largely descend from the Arab conquerors, with their distinctive genetic signifiers. All these hypotheses are highly tentative until confirmed or disproved by further genetic data. [emphasis added]The actual report itself also points out the commonality between Ashkenazic and Sephardic -- and Kurdish -- Jews:
It is believed that the majority of contemporary Jews descended from the ancient Israelites that had lived in the historic land of Israel until ∼2000 years ago. Many of the Jewish diaspora communities were separated from each other for hundreds of years. Therefore, some divergence due to genetic drift and/or admixture could be expected. However, although Ashkenazi Jews were found to differ slightly from Sephardic and Kurdish Jews, it is noteworthy that there is, overall, a high degree of genetic affinity among the three Jewish communities. [emphasis added]Similarly, despite genetic similarities between Jews and Palestinian Arabs, the differences support Goiteins outline of the migration:
In a report published elsewhere, we recently showed that Jews and Palestinian Arabs share a large portion of their Y chromosomes, suggesting a common ancestry (Nebel et al. 2000). Surprisingly, in the present study, Jews were found to be even closer to populations in the northern part of the Middle East than to several Arab populations...These findings are consistent with known cultural links that existed among populations in the Fertile Crescent in early history. [emphasis added]As for the Palestinian Arabs themselves -- what does the genetic testing indicate?
Palestinian Arabs and Bedouin differed from the other Middle Eastern populations studied here, mainly in specific high-frequency Eu 10 haplotypes not found in the non-Arab groups. These chromosomes might have been introduced through migrations from the Arabian Peninsula during the last two millennia. [emphasis added]Besides the genetic evidence against the claim that Palestinian Arabs are descended from Canaanites, there is the curious fact that as Erich and Jean Isaac note in "Whose Palestine?":
Ironically, the only surviving “Canaanite” culture is that of the Jews, who everywhere still pray, and in Israel also speak, in a Canaanite language.(Not to mention the history, culture, literature and religious ties that create the indigenous Jewish bond to Israel in the same way that Arab history, culture, literature and religion create their indigenous bond -- to Arabia)

As for the Arabs, they are no more indigenous to "Palestine" than they are to the other countries they invaded - as listed by Bernard Lewis in "What Went Wrong" (p.4ff):
  • Syria (then under Christendom)
  • Egypt (then under Christendom)
  • North Africa (then under Christendom)
  • Spain
  • Portugal
  • France
  • Sicily
  • Sacking Rome
  • Russia (under the Tartars)
  • Anatolia
  • Capturing Constantinople
  • Invading the Balkan peninsula
  • Reaching Vienna
  • And of course Palestine (then under Christendom)
An honest approach to addressing the conflict could start by admitting the long history of Arab colonization.

But at a time that the media cannot even admit in its headlines that Palestinian Arabs are killing Jews -- what are the chances of that happening?

-----
If you found this post interesting or informative, please it below. Thanks!
Categories: Middle East

Wow, Jeremy Corbyn Actually Believes Jews Did Not Immigrate To Then-Palestine Till 1945! Let's Take A Look

Daled Amos - Thu, 06/09/2018 - 21:05
Last week, Elder of Ziyon pointed out Jeremy Corbyn's ignorance of history:




Here is the text of what Corbyn said:
I was brought up at school being told, um, that Israel was founded on a piece of empty space, and that they managed to make the desert bloom, and they built things when there was nothing there before. Anybody that studies the history of the region would know, at the end of the Second World War – 1945 to 1948 period – Palestine had media, had industry, had education, had universities, had a relatively high standard of living for the whole region, and was a coherent society and a coherent state. It was a denigration of that which enabled Western opinion to be, um, put together in support of Israel.Corbyn claims that the infrastructure already in place around 1945 to 1948 proves that Jews contributed little to the land.

But why 1945 to 1948?


Apparently, Corbyn assumes that Jews only started immigrating to then-Palestine starting in 1945 -- as refugees from the Holocaust.

The first major wave of Jewish immigration was during Aliyah Aleph from 1882-1903, followed by Aliyah Bet from 1934-1948, which was a reaction to Nazi Germany. Even Aliyah Bet is broken down into 2 stages: 1934 to 1942, which was an effort to help Jews trying to escape Nazi persecution and genocide; 1945-1949 (the dates Corbyn references), which was an effort to find homes for Jewish survivors.

But Jewish contributions to establishing the infrastructure of Palestine date from over a century earlier.

In his book, Jerusalem: A Biography, Simon Sebag Montefiore notes in passing the condition of the land over 100 years before 1948:
There were no carriages, just covered litters. She possessed virtually no hotels or banks; visitors stayed in the the monasteries, the most comfortable being the Armenian with its elegant, airy courtyards. However in 1843, a Russian Jew named Menachem Mendel founded the first hotel, the Kaminitz, which was soon followed by the English Hotel; and in 1848 a Sephardic family, the Valeros, opened the first European bank in a room up some stairs off David Street (emphasis added) p.360.Let's take a look at these and other contributions Jews made to the Palestinian infrastructure, leading to the re-establishment of Israel.
Hotels
The Jerusalem Post has an article on Menachem Mendel Kaminitz's background:
He and his wife arrived in Haifa on the first day of Elul [in 1833] and continued on to Safed, where they joined a community of devout disciples of the Gaon of Vilna. This community was founded in 1810, two centuries ago this year [2010], and 138 years before the creation of the state of Israel.

...While in Europe [collecting funding for the Jewish community in Israel] he published what may have been the first guide book for immigrants and tourists to the Holy Land. Titled Korot Ha’Itim (Happenings of the Times), the book documents the hardships incurred by Jews living in the Holy Land, particularly during the Safed riots and the earthquake [1837]. But it also contains useful advice and many positive remarks about the country despite the hazards and the difficulties that Menachem Mendel endured. The book was published in Vilna in 1839. A Yiddish translation was published in Warsaw in 1841, for those people not sufficiently fluent in Hebrew.Banks
Jacob Valero also immigrated to Israel, over a century before the re-establishment of Israel:
He was born in 1813 in Istanbul, and his family came to pre-state Israel from Turkey. He later became a moneychanger. In 1848, along with a number of other local businessmen, Valero established the bank in a small two-room apartment in the Old City of Jerusalem, near the Jaffa Gate.

...As the bank's operations expanded, it opened two more branches in Damascus and Jaffa.

...Valero became a local hero because of his connections with the Ottoman rulers in Jerusalem and Istanbul and with the global figures who used the services of his bank. He was a noble figure on the local scene, which blossomed in the final days of the Ottoman Empire and received a number of the honors the disintegrating Ottoman government passed out to local dignitaries in regions distant from its center.Electricity
On the other hand, there is Pinhas Rutenberg, who immigrated in 1919. Rutenberg founded the Palestine Electric Company, which later became the Israel Electric Corporation. In 1921 the British gave him the electricity concessions for both Jaffa and later, Jordan. The Jaffa Electric Company, establish a grid in 1923 that eventually covered Jaffa, Tel-Aviv, the surrounding area and British military installations in Sarafend [located between Rishon LeZion and Be'er Ya'akov]. He received support from then-colonial secretary Winston Churchill.

The Palestine Electric Company Ltd in the early 1920s. Public Domain
Rutenberg also has the distinction of being the first Palestinian citizen under the British Mandate in 1925, when the British enacted a law creating Palestinian citizenship.

Air Travel
In addition, Rutenberg also founded Palestine Airways.

1934 5 seater airplane of the Palestine Airways
Note the name in Hebrew is 'Israel Airways,' similar to the coins and stamps
 during the British Mandate that included the abbreviation for Eretz Yisrael in Hebrew
1937 The airline was taken over by Britain's Air Ministry in 1937 until 1940. with the intention of it eventually being transferred back into private hands. It operated from July 1937 until August 1940. Palestine Airways stopped operating then when its aircraft were taken over by the RAF for the war effort.

Potash
While Rutenberg was granted the electricity concession, Moshe Novomeysky - with difficulty - got permission from the British to mine in the Dead Sea area. He immigrated to Israel in 1920 and developed the Palestine Potash Company, which became the Dead Sea Works. Novomeysky made a point of developing good relations with the Arabs in the area. Because of his reputation, kibbutzim he helped established were spared from the anti-Jewish riots of 1936-39.

Monument commemorating Moshe Novomeysky at Dead Sea Works.
Credit: Dr. Avishai Teicher Pikiwiki Israel
Bakery
Angel's Bakery is not the first bakery in Israel - Salomon Angel bought out Trachtenberg Bakery in Bayit VeGan when it went bankrupt in 1927:
"There was a primitive oven, to which the whole neighborhood would come to leave their pots of hamin [a slow-cooked dish for the Sabbath, know by Ashkenazim as cholent], and then argue about which pot was whose," recalled Vicky Angel, Danny's widow, as she reminisced about the first days of the Angel Bakery.Salomon Angel himself was a seventh-generation Jerusalemite, member of a Sephardi family that traces its lineage back to Jews who were expelled from Spain in 1492.

You can begin to get the idea how, according to historian Howard Sachar:
By 1930, 1,500 Jewish-operated factories and workshops were producing textiles, clothing, metal goods, lumber, chemicals, stone, and cement, with a total capital value of about PL [Palestinian Lira] 1 million.But Jewish contributions did not stop in 1930.

Radio
The Institute for Palestine Studies has an article on Radio Jerusalem which started in 1936, "only two years after the founding of the first official Arab radio station in Cairo (mid-1934) and one year before the death of the renowned Italian physicist Marconi (1937)." It was established by the British Mandate authorities and broadcast in Arab, Hebrew and English. But 4 years earlier, in 1932, the British had given a license to Mendel Abramovitch. His broadcast became known as Radio Tel Aviv and continued until April 1935, when the British revoked his license in order to prepare for the Palestine Broadcasting Service.

Hospitals
According to an article, "Bedouin Health Services in Mandated Palestine", during Ottoman rule from 1516 to 1917, the Palestinian Arabs
relied mainly on traditional medicine including herbal medicine, bone-setting cauterization, blood-letting, leeching, cupping as well as amulet writers, midwives and male religious healers.Into this background, the Rothschild Hospital was founded in 1854 in the Jewish Quarter of the Old City. When there were too many patients for the hospital to handle, a new hospital with more beds was built outside the Old City. The hospital was directed by Dr. Bernhard Neumann, a native of Warsaw who had studied in Cracow and Vienna. He had been in Jerusalem since 1847. It offered free treatment to all patients regardless of religion or nationality, and in 1918 it was taken over by Hadassah and became Israel's first Hadassah Hospital. The Rothschild Hospital was followed by two others in Jerusalem, Bikur Holim and Misgav Ladach. Another Rothschild-funded hospital was later set up in Zichron Yaakov for the farmers and laborers in the area.

Original Rothschild Hospital nameplate. Credit: Yoninah

Sachar rounds out the picture:
Hadassah’s dedicated mass membership by 1930 had established in Palestine four hospitals; a nurse’s training school; 50 clinics, laboratories, and pharmacies; and an excellent maternity and child hygiene service in most of the cities and in a number of the larger villages. The Women’s International Zionist Organization (WIZO) maintained three infant welfare centers in Tel AvivRailway
An article in Middle East Monitor almost sounds like it could have been a source for Corbyn's statement above about Jewish "denigration" of Arab accomplishments. Entitled Israel is gradually eroding both Palestinian infrastructure and any hope for statehood, it claims:
The Jaffa–Jerusalem railway, which opened in 1892 under Ottoman rule, was the first railway to be built in Palestine and one of the first to be constructed in the Middle East. An important economic and social development at the time, the line was operated in turn by the French, the Ottomans and, after World War I, the British who were mandated to administer Palestine. The railway administration was transferred in 1920 to Palestine Railways, a company owned by the British Mandate government.Actually, while it was opened under Ottoman rule, the truth is that the Turks had little to do with making the railway possible, other than giving permission for others to build it for them. And it was more than merely operated by the French.

The person most responsible for the establishment of the Jaffa-Jerusalem railway was Yosef Navon, a Jewish entrepreneur from Jerusalem. He spent three years in Constantinople to promote the project and in 1888 received a permit from the Ottoman Empire, which included permission to extend the line to Gaza and Nablus. Because he did not have enough capital to move the project forward, Navon went to Europe in 1889 to find a buyer for the concession, and finally found one - in France. A French company, with Navon as a member of its board of directors, built the railway. It started running in 1892 and is considered the first Middle Eastern railway.

A train arriving at the Jerusalem railway station, on the first railway in the Middle East
in the 1890's. Public Domain
This is not an exhaustive list of Jewish businesses and projects, but it does given an idea of the extent of the Jewish contribution to Palestine during the hundred years or so leading up to the British Mandate and the re-establishment of Israel.

After all, as Sachar writes, in addition to the industrial and economic infrastructure,
It [The Yishuv] had developed its own quasi-government, its own largely autonomous agricultural and industrial economy, and its own public and social welfare institutions.Apparently, one of the problems with Jeremy Corbyn hobnobbing with terrorists is that his statements about Jews and Israel become nothing more than a Corbyn-copy of their narratives and fabrications.


-----
If you found this post interesting or informative, please it below. Thanks!
Categories: Middle East

No, Palestinian "Armed Struggle" Is Not Supported By International Law

Daled Amos - Thu, 23/08/2018 - 19:12
According to Hamas, terrorism is not just a means -- it is a right.

Saleh Armouti, an MP in Jordan's House of Representatives last year, went a step further, claiming that the UN supported armed resistance, in general -- and terrorist attacks in particular:

[It was] the legitimate right of the liberated prisoner Ahlam Tamimi [to] resist the occupier, as the United Nations laws stipulate the right to self-determination, as ruled [by] international legitimacy [as] the right to resist the occupation.Tamimi is the mastermind of the Sbarro massacre that murdered 15 civilians (including 7 children and a pregnant woman) and wounded 130.

Is it actually possible that the United Nations, which is supposed to be an agent for world peace, actually recognizes the right to blow people up?


In 1974, the UN General Assembly passed a resolution which:
3. Reaffirms the legitimacy of the peoples' struggle for liberation form colonial and foreign domination and alien subjugation by all available means, including armed struggle;

7. Strongly condemns all Governments which do not recognize the right to self-determination and independence of peoples under colonial and foreign domination and alien subjugation, notably the peoples of Africa and the Palestinian people;The phrase "armed struggle" is repeatedly used in the 1968 Palestinian National Charter, a copy of which is conveniently carried on the UN website.

In 1978, the UN General Assembly went further. "Armed struggle" was not just one option included among others, but that it was a particular option to be used. Also, in 1978 the word "occupation" was used - a word that was not used at all in the 1974 resolution.


And if the Palestinian goal in that struggle was not clear, in 1980, Israel circulated a copy of the “political programme” of Fatah, which uses the term "armed struggle" and "armed revolution" -- with the specific goal of "the liquidation of the Zionist entity" mentioned 3 times.

The ambivalence the UN has with the whole idea of "armed struggle" is revealed in a UN press release in 2005 which noted the difficulty it was having with what qualified as terrorism and what would be exempted. Among the disagreements was "whether the exemption should also cover armed resistance groups involved in struggles against colonial domination and foreign occupation."

Last year, I wrote about how not only was this adoption of "armed struggle" antithetical to the UN Charter but that the idea of Jews - indigenous to the land and predating the Arab colonization by over a millennium - being colonial and alien is absurd.

But here is another angle.

It is popular to point out the obligations of an occupying power.
But what about the obligations of the people who are claimed to be occupied?

In his book, The International Law of Belligerent Occupation,Yoram Dinstein writes:
There is a widespread conviction that the civilian population in an occupied territory has a right to forcibly resist the Occupying Power. This is a misconception that must be dispelled. In reality, LOIAC [Law of International Armed Conflict] allows civilians 'neither to violently resist occupation of their territory by the enemy, nor to try to liberate that territory by violent means'. As a Netherlands Special Court pronounced in the 1948 Christiansen trial:
the civilian population, if it considers itself justified in committing acts of resistance, must know that, in general, counter-measures within the limits set by international law may be taken against them with impunity. [emphasis added]Dinstein did not make this up.

The italicized text above refers to "How Does Law Protect in War?", Volume 1: Outline of International Humanitarian Law, published by the International Red Cross:

From the point of view of IHL [International Humanitarian Law], civilians in occupied territories deserve and need particularly detailed protecting rules. Living on their own territory, they come into contact with the enemy independently of their will, merely because of the armed conflict in which the enemy obtains territorial control over the place where they live. The civilians have no obligation towards the occupying power other than the obligation inherent in their civilian status, i.e., not to participate in hostilities. Because of that obligation, IHL allows them neither to violently resist occupation of their territory by the enemy nor to try to liberate that territory by violent means. (Part 1, Chapter 8:IV)




The rules that apply to an occupying power appear counter-intuitive, unless you take into account that international law is taking the long view, namely not to jeopardize a potential return to the status quo:
[The occupying power's] legitimate interest is to control the territory for the duration of the occupation, i.e., until the territory is liberated by the former sovereign or transferred to the sovereignty of the occupying power under a peace treaty. IHL is neutral on jus ad bellum issues [whether a war is just] and shows no preference for either solution, but international law tries to ensure that no measures are taken during the occupation which would compromise a return to the former sovereign. [emphasis added]
Even if one were to argue that Gaza and the West Bank were occupied, the fact is that in accordance with UN Resolution 242, Israel committed itself to return territories - though not all territory won in 1967 - in accordance with its security needs, and has done so.
There are legal grounds - based on precedent - for saying that Gaza, in fact, is not occupied.

Similarly, the existence of a Palestinian Arab government in control of the West Bank, as detailed in Oslo II Articles XVII-XXI supports the claim that it is not under occupation either.


As for Israel itself, the Hamas claim that Israel is occupied "Palestinian" land is refuted by the fact that Jews have lived on the land uninterruptedly for over 3,000 years. Far from being a foreign, alien or colonial power (a term far more fitting the Muslims who invaded in the 7th century), it was the foreign Arabs from outside then-Palestine who chose to attack and lost - creating the issues that persist today.

Hamas terrorists are notoriously unreliable interpreters of international law.


Besides the fact that the idea of "armed struggle" adopted by the UN does not imply random attacks on unarmed civilians, the Geneva Convention makes clear that "the laws, rights, and duties of war apply not only to armies, but also to militia and volunteer corps fulfilling the following conditions:
1. To be commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
2. To have a fixed distinctive emblem recognizable at a distance;
3. To carry arms openly; and
4. To conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
Endangering the lives of Gazans by using them as human shields while targeting unarmed Israeli civilians who are clearly not taking part in any hostilities is an obvious violation of international law, and proves the lie to Hamas claims of a right to "armed struggle" which clearly is nothing less than terrorism.


The fact the UN gives full-throated support to "armed struggle" but cannot see its way clear to delineate what is, and what is not, terrorism is an indictment of its corruption by undemocratic states and of how far it has drifted from the international law it claims to uphold.

-----
If you found this post interesting or informative, please it below. Thanks!

Categories: Middle East

European Court of Human Rights Rulings Indicate No "Right of Return" and That Gaza Isn't Occupied

Daled Amos - Tue, 24/07/2018 - 15:53
What would we do without the European Court of Human Rights?

The European Court of Human Rights is an international court that was established by the European Convention on Human Rights, an international treaty that defends human rights. The European Court hears cases alleging that a contracting state has breached one or more of the human rights established in the Convention and its protocols.

Logo of the European Court of Human Rights. Fair use



But human rights are human rights -- regardless of where you live.

A couple of months ago, Akiva Eldar wrote an article in Al Monitor, Compromise is possible on Palestinian right of return, demonstrating there is no Palestinian "right of return" according to international law:
After deliberating on a petition by Greek Cypriot refugees, the European Court of Human Rights ruled in March 2010 that claiming a certain land or property as “home” is insufficient to establish a right. An overwhelming majority of the 17 judges agreed that given that 35 years had passed since the petitioners lost their property when Turkey invaded northern Cyprus in 1974, and the local population had changed, the claimants were entitled to compensation in cash, but not necessarily in land. The judges warned that rectifying an old injustice could result in a new injustice. One can infer that UN Resolution 194 of 1948, stipulating that a refugee can choose between a return to Israel and compensation, does not grant every refugee a personal right to return. [emphasis added]Going a step further, we can see the options are not even that narrow.

The language of UN resolutions subsequent to Resolution 194 shows that even according to Resolution 194 -- the return of Palestinian Arab refugees to their homes is not a right, but rather one of the available options.

According to UN Resolution 194, in the second paragraph of Article 11:
Instructs the Conciliation Commission to facilitate the repatriation, resettlement and economic and social rehabilitation of the refugees and the payment of compensation, and to maintain close relations with the Director of the United Nations Relief for Palestine Refugees and, through him, with the appropriate organs and agencies of the United Nations (emphasis added)Is the UN actually suggesting repatriation AND resettlement or are those two different things?

Check out UN Resolution 393, Article 4:
Considers that, without prejudice to the provisions of paragraph 11 of General Assembly resolution 194 (III) of 11 December 1948, the reintegration of the refugees into the economic life of the Near East, either by repatriation or resettlement, is essential in preparation for the time when international assistance is no longer available, and for the realization of conditions of peace and stability in the area; (emphasis added)"Repatriation" by definition means to send refugees back to their original home.
"Resettlement" here means to settle them in any home -- not necessarily in their original land -- rather than leave them as refugees.

Similarly, UN Resolution 394:
Calls upon the governments concerned to undertake measures to ensure that refugees, whether repatriated or resettled, will be treated without any discrimination either in law or in fact. (emphasis added)And UN Resolution 513, according to which the UN General Assembly:
Endorses, without prejudice to the provisions of paragraph 11 of resolution 194 (III) of 11 December 1948 or to the provisions of paragraph 4 of resolution 393 (V) of 2 December 1950 relative to reintegration either by repatriation or resettlement...The point is that the United Nations itself clearly indicates that there is no absolute Palestinian right of return and that while there was a possible option to return back in 1948, return back then was merely one possibility.

Now along comes the European Court of Human Rights and makes the point that "claiming a certain land or property as “home” is insufficient to establish a right".

But that is not the only European Court decision that supports Israel's position.

In 2015, Marko Milanovic, an associate professor at the University of Nottingham School of Law, wrote that European Court Decides that Israel Is Not Occupying Gaza.

The case deals with people displaced by a conflict who are later unable to return to their property and in this case denied the right to return to their village of Gulistan, located in the territory of Azerbaijan, but close to an area of conflict. The Azerbaijani government claimed that the village was not under the actual control of Azerbaijan and was inaccessible to any civilians.

Azerbaijan went so far as to claim:
The Republic of Azerbaijan declares that it is unable to guarantee the application of the provisions of the Convention in the territories occupied by the Republic of Armenia until these territories are liberated from that occupation. (emphasis added)The European Court went to work on defining "occupation":
Article 42 of the Regulations concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land, The Hague, 18 October 1907 (hereafter “the 1907 Hague Regulations”) defines belligerent occupation as follows:

“Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.”

Accordingly, occupation within the meaning of the 1907 Hague Regulations exists when a state exercises actual authority over the territory, or part of the territory, of an enemy state(1) . The requirement of actual authority is widely considered to be synonymous to that of effective control.

Military occupation is considered to exist in a territory, or part of a territory, if the following elements can be demonstrated: the presence of foreign troops, which are in a position to exercise effective control without the consent of the sovereign. According to widespread expert opinion physical presence of foreign troops is a sine qua non requirement of occupation(2) , i.e. occupation is not conceivable without “boots on the ground” therefore forces exercising naval or air control through a naval or air blockade do not suffice(3) . (emphasis added)Milanovic points to this key paragraph:
144. The Court notes that under international law (in particular Article 42 of the 1907 Hague Regulations) a territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of a hostile army, “actual authority” being widely considered as translating to effective control and requiring such elements as presence of foreign troops, which are in a position to exercise effective control without the consent of the sovereign (see paragraph 94 above). On the basis of all the material before it and having regard to the above establishment of facts, the Court finds that Gulistan is not occupied by or under the effective control of foreign forces as this would require a presence of foreign troops in Gulistan.He then notes:See what I meant? Replace “Gulistan” with “Gaza”, and there you have it! In fact, I’m pretty sure that this is at least one judgment of the European Court that Israeli governmental legal advisors will be citing all the time, whenever the issue of Gaza’s occupation is brought up (and good for them).Actually, this is the second ruling of the European Court of Human Rights that Israel can cite. We already saw that the court also ruled that a claim to land or property is not a right.

Who knew that the European view of international humanitarian law could be so supportive to Israel's position?

-----
If you found this post interesting or informative, please it below. Thanks!
Categories: Middle East

Will Trump Speak to Jordan's King Abdullah About Extraditing Terrorist Ahlam Tamimi, Who Murdered Americans?

Daled Amos - Mon, 25/06/2018 - 06:37
According to a White House statement, Trump is meeting Jordan's King Abdullah:
President Donald J. Trump and First Lady Melania Trump will welcome Their Majesties King Abdullah II bin Al-Hussein and Queen Rania Al Abdullah of Jordan to the White House on June 25, 2018. President Trump looks forward to reaffirming the strong bonds of friendship between the United States and Jordan. The leaders will discuss issues of mutual concern, including terrorism, the threat from Iran and the crisis in Syria, and working towards a lasting peace between Israelis and Palestinians. [emphasis added]This follows a Friday meeting, Secretary of State Pompeo met with Jordan's King Abdullah for lunch.

King Abdullah and Secretary of State Pompeo
The US and Jordan are supposed to be allies - in fact, Jordan is arguably our second strongest ally in the Middle East after Israel. No wonder talking about cooperation against terrorism is on the agenda.

The website of the Jordanian embassy to the US makes clear the relationship between the two countries:
JORDAN-US RELATIONS OVERVIEW

Since the establishment of diplomatic relations more than six decades ago, Jordan and the United States have enjoyed strong relations based on common goals and mutual respect. The relationship has endured the complexities and volatilities of the Middle East and has demonstrated that the two countries can rely on each other as allies and partners.

...Following the September 11 terrorist attacks, Jordan stood with the U.S. in its effort to combat the common threat of terrorism and radical ideology. The two sides have worked together and with the international community to rid the world of the scourge of terrorism and end the threat posed to the national security of both countries.This close relationship between Jordan and the US combined with Jordan's self-proclaimed dedication to fighting terrorism leads to the obvious question:

Why does Jordan refuse to extradite the Hamas terrorist that murdered 3 American citizens to the US?


The Background
On Aug. 9, 2001, Ahlam Tamimi, a Palestinian woman transported suicide bomber Izz al-Din Shuheil al-Masri, a member of Hamas military wing Iz a Din al-Kassam, to the Sbarro restaurant. Fifteen people were killed, including 8 children and a pregnant women. Over 120 were injured. Three of those killed were US citizens. Tamimi was later captured and sentenced to 16 life terms in prison. She never expressed any remorse. On the contrary, in a video interview, she smiled and expressed satisfaction with the number of murders she accomplished.

Here, she explains how she did more than just transport the suicide bomber -- Ahlam Tamimi masterminded the Sbarro massacre:



From The Palestinian Media Watch translation:
Israeli interviewer: "Who chose Sbarro [restaurant, as the target of the attack]?"

Tamimi: "I did. For nine days I examined the place very carefully and chose it after seeing the large number of patrons at the Sbarro restaurant. I didn't want to blow [myself] up, I didn't want to carry out a Martyrdom-seeking operation (i.e., a suicide attack). My mission was just to choose the place and to bring the Martyrdom-seeker (i.e., the suicide bomber). [I made] the general plan of the operation, but carrying it out was entrusted to the Martyrdom-seeker. ... I told him to enter the restaurant, eat a meal, and then after 15 minutes carry out the Martyrdom-seeking operation. During the quarter of an hour, I would return the same way that I had arrived. Then I bade him farewell.In October 2011, as part of the deal to free Hamas hostage Gilad Shalit, Ahlam Tamimi was one of those released. She returned to her native Jordan where she lived all her life, until about two years before she carried out the terrorist attack. Tamimi is now a celebrity throughout the Arab world, and was a host on a weekly show on the Hamas satellite TV station, Al Quds, where she extolled the virtues of "martyrdom attacks" against Jews and celebrated what she did. Only recently did she stop hosting the broadcasts, apparently in response to the extradition request, waiting for the situation to calm things down.

Last year, the US unsealed an indictment for the extradition of Ahlam Tamimi to the US to stand trial for the murder of the 3 American citizens murdered in the suicide bombing she masterminded.

Jordan refused.

Wanted Poster for Ahlam Ahmad Al-TamimiThe State Department's Rewards For Justice program posted a $5 million reward for "information that brings to justice" Hamas terrorist Ahlam Tamimi.



Jordan's Extradition Treaty With The US
Jordan's extradition treaty with the US goes back to 1995.

On February 26, 1993, a truck bomb containing 1,336 pounds of urea nitrate–hydrogen was detonated below the North Tower of the World Trade Center in New York City. The detonation was intended to murder tens of thousands of people. Though the plot failed, it did kill six people and injured over a thousand. Four men were convicted. Ramzi Yousef, who masterminded the bombing fled to Pakistan and Eyad Ismoil, who drove the truck carrying the bomb, escaped to Jordan.

Eyad Ismoil, who drove the truck in the World Trade Center Bombing
In order to extradite Ismoil from Jordan, the US and Jordan signed an extradition treaty. Based on that treaty, US agents were allowed to go onto Jordanian soil where the Jordanians handed Islmoil over, to be brought back to the US for trial. He was tried, convicted and sentenced to life.

The Argument Against Extradition: Jordan Does Not Extradite Nationals
One of the reasons given for Jordan's refusal to extradite Ahlam Tamimi to the US to stand trial for the murder of 2 Americans is the claim that Jordan does not extradite Jordanian nationals, citizens of Jordan. In 2015, Arutz Sheva quoted an unnamed Jordanian source who told AFP that
Jordan does not usually extradite its citizens to other countries, even in the case of an extradition agreement. In such a case, they are generally tried in specialized Jordanian courts.Al Jazeera has reported that "Jordanian courts have said their constitution does not allow for the extradition of Jordanian nationals."

Not true.

First, there is nothing in the Jordanian Constitution that forbids the extradition of Jordanian nationals. According to Article 21:
(i) Political refugees shall not be extradited on account of their political beliefs or for their defence of liberty.

(ii) Extradition of ordinary criminals shall be regulated by international agreements and laws. Extradition is excluded as a possibility in the case of political refugees on account of their political beliefs, which does not apply in this case -- though Stephen Flatow, whose own daughter was murdered by Palestinian terrorists, accuses the Jordanian government of a cynical interpretation:
Get it? If the Jordanian government is claiming that its constitution forbids extraditing Tamimi, it has to claim that the Sbarro massacre was a “political” crime. That’s outrageous."More to the point, the second point in Article 21 states that extradition is regulated by international agreements and laws.

On the issue of nationality, the extradition treaty is very clear:
Article 3 Nationality If all conditions in this Treaty relating to extradition are met, extradition shall not be refused based on the nationality of the person sought.The Argument Against Extradition: Double Jeopardy
Last year, when the indictment was unsealed, the Associated Press reported that Ahlam Tamimi claimed 'double jeopardy':
She said the U.S. has no right to charge her, arguing that she was already tried and sentenced in Israel. "How come I should be returned to jail again for the same charge," she said Tuesday.Former federal prosecutor and Washington lawyer Nathan Lewin counters arguments against the extradition - including this one:
Nor could Jordan or any other requested country invoke the bar against double jeopardy that appears in many extradition treaties to prevent second punishment after a criminal prosecution for the extraditable offense has been conducted and fully carried out. That provision obviously does not prevent extradition of a fugitive who flees a country where he has been convicted in order to avoid imprisonment. It also should not prevent extradition if, by some other unlawful means such as Hamas’ extortionate demand, the criminal process is aborted.In addition, the US charge against Tamimi is not the same as the one she faced in Israel:
A criminal complaint was unsealed today charging Ahlam Aref Ahmad Al-Tamimi, also known as “Khalti” and “Halati,” a Jordanian national in her mid-30s, with conspiring to use a weapon of mass destruction against U.S. nationals outside the U.S., resulting in death.The Argument Against Extradition: Jordanian Parliament Never Ratified The 1995 Extradition Treaty
The Jordanian Court of Cassation ruled that the original extradition treaty was never ratified by the Jordanian parliament. This argument appears the strongest, if also the oddest. The treaty was the foundation of the extradition of Jordanian national Eyad Ismoil, with US agents arriving in Jordan to pick him up. How could that happen if there was no treaty?

In his book Relentless Pursuit: The DSS and the Manhunt for the Al-Qaeda Terrorists, Samuel M. Katz claims that enforcing the treaty was too much for Jordan to put up with:
The handover of Eyad Mahmoud Ismoil Najim was a political hand grenade in Jordan. The first extraditions ever of a Jordanian national accused of a terrorist crime against the United States would also be the last. A week after the extra Eyad Mahmoud Ismoil Najim to the United States, the Jordanian Parliament scrapped the treaty.
There needs to be further investigation into the validity of this claim, especially in light of the Vienna Convention which seems to directly address Jordan's claim -- and rejects it:
Article 46
Provisions of internal law regarding competence to conclude treaties

1. A State may not invoke the fact that its consent to be bound by a treaty has been expressed in violation of a provision of its internal law regarding competence to conclude treaties as invalidating its consent unless that violation was manifest and concerned a rule of its internal law of fundamental importance.

2. A violation is manifest if it would be objectively evident to any State conducting itself in the matter in accordance with normal practice and in good faith.
In addition, last year Michelle Munneke, an assistant district attorney, wrote Pressure on Jordan: Refusal to extradite mastermind of deadly 2001 Sbarro suicide bombing in Jerusalem contravenes international law and agreements, arguing that Jordan's refusal to honor the treaty contravenes the "principles of international comity," analyzing the legal justifications given for refusing to extradite Tamimi -- and disproving them.

She concludes:
This analysis means the United States should not give up on attempting to extradite Al-Tamimi. If other countries place enough pressure on Jordan due to concerns of Al-Tamimi’s danger and susceptibility to planning another attack, Jordan may change its position. Al-Tamimi is above all else, a significant danger that Jordan should take seriously—if not for the world, for Jordan’s own citizens that live amongst Al-Tamimi.An additional issue is the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, to which Jordan is a signatory.

Even if we take at face value Jordan's claim that there is no extradition treaty, that does not leave Jordan off the hook for harboring an admitted Hamas terrorist.

According to Article 2:
Any person commits an offence within the meaning of this Convention if that person by any means, directly or indirectly, unlawfully and wilfully, provides or collects funds with the intention that they should be used or in the knowledge that they are to be used, in full or in part, in order to carry out:
(a) An act which constitutes an offence within the scope of and as defined in one of the treaties listed in the annex; or(b) Any other act intended to cause death or serious bodily injury to a civilian, or to any other person not taking an active part in the hostilities in a situation of armed conflict, when the purpose of such act, by its nature or context, is to intimidate a population, or to compel a Government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any act. [emphasis added]The Convention goes on to describe extradition:

Article 11.2:
When a State Party which makes extradition conditional on the existence of a treaty receives a request for extradition from another State Party with which it has no extradition treaty, the requested State Party may, at its option, consider this Convention as a legal basis for extradition in respect of the offences set forth in article 2. Extradition shall be subject to the other conditions provided by the law of the requested State. [emphasis added]Article 12.1:
States Parties shall afford one another the greatest measure of assistance in connection with criminal investigations or criminal or extradition proceedings in respect of the offences set forth in article 2, including assistance in obtaining evidence in their possession necessary for the proceedings. [emphasis added]Now, Jordan did enter reservations about what it found unacceptable about the Convention:
The Government of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan does not consider acts of national armed struggle and fighting foreign occupation in the exercise of people’s right to self-determation as terrorist acts within the context of paragraph 1(b) of article 2 of the Convention.Looks like Stephen Flatow's suspicion of Jordan's cynical approach to fighting terrorism was correct.

If so, it is time for Jordan to clearly state that it is defending Tamimi and preventing her facing justice is based on Jordan's considering Tamimi's terrorist attack on the Sbarro pizzeria to be a heroic act of national armed struggle.

In any case, this makes the Jordanian claim that an extradition treaty that was used in the past is suddenly non-existent suspicious, to say the least.

Conclusion

While King Abdullah II of Jordan likes to talk about trust and confidence, the king is going out of his way to avoid building it with his refusal to fulfill his obligations under the US-Jordanian extradition treaty and handing over Hamas terrorist Ahlam Tamimi to the US. His actions, or in this case - inaction, speaks louder than the convenient statements of friendship and alliance. When we add Jordan's reliance on the US for the financial assistance required to maintain his kingdom, this sense of obligation only increases. The US government has made clear that it is serious about prosecuting Ahlam Tamimi. It remains for King Abdullah to demonstrate that he really is serious when he claims to be an ally in fighting terrorism.
Categories: Middle East

Is There A Pattern of New York Times Bias Against Israel?

Daled Amos - Thu, 21/06/2018 - 18:29

Last week, The Algemeiner held a discussion about The New York Times and its coverage of both Israel and of Jews in general.

Entitled, "The New York Times and the Jews," it was hosted by Dovid Efune, the Editor-in-Chief of the Algemeiner and featured Ira Stoll, Laurel Leff and Dovid Goldman. Ira Stoll writes a regular column for the Algemeiner, where he critiques the New York Times coverage of both Israel and of Jews. Laurel Leff is the author of Buried by the Times: The Holocaust and America's Most Important Newspaper. Ari Goldman was a journalist with the New York Times for 20 years, from the 1970's to the 1990's and now teaches journalism at Columbia University.

Dovid Efune, Ira Stoll, Laurel Leff and Ari Goldman discuss "The New York Times and the Jews"


The crowd that came to hear the discussion was one of the largest for one of Algemeiner's events. Many may have come to see and hear The New York Times burned in effigy. Instead, the presentation was even-handed, despite the fact that the paper had turned down an opportunity to have someone attend to represent them.

A History of The New York Times
During her part in the discussion, Leff presented some historical background of the New York Times and differentiated between the philosophy of the paper early on, in contrast to what it is today.

The founder of the modern New York Times was Adolph Ochs, who bought the paper in 1896. His parents were German Jews who came to the US in the 1840's. Ochs married Iphigene (Effie) Wise, the only child of Rabbi Isaac Meyer Wise, the founder of Reform Judaism and its institutions in the US.

Adolph Ochs. Public Domain
This is important because Ochs adopted his father-in-law’s philosophy, as did his own son-in-law, Arthur Hays Sulzberger (publisher 1935-1961), later. Sulzberger, a Reform Jew, was an outspoken anti-Zionist at a time when the Reform movement was still debating the issue.

A basic idea of Reform Judaism was that Jews were no longer a people, an ethnicity or a nation. Judaism was just a religion.

Flowing from that principle:
  • Ochs and Sulzberger were opposed to Zionism and the creation of a Jewish state
  • They did not want the New York Times to be seen as a Jewish newspaper
  • Jews should not be separated out in any way, except for religion
This affected The New York Times coverage of the Holocaust years later:
  • There would be no special pleading for the Jews. This led to downplaying the Shoah
  • Jews were not alone in suffering. “Everyone” was suffering
  • The paper opposed to the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine, a big issue during the war.
But despite this negative view of Israel, that attitude is not necessarily relevant to the New York Times coverage of Israel and Jews today.

While classic Reform Judaism had a tremendous impact during the first half of the 20th century, the attitudes it fostered at The New York Times basically died with Arthur Hays Sulzberger, who remained an unrepentant, anti-Zionist, classical, Reform Jew.

Most Reform Jews abandoned that anti-Zionist position and supported the creation of the state of Israel. As a result of this change, Sulzberger became disillusioned with Judaism and withdrew. His attitude towards Israel was not passed on to his son, the second Arthur Sulzberger, who became indifferent to his Judaism and married an Episcopalian.

According to Leff, the current publisher, Arthur Gregg Sulzberger, has no connection to Israel or Judaism and there is no sense of Jewish identity left.

This does not mean there are no biases or that their coverage cannot be criticized. It just means that the basis for the paper's view of Israel does not come from any historical sense of their Jewishness.

Bottom line, the current publisher does not care especially about Judaism and is not like the first Sulzberger, who was strongly motivated by his anti-Zionism.

Categorizing New York Times Errors
Ira Stoll addressed what Dovid Efune playfully suggested were “the most egregious crimes” of The Times. Stoll noted that for something to be a crime, one needs to prove intent. Instead, he said, these issues were mistakes, errors, problems -- and bias, only if one can see patterns. And before dealing with the “why” and the motivation, it is safer to start with the mistakes and what categorizes them.

Towards that end, Stoll offered a categorization of some of these problems in the paper's reporting, based on his book, a collection of his critiques of The New York Times appearing in his Algemeiner column. The book is entitled "The New York Times and The Jews".

Stoll went over a few of the categories covered in his book:
Corrections
There are items the editor admits are mistakes, corrections of basic facts there were misstated. Among those, the following New York Times articles are problematic:

For Juicy Beef for Your Seder Table, Look Beyond Brisket, featured a correction:
An earlier version of this article incorrectly implied that beef tenderloin is kosher and appropriate for Passover. It is not kosher, but other cuts of beef that are kosher may be used in the recipe in its place.When a Spouse Dies, Resilience Can Be Uneven had this correction:
The Personal Health column on Tuesday, about resilience after the death of a spouse, misstated the length of the Jewish period of mourning for a spouse. It is 30 days, not a year. (The one-year period is for those who have lost a parent.)In contrast with these mild examples, there is "The Correction of the Year." The article Is Facebook’s Campbell Brown a Force to Be Reckoned With? Or Is She Fake News? included this correction:
An earlier version of this article erroneously included a reference to Palestinian actions as an example of the sort of far-right conspiracy stories that have plagued Facebook. In fact, Palestinian officials have acknowledged providing payments to the families of Palestinians killed while carrying out attacks on Israelis or convicted of terrorist acts and imprisoned in Israel; that is not a conspiracy theory.
Not Fit to Print
Another category, Stoll calls "Not Fit to Print" -- stories that appear in other newspapers that the New York Times did not find room for. While Stoll did not actually give any examples, here are some from his Algemeiner articles that he mentions in his book:

New York Times Finds News of Pro-Israel Vote in Congress Not Fit to Print:
"The US House of Representatives voted on January 5 to approve a resolution objecting to UN Security Council Resolution 2334 as “biased against Israel” and calling for it to be repealed or fundamentally altered."New York Times Finds Gaza Cancer-Patient Terror Attempt Unfit to Print:
"An attempt by the Hamas terrorist group to use cancer patients to sneak explosives into Israel"Not Fit To Print? New York Times Ignores Palestinian Insult of US Diplomat:
"The Palestinian president publicly called the American ambassador to Israel, Dovid Friedman, a “son of a dog” — and The New York Times ignored it."None of those stories made their way into The New York Times.

Adjectives and Adverbs
Stoll mentioned the inconsistent use of adjectives in describing world leaders.

He pointed out that The New York Times has described Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu as both loquacious and taciturn, as he also describes online in Does Bibi Talk Too Much, or Too Little? The New York Times Has All The Answers.

Stoll referred also to the different ways Iranian Foreign Minister Zarif and Netanyahu are described, a point he elaborates on in New York Times Showers Compliments on Iranian Foreign Minister. Zarif is referred to as “the urbane, American-educated diplomat,” while Netanyahu is not referred to being American educated at all. In the same article, Stoll points out that Defense Minister Lieberman is described as "ultra-nationalist" and John Bolton, before becoming National Security Advisor, was described as "combative."

Double Standards
Here too, Stoll described the category without actually giving any examples.

In When the New York Times Is for the Birds, Stoll writes about "an editorial condemning the New York City Parks Department for offering women-only bathing hours at a Brooklyn swimming pool frequented by Orthodox Jews." But on the other hand, "a previous Times article had praised a Toronto pool that offered women-only hours geared to Muslims as “a model of inclusion.”

New York Times Coverage of Jews, Israel, Is as Slanted as Its Coverage of Trump contrasts the superior coverage of a Muslim art exhibit in Washington, DC as opposed to an exhibit of First Jewish Americans in New York. Besides the difference in location of the article in the paper and the size of the article, the article about the Jewish exhibit concludes “in the exhibit, we see the kind of religious fervor that promotes a kind of violence against certain groups” -- and odd, negative mention that does not appear in the other article about the Muslim exhibit.

In The New York Times’ Double Standards on Display — Yet Again, Stoll gives the example of The New York Times giving 2 interviews to author Amos Oz about his new book 'Judas'. The interviews were an opportunity to allow Oz to be quoted saying:
  • Netanyahu is "a coward"
  • “The day people in this country start calling Netanyahu a traitor I will know that something may change.”
  • “The day Israelis start calling Benjamin Netanyahu a traitor, I will know something is moving at last.”
By contrast, when Israeli author, Daniel Gordis, came out with his book 'Israel: A Concise History of a Nation Reborn,' there was no interview, no review and no coverage.

Anonymous Sources
Another category of problems with The New York Times is its use of anonymous sources. Despite its stated rule not to overly rely on them, there are cases where the paper does not adhere to its own standard when it comes to Israel.

In his article In Its Attack on Netanyahu, the New York Times Violates Its Own Anonymous Source Policy and Contradicts Itself, Stoll notes how the paper patted itself on the back on its campaign to cut down on the use of anonymous sources -- and how they seem less successful in this goal when it comes to Israel.

He refers to the article “How Benjamin Netanyahu Is Crushing Israel’s Free Press”:
“What can management do?” a Walla News journalist lamented to me. “We’re threatened here by a combination of the most powerful politician in the country and one of the most powerful commercial companies in the country.”

Walla News isn’t alone. An atmosphere of intimidation has begun to take hold in many, if not most, of the country’s newsrooms. A source in Israel Hayom, speaking on the condition of anonymity for fear of losing his job, told me that the prime minister “holds everyone on a leash — everyone — not just us. With the other outlets, you might not realize what their interests are but they exist all the same.” [emphasis added]Not only does the New York Times discard their rule about anonymous sources, but the claim in the article about a lack of a free press is contradicted by the paper in another article where it reports that “leaks of allegations and investigations large and small have gradually dripped out in Israel’s competitive media caldron.”

Stoll deals with the problem of The New York Times use of anonymous stories in these Algemeiner articles:

Stoll could have made a far stronger case for a pattern of bias in The New York Times if he had given examples for each of the categories he mentioned.

Journalists Are Only Human
Ari Goldman, as a former journalist for The New York Times, takes up its defense.

He breaks the issue of The New York Times and its coverage of Israel into 2 parts:
  • How to view the institution
  • His experiences at The New York Times vis-a-vis the Jewish question -- not including Crown Heights
Goldman stressed that The New York Times is run by human beings who make mistakes every day. And correct them. This is what it means when journalism is referred to as "The First Rough Draft of History"

Since journalists can only go by what they know, errors are not necessarily a conspiracy. It could simply be the information they have available.

He conceded that The New York Times has an agenda It is an agenda to write "great" stories in the "most dramatic, exciting" way. Left unaddressed was the question whether the desire to write great, dramatic and exciting stories might potentially lead a journalist to allow their biases to dictate the story or to exaggerate or omit information.

Goldman also tried to make the case that The New York Times was not a liberal newspaper. His proof was that the paper exposed the Eliot Spitzer scandal and covered the story of Hillary Clinton's email server. By that standard, if Fox News reports scandals of conservative politicians, should that serve as proof that they are not a conservative news program?

Goldman claimed that Jews and Israel were just not as high on the agenda of the paper as it was during his time there in the 1970's through the 1990's, saying "I don't think they care as much about us as we care about them."

The Crown Heights Riots
But even Ari Goldman agrees there was a real problem with The New York Times coverage of The Crown Height Riots in 1991, the 3 days of riots following the accidental death of Gavin Cato by one of the cars in the Lubavitcher Rebbe's motorcade. Three hours after the riot started, a mob surrounded Australian Jew Yankel Rosenbaum and murdered him.

Ari Goldman was one of the journalists who covered the story for The New York Times and in 2011 wrote an article for The Jewish Week -- Telling It Like It Wasn't.

Goldman quoted himself from that article, that during those riots he saw "journalism go terribly wrong" in framing the story as a clash between the black community and the Jewish community instead of recognizing the issue of black Antisemitism.

According to Goldman, this perception of a "clash" was even picked up by the Jewish community itself at the time. He said that the JDL admitted that it did not come out as strongly for the Lubavitch community at the time as it should have because of the way the riots were framed.

None of the speakers seemed to sense any comparison between the media coverage of The Crown Heights Riots and the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict.

Both the riots and the conflict are described by the media as clashes of equally responsible groups, without any sense of the Antisemitism involved. How often have we heard of the conflict being described as a "cycle's of violence" where both sides are warned to show restraint.

Goldman writes that in order to show Jewish culpability during the riots, The New York Times went so far as to run a picture of a Chasidic man "brandishing an open umbrella before a police officer in riot gear" with the caption "a police officer scuffling with a Hasidic man." In the Middle East, the media goes to not dissimilar lengths when it waits for Israel to respond to terror attacks before reporting, so as to be able to present a more "balanced" report of two sides clashing.

Writing about the riots at the time at The New York Times, AM Rosenthal described how the media “treats it all as some kind of cultural clash between a poverty-ridden people fed up with life and a powerful, prosperous and unfortunately peculiar bunch of stuck-up neighbors" -- not unlike the way the Gazans are described vis-a-vis Israel. Rosenthal went on to describe those riots as an "Antisemitic pogrom" -- a term that certainly fits the behavior and goals of the current Gazan riots.

The Democratization of the Media
One of the benefits of social media is the ease with which public opinion may be gauged. Today, readers not only read the story, but they can also affect which ones are covered just by clicking on them online. The gap between editorial decisions and the public is narrowed, emphasizing the importance of the democratization of the media.

One benefit is the speed with which the public can lodge a complaint about a story.

In 2015, The New York Times ran a story about Lawmakers Against the Iran Nuclear Deal, which included a chart that was supposed to do more than just show which Congressmen were in favor or opposed to the deal. The chart went so far as to  show which Congressmen were Jewish -- and highlighted them in yellow.

Here is the chart for the Senate:


After a huge outcry, the chart was amended

On the flip side, however, there is a negative aspect to opening up to popular input.

Last year, Ira Stoll wrote ‘Parasitic Thug’ Is New York Times’ New Name for Netanyahu, about how The New York Times not only published an Antisemitic reader's comment describing Netanyahu as a "parasitic thug" influencing US elections, it also accused Jews of forming a "5th column." The New York Times even awarded the comment with a gold ribbon as a New York Times pick. The fact that the comment received 76 "thumbs up" votes from fellow readers is also food for thought. The comment was later removed.



The fact that newspapers now have a trending chart, whether visible to the journalists (CNN) or just the editors (New York Times) is a further indication of influence readers can potentially have on newspapers.

The Coverage
Towards the end of the discussion, Laurel Leff addressed the issue of The New York Times coverage of Israel. She insisted that no one covers Israel like the New York Times -- not even The Wall Street Journal because the paper itself has a different purpose. A better comparison would be between The New York Times and The Washington Post.

Leff continued that it was not fair to say that The New York Times does not understand the Israeli perspective. Most of the journalists live there, some for a long time. By the same token, she claimed that Palestinians criticize journalists that they don't understand what is going on because they live in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem instead of in Ramallah. If only journalistic insight were a question of geography.

She also noted that journalists get pressure from both sides as well as from both the left and the right and that journalists tend to side with whom they perceive as being the underdog.

Taking Ari Goldman's earlier point about the errors made by The New York Times against Israel being honest mistakes, Dovid Efune asked Ira Stoll if he could think of any honest mistakes made by The New York Times that actually favored Israel.

Stoll's example was a point he has written about before. There appears to be a tendency in The New York Times to refer to Mahmoud Abbas as "aging." Apparently, the point is that the paper feels that Abbas is senile, incompetent and unable to do his job, yet resorts to euphemisms instead of addressing the issue in an article.

That hardly qualifies as "an honest mistake" made in Israel's favor.

Too bad the question was not asked of Ari Goldman.

The Bottom Line
The bottom line is that during the discussion, every effort was made, not just for balance, but to avoid piling on The New York Times. Despite the fact that Ira Stoll clearly had multiple examples of potential bias, based on the paper's use of double standards and anonymous sources and on the stories it ignores, those examples were mentioned only in passing with no actual examples given. Having raised the point that a claim of bias would have to show a pattern, Stoll could easily have presented a case -- a strong case -- which is why he makes numerous references to the "bias" of The New York Times in his book.

Laurel Leff was deliberate in distancing the Sulzberger's of today from the original Sulzberger and defended the paper from any charge of bias. Her position seemed to be that The New York Times was no different from any other paper in its coverage of Israel -- only better.

Ari Goldman felt the greatest responsibility for defending the paper. At one point, he went so far as to tell the audience that if they felt there was a problem with The New York Times coverage of Israel, they should tell their children to be journalists. But it was Ari Goldman himself who opened the door to the issue of New York Times bias in the Crown Heights Riots.

Even given the restraint in the criticisms of The New York Times that night, it is hard to claim that was a unique case.

(Watch the discussion on The Algemeiner's Facebook page)

-----
If you found this post interesting or informative, please it below. Thanks!
Categories: Middle East

Lies, Damn Lies and The Gaza Riots

Daled Amos - Thu, 17/05/2018 - 17:39
Not surprisingly, journalists and the media in general continue to take their cue from Hamas terrorists and insist on describing attacks on Israel's border and attempts to infiltrate as peaceful demonstrations.

At the start of the organized riots, NBC informed us that
The sit-in demonstration is set to culminate on May 15 — the day after Israeli independence
NBC News, April 5, 2018Sit in?
If you listen closely, the voices you will hear are definitely not singing kumbaya.

Still, after 6 weeks, the media has begun to notice a thing or two, interspersed among the required proclamation of peaceful demonstrations.


For example, there is some reporting on the fact that what is happening is not spontaneous and that Hamas is behind it. Not only is Hamas pulling the strings, but some newspapers have pointed out that the terrorist group manipulates Gazans by lying to them and deliberately putting civilians in danger.

The Washington Post has noted how the leaders of the riots deliberately endanger lives:
But the protests appeared to have a more violent edge than in previous weeks. Some young men brought knives and fence cutters. At a gathering point east of Gaza City, organizers urged protesters over loudspeakers to burst through the fence, telling them Israeli soldiers were fleeing their positions, even as they were reinforcing them. [emphasis added]Similarly, The New York Times reported
The atmosphere grew more charged after midday prayers, when more than 1,000 men gathered under a large blue awning. Officials from Hamas and other militant factions addressed the worshipers, urging them into the fray and claiming — falsely, to all appearances — that the fence had been breached and that Palestinians were flooding into Israel. [emphasis added]With all the trouble Hamas is going through, they are very determined. When Israel tried to impede the riots by warning bus companies in Gaza not to bring people to the border, Hamas threatened to imprison the drivers - leaving them no choice.

Similarly, in order to encourage the largest possible of participants in what was supposed to be the last day of the riots, Hamas declared a general strike and even UNRWA complied and closed down.

Just as the media has begrudgingly mentioned the hand of Hamas in encouraging the riots, journalists have been a bit more forthcoming -- even if they cannot quite bring themselves to admit to the weapons that are being brought and used:

MSNBC reporter Matt Bradley falsey [sic] claims Palestinian rioters in the Gaza Strip were "unarmed," then admits they "had some light weapons." pic.twitter.com/V3o3chQwnL— Josh Caplan (@joshdcaplan) May 14, 2018

Apparently, not all journalists have bothered to pay attention to what Hamas leaders have been saying from the very beginning:



The fact is, not all that much encouragement by Hamas seems to have been necessary:
While some said they would abide by official calls to keep the demonstrations peaceful, others talked about their enthusiasm to break into Israel and wreak havoc.

“We are excited to storm and get inside,” said 23-year-old Mohammed Mansoura. When asked what he would do inside Israel, he said, “Whatever is possible, to kill, throw stones.”

Two other young men carried large knives and said they wanted to kill Jews on the other side of the fence.Since this is from the same article that notes how Gazans were lied to in order to get them to the border, it is not actually clear where these "official calls to keep the demonstrations peaceful" came from -- but it is typical of the media's schizophrenic approach, or what they like to think of as 'balanced reporting'.

Whoever it is that was calling for peaceful demonstrations, it sure wasn't this guy:





Since Hamas is doing everything it can to encourage violence and death, it really is difficult to understand who the Washington Post thinks it is referring to:

We are just chiming in to let you know the above Facebook post, literally telling its millions of followers to invade armed with knives and guns into Israeli towns and kidnap people, is still up. pic.twitter.com/UfaakgTcea— The Mossad (@TheMossadIL) May 15, 2018
Hamas is literally drawing Gazans a map on how to infiltrate and invade Israel:

The official Facebook page of the riots in Gaza published these photos, directing rioters to breach the fence and infiltrate nearby Israeli communities pic.twitter.com/PSHEmmustX— IDF (@IDFSpokesperson) May 13, 2018
And when some Gazans were successful in infiltrating across the border, they made it very clear they got Hamas's message:

This is what a border infiltration from #Gaza into #Israel looks like. See the man (0:30) clutching a meat cleaver? Imagine hundreds like him coming into Israeli territory, hoping to murder as many Israelis as possible.

This is what Israel is up against. pic.twitter.com/97c9jvEWOT— Emanuel Miller (@emanumiller) May 14, 2018
This is not just about people being caught incidentally on film.
The rioters are more than happy to tell journalists what they intend to do:
A young Palestinian man boasted to National Public Radio on Tuesday about putting swastikas on incendiary kites and flying them into Israel, saying that "Jews go crazy" when they see it and "we want to burn them."And of course, there is always a terrorist video to make the point. This one is from Islamic Jihad:



Hat tip: Elder of Ziyon

Of course, sometimes while talking to journalists, there is always a possibility of getting your lines wrong, as a correspondent for AFP reported:

Me: So why are you protesting tomorrow?
Naseem (14): For the right to return
Naseem's friend (giggling): But you are a Gazan (meaning unlike most Gazans his family weren't refugees)
Naseem: Ok. So for Jerusalem pic.twitter.com/e1XtzquwmB— Joe (@joedyke) May 13, 2018
A bigger problem is coordinating civilians so they can be used as human shields to effectively cover for the Hamas terrorists among them:
Hamas has warned its own members to stay away from the security fence during Gaza’s mass protests, lest they get shot, while actively encouraging Palestinian civilians — particularly children and teens — to approach the border, the Shin Bet added, citing findings from a number of interrogations. If the fence is breached, however, armed Hamas gunmen are poised to enter Israel to carry out attacks.

“There is a prohibition for Hamas operatives to approach the border, from a fear that they will be killed or captured by IDF troops, unless the security fence falls and then they must enter, armed, into Israel under the cover of the masses and carry out terror attacks,” the Shin Bet said in a statement.

...Yahya Ijlah, a 19-year-old Hamas member who entered Israel on April 29, told Shin Bet interrogators that he had been sent to the border in order to steal a security camera along the fence.

According to the Shin Bet, Ijlah said Hamas “is working to make its activities look like a popular uprising in the media, and not a violent operation by its members.”But despite it all --

With all the evidence of premeditation and advanced planning,

Despite statements in Arabic that are easily available online in translation,

Contrary to statements made  to the media by the rioters themselves,

And even with video of infiltration into Israel, of kites setting fields on fire and of calls for death to Jews,

The media still insists on writing about peaceful protests, bewildered by how Israel uses live ammunition to prevent Gazans from doing what they proclaim to the world they want to do and eagerly accepting whatever explanation Hamas terrorists tell them.


-----
If you found this post interesting or informative, please it below. Thanks!
Categories: Middle East

International Law Is Not Keeping Up With The New Ways Hamas Exploits Human Shields

Daled Amos - Fri, 11/05/2018 - 15:58
Hamas terrorists may very well have elevated the exploitation of human shields to an art. For years, they have taken advantage of the civilian population in Gaza by hiding among them, while targeting the civilian population of Israel with their rockets.
Now Hamas has done something new. The media would have you believe that Gazans in general, and Hamas in particular, are experimenting for the first time with peaceful protests, reminiscent of Martin Luther King and Selma. In reality, what is new is that Hamas has been using tens of thousands of Gazans -- including children -- as cover while trying to infiltrate Israel, both on land by breaching border fences and by air using kites carrying Molotov cocktails.

Palestinian child throwing rocks at IDF forces and the Gaza security fence during Gaza border riot.
Source: IDF Spokesperson's Unit)


One response to this breach of International Humanitarian Law (IHL) was reported last month, that Shurat HaDin was going to try to get the International Criminal Court to take action against Hamas:
The Shurat Hadin Israel Law Center is seeking International Criminal Court action against Hamas over the terrorist group’s use of children as human shields in the riots that have taken place over the past month on the Israel-Gaza Strip borderThe Rome Statute that established The International Criminal Court is clear that violations of International Law in an international conflict include:
Utilizing the presence of a civilian or other protected person to render certain points, areas or military forces immune from military operations
(ICC Statute, Article 8(2)(b)(xxiii))But that is not the statute that Shurat HaDin is going to use.

Instead:
The lawsuit is based on a clause in the Rome Statute, the treaty that established the ICC’s work, which says that recruiting children under the age of 15 to any militant organization is a war crime.Why?

The use of Human Shields, like IHL in general, is contested. Even putting aside that both journalists and the man on the street like to consider themselves experts to the extent that they state opinions as fact, even those who are actually expert in IHL do not agree always agree.

For example, in her article Human Shields in International Humanitarian Law: A Guide to the Legal Framework, Beth Schaack, Visiting Professor in Human Rights at Stanford Law School writes about the Geneva Convention:
The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations. GC IV, Article 28. This rule applies to civilians as well as combatants who are hors de combat, such as prisoners of war. No prisoner of war may at any time be sent to, or detained in areas where he may be exposed to the fire of the combat zone, nor may his presence be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations. GC III, Article 23. Note: the Geneva Conventions in general protect only those individuals who are “in the hands of a Party … of which they are not nationals,” which may limit their application to individuals who are utilized as human shields by their co-nationals. GC IV, Article 4. (emphasis added)In other words, based on the wording of the Geneva Convention, when IHL forbids the use of Human Shields, it is talking about using citizens of the enemy country - not one's own citizens.

The actual wording of the relevant article of the Geneva Convention would seem to bear this out:
DEFINITION OF PROTECTED PERSONS
ARTICLE 4

Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals.

Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it. Nationals of a neutral State who find themselves in the territory of a belligerent State, and nationals of a co-belligerent State, shall not be regarded as protected persons while the State of which they are nationals has normal diplomatic representation in the State in whose hands they are.Going a step further, based on the above, since Hamas is not a party to the Geneva Conventions, could it be that Gazans are not protected by the Geneva Convention from being used as Human Shields even if it applies to nationals?

I asked Dr. Robert P. Barnidge about this. He is Lecturer and Coordinator of International Relations at Webster University and Affiliated Professor at the University of Haifa. He is also the author of Self-Determination, Statehood, and the Law of Negotiation: The Case of Palestine. Dr. Barnidge clarified some of the points:
  • Parties to an armed conflict, be the armed conflict an international armed conflict or a non-international armed conflict, cannot lawfully use human shields.
  • While Hamas is not a High Contracting Party to the Geneva Conventions, meaning that it's not bound by the terms of the General Conventions, it's nonetheless bound by customary international humanitarian law.
  • According to Rule 97 of the ICRC's Customary International Humanitarian Law Study, there is nothing to suggest its non-applicability when a state's own nationals are being used as human shields.
This law study is the interpretation of the Geneva Convention by the International Red Cross. Reading Rule 97, it is clear that the law regarding Human Shields applies across the board to both non-nationals and nationals.

This is important because while it’s true that the Geneva Conventions only bind states, in practice, the interpretation of the Geneva Conventions by the ICRC "holds a certain persuasive weight".

So far, so good.

But the Dr. Barnidge also pointed out:
  • Although the authority of the ICRC could be seen as an extension of the same mandate the ICRC has from the signatories to the Convention, the ICRC’s interpretation of the Geneva Conventions is not binding per se
  • The interpretation of International Humanitarian Law principles in practice is a contested terrain.
No one is going to argue against the ICRC and claim that an army is allowed to simply treat all civilians as combatants and attack them. However, there are variables such as the degree of participation in hostilities and the ability to distinguish civilians from combatants.

Keep in mind that in a previous post, What does the ICRC say about civilians rioting in support of a military objective? we saw that experts differed on the paradigm to be applied in the case of Human Shields -- the conduct of hostilities, law enforcement or a combination of the two.

Maybe the lack of absolute clarity in the area of Human Shields explains why Shurat HaDin is pursuing the lawsuit in terms of the recruitment of children, an issue more likely to generate a consensus from the ICC.

Shurat HaDin, in fact, has been working to shed light on the intersection of International Law and War. It has been holding conferences - "Towards a New Law of War."

In 2015, during one panel, "Confronting the Challenge of Human Shields: When Civilians Protect Weapons," Colonel Richard Kemp, suggested a solution to the problem of Human Shields. According to the summary of Col. Kemp's presentation:
How to stop the use of human shields? “Most people agree that the way to deter kidnappers is not to pay ransom, or grant them the concessions they demand,” he said. “The only reason kidnapping continue” is that “ransoms are paid and concessions are met,” he said.

“It’s exactly the same with human shields,” which “work very effectively,” Kemp said. “The only way to stop them is to stop their effectiveness.”

Militaries must be less deterred by human shields, he said, cautioning that “I’m not in any way advocating the unlawful slaughter of civilians on the battlefield, even when they are human shields.” In situations involving human shields, militaries should allow for greater collateral damage than they would normally accept. [emphasis added]Watch the segment below, excerpted to play the relevant portion of Col Kemp's presentation:



He goes on to examine how the Rome Statute might allow for more leeway.

Yet, three years later, we seem no closer to a military-legal solution of how to deal with Human Shields in a way that will dissuade their use.

On the other hand, Hamas has refined their use, incorporating civilians into riots on Israel's borders to provide cover for terrorism -- riots that the media is all too willing to present as peaceful protests.

But don't give Hamas all of the credit.

Maj. Gen. (res.) Gershon Hacohen writes about this new strategy of using civilians for stategic goals:
Over the past decade, the use of civilians as an operational stratagem has assumed a major role in conflict zones. For instance, the Russian government is using local separatists from the civilian population to spearhead the warfare in the Ukrainian region of Donetsk. Similarly, Beijing is making use of thousands of civilian fishing boats in its efforts to extend its sovereignty over the South China Sea. The combined use of civilians at the overt level and of the military system at the covert level, in a supportive secondary effort, is what has given this phenomenon its elusive characteristics. In the West, this is described as “hybrid warfare.” Russian military thinking, which sees an inherent advantage in the ambiguity stemming from combining civilians and soldiers, refers to this phenomenon as the “warfare of the new generation.”He goes on to describe to what has become known in the military world as the "Gerasimov doctrine." The Russians used this new strategy in Georgia, Crimea and Ukraine, where military force was used in combination with civilian activity. For example, in Georgia the pro-Russia citizens of Georgia seized tunnels and bridges on the expressway leading to the capital, Tbilisi. This enabled armed forces to enter the north of the country.

Screenshot of General of the Russian Army Valeriy Gerasimov
He concludes with a comparison with Hamas:
Against this backdrop, the images arriving from the confrontation along the Gaza fence need not be interpreted as IDF units suppressing civilian protests but as IDF forces protecting the kindergartens and civilians of the Nahal Oz and Kerem Shalom kibbutzim, which are about 200 meters from the fence and under threat from a terror organization in civilian guise.Gerasimov himself writes in The Value of Science Is in the Foresight: New Challenges Demand Rethinking the Forms and Methods of Carrying out Combat Operations
The focus of applied methods of conflict has altered in the direction of the broad use of political, economic, informational, humanitarian, and other nonmilitary measures—applied in coordination with the protest potential of the population [emphasis added].Colonel Kemp's suggestion, seemingly extreme when he first offered it, may no longer be enough just 3 years later.


-----
If you found this post interesting or informative, please it below. Thanks!
Categories: Middle East

Judging J Street By The Candidates They Support

Daled Amos - Thu, 03/05/2018 - 16:03

J Street, founded back in November 2007, made no secret of its agenda in its beginnings. In 2009, co-founder Jeremy Ben-Ami admitted to New York Times journalist James Traub:
Our No. 1 agenda item is to do whatever we can in Congress to act as the president’s blocking back.Back then, there was also no secret about what kind of candidates J Street was going to support -- all you had to do was check their website.
  • In 2010, J Street endorsed 61 candidates - all Democrats
  • In 2012, J Street endorsed 41 candidates - all Democrats
  • In 2014, J Street endorsed 71 candidates - all Democrats
  • In 2016, J Street endorsed 73 candidates - all Democrats
That's 246 candidates J Street has endorsed during that time, and all of them Democrats.

So much for the importance of bi-partisan support for Israel.


Instead, when J Street claims it is "The Political Home for Pro-Israel, Pro-Peace Americans" -- it should admit that only Democrats need apply!

That page no longer exists.

Instead, these days there is a separate site, J Street Pac, which lists J Street Pac candidates. It lists the candidates according to name, state and office -- but unlike the obsolete page on the J Street site, this page does not list the party of the candidate.

So what kind of candidates is J Street going to support?
Since J Street claims to be pro-Israel, one would naturally suppose that J Street will make a point of supporting only those candidates whose pro-Israel bona fides are impeccable.

But then again, J Street's pro-Israel bona fides are themselves far from impeccable.

True, J Street claims to support Israel, that it is "pro-Israel, pro-peace".

But look at their record:
So if this is the kind of organization J Street is, we can expect that the candidates it supports reflect J Street's own anti-Israel animus.

Here is a recent example that proves the point.

On April 25, a letter signed by 3 Congressmen was sent to Ron Dermer, Israeli ambassador to the US to oversee the use of US tax dollars for humanitarian aid in Gaza:



Among the points the letter claims:
  • There is a decade-old blockade of Gaza - not mentioning that the blockade was instituted as a response to the bloody Hamas coup that led to the increased threat of rockets and terror attacks. Also not mentioned is the millions of tons of food and supplies provided by Israel, a fact that challenges the claim that there is a "blockade"  
  • The threat to the water and electricity is mentioned generally, as if Israel is to blame for shortages, with no mention that the government is run by a terrorist organization, which should be held responsible for its actions -- but is not.  
  • Aid through UNRWA is referred to as having a security function, despite the numerous examples of the anti-Israel bias of UNRWA, as documented by Elder of Ziyon  
  • Israel denied their request in June 2016 to enter Gaza, a request they claim was without justification. It would be convenient for Israel to give a reason and justification for refusing the request, but the fact remains it is Israel's border and it has the right to refuse. 
  • The letter suggests that in refusing the request, Israel does not want them to see the worsening conditions in Gaza -- again implying that Israel is responsible for them.
The 3 Congressmen who signed the letter -- Pocan, Kildee and Johnson -- are supported by J Street. What else do we know about them?

The Washington Free Beacon reported that Representative Mark Pocan was identified as the member of Congress who last year anonymously reserved official Capitol Hill space for an anti-Israel forum organized by organizations that support boycotts. In the end, Pocan did not attend the anti-Israel forum he sponsored. A senior Congressional official was quoted as saying
[Pocan] chose to facilitate a pro-BDS smear campaign using taxpayer dollars without even showing his face at the event...As millions of Jews and non-Jews alike celebrate the 50th anniversary of the reunification of Jerusalem, Congressman Pocan and his J-Street lackeys are spending their time working to undermine the state of Israel.Senator Mark Pocan official photo

Another of the 3 Congressmen, Representative Hank Johnson, referred to Israelis living in Judea and Samaria as...termites:
There has been a steady [stream], almost like termites can get into a residence and eat before you know that you’ve been eaten up and you fall in on yourself, there has been settlement activity that has marched forward with impunity and at an ever increasing rate to the point where it has become alarming.Johnson's 2016 statement of "increasing" settlement activity is easily refuted by the facts. Keep in mind that Johnson is the one who claimed in 2010 that stationing 8,000 Marines on Guam would cause the island to "become so overly populated that it will tip over and capsize."

As an apology for his dehumanizing comment, Johnson said his comment was a:
Poor choice of words – apologies for offense...Point is settlement activity continues slowly undermine 2-state solution.Senator Hank Johnson official photo
As for Congressman Kildee, he was one of 3 Congressman in 2016 who met with Shawan Jabarin, an Arab terrorist affiliated with the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. Mark Pocan and Hank Johnson were among them. Such a meeting implies sloppy vetting - or worse.

Senator Daniel Kildee official photo
When you compare the statements and actions of J Street with those of Senators Mark Pocan, Hank Johnson and Daniel Kildee they do seem to be a good fit -- they all undermine Israel.



-----
If you found this post interesting or informative, please it below. Thanks!


Categories: Middle East

What Does the ICRC Say About Civilians Rioting in Support of a Military Objective?

Daled Amos - Wed, 25/04/2018 - 20:24
Someone limited to just the media coverage of the "Gaza March," could be forgiven for thinking that the issue of the IDF's Rules of Engagement (RoI) during those riots is e a simple matter of math - most of the Gazans rioting at Israel's border are civilians, so that should be the guiding rule for Israel's response.

But it is not that simple.


The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) has a report that illustrates that point. In 2012, the ICRC convened a meeting of experts on The Use of Force in Armed Conflicts: Interplay Between The Conduct of Hostilities and Law Enforcement Paradigms. It examines the connection between the "conduct of hostilities paradigm" for dealing with fighters and the "law enforcement paradigm" for dealing with civilians during an armed conflict.

The report presents scenarios, along with the differing opinions of experts on how force should be used. The expert opinions are presented anonymously.

Flag of the ICRC

One of the case studies presented is "Riots in armed conflict situations":
In the context of a non-international armed conflict, a demonstration to protest against the governments’ repression of the insurgency takes place. More than a hundred people gather on the main street of the capital, where government troop are based. Initially, the protest is peaceful. After some attempts by the government army to disperse the crowd (e.g. with a loudspeaker), the crowd becomes more aggressive and starts to throw rocks at the soldiers. At the same time, fighters take advantage of the riot and attack the soldiers with rifles. Some contend that fighters instrumentalized the population and incited it to demonstrate in order to hide in the crowd and to conduct an attack.This roughly corresponds to the situation Israel is facing now.

According to the report, as long as the actions of the civilians do not cross the required threshold of harm, the "law enforcement" paradigm applies as opposed to "conduct of hostilities." The vast majorities of experts believed that it was best to combine the two paradigms into a parallel approach: apply law enforcement to the civilians and conduct of hostilities to the fighters.

Sounds so simple - even a journalist could have come up with it.

But keep in mind that according to those ICRC experts, incidental damage among the civilians would not be prohibited -- as long as the force used is not excessive in relation to the direct military advantage that is anticipated. In other words, as long as disproportionate force is not used.

And we already know what a simple issue that is.

Outside of that, rioting civilians, unlike fighters, cannot be considered to be directly participating in hostilities. Therefore the rioting civilians cannot be targeted using the "conduct of hostilities" paradigm and under International Humanitarian Law, the presence of fighters does not change the overall civilian nature of the group. Again, it sounds straightforward.

However, according to footnote 70 of the report:
One expert expressed the view however that, in some wholly exceptional cases, rioting civilians can be considered as directly participating in hostilities if they are performing acts of violence which are specifically designed to harm directly the State having to face the riot in support of its enemy. This would be the case, for example, if a riot is led by the enemy in order to destroy the military equipment of the State’s armed forces or in order to divert attention of the armed forces and conduct a military operation in a nearby village. In this exceptional situation, the rioters are actually civilians directly participating in hostilities and become targetable under a conduct of hostilities paradigm.According to this opinion, the rioting civilians can be considered to be directly participating in hostilities:
  • if it is determined that a riot has as its goal to conduct a military operation in a nearby village
  • if the violence is designed to harm the State facing the riots.
The first case arguably is the current case of the Gaza riots, where one of the clear goals is to infiltrate the border fence...



...and if possible reach the Israeli communities nearby.

Source: IDF on Twitter

The second case describes the latest attempts to use kites to carry Molotov cocktails across the border and set fires in Israel.

Kite with Molotov cocktail being flown from Gaza into Israel

In such a situation, according to this opinion, because the civilians are directly participating in hostilities, the paradigm of "conduct of hostilities" and not law enforcement applies - and those civilians taking those steps can be targeted.

Another wrinkle is that according to International Law, as quoted in the report, the presence of civilians does not provide carte blanche for the entire group to act with impunity: “[t]he presence or movements of the civilian population or individual civilians shall not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations, in particular in attempts to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield, favour or impede military operations.”

Instead, if rioting civilians commit acts of violence, then force may be used under "law enforcement" paradigm, which would allow an escalation of force.

On top of all that, the experts who preferred to combine both paradigms -- applying the rules of law enforcement to civilians and of war to fighters -- found their own solution to be impractical:
  • How could soldiers distinguish between fighters (who might not distinguish themselves), civilians directly participating in hostilities and rioters who are not directly participating in hostilities?
  • How could soldiers be expected to apply two different paradigms at the same time and place?
  • Moreover, in most situations of armed conflicts, belligerents may not have snipers able to target surgically fighters among the crowd and thus targeting them may cause excessive incidental civilian losses in violation of IHL.
  • Also, situations of civilian unrest in the context of an armed conflict can be highly volatile and can turn into actual armed clashes amounting to hostilities. 
And then there is the issue of self-defense.
Thus, even if a fighter not using lethal force could be identified and targeted, armed forces would be instructed not to do so because of the risk to cause excessive incidental civilian losses. Instead, if the fighter is using force, he might be targeted under self-defence rules, by a sniper for exampleThese are just a few of the variables involved, according to the ICRC report.

In writing about The Blurred Distinction Between Armed Conflict and Civil Unrest: Recent Events in Gaza, Liron Libman, former Chief Military Prosecutor and Head of the International Law Department in the IDF notes:
"The purpose of IHL is to strike a balance between military necessity and humanitarian concerns during an armed conflict. Rules that ignore legitimate military needs are not likely to be sustainable."The idea that International Law looks out for military necessity, and not only humanitarian rights, is lost on journalists and those who freely volunteer their personal opinion of international law as a club to beat the IDF whenever a military situation arises.

In any case, it has been reported that the IDF Chief of staff has ordered a probe will address the issue of civilian casualties.

The ICRC report illustrates that the issues are not nearly as simple and straightforward as the media has been presenting it. Maybe the proposed probe will lead to further clarification of the issues involved.




-----
If you found this post interesting or informative, please it below. Thanks!
Categories: Middle East

To The New York Times, Hamas Isn't Terrorist - It Is "Pragmatic"

Daled Amos - Fri, 20/04/2018 - 06:44
Pragmatic: relating to matters of fact or practical affairs often to the exclusion of intellectual or artistic matters : practical as opposed to idealistic.
Merriam-Webster

To be a pragmatist is to be a realist, someone who understands that there are times that one's idealism or ideology has to give way to different means, even if contrary to that ideology, if one is going to achieve a successful end.

And that is what the new philosophy of Hamas is all about - at least that is what The New York Times believes.

This week, David Halbfinger - who took over last year as the new Jerusalem Bureau Chief for The New York Times - reported that Hamas Sees Gaza Protests as Peaceful — and as a ‘Deadly Weapon’. Halbfinger went on to write approvingly of the Gazan riots controlled by the Hamas terrorists:
Its experiment with popular resistance may or may not be wholehearted, but it is indisputably pragmatic. [emphasis added]Pragmatic?


Hamas logo

Now keep in mind that when Halbfinger started his new position, Times International Editor Michael Slackman and Deputy International Editor Greg Winter wrote of him in their announcement of Halbfinger’s appointment that
He has written hard-hitting investigations of corrupt public officials and businessmen, murderous prison guards, law-breaking Hollywood moguls...No one would claim Halbfinger's writing of Hamas to be hard-hitting or as particularly 'investigative' for that matter.

In his article about the riots last week, Halbfinger described the "protest" as "generally nonviolent." He also summed up that a riot replete with throwing stones and Molotov cocktails, tire burning, explosives and attempts to infiltrate the fence separating the rioters from nearby Israeli communities was "for Gazans, even a tentative experiment with nonviolent protest is a significant step" -- even while granting that Hamas "seeks Israel’s destruction, has always advocated armed struggle."

Getting back to Halbfinger's description of Hamas as "pragmatic," a search of the New York Times website for articles containing both the words "Hamas" and "pragmatic" turned up 247 hits - not exactly scientific, but here are some of the articles that came up:

For 2017 three articles come up on the first page or two of results:

New Hamas Charter Would Name ‘Occupiers,’ Not ‘Jews,’ as the Enemy
Ian Fisher and Majd Al Waheidi, March 9, 2017
Hamas, the Palestinian Islamist group that has governed the Gaza Strip for a decade, is drafting a new platform to present a more pragmatic and cooperative face to the world, Hamas officials confirmed on Thursday. [emphasis added]Actually, the Hamas charter did not change, Hamas still vows to destroy Israel and continues to encourage terrorist attacks against civilians. Yet the word "pragmatic" is not used sarcastically.

In Palestinian Power Struggle, Hamas Moderates Talk on Israel
Ian Fisher, May 1, 2017
Fawzi Barhoum, a Hamas spokesman in Gaza, said the group had to move beyond its original charter to achieve its goals. “The document gives us a chance to connect with the outside world,” he said. “To the world, our message is: Hamas is not radical. We are a pragmatic and civilized movement. We do not hate the Jews. We only fight who occupies our lands and kills our people.” [emphasis added]Again, the article does present both sides on the Hamas claim of pragmatism, but the idea is not directly challenged.

Hamas Offer Reflects Pressure From Egypt and Fatah
David M. Halbfinger, September 19, 2017
Mr. Abbas’s quick and positive reply on Monday — he spoke by telephone with Ismail Haniyeh, the Hamas political director, and promised to follow up after returning from the United Nations gathering in New York — prompted some to ask whether renewed Egyptian diplomatic assertiveness and pragmatic new Hamas leadership had managed to turn a page on the long-running rivalry.Here, Halbfinger goes so far as to present Hamas pragmatism as fact, for which there is precedent 11 years earlier:

Pragmatic Hamas Figure Is Likely to Be Next Premier
Greg Myre, February 17, 2006
Hamas plans to nominate Ismail Haniya, viewed as one of its less radical leaders, for prime minister, The Associated Press reported, citing a Hamas official in Damascus.Does anyone today consider Haniya "pragmatic" or a "moderate"?

Ismail Haniya. Source: Haniya

Maybe claims of Hamas pragmatism are the stubborn insistence that the predicted moderation of Hamas upon assuming power is finally beginning to materialize. But if so, it will take more than praising Hamas terrorists as pragmatists.

Mark Twain once described pragmatism like this:
The man who sets out to grab a cat by its tail learns something that will always be useful.Hamas has had several useful lessons after having been repulsed by Israel on multiple occasions and to a degree neutralized, being pressured by Egypt and after having failed to get the international support and recognition that its fellow terrorist group, Hezbollah, has achieved.

No doubt Hamas has learned a lesson, but what The New York Times and Mr. Halbfinger have failed to do when referring to Hamas as pragmatic is to make clear whether Hamas is in fact being pragmatic in its ends - moderating its declared goal of the destruction of Israel - or whether it is merely being pragmatic in the means to achieve that goal.

Over and over, what self-confident journalists call pragmatism in Hamas is what with hindsight is just deception.

But what about The New York Times description of Israel?

When referring to Israel as pragmatic, The New York Times has - on occasion - used the term sarcastically, critical of whether there is a sincere change of heart.

That is especially true when describing Netanyahu:

What Does Netanyahu Really Want?

Gal Beckerman, December 8, 2016 - Review of "The Resistible Rise of Benjamin Netanyahu" by Neill Lochery
Pragmatism doesn’t tell us much. Every successful politician is pragmatic, if this simply means reading and responding to your public. What Lochery fails to explore are the consequences of Bibi’s “pragmatism” in a place like Israel. Because, in practice, pragmatism for Netanyahu means twisting every which way to avoid confronting the problems of the occupation. [emphasis added]Benjamin Netanyahu. Credit: State Department photo/ Public Domain


Netanyahu Names Avigdor Lieberman Israeli Defense Minister as Party Joins Coalition
Isabel Kershner, May 25, 2016
For all of Mr. Lieberman’s bluster, many Israeli analysts predict that he will become more pragmatic once he takes office. [emphasis added]Hamas disproved those who predicted political responsibility would soften their ideology and rhetoric, but that did not stop the pundits who predicted that Lieberman would soften his views.

When Netanyahu won in 2009, there were those who insisted that if pragmatism was not inherent in the newly elected leadership, perhaps it could be chemically induced, especially if Western values could somehow rub off on the Palestinian Arabs:

Netanyahu to Form New Israel Government
Isabel Kershner, February 20, 2009
A broad government joined by the center and left would likely promote a more pragmatic agenda and avoid friction with Israel’s most important ally, the United States...
Ms. Livni has staked her political career on promoting negotiations with the more pragmatic, Western-backed Palestinian leadership for a two-state solution.Tzipi Livni. Public domain

But on the same day:

Netanyahu, Once Hawkish, Now Touts Pragmatism
Ethan Bronner, February 20, 2009
To many here, it is increasingly likely that Mr. Netanyahu’s government will consist exclusively of parties from the right, which oppose a Palestinian state and favor expanding Israeli settlements in the West Bank, making it much harder for him to exercise his pragmatic penchant.Whatever Bronner's feelings about Netanyahu's "pragmatism," the editor who wrote the headline would have nothing of it.

But 11 years earlier, during Netanyahu's first term in office, there was no sarcasm:

Without Joy, Netanyahu Wins Vote to Adopt Peace Agreement

Deborah Sontag, November 18, 1998
The Israeli Parliament approved the American-brokered peace plan today by a significant majority, reflecting the widespread, pragmatic acceptance here of partitioning the Land of Israel. [emphasis added]and a few weeks earlier:

Returning Home, Netanyahu Faces The Real Battle
Deborah Sontag, October 26, 1998
At the airport in Tel Aviv, despite the chilly reception from the settlers, Mr. Netanyahu received not only a formal brass-band welcome but also a genuinely enthusiastic one from Cabinet ministers and from the rank and file of his Likud Party. This suggested that he has successfully moved his political camp onto new ideological terrain where territorial compromise with the Palestinians, long anathema, has been accepted as a pragmatic reality. [emphasis added]Yet there may have always been a wariness of Netanyahu's polemical prowess:

Israel's Likud Passes Torch, Naming Netanyahu Leader
Clyde Haberman, March 26, 1993
No modern politician here has logged more time on American television than Mr. Netanyahu, explaining in idiomatic English Israel's positions on international terrorism and the Persian Gulf war. And no Israeli politician has adopted a more American campaign style, from his crafted sound bites to his cross-country barnstorming by bus.

So successful is he at reducing his pragmatically hawkish opinions to manageable television proportions that some in Likud -- allies as well as foes -- worry that he is prey to accusations that he is not a deep thinker. One task before him now, these Israelis say, is to prove that he is more than glib.
Similarly, Rabin's electoral victory, ending 15 years of Likud governing was a victory for...pragmatism:

Israel's Likud Passes Torch, Naming Netanyahu Leader
Clyde Haberman, June 28, 1992
Forget for a moment about which parties landed on top and which on the bottom in Israel's national election last week. The real winner was pragmatism and the big loser uncompromising ideology. [emphasis added]Haberman went so far as to see
...the complex combination of events behind the upheaval that ended 15 years of Likud governance, threatening that party's stability and dashing the conventional wisdom that Israel's political drift is inexorably rightward.Yitzhak Rabin,  Source: Israel Defense Forces. Public domainSo much for that idea.

One can appreciate the frustration of The New York Times.

(Maybe they are the ones who need to be more...pragmatic.)






-----
If you found this post interesting or informative, please it below. Thanks!
Categories: Middle East

Are Jews Overreacting To Poland’s Holocaust Law? – An Exclusive Interview With Rabbi Michael Schudrich, Chief Rabbi Of Poland

Daled Amos - Mon, 16/04/2018 - 14:59
My interview with Rabbi Michael Shudrich originally appeared in the March 23rd print issue of The Jewish Press and on their online edition. It is posted here with permission.


Rabbi Michael Schudrich. Credit: Rabbi Michael Schudrich

Although several weeks have passed, indignation over Poland’s “Holocaust Law” still pervades the Jewish community. The law outlaws blaming Poland for crimes committed during the Holocaust, but it has been seen by many as an attempt to deny the Holocaust itself. In reaction, some have suggested boycotting Poland, including ending student trips to the country.

Rabbi Michael Schudrich, chief rabbi of Poland, sees matters in a very different light, arguing that much of the criticism of the new law is misplaced. He recently shared his perspective with The Jewish Press.

The Jewish Press: Before we address the new law, please provide a brief primer on the modern Jewish community of Poland?


Rabbi Schudrich: What’s important to know is that before the war there were 3.5 million Jews, who were murdered by the Germans and their accomplices. That still leaves 10 percent – 350,000 Polish Jews – survived the war. Most of the Jews left, but not all. Those that remained basically stayed in Communist Poland without being Jewish. Many did not even tell their children and grandchildren that they were Jewish.

It remained a deep dark secret from 1939 to 1989. In 1989, communism fell, at which point the not-so-young survivors were confronted with the question: Do I feel safe enough today to tell my children and grandchildren that I am really Jewish? Since 1989, thousands and thousands – perhaps even tens of thousands – of Poles have discovered their Jewish roots. That is the story of Polish Jewry today.

What’s your take on Poland’s new “Holocaust Law”?

The law was not written with the Holocaust as its main concern. It is designed to protect the good name of Poland from false accusations. There really is a fundamental misunderstanding of what the law is about. To say “Polish death camps” is not true, and it is very painful for Poles to hear it.

Now, the way they constructed the law, one could imagine that it speaks about Polish collaborators. But this law is not about the Holocaust directly; it’s about protecting the good name of Poland.

There is a growing number on the right that doesn’t like to talk about the bad things Poles did in the past. But it’s not about distorting the history of the Holocaust. It’s not anti-Semitic; it’s pro-Polish. In other words, it’s not that they don’t want to talk about the fact their grandfathers or uncles collaborated with the Germans because they don’t like Jews. Rather, they don’t want to talk about their grandfathers and uncles [having done something] bad.

Now, the problem is that the way they wrote this very poorly-written law may make it seem like I can be prosecuted if I say a Pole killed a Jew during the war. But fundamentally, this law is not about the tragedy of what happened to the Jews. It’s about hiding what the Poles did.

But isn’t hiding this history a distortion of history?

Yes, but on the other side, to say that all Poles are anti-Semites is also a distortion of history. When survivors say the Poles were worse than the Germans, that’s because the Germans could not tell a Jew from a non-Jew in Poland, and therefore Polish collaborators became very important because they could point out the Jews. The Jews were more threatened by their Polish neighbor than by the Germans who wouldn’t recognize them.

But people misunderstand today. They think the Polish government worked with the Germans. That is simply not true. Germans thought of the Holocaust, planned the Holocaust, and did the Holocaust with the help of collaborators in every country. But without the Germans, there would have been no Holocaust.

So there is a battle against stereotypes on both sides. Now I, personally, as a Jew, am far more offended by the false stereotypes that Poles say about Jews than I am by the false stereotypes Jews say about Poles. What I hear from the Polish side is more difficult than what I hear from the Jewish side. But that anti-Semitic things are said in Poland doesn’t mean we are permitted to say anti-Polish lies.

What does the average Pole on the street think of this law?

Poland was not really free until 1989. It was occupied by the Soviet Union. Poland has only been able to deal with its past since 1989, and this is coming up now because some Poles feel their name is being besmirched. Unfortunately, the way they reacted leaves them worse off than they were before, which is a great irony.

They are a certain segment of the population that likes the law very much. And there is a whole other bunch of people that really don’t get why it is necessary. I believe that certainly more than half the country is against the law.

Has Poland seen a rise in anti-Semitism since this controversy erupted?

For me the concern is not rising anti-Semitism, but that we have heard – because of this controversy – anti-Semitic statements that we have not heard in 25 years. That is the issue.

You have been quoted as saying that Jews should respond to this law by “looking for new ways to connect with the [Polish] Jewish community.” How should they go about doing that?

When people say, “Stop going to Poland,” who is that going to hurt? The Poles would actually be relieved not to have to confront Jewish visitors. And the truth is that right now is the most sensitive period we’ve lived through in 25 years, and all of a sudden we are left by ourselves.

[The boycott] isn’t happening – people have not stopped coming to visit Poland. But the concept is very flawed. So many tens of thousands of Jews visit today. We recently had the yahrzeit of Reb Elimelech of Lizhensk. Many Jews come for many different reasons. And when you come, you should make sure to stop by a living Jewish community such as Warsaw, Krakow, Lodz, Wroclaw, and Gdansk. Bring presents, even small things like your favorite Jewish book or favorite Jewish music tape.

People should write to the Polish embassies and consulates where they live and tell them they are concerned by what’s happening. Write also to your senator and congressman to keep the pressure on — about the law, but also about not allowing discussion of it to permit people to make anti-Semitic statements.

You have been in contact with members of the Polish government. What is your assessment of where they stand on this law?

The problem is no longer the law; the problem is the language and dialogue – or lack of dialogue – around the law. The government has to clearly state that the anti-Semitism we’ve heard is unacceptable. That has nothing to do with the law. People cannot say anti-Semitic things today and think it’s acceptable.

This is something the Polish government is trying to address, but so far has not done so very successfully. They are not sure how to do it. Of all the political leaders in Poland, the president has been the most forthcoming. He visited the JCC in Krakow and said there is no place for anti-Semitism in Poland today and that Poland wants its Jews to stay, which is important for a Polish leader to say. He also spoke on the 50th anniversary of the expulsion of Jews from Poland in 1968 and asked for forgiveness. Keep in mind that he was very young back then.

Where do you see the Jewish community in Poland 20 years down the road?

Twenty years from now? I can’t imagine because I couldn’t begin to imagine 20 years ago what would be today.



-----
If you found this post interesting or informative, please it below. Thanks!
Categories: Middle East

Gaza: One Man's Genocidal Riot Is Another Man's Peaceful Sit-In

Daled Amos - Thu, 12/04/2018 - 16:39
We will take down the border (with Israel) and we will tear out their hearts from their bodies.
Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar, April 6, 2018, on Al Jazeera TV

The sit-in demonstration is set to culminate on May 15 — the day after Israeli independence
NBC News, April 5, 2018

Once again, whenever the conflict between Palestinian Arabs and Israel heats up, a second, parallel story develops as well: the media bias towards Israel.

Take The New York Times, for example.





On April 7, David Halbfinger reported Though Deadly, Gaza Protests Draw Attention and Enthusiasm. He informs us that:
Palestinians seem energized and enthusiastic about sustaining a generally nonviolent form of protest. [emphasis added]Halbfinger has no problem writing that "Hamas, the Islamic militant group that rules Gaza and seeks Israel’s destruction, has always advocated armed struggle" -- and then without skipping a beat Harbfinger claims that "so for Gazans, even a tentative experiment with nonviolent protest is a significant step."

It's not just any Islamic militant group seeking the destruction of its enemy that experiments with nonviolent protest.

The Financial Times has a similar problem using the "T" word.

The Financial Times quotes Ahmad Abu Artema, one of the organizers of the protest, who admits
Hamas was no interloper — he and his colleagues, mostly penniless, disorganised and inexperienced, invited the Islamist movement in, hoping for logistics, some media coverage and moral supportand then, like Harbfinger, the article tries to soften the implications of Hamas involvement, claiming that
Hamas ordered its civilian employees to join the march, shipped in food and water and set up tents. Like everything else in Gaza, the march belonged to Hamas, and threatened to trigger a new bout of confrontation between the militants and Israeli forces. [emphasis added]The Financial Times will not come right out and report that these "civilian employees" are trained terrorists, nor will The New York Times. In fact, the word "terrorist" does not appear in either article.

Writing in The National Post, Vivian Bercovici, a former Canadian ambassador to Israel now living in Tel Aviv, writes about the discrepancy between the claim for peaceful protests and the reality:
Israel’s critics claim the IDF fired recklessly on a “peaceful protest,” massacring innocents. Thing is, peaceful protests do not encourage participants to overrun an international border, or use weapons, while threatening to conquer the country and murder its people. Thousands of Israeli civilians live within a few hundred metres of this fence, in agricultural settlements that have been undisputedly part of Israeli territory since 1948. Peaceful protests are not organized by terrorist organizations and led by terrorist leaders, some of whom show up with Molotov cocktails and other weapons.If taking Hamas talking points about nonviolence is not jarring to The New York Times' readers, then chances are that neither is any of the other propaganda points that the article takes at face value.

For example, Harbfinger writes that Israel uses "disproportionate force to prevent what they believe could be a catastrophic breach in the Gaza fence." The phrase "disproportionate force" is a term used in international law, and in that usage goes beyond just one side causing more damage or taking more lives than the other one.

Harbfinger uses another term of international law out of its proper context when he writes about Gazans wanting to "protest Israel’s longstanding blockade of the impoverished territory and its two million residents" and that "the 11-year-old blockade by Israel and Egypt has driven it into crisis." [emphasis added]

In What The New York Times Isn’t Telling You About Israel’s Gaza ‘Blockade’, Ira Stoll describes the hundreds of thousands of tons of supplies -- medical, agricultural and building -- to Gaza, in addition to water and electricity. The fact that Israel controls its border with Gaza, Stoll notes, is something that nearly all countries do with their borders.

He concludes:
Accusing Israel of a “blockade” of Gaza when in fact Israel is allowing food, medicine, building supplies, electricity, and water into the territory is inaccurate. It gives Times readers a false impression of what is actually happening, uncritically echoing Palestinian propaganda. That’s not to say that the situation in Gaza is a picnic. But the blame for it lies with the Hamas terrorist organization, not with Israel or some “blockade” imagined by Times journalists.Harbfinger appears particularly invested in the Palestinian Arab narrative. He quotes Yousef Munayyer, executive director of the U.S. Campaign for Palestinian Rights, who "likened attempts to cross Israel’s fence to American civil rights marchers’ attempts to cross the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, Ala., more than 50 years ago"

Here are some pictures of that protest march across Edmund Pettus Bridge in 1965:

Edmund Pettus Bridge March. Source: Pinterest

Here is a picture of the Gazan "peace march" from Halbfinger's article:

photo from New York Times article. Fair use

Notice any difference?

Mr. Munayyer doesn't. Harbfinger goes on to quote him that
it’s very important in this moment for the international community to be supportive of the protesters. They’ve always said, ‘Abandon militancy, abandon violence.’Actually, what "they" have said is to stop the terrorist attacks and the deliberate murder of civilians - a distinction apparently lost on both gentlemen.

Harbfinger also quotes Nathan Thrall, an analyst for International Crisis Group "who closely watches Gaza."

According to Thrall, "you had huge numbers going on their own initiative," a claim we already saw undercut by the Financial Times quote of one of the organizers. He goes on to claim that Palestinian Arabs "feel that the Arab states are not so much stabbing them in the back as in the face with their open embrace of Israel" - more than an objective observation

In fact, Thrall is more than someone who watches. Thrall is the author of the book "The Only Language They Understand: Forcing Compromise in Israel and Palestine." Last year, Thrall wrote a piece for The Guardian, entitled Israel-Palestine: the real reason there’s still no peace, an article described as "an adapted extract" from his book.

Thrall is a big fan of using force to achieve peace, especially applied to Israel, based on the premise that "Israel, for its part, has consistently opted for stalemate" -- as opposed to accepting the standard proposals that have been suggested for peace. Thrall advocates applying force on Israel, following the examples of Eisenhower, Ford, Carter and James Baker.

But to Thrall's dismay, US Administrations seem to have stopped applying that kind of pressure.
As a result, Palestinians have been unable to induce more from Israel than tactical concessions, steps meant to reduce friction between the populations in order not to end occupation but to mitigate it and restore its low cost.Counted among those mere "tactical" concessions are apparently the establishment of Palestinian Arab control over Gaza and "the West Bank". This seems to be chump change to Thrall, who instead advocates "forcing Israel to make larger, conflict-ending concessions [that] would require making its fallback option so unappealing that it would view a peace agreement as an escape from something worse."

Harbfinger could not have picked anyone more enthusiastic to add his two cents on the Gaza riots. He can quote whomever he likes, but he should have alerted the reader to Thrall's bias instead of presenting him as someone providing objective commentary.

But with all of that, maybe things are changing.
These protests could represent a change in Hamas's fortunes.

Dexter Van Zile, Christian Media Analyst for CAMERA writes Don’t be fooled: Hamas is losing:
Hamas, a group that was previously able to terrorize Israelis with suicide bombings, kidnappings and rocket attacks, is now reduced to staging riots, setting truck tires on fire and getting its young leaders killed in hopeless confrontations with the IDF to generate sympathetic media coverage. News outlets assist Hamas in its PR war, but the fact is, Israelis are increasingly safe from Hamas attacks — and that’s the story that matters.
Here is how Israel Hayom's Ron Gordon describes "The Evolution of Palestinian Terror":



That said, perhaps we could finally be due for a change in that media coverage.

Writing about Downhill slide: Posturing over the ‘plight of Gaza’ has passed peak virtue-signaling, J.E. Dyer -- a retired US Navy intelligence officer -- notes:
It probably doesn’t feel this way to the people trying to explain why Israel has to defend herself, but over the past week, since Hamas’ border fence “protests” from Gaza cranked up, there has been a distinctly tinny, perfunctory sound to the adverse media coverage and political shouting.

...The difference between now and a few years ago is that there is mostly a flat, exhausted silence surrounding the rote paroxysms from the legacy media and the West’s radical partisans of Hamas. The public mind has moved on.

It has done so for good reason. The “Palestinian” narrative was always manufactured: a great disservice to the Arabs in Judea, Samaria, and Gaza, because it was false and misleading, and never about constructing a future for them.

The narrative’s essentially worthless nature is thrown into stronger relief by the tectonic shifts of regional geopolitics. The Syrian civil war, with its growing Iranian menace and its recurring chemical weapon attacks, is only a few dozen miles away. Hamas bearing the brand of Iran, on the other side of Israel, is not a net positive for anyone but the radical mullahs of Qom.Could the Middle East really be changing?
And if so, how long will it take the public -- and the media -- to pick up on it?



-----
If you found this post interesting or informative, please it below. Thanks!
Categories: Middle East

Jews Have Also Been Holding Onto Their Keys

Daled Amos - Sun, 18/03/2018 - 18:05
One of the issues of the Israel-Palestinian conflict is the refugee problem resulting from those Arabs who left the land during the 1948 War - how many left out due to the encouragement of promises from the Arab world, how many out of fear of the chaos of war and how many and how many from other reasons is a question for another time.

Today there is a symbol used to represent this refugee problem: a key.

Art by a teenage Bethlehem artist, entitled Resolution 194,
a UN resolution. The keys symbolize those kept as mementos
by many Palestinians who left their homes in 1948
It is a poignant symbol - but apparently, Arabs have been known to hold onto their keys before.


In 2005, In 2005, Spain passed a law granting the right of citizenship to Sephardic Jews who were descendants of the Jews who in 1492 were given a choice of either converting or going into exile. Two years later, descendants of Muslims who had been expelled from Spain in the seventeenth century asked for the same treatment. Mansur Escudero, the head of Spain's Islamic Board, representing Spanish Muslims explained at the time:
"It would be more of an emotional, moral gesture, a recognition of an historic injustice," he told Reuters, adding that some "Andalusian" families still preserved keys to houses they left behind four centuries ago. [emphasis added, p. 143]But as it turns out, Arabs are not the only ones to hold onto their keys to remember home.

Nor are they the first - not by a long shot.

While reading Simon Sebag Montefiore's Jerusalem - A Biography, I came across this last week about the Bar Kochba rebellion:
The Jews retreated to the caves of Judaea, which is why Simon [Bar Kochba]'s letters and their poignant belongings have been found there. These refugees and warriors carried keys to their abandoned houses, the consolation of those doomed never to return. [emphasis added]In fact, it appears Jews who were forced out of Spain did the same thing.

According to The Routledge Book of Contemporary Jewish Cultures:
The exhibit on display at a small Jewish museum in Bejar [Spain], near Hervas, concludes with a wooden trunk full of keys. According to legend, when the Jews were expelled from their homes, they retained their keys in exile and across generations, occasionally returning to try them in their doors. A placard by the trunk explains that the keys "symbolize the memory of the homes which the Jews had to abandon...It may be that some of these keys had traveled with them to their new place of refuge. Even if this is not actually the case, this chest gives us a reason to imagine this."While writing this post, I found that I am not the first to notice that holding onto keys goes back as far as the Bar Kochba rebellion. In an anonymous guest post on Israellycool, The Curious Case Of The Key, someone writes
I remembered reading a book by Yigal Yadin by the name of “Bar-Kokhba: The Rediscovery of the Legendary Hero of the Last Jewish Revolt Against Imperial Rome,” an interesting book about the discovery of the Cave of Letters and how the artifacts inside shed light on the revolt. One of the items found in the cave was this:

Source: Israel Museum.Sebag Montefiore gives this book by Yigal Yadin as his source.

For Jews, keys have been no less a symbol of the desire to return home - in our case our indigenous, ancestral home where we have been living for over 3,000 years.

We have returned home.
And we are home to stay.




-----
If you found this post interesting or informative, please it below. Thanks!
Categories: Middle East

Pages