The Right To Destroy Jewish History

The article continues:

The failure of the Camp David talks in 2000 sparked the second, and far more violent intifada, which shifted from stone-throwing to the use of weapons, not least by the Palestinian Authority established under the Oslo accords, and more suicide-bombings
This is revisionist history.

After Arafatā€™s refusal to agree to the US-brokered Israeli peace offer at Camp David that would have created a Palestinian state, a rejection that President Clinton called ā€œa mistake of historic proportionsā€, he launched an intifada ā€“ using Ariel Sharonā€™s peaceful visit to the Temple Mount as a pretext ā€“ to turn attention away from his widely criticised rejection.

Then, the Economist buries the lede:

It prompted Israel to build a security barrier in the West Bank and to withdraw from Gaza in 2005. And since Hamas seized power in the enclave, there have been repeated rounds of fightingā€”the deadliest of which erupted in 2014.
A more accurate take-away ā€“ which would contradict the desired narrative ā€“ is that, despite of Israelā€™s unilateral withdrawal from Gaza, Palestinians in Gaza handed Hamas ā€“ the group committed to Israelā€™s annihilation ā€“ a victory in parliamentary elections, ushering in, not more peace as most commentators predicted following the disengagement, but year after year of terror and war.

The Economist article ends thusly:

ā€¦in the 15 years between the second intifada, which began in September 2000, and the end of the second Gaza war in August 2014, 800 people died each year, on average. Since then, victims have numbered 175 a year. In the same period, Israeli deaths fell from 85 a year to 14.
Israelā€™s military might, its erection of security barriers and its deployment of anti-missile defences mean that, for most Israelis, most of the time, the conflict is out of sight and out of mind. Relations with Palestinians barely featured as an issue in the four elections Israel has held in the past two years. The international outcry over the plight of Palestinians is unlikely to change this mindset. The latest fighting may show how the unjust treatment of the Palestinians stores up trouble. But even now, the endless occupation seems tolerable to many Israelis who have lost faith in peace.
First, itā€™s misleading to claim that Israelis have ā€œlost faith in peaceā€. Itā€™s more accurate to say that, whilst a plurality of Israelis (including the alternate Prime Minister) still support two states, most Israelis, due to Palestinian peace rejections, the rise of Hamas and the barbarism of the 2nd Intifada, have lost faith in the Palestinian leadershipā€™s desire to truly live in peace with the Jewish state.

But, thereā€™s one more major error in the Economistā€™s analysis.

(full article online)

 
The BBC News websiteā€™s Palestinian territories timeline ā€“ which is presented as ā€œA chronology of key eventsā€ ā€“ includes the following entries under the sub-heading ā€œProgress towards self-ruleā€:

PT-timeline-screenshot.png


The events described in that first entry could not of course have taken place on the given dates because the Oslo Accords Declaration of Principles was not signed until September 1993 and the Gaza-Jericho agreement was signed in May 1994. The Palestinian National Authority was established pursuant to that latter agreement and ā€“ as the BBC itself reports elsewhere ā€“ Arafat arrived in the Gaza Strip in July 1994.
timeline-main-264x300.png


The Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to Arafat, Rabin and Peres in October 1994, with the ceremony taking place in December of that year ā€“ rather than the year before they signed the 1993 Oslo Accords that were the reason for the award, as claimed in this BBC timeline.

Seeing as this timeline is dated April 2019, it would appear that the inaccurate information has been presented to BBC News website users for at least well over two years.

 
The baseless charge that Israel is excavating under the mosque serves Hamas efforts to draw Gazans to the dangerous border clashes. Indeed, it is nothing short of incitement, liable to inflame an already tense region. Given the libel's vast distance from the actual truth, it has no place in any Western organization that fancies itself a news provider.

In addition, the reverential reference to the Islamic site, which happens also to be Judaism's most sacred site, as the "blessed Al Aqsa Mosque," in no way conforms to journalistic practice and standards. And though an arson attack against a religious site is a completely reprehensible act according to any moral reckoning, it is not the role of a news item to label it "evil."

A second series of Sipa captions two days later peddled a separate anti-Israel falsehood: that the Australian Christian tourist who attempted to set the Al Aqsa mosque on fire decades ago was Jewish.
The captions had erred: ". . . the 52nd anniversary of burning the Al Masjid Al Aqsa by the Australian extremist Jewish Dennis Rohan stormed Al- Aqsa. On August 21, 1969, a Jewish extremist stormed Al-Aqsa Mosque and set fire to the mosque . . . " (Emphasis added.) In fact, Rohan was a Christian extremist.


 
The book is pure propaganda, with the theme being that Arabs will "return" - and replace Israel.









No one ever explained from a Palestinian perspective why this supposed ancient homeland has borders created by Western powers a hundred years ago - or why those borders from 1949-1967 happened to not include the West Bank or Gaza. I guess it is just a coincidence that the lands claimed as Palestinian always happened to be the lands controlled by Jews.

The last page of the book hints to a sequel that would be more explicit in blaming Jews:



There is nothing wrong with publishing a book with the Palestinian narrative, as bigoted as it may be. But for a public library to use the book to incite hatred, as was done in Philadelphia, is absolutely unacceptable.



 
A leading Christian scholar says the attack on Jewish history has consequences for Christians. Rev. Dr. Petra Heldt, director of the Ecumenical Theological Research Fraternity in Israel, told Fox News that "re-writing biblical history with an anti-Israel attempt ventures to set a potentially fatal blow to the Christian faith."

Heldt, who is also a professor of history of the Churches in the Middle East at Jerusalem University College and works on mutual understanding between Christians and Jews in Israel, noted that Christian society today is "often on the brink of forgetting the Bible and the Christian tradition." She added that "re-writing Biblical history (in particular by eliminating Israel), therefore, will lure nominal Christians into the realm of the deceiver affiliated with agendas of anti-Semitism, secularism, or other religions."

---

The PA-controlled historic city of Hebron is another flashpoint. Yishai Fleisher, the international spokesman for the Jewish community in Hebron, said the city has served as an example of how the rewriting of the historical record has changed the historical narrative to favor the Palestinians. He noted that in 2017 UNESCO voted to put the Tomb of the Patriarchs as a Palestinian world heritage site that it said was under threat from the Israelis. That vote led the Trump administration to quit the U.N. body.

A spokesman from The United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) told Fox News, "All decisions at the executive board, general conference and World Heritage committee are adopted by member states, not by UNESCO itself," when referring to votes on Hebron and Jerusalem. The spokesman continued that, "UNESCO will keep on opposing any attempts of revision of history: heritage in its historic complexity should unite people, rather than divide them. This is UNESCOā€™s core objective." The spokesman concluded, "Any accusation or comment about UNESCO being ā€˜anti-Israelā€™ is clearly inaccurate."

Fleisher, speaking on Fox Newsā€™ chief religion correspondent Lauren Greenā€™s "Lighthouse Faith" podcast, discussed the significance of Hebron to Jews, Christians, and Muslims. Fleisher explained that Israelā€™s first capital was Hebron, and that Genesis describes Abraham making a land purchase to bury his beloved wife Sarah 3,800 years ago in Hebron.

 
This article is part of an ongoing series of analyses of CNNā€™s recent six-part show, ā€œJerusalem: City of Faith and Fury.ā€ You can find the first critique of the CNN series here: CNN Mangles Jerusalemā€™s History.]

On August 22, CNN finished airing a six-part series on ā€œJerusalem: City of Faith and Fury,ā€ concluding with a distorted narrative of the Six-Day War, a topic CNN has a history of rewriting. As CAMERA has already documented, and will document further in the coming days, the series has been full of factual errors and historical revisionism.

In addressing the Six-Day War, CNN accentuated even further its habit throughout the series of distorting events to portray Arabs as powerless victims. In some cases, this narrative is laid absurdly bare, such as when the narrator tells viewers ā€œ[t]he [Jordanian] shelling is meant to target Jews in West Jerusalem, but itā€™s the Palestinian Arabs living in the area that are left defenseless.ā€ Yes ā€“ CNN suggested that when Arabs were trying to kill Jews, it was really Arabs who were the victims.

Just minutes later the same kind of inversion occurs again:

(Narrator) ā€œOnce Ammunition Hill is under Israeli control, the Israeli Army brings their fight deeper into Jerusalem. But itā€™s the Palestinian Arabs that are left vulnerable.ā€
(Fadi Elsalameen) ā€œThey see, contrary to what they were hearing on the radio at the time, you know, ā€˜we will defeat the Israeli presence,ā€™ and all of a sudden itā€™s completely the entire opposite. People started getting frantic, and again another wave of refugees started marching towards Jordan.ā€
Again, CNN portrays the Arab attempt to remove Jews from their presence in Jerusalem ā€“ for thatā€™s what happened in parts of the city conquered by Arab armies ā€“ as truly a tragedy for the Arabs since they failed in the mission. The question is why CNN would create a narrative in which Arab attempts to drive the Jews into the sea as unproblematic, but Jewish survival and self-defense as a tragedy for the Arabs.

Beyond creating perverse concepts of victimhood, CNN butchers and slants the history in a number of other ways, including the below examples.

----------
It was also not just Palestinian Arabs involved in the violence. Syria served as a sponsor for much of the terrorism.[4] As a part of its ā€œPopular Liberation War,ā€ Syria provided operational assistance to and endorsement of these attacks, including by providing training camps and command posts on its border with Jordan.[5] This enabled Fatah to ā€œus[e] the territory of weaker states bordering Israel ā€“ Lebanon and Jordan ā€“ to deflect reprisals from itself.ā€[6]

While the November 12-13 incidents are notable in that it resulted in a direct clash between an Arab state and Israel, CNN omits that it was far from the first such direct clash. Syria had been shelling Israelis towns and vehicles along the border in the north for years. One such incident occurred 2 years earlier, on November 3, 1964, when Syrian tanks fired on an Israeli tractor. This was followed up 10 days later in a border battle that was ā€œthe biggest confrontation between Syria and Israel in yearsā€ that many feared ā€œheralded a new round of hostilities that would eventually lead to a general warā€¦ā€[7] The months preceding the November 1966 Israeli-Jordanian battle had also witnessed several serious incidents of Syrian forces shelling Israeli communities.[8] These attacks only grew in intensity as time went on and even led to a massive air battle on April 7.[9] Six Syrian fighter jets were shot down when the Israeli Air Force finally acted to try and silence the artillery shelling Israeli civilians.

--------------
All the while, warlike rhetoric from Arab leaders, especially Nasser, had been blasting the airwaves. For example, Egyptian President Nasser spoke on Cairo Radio on May 15, declaring ā€œour forces are in a complete state of readiness for warā€¦ Brothers, it is our duty to prepare for the final battle in Palestine.ā€[15] On May 18, Egyptian radio was declaringā€œ[t]he sole method we shall apply against Israel is total war, which will result in the extermination of Zionist existence.ā€ Then Syrian Defense Minister Hafez al-Assad announced it was high time to ā€œtake the initiative in destroying the Zionist presence in the Arab homeland.ā€[16] A month earlier, the Syrian regime had already declared ā€œOur known objective is the freeing of Palestine and the liquidation of the Zionist existence there.ā€[17] On May 27, just several days after closing the Straits, Nasser also laid out the same objective, stating ā€œOur basic objective will be the destruction of Israel. The Arab people want to fight.ā€

That CNN presented a history of the lead-up to the Six-Day War without mentioning Egyptā€™s removal of peacekeepers, and only mentioning in passing the massing of Arab troops on the border and the genocidal rhetoric, is problematic enough. That CNN instead used the time to imply Nasser was actually just bluffing when he closed the Straits of Tiran is even worse. Itā€™s doing a disservice to the networkā€™s viewers by presenting them with a narrative that can hardly even be called a ā€œhalf-truth.ā€

(full article online)

 
CAMERA has recently pointed out the noticeable tilt in NPRā€™s Middle East reporting this summer. The public radio network obsessively focuses on the Palestinian narrative and grievances against Israel while Israelā€™s positions are marginalized, their context concealed.

Nowhere is this more apparent than in NPRā€™s coverage of Jerusalem. The media outlet aired two broadcasts and published an additional article during the month of July that focused entirely on the concerns of Palestinians who built illegally in the Kingā€™s Garden area of Silwan. The article and broadcasts highlighted their concern about their houses possibly being demolished by Israeli authorities but suppressed the fact that these structures were built on centuries-old conservation land not zoned for and therefore lacking the infrastructure for residential properties. Instead, the broadcasts and articles presented the false Palestinian claim that those who built illegally were forced to do so because Israel allegedly denies Palestinian construction permits as a form of ethnic cleansing from Jerusalem.

These misrepresentations about Israeli policy in Jerusalem were followed in August by an item that bolstered the Hamas pretext for rocketing population centers inside Israel ā€“ namely, the ā€œdefenseā€ of Jerusalem and Al Aqsa.

The battle cries ā€œDefend Al Aqsa!ā€ ā€œDefend Muslim holy sites!ā€ and ā€œDefend Jerusalem from the Jews!ā€ have been used for almost a century as calls for violent jihad. They originated in the 1920ā€™s with Amin al Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem from 1921-48, who established a successful strategy to consolidate Muslim support around him by pronouncing any attempt by Jews to exercise their religious or historical rights in Jerusalem a threat to Islam. The false charge that Jews were trying to take over the al Aqsa mosque was the pretext to foment the 1929 Hebron massacre which resulted in the deaths of dozens of Hebronā€™s Jewish residents and the end of its historic Jewish community there. Husseini and his followers portrayed themselves as defenders of the Muslim faith, using the defense of Muslim holy sites as a pretext to kill Jews in the name of Islam and garner a wider following in the larger Muslim world. Hamas has followed suit, invoking the ā€œdefenseā€ of Jerusalem and Al Aqsa as the reason it was waging war against Israel, targeting population centers deep inside the country with rockets and missiles.
----
Less than one minute of the eight-minute broadcast was devoted to the importance of the Temple Mount to Jewsā€”and much of that time was spent minimizing it. Jewish connection to the Temple Mount was simplistically reduced to the fact that it was ā€œthe site of an ancient temple destroyed 2,000 years ago.ā€ And Israeli writer Pinhas Inbari was interviewed to say that non-religious Israeli Jews ā€œdonā€™t care about Jerusalem, not al-Aqsa.ā€

Missing from the NPR story was that Jewish reverence for the site predates not only the Dome of the Rock and Al Aqsa Mosque (both of which were originally built in in the 7th century CE on the ruins of Judaismā€™s temples) but two Jewish Temples (the first of which was erected in 954 BCE and destroyed in 587 BCE, the second which was rebuilt in 515 BCE before being destroyed by the Romans in 70 CE), that according to Jewish tradition, the site lies on the Foundation Stone upon which the world was created, where the Divine Presence rests, where the biblical Isaac was brought for sacrifice, where the Holy of Holies and where the Ark of the Covenant housing the Ten Commandments once stood.

Also omitted from the story were the many centuries of Jewish pilgrimage from all over the world to the site to participate in worship and festivities, and that the site has remained the focus of Jewish longing, aspiration, and prayers. There was no mention of the fact that daily prayers (said while facing Jerusalem and the Temple Mount) and grace after meals include multiple supplications for the ultimate restoration of Jerusalem and its Jewish Temples., that Jews still maintain the 9th day of the Hebrew month of Av, the date on which both the First and Second Temples were destroyed, as a day of mourning, that the Jewish wedding ceremony concludes with the chanting of the biblical phrase, ā€œIf I forget thee, O Jerusalem, let my right hand forget its cunning,ā€ and the breaking of a glass by the groom to commemorate the destruction of the Temples, and that Yom Kippur services and the Passover Seder conclude each year with the phrase ā€œNext Year in Jerusalem.ā€ All these facts were suppressed in a broadcast that was almost entirely devoted to the siteā€™s importance to Muslims that served in effect as justification of Hamasā€™ pretext for war.

This implicit justification was perhaps best demonstrated by Tanisā€™ disingenuous conflation of Israeli Jews pushing for freedom of religion and the right for Jews to pray on the Temple Mount with the destruction and replacement of the Dome of the Rock with a new Jewish temple. She declared:

[Israeli Professor Pinhas Inbari] says those actually pressing for a change are small radical groups, but those groups have political backing and talk about building a new temple where the Dome of the Rock is. Palestinians see them praying on the compound more openly now in bigger numbers and worry theyā€™ll take over.
Tanisā€™ implication was that there is political support in Israel for building a new Jewish temple to replace a Muslim mosque. In fact, there is no political support in Israel for this.

(full article online)

 
I have noted many times in the past that when Palestinians say that "historic Palestine" is congruent with the borders of the British Mandate created in 1921, they cannot have too much history.

The Palestinian prime minister proved that yet again on Wednesday.



The Jordanian Minister of Agriculture visited the Palestinian prime minister Muhammad Shtayyeh in Ramallah, and Shtayyeh made a statement about the rich ties between his nonexistent nation and Jordan.



He "reiterated the spirit of partnership between Palestine and Jordan at all levels and throughout history, stressing that the two countries are partners in blood, history and unity of destiny."

Before 1946, Jordan was just a river. Before 1922, Transjordan was just a region - just as Palestine was before 1921.




Palestinians are no more descended from Canaanites as Jordanians are from Moabites or Ammonites.



So I suppose that Jordan and "Palestine" do have a history in common, in that until recently, they had no history.

(full article online)

 
This afternoon Patrick Harvie and Lorna Slater, co-leaders of the Scottish Greens, will become ministers in Nicola Sturgeonā€™s government. The appointments come after Green members ratified a cooperation agreement over the weekend. The unity pact is a strategic masterstroke by Sturgeon, handing her an overall majority at Holyrood, insulating her from internal SNP criticism and coopting a rival nationalist party. There is one midge in the porridge, however, and itā€™s this: the Scottish Greens are unhinged. Not merely eccentric or a little outside the mainstream, but full-blown, solar-powered, honest-to-Gaia cranks.

For an illustration, consider a motion debated at their autumn 2015 conference in Glasgow. I was a political reporter back then and covered the event, and the talk of the weekend was Policy Motion 2. Dry-sounding but incendiary, Policy Motion 2 resolved that Israel was an apartheid state, Zionism a racist ideology and Hamas not a terrorist organisation. The text claimed that ā€˜historically the Palestinian peoples have enjoyed peaceful religious and ethnic cohabitationā€™ but had come under ā€˜colonial occupationā€™, listing ā€˜Zionist/Israeli powersā€™ among the colonisers. This occupation it blamed on ā€˜the nationalist ideology of Zionismā€™, which it said ā€˜advocated that Jews should establish a new nation specifically for Jewish people rather than be citizens of the countries where they livedā€™.

It described the (re-)establishment of Israel as ā€˜the Nakbaā€™, the Arabic term for ā€˜catastropheā€™, and asserted that Israel today was engaged in ā€˜colonisation and ethnic cleansingā€™. It charged that ā€˜modern day Zionism, which advocates that Jewish people have a superior right to the land of Palestine, is a racist ideologyā€™.

A few paragraphs later, it forgot the ā€˜modern dayā€™ qualifier and ā€˜condemn[ed] Zionism as a racist ideology based on Jewish supremacy in Palestineā€™. The text ā€˜condemns Israel's claim to be 'the Jewish State'ā€™ and accused it of giving ā€˜preferential rights to Jews over Palestiniansā€™, characterising it instead as an ā€˜apartheidā€™ state ā€˜in which non-Jews have inferior rightsā€™. As such, ā€˜Israelā€™s claim to be a Jewish and democratic stateā€™ was ā€˜unacceptableā€™ to the Scottish Greens.

The motion called for the repeal of Israelā€™s law of return for Jews at the same time as backing an unfettered right of return for all Palestinian Arabs and their descendants. While supporting the establishment of a Palestinian state, the resolution referred to ā€˜the lands of historic Palestine and its peoplesā€™ and ā€˜the lands currently designated as Israel and the occupied territoriesā€™. The motion didnā€™t explicitly advocate the destruction of the State of Israel but language like this, and terms such as ā€˜Post Apartheid Palestineā€™, donā€™t require much parsing to catch their drift.

The motion called for the repeal of Israelā€™s law of return for Jews at the same time as backing an unfettered right of return for all Palestinian Arabs and their descendants
According to the resolution, the security barrier built by Israel to stop Palestinian suicide bombers ā€˜constitutes the most visible implementation of the segregation of Palestinians into controlled areas, which constitutes a policy of Apartheidā€™. The barrier had to be destroyed and ā€˜compensationā€¦paid to those affected by its constructionā€™. The policy endorsed commercial, cultural and academic boycotts of Israel, divestment of local authorities and civil society organisations and other sanctions against the Jewish state. It condemned the Jewish National Fund, a charity that plants trees in Israel, and called for its UK charitable status to be revoked. While urging that Israeli politicians and military leaders ā€˜be pursuedā€¦ to stand trial in the International Criminal Courtā€™, the motion demanded ā€˜the removal of Hamas from the designation as a terrorist organisationā€™ and ā€˜the unconditional releaseā€™ of what it called ā€˜Palestinian political prisonersā€™ from Israeli jails.

The Hamas point was extreme enough to earn the Greens some headlines in the Scottish media, which is generally ill-disposed to Israel.

(full article online)

 
The Palestinian Authority instructs Palestinian children never to acknowledge Israel's ā€Žright to exist.
Israel exists !!!!!!
First time I've heard about it.
Na, Israel was a person, not a place and as I remember it, was buried somewhere in Jordan.

King James Bible
And God said unto him, Thy name is Jacob: thy name shall not be called any more Jacob, but Israel shall be thy name: and he called his name Israel.

And Israel wasn't even buried in "Israel"; go figure

Genesis 47:30 but when I rest with my fathers, carry me out of Egypt and bury me [ Israel ] where they are buried." "I will do as you say," he said. ;
Genesis 49:31 There Abraham and his wife Sarah were buried, there Isaac and his wife Rebekah were buried, and there I buried Leah.
Genesis 50:10 And they came to the threshingfloor of Atad, which is beyond Jordan, and there they mourned with a great and very sore lamentation:
Genesis 50:13 For his sons carried him [ Israel ] into the land of Canaan, and buried him in the cave of the field of Machpelah, which Abraham bought with the field for a possession of a buryingplace of Ephron the Hittite, before Mamre.
Genesis 50:14 After burying his father, Joseph returned to Egypt, together with his brothers and all the others who had gone with him to bury his father.
Ironick,


Isnā€™t it ironic to find out that Israel was a person, not a place and to top that off Israel wasnā€™t even buried in ā€œIsraelā€.
Go figure

:)-
 
I identify as an Arab Jew. My family has lived in Jerusalem for over 10 generations, and my other ancestral cities include Aleppo in Syria, Baghdad in Iraq, and Shiraz in Iran, along with a small village in Kurdistan.

In our traditional Jewish home, observing our Syrian-Palestinian heritage and culture came with ease. Jewishness and Arabness fit together cohesively ā€” there was no contradiction. But outside our home, my faith and culture clashed. The State of Israel conditioned me to see the intersection of ā€œJewishā€ and ā€œArabā€ as non-existent or impossible, even though Arab Jews have lived at this intersection for years.

She then goes on to review the racism in the early days of modern Israel against Mizrahi Jews - racism that was shameful and real enough although she exaggerates it.

Cohen leaves out a great deal in her essay, facts that are very relevant but that she doesn't want her brainwashed anti-Israel audience to know.

One is that practically no Mizrahi Jews identify as Arab. She is an anomaly. There are millions of Mizrahi Jews who are proud of their heritage that was influenced by their ancestors who lived in the Arab world, but they don' t call themselves Arab Jews. I highly doubt that her grandparents thought of themselves as Arabs. This is a construct has been created relatively recently.

As Wikipedia notes,
The term is controversial, as the vast majority of Jews with origins in Arab-majority countries do not identify as Arabs, and most Jews who lived amongst Arabs did not call themselves "Arab Jews" or view themselves as such.[17][18] In recent decades, some Jews have self-identified as Arab Jews, such as Ella Shohat, who uses the term in contrast to the Zionist establishment's categorization of Jews as either Ashkenazim or Mizrahim; the latter, she believes, have been oppressed as the Arabs have. Other Jews, such as Albert Memmi, say that Jews in Arab countries would have liked to be Arab Jews, but centuries of abuse by Arab Muslims prevented it, and now it's too late. The term is mostly used by post-Zionists and Arab nationalists.

Meaning that the term "Arab Jew" is a new construct created for political purposes, not reflective of reality.

The second fact is related: Arabs never considered Jews to be full citizens in their countries. The lives of Jews in Arab counties were sometimes better, sometimes worse, but they were never, ever considered to be equal with the Muslims. And very often throughout the centuries, Jews in Arab countries were persecuted, forced to act as subservient to their Arab masters, attacked, raped and murdered. Only recently I published a series of articles about how Jews in Muslim and Arab lands were treated in the 1800s but Arab antisemitism is a theme I have documented countless times.
------
Hadar Cohen's article is gaslighting, not factual. It isn't Israel that had created the division between Arab and Jew - but the Arabs themselves, over and over again throughout history.

(full article online)

 
The baseless charge that Israel is excavating under the mosque serves Hamas efforts to draw Gazans to the dangerous border clashes. Indeed, it is nothing short of incitement, liable to inflame an already tense region. Given the libel's vast distance from the actual truth, it has no place in any Western organization that fancies itself a news provider.

In addition, the reverential reference to the Islamic site, which happens also to be Judaism's most sacred site, as the "blessed Al Aqsa Mosque," in no way conforms to journalistic practice and standards. And though an arson attack against a religious site is a completely reprehensible act according to any moral reckoning, it is not the role of a news item to label it "evil."

A second series of Sipa captions two days later peddled a separate anti-Israel falsehood: that the Australian Christian tourist who attempted to set the Al Aqsa mosque on fire decades ago was Jewish.
The captions had erred: ". . . the 52nd anniversary of burning the Al Masjid Al Aqsa by the Australian extremist Jewish Dennis Rohan stormed Al- Aqsa. On August 21, 1969, a Jewish extremist stormed Al-Aqsa Mosque and set fire to the mosque . . . " (Emphasis added.) In fact, Rohan was a Christian extremist.



The Mosque has been standing for 1300 years. Neither of the Jewish Temples lasted that long.. Maybe you should seek reparations from Rome.
 
She then goes on to review the racism in the early days of modern Israel against Mizrahi Jews - racism that was shameful and real enough although she exaggerates it.

Cohen leaves out a great deal in her essay, facts that are very relevant but that she doesn't want her brainwashed anti-Israel audience to know.

One is that practically no Mizrahi Jews identify as Arab. She is an anomaly. There are millions of Mizrahi Jews who are proud of their heritage that was influenced by their ancestors who lived in the Arab world, but they don' t call themselves Arab Jews. I highly doubt that her grandparents thought of themselves as Arabs. This is a construct has been created relatively recently.

As Wikipedia notes,


Meaning that the term "Arab Jew" is a new construct created for political purposes, not reflective of reality.

The second fact is related: Arabs never considered Jews to be full citizens in their countries. The lives of Jews in Arab counties were sometimes better, sometimes worse, but they were never, ever considered to be equal with the Muslims. And very often throughout the centuries, Jews in Arab countries were persecuted, forced to act as subservient to their Arab masters, attacked, raped and murdered. Only recently I published a series of articles about how Jews in Muslim and Arab lands were treated in the 1800s but Arab antisemitism is a theme I have documented countless times.
------
Hadar Cohen's article is gaslighting, not factual. It isn't Israel that had created the division between Arab and Jew - but the Arabs themselves, over and over again throughout history.

(full article online)


Do you ever stop whining and complaining and compiling offenses against you?

Arab Jews | Ethnipedia Wiki | Fandom
Arab Jews are part of the bigger group known as Mizrahi Jews (Hebrew: יהודים מז×Øחי), which are Jews who are locally descended from the Middle East. These are known as ā€¦
 
To the best of our knowledge, Sky News Arabia is the only Western-branded, Arabic-speaking media outlet which covered the Israel-Hezbollah fire exchange while consistently using the ā€œsettlementsā€ terminology in reference to the Jewish communities in northern Israel, thus continuing to question Israelā€™s legitimacy within any borders.

AFPā€™s Arabic wire service, in contrast, refrained from doing so this time, calling it ā€œa townā€ instead. In comparison, between May 14 and 19, AFP Arabic referred to nearby Metula as ā€œa settlementā€ no less than three times. Though CAMERA Arabic contacted editors repeatedly over the matter, theyā€™ve refused to correct it.

In the case of Saudi owned and operated Independent Arabia, the picture is more ambiguous. For the most part, IA covered the early August events while correctly referring to Kiryat Shmona as ā€œa cityā€ or ā€œa townā€œ, populated by ā€œresidentsā€ (rather than ā€œsettlersā€), with the single exception of an August 7 op-ed by Lebanese journalist Walid Choucair.

However, historically there have been ups and downs with this last outlet.

Interestingly, following a June 2020 communication with CAMERA Arabic, Independent Arabia nearly stopped using the ā€œsettlementsā€ terminology in reference to Gaza envelope communities, with two exceptions from June 2021 (one of them a report which indirectly quoted Gaza authorities). Nevertheless, it continued to use the same problematic term in regards to communities adjacent to the Lebanese border, with the latest examples dating back to November 2020 (ā€œsettlement of Manaraā€) and May 2021(ā€œsettlement of Metulaā€). It is hence unclear whether or not IA intends to apply the same standards it set in the case of Gaza, on northern Israel as well.

Notably, in recent months CAMERA Arabic prompted several Arabic news outlets to correct the ā€œsettlementā€ terminology with regards to Jewish communities inside Israelā€™s internationally recognized territory: the Arabic brands of BBC, Reuters and EuroNews.

(full article online)

 
[This article is the third in a series of critiques of CNNā€™s six-part series, ā€œJerusalem: City of Faith and Fury.ā€ The first critique can be found here, and the second here.]

CNN has a problem with Jerusalemā€™s history. The network apparently views the utter destruction of the city, including the Second Temple ā€“ a historic event of great significance to all three Abrahamic religions ā€“ as just not as important to the story of Jerusalem asā€¦Cleopatra.

Part two of the networkā€™s six-part series on Jerusalem ā€“ which claims to focus on ā€œa half-dozen critical moments in the cityā€™s evolutionā€ ā€“ covers the era of Herod the Great. Approximately fifteen-and-a-half minutes of the episode is spent on Cleopatra and Mark Antony. The destruction of the Temple is given just over two-minutes. Put another way, CNN ā€“ in a series on Jerusalem ā€“ spent almost as much time (one-and-a-half minutes) on Cleopatra and Mark Antonyā€™s respective suicides ā€“ which occurred in Egypt and had little if anything to do with Jerusalem ā€“ as it did on the destruction of the Second Temple and much of the city of Jerusalem itself.

To put into context just how little importance CNN attached to the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem, here is the entirety with which CNN discusses the events:

(full article online)

 
Akhbarten.com, an Arab news site popular in Egypt and Syria, has an article explaining a Quranic verse:
The example of those who were burdened with the Torah, but then did not carry it, is like an ass carrying books ā€”evil is the example of the people which deny the signs of God, and God does not guide the wrongdoing people. [QurŹ¾Än 62:5]
The article explains that just as a donkey carries books yet does not understand what they contain, so the Jews are burdened with a Torah they do not understand. Only Muslims do.

So far, this is just another example of how one can find examples of antisemitism in every day Arabic language media.

But the person explaining the verse does not understand it as well a the author of the Quran did.

The Quran's stories often come not only from the Torah itself but from rabbinic sources as well. Its author was quite familiar with Rabbinic stories from the Midrash and Talmud.

This particular verse seems to refer to a famous midrash, the first part of which is familiar to every Jewish schoolchild. When God wanted to give the Torah, he first went to the other nations and offered it to them. They would ask, "What is in it?" and God would answer "Thou shat not kill" or steal or commit adultery, and the nations would decline, saying that one of these sins are part of their national culture. When God came to Israel, however, they didn't ask what was in it, but accepted it wholeheartedly.

The second part of the midrash says, "It is similar to a man who sent his donkey and his dog to the granary, where fifteen seŹ¾ah [of grain] were loaded atop the donkey and three seŹ¾ah on the dog. The donkey walked and the dog lolled his tongue [in exhaustion.] He cast aside one seŹ¾ah and placed it atop the donkey and then did the same with the second and then the third. This is how Israel accepted the Torah, together with its commentaries and its minutiae. Even those seven commandments that the Noahides could not abide and cast aside, Israel came and accepted. "

So the rabbis themselves compared the Jews to a donkey, as a compliment! The Quran took this story and turned it into an insult to Jews - an insult not only for a Muslim audience but for a literate Jewish audience as well!

This paper notes also that a later Quranic verse seems to compare Jews more directly to the tongue-lolling dog of this midrash. (It shows that the verse that the midrash is commenting on is one of the "proofs" Muslims give that Mohammed is alluded to in the Torah.)

 
Akhbarten.com, an Arab news site popular in Egypt and Syria, has an article explaining a Quranic verse:

The article explains that just as a donkey carries books yet does not understand what they contain, so the Jews are burdened with a Torah they do not understand. Only Muslims do.

So far, this is just another example of how one can find examples of antisemitism in every day Arabic language media.

But the person explaining the verse does not understand it as well a the author of the Quran did.

The Quran's stories often come not only from the Torah itself but from rabbinic sources as well. Its author was quite familiar with Rabbinic stories from the Midrash and Talmud.

This particular verse seems to refer to a famous midrash, the first part of which is familiar to every Jewish schoolchild. When God wanted to give the Torah, he first went to the other nations and offered it to them. They would ask, "What is in it?" and God would answer "Thou shat not kill" or steal or commit adultery, and the nations would decline, saying that one of these sins are part of their national culture. When God came to Israel, however, they didn't ask what was in it, but accepted it wholeheartedly.

The second part of the midrash says, "It is similar to a man who sent his donkey and his dog to the granary, where fifteen seŹ¾ah [of grain] were loaded atop the donkey and three seŹ¾ah on the dog. The donkey walked and the dog lolled his tongue [in exhaustion.] He cast aside one seŹ¾ah and placed it atop the donkey and then did the same with the second and then the third. This is how Israel accepted the Torah, together with its commentaries and its minutiae. Even those seven commandments that the Noahides could not abide and cast aside, Israel came and accepted. "

So the rabbis themselves compared the Jews to a donkey, as a compliment! The Quran took this story and turned it into an insult to Jews - an insult not only for a Muslim audience but for a literate Jewish audience as well!

This paper notes also that a later Quranic verse seems to compare Jews more directly to the tongue-lolling dog of this midrash. (It shows that the verse that the midrash is commenting on is one of the "proofs" Muslims give that Mohammed is alluded to in the Torah.)


LOLOL.. I would think the vast majority of Muslims in the world never heard of such a crock of shit.. and could care less.

Disappointed?
 
Here's a nice example of an antisemitic article in the Jordanian Assawsana news site. This is not an anomalous opinion, but mainstream, even though articles like this are somewhat more rare than in the past.


If I were a Jew, I would go back to reading the real history of the Jews.

The Jews are the descendants of the Canaanites who inhabited the country of the East, the area between the Nile River, the Tigris and the Euphrates, and for this reason their flag consists of two blue lines representing the Nile and Euphrates rivers.

...They returned to the land of their fathers and grandfathers in the land of Canaan when our Prophet Moses, peace be upon him, rescued them from enslavement, killing and slaughter of Pharaoh for them. After that, God scattered them all on the earth for breaking the covenants with our master and Prophet Muhammad bin Abdullah, peace and blessings be upon him.

And I will ask and verify why the countries of the whole world agreed to get rid of us and establish a national home for us in Palestine? Is it because people hated us in all the countries in which we lived for our pure and unfair material dealings that are not our religion, and we exploited them and tried to enslave them. . . etc?.

I also wonder why the Jews did not fuse with the different societies in which they lived and continue to live for many years? Why couldn't they merge with the Palestinian people in Palestine as well? . . .

I will arrive at a fact that no one can deny, which is that the problem is not with all the peoples of the world, nor with the Palestinian people, but with the Jewish people themselves. And when I came forward, and because I play the role of a member of the Jewish people, I have to realize the truth of the matter, which is that all peoples hate us, even if they seem to us outwardly love us. And that is because the thirteen Jewish families, the most important of whom are Rothschilds, Rockefellers and Morgans, control the economy, money, policies and global decisions in the Security Council and the General Assembly.

How long will we Jews continue to live in anxiety, fear and terror from all around us? And why? Can we control the peoples of the world forever? Is it not time for us to change our behavior with other peoples? And live a life of tranquility, serenity, security and peace?

See how much the author cares? He only wants what's best for us Jews!

 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top