The Right To Destroy Jewish History

It was Mossad agent Shlomo Hillel who persuaded Dr Zvi Yehuda, 86, to gather the research material needed to debunk an enduring myth, that the Zionists planted bombs to cause the Jews of Iraq to flee to Israel. The result is a new book, Torments of Salvation (Hebrew). Y-net News reports:

For about a century, both Iraqi Jews and the world at large were cascaded with misinformation about how the Zionists who were busy building the State of Israel, and required them to make Aliya.

Evidence for this was bombing attacks on Iraqi synagogues and homes, in which several Jews were killed. Shortly after the attacks, a rumor began floating around that it was actually the Jews themselves who were responsible, supposedly terrorizing their own into leaving Iraq.

As a result, the Iraqi government began imprisoning and torturing Jews, exacting signed confessions and then executing the alleged culprits. Later on, Iraqi authorities would boast about their heroic exploit to uncover “the Zionist plot.”

In addition, they compelled some 105,000 Jews living in Iraq to sign a document saying they’re leaving Iraq of their own free will. The subtext was clear: It was the Zionists who made all the Jews make Aliyah, using underhanded means, and the Iraqi government was innocent.

One of the things that helped this lie get ingrained was the fact that many Jews failed to manage to construct a life for themselves in Israel, since the Zionists “imposed” the Aliyah on the Iraqi Jews, who they claimed were doing just fine living in Iraq.

“Both the radio and press in Iraq flooded the consciousness with this narrative,” Yehuda says. “After being translated worldwide, the propaganda became the accepted narrative of both the UN and the American State Department.”

Dr. Yehuda’s book is his personal indictment against the Iraqi authorities over their treatment of the Jewish people. His research shows the persecution of Jews began in the 1930s with the ascendance of Nuri al-Said to prime minister. He disliked Jews intensely and even said to Jerusalem’s Arab mayor at the time: “Jews are the source of evil. They’re spies and we need to get rid of them post haste.”

Words quickly became actions. Jewish property was vandalized and bombed, many were arrested, and anywhere between 200 to 1,000 Jews were murdered (This presumably refers to the Farhud of 1941 – ed) . It was a clear indication that the Nazi regime’s narrative about the Jewish people was taking hold of the minds across the continents.

The connection between Iraq and the Nazi regime also saw Fritz Grobba, a German diplomat active in Baghdad at the time, help Iraq spread anti-Jewish propaganda and secure weapons to that effect. “The Iraqis admired both him and Hitler,” says Yehuda. “The Nazis encouraged that connection and even played gracious hosts to Iraqi officials.”


It wasn’t just the Nazis who made Iraq hate the Jews. Being Hashemites, they dreamed of a massive territorial expansion to accommodate the oncoming Caliphate, which was supposed to include modern-day Israel. They asked the Jews in Iraq to sign a document saying they support the initiative, and holdouts were marked as enemies of the state. Even more bizarrely, Iraq was afraid Israel would become so strong that they would annex Iraq into its “Zionist empire.”

With religious, material and financial persecution raging all over Iraq, the 1950s saw a substantial influx of Jewish immigrants making their way to Israel to avoid the hostility and build a new life.

Yehuda says documents he has collected show how the truth was subverted at the time. “One of the Jews who was hanged in the 1950s had admitted that the Zionists were the ones who made him raid Jewish property, but documents show that the only reason he admitted to it was because he was promised smooth passage overseas. (This presumably refers to the two bombings of June 1951, which damaged the Lawi automobile company and the Stanley Shashoua car showroom, but did not cause casualties – ed).

“There’s also evidence that the Arab inmates made fun of his naiveté, agreeing to a deal that wasn’t worth the paper it was printed on. After they got the signature they needed from him, he was executed.”

Other evidence collected shows that the freshly-minted State of Israel made little-to-no-effort to help Jews residing in Babylonian-Iraq at the time. (It is not clear to what the reporter is referring to – ed). It wasn’t until later, when Prime Minister Ben-Gurion assigned a special committee to investigate the issue, that the matter came to light. It was established that it was Iraqi officials who threw explosives at Iraqi synagogues, not Zionists supposedly trying to force Iraqi Jews to make Aliyah.

But, things then took a weird turn. An Iraqi Jew who served prison time in Iraq (Yehuda Tager implicated Yosef Ben-Halahmi) told Ben-Gurion that he heard that it was the Jews who vandalized their own property. As unbelievable as it sounds, Israel’s first premier believed him over his own committee. He then decided to stay out of the events unfolding in Iraq.

In 2014, the Knesset passed a law that November 30 would commemorate the expulsion of Iraqi Jews, and their torture and imprisonment by Iraqi authorities. (November 30 commemorates the departure and exodus of Jews from all Arab countries and Iran – not just Iraq – ed)

Can your research have future implications?

“Absolutely. Plenty of Jewish historical sites were ruined and rebuilt (sic). They keep talking about the Palestinian Right of Return. What about the Right of Return for Jews forced out of Iraq?”(Rather than call for a right of return for Jews to Iraq, Dr Yehuda ought to have talked of a permanent exchange of refugee populations, with no refugees allowed to return – ed).


 
The Arab Center in Washington, DC published a paperby Mounir Marjieh that described the "status quo" on the Temple Mount, and of course accused Israel of violating it.

Marjieh's honesty is suspect from the start:
Since the 19th century, the Al-Aqsa compound has been governed by a Status Quo arrangement, a modus vivendi that prevents discord among conflicting parties. Accordingly, Al-Aqsa’s administration belongs to a Muslim institution, the Jerusalem Islamic Waqf, which is under the custodianship of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. This custodianship has repeatedly been reaffirmed and recognized by the international community, including the United Nations, UNESCO, the Arab League, the European Union, Russia, and the United States, and was officially recognized in the 1994 peace treaty between Israel and Jordan.
Actually, Israel 's treaty with Jordan doesn't say anything about "custodianship," only that Israel will "respect" Jordan's "special role" in Muslim (not Christian) holy sites in Jerusalem. The language makes clear that Israel is the one that makes decisions, not Jordan. Furthermore, the language implies that Jews can pray in the Temple Mount by referring to " freedom of access to places of religious and historical significance" and "freedom of religious worship, and tolerance and peace."

Jordan's signature on the treaty makes it binding international law.

Now let's look at his description of what the status quo supposedly is, which seems a bit inconsistent and contradictory.


After many disputes among European states in the 19th century for control over various holy sites in Jerusalem, the Ottoman Empire issued a series of decrees to regulate the administration of Christian holy sites by determining the powers and rights of various denominations in these places. The most important of these decrees was an 1852 firman by the Ottoman Sultan Abdulmejid I, which preserved the possession and division of Christian holy sites in Jerusalem and Bethlehem, and forbade any alterations to the status of these sites. This arrangement became known as the Status Quo.

In 1878, the Status Quo was internationally recognized in the Treaty of Berlin, which was signed between European powers and the Ottoman Empire following the conclusion of the Russo-Turkish War of 1877–1878. Article 62 of the treaty stated that: “It is well understood that no alteration can be made to the status quo in the holy places.” Article 62 of the Berlin Treaty extended the Status Quo to include all holy places and not only Christian sites. The Status Quo arrangement is a unique and delicate legal system that contains a specific set of rights and obligations that were created over centuries of practice and are now considered binding international law. It therefore supersedes any and all aspects of domestic law.
The Imperial Firman of 1852 only concerns itself with Christian holy places, not the Temple Mount.

The Treaty of Berlin does not refer to the firman in any way. It does mention a status quo, without giving details of what it is. However, it can easily be read to say that Jews have the absolute right to worship in their holy places, including the Temple Mount. Article 62 says:


The Sublime Porte having expressed the intention to maintain the principle of religious liberty, and give it the widest scope, the Contracting Parties take note of this spontaneous declaration.

In no part of the Ottoman Empire shall difference of religion be alleged against any person as a ground for exclusion or incapacity as regards the discharge of civil and political rights, admission to the public employments, functions and honours, or the exercise of the various professions and industries.

All persons shall be admitted, without distinction of religion, to give evidence before the tribunals.

The freedom and outward exercise of all forms of worship are assured to all, and no hindrance shall be offered either to the hierarchical organization of the various communions or to their relations with their spiritual chiefs. ...

The rights possessed by France are expressly reserved, and it is well understood that no alterations can be made in the status quo in the Holy Places.

So we have a contradiction: the Treaty of Berlin says it supports freedom of worship, but also the status quo must not be changed.

Whatever that is. (The placement of that phrase in a paragraph about France implies that the "status quo" comment is only referring to Christian holy places.)

The Ottomans banned all non-Muslims from the Temple Mount until the early part of the 19th century. Marjieh claims that the status quo was "created over centuries of practice and are now considered binding international law." But if it was created over centuries, and for most of that time non-Muslims could not ascend, doesn't that mean that the status quo allows non-Muslims to be banned forever?

Moreover, Marjieh adds another dimension to his definition of the status quo:


Until August 2000, and despite occasional breaches and escalations, the Status Quo functioned relatively smoothly, with the Jerusalem Islamic Waqf collecting small fees from non-Muslims and tourists, who were allowed to enter the holy site provided they followed the rules of the Waqf....

[Now,] Temple Mount groups and Israeli extremists enter from al-Magharbeh Gate as well, and the Waqf is prohibited from preventing them from entering the site. The Waqf can no longer prevent Israelis in military fatigues from entering, although this act is banned per the mosque’s regulations.

So now the Status Quo is defined not as "the conditions for centuries before the Treaty of Berlin" but as "whatever the Waqf decides it is." The Waqf used to ban Jews and Christians, then they allowed them for a fee, then they came up with a rule to exclude religious Jews (as Marjeih complains that cannot do under horrible Israeli law.)

According to this new theory, the Status Quo is subject to the whims of the most extremist Muslims in Jerusalem.

If it can change for any reason, it is not a status quo by definition.

However, as mentioned, both the Treaty of Berlin, and the Israel/Jordan peace treaty, as well as numerous instruments of international law, guarantee freedom of worship for all. None of them say that you can define a space that has been historically the holiest spot on Judaism as an exclusively Muslim place of worship.

According to the Arab Center, the status quo means that the Muslims can make up any rules they want - and that this is international law. It doesn't take much to show that this argument is not only false but nonsensical and contrary to actual, signed international treaties and conventions - including the one they use as Exhibit A.


 
Part 1

Palestinian Arabs falsely complaining that Israeli Jews are "culturally appropriating" their cuisine have become so common that they are almost a cliche.

But at least some of these accusations cross the line from absurd into antisemitism.

Here's an article this past weekend from L'Orient Today by Emmanuel Haddad:
After hummus, falafel and so many other flagship dishes of Palestinian and Levantine cuisine, knefeh nabulsi is the latest victim of appropriation by Israel.

This delicious dessert, which originated in Nablus and is named after the main ingredient — nabulsi cheese — has been incorporated into a more-than-dubious recipe developed by Pizza Hut Israel.

For Palestinian chef Fadi Kattan, the affront is threefold: "First against the knefeh, then against pizza... And then, against the taste!"

The flavor is as off-putting as it is bitter for Salma Serry, historian of Near Eastern cuisine. The Israeli pizza-knefeh fits perfectly into the definition of appropriation she offers on Sufra Kitchen, the online platform she created to decolonize regional cuisines:

"Appropriation [is the] inappropriate adoption of a group's food without giving it credit, especially for commercial gain. Example: Israeli restaurants profiting from falafel, knefeh or hummus without mentioning their original culture."

The word "inappropriate" in that definition does some heavy lifting here. The USA has lots of restaurants that serve pizza or tacos; is it cultural appropriation to mention them without the prefixes "Italian" or "Mexican?" Apparently, only in Israel, and only for Jews, is cooking food from surrounding countries considered a crime without mentioning their origin - and in the case of foods from Arab countries, the origin in often murky and hardly ever "Palestinian. "

The Israeli Pizza Hut chain never once claimed that "knafeh pizza" is an Israeli food. On the contrary, when they introduced the dish last month, their press release said, “Pizza Hut recognized the unrealized potential of this irresistible Middle Eastern food, and decided to make its own version.”

And Pizza Hut is not calling it "knafeh" but "knafeh pizza." It is a (perhaps bizarre) combination of the two, but no one claims it is authentic knafeh - or authentic pizza, for that matter.

The article goes on:

Salma Serry says she often hears denials of this culinary appropriation, defended as the natural spread of cuisine among different communities.

"Of course, food is meant to be shared. But when there is active violence that takes away a group's cultural identity and denies its heritage, its land and the food it produces while manipulating its history, then it becomes problematic,” she said. “In the specific case of Palestine, it's not about sharing; it's about taking and not giving back."

This is simply not true. Israeli chefs and cookbook writers happily describe where Israeli cuisine comes from. No one is "stealing" anything. Read Janna Gur's "A Short Introduction to Israeli Food" preface to her cookbook Shuk where she concisely describes the Israeli food scene's influences, from dozens of ethnic cultures in the Israeli melting pot but also from the neighboring Palestinians. Yes, sometimes non-experts will lazily say that some Arab dishes are Israeli, but they mean that they are popular in Israel: no one says that they originate there, unless they really do, as in the case offalafel in pita. Similarly, there was much angst when Haaretz once said that shawarma is "Israeli street food" - yet it is, just as much ss pizza is American street food.

Here's a 1949 advertisement for a Tel Aviv restaurant selling "oriental food."



No Israeli ever claimed hummus was natively Israeli.

The real irony is that Palestinians are the ones who have culturally appropriated Middle East foods. They really have claimed to have invented most popular Levantine foodslike hummus and falafel, and here they claim to have created knafeh. They may have invented knafeh nabulsi, which uses cheese made in Nablus, but knafeh itself has much murkier origins.

Why does no one accuse Palestinians of cultural appropriation for claiming foods that were invented elsewhere?

Because they are not Jews.




 
Part 2

There are two reasons that articles like this descend from simple lies into antisemitism.

One is that they are saying that while every nation's cuisine is an amalgam from many places, only Israeli Jews are accused of "theft" - even though Israeli foodies freely admit and eagerly explain where all their dishes originate.

The other is that these articles deny the or even existence of Mizrahi Jews on the Israeli food scene, even though they are the primary source.

The L'Orient article includes this falsehood:
For chef Kattan, the case of hummus is emblematic of the broader problem:

"It was the very first dish appropriated by the Israelis as early as 1948. Originally, the Zionist project was marked by European-style colonialism that denied the Arabness of Palestine and its land. But when they went to eat at the homes of Palestinians who survived the Nakba — during which 580 Palestinian villages were razed to the ground — they said to themselves, ‘This chickpea puree is not bad!’”

Jews in the Middle East have been eating hummus for centuries. This is a Palestinian chef erasing hundreds of years of Jewish history, and claiming that Jews have no right to be in the region.

Here is a Palestine Post article about the popularity of falafel among Palestinian Jews in 1940 - and it interestingly describes the uniquely Israeli version of falafel in pita even then. The writer interviews a Jew who was born in Yemen, went to Egypt and brought his falafel skills to Jerusalem's Ben Yehuda Street.





These articles invariably downplay the role of Mizrahi Jews in bringing with them the bulk of what is now called Israeli cuisine.

Yes, that is antisemitism.




 




 
[ Jordanian understanding of a Peace Treaty ]


The website of the Jordanian Royal Committee for Jerusalem Affairs includes a brief English-language history of the city originally published in 2005.

It glosses over any historic Jewish connection to the city by framing Jews as one of many invaders:


3000 B.C. :
The Arab Canaanites established the city in the third millennium B.C., as archeologists state.

1879 B.C. :
in the Egyptian Tablets, called the Texts of the Curse, the name Ur Salim (the city of peace) was mentioned as the name for the city . The name reoccurred in the year 1300 B.C. in the Tal Al- Amarnah Tablets. At that time, the city was inhabited by the Arab Yabusites.

1300 – 63 B.C. :
The city suffered invasion, occupation and destruction. It witnessed important events during this period . It was occupied by the Egyptians, the Jews, the Assyrians, the Babylonians, the Persians and the Greeks.

63 B.C – 636 A.D. :
This was the era of the Roman rule, which lasted around 700 years. The most important events during this period were :

– The appearance of Jesus Christ (the Messiah) around the first year B.C.
– 70 The city was destroyed by the Roman Emperor Titus.

The Canaanites were not Arabs.

There is no mention of Jewish kingdoms, Kings David or Solomon, the Temples, or even the Bible. Even the Quran says far more about Jews in the land than this commission does.

Well, there is an indirect mention of the Temples when it discusses the different names of the city:
Bayt Al-Maqdis (Al-Quds; The Holy) : The name given to the city by Muslim Arabs.

That name, of course, is a corruption of the Hebrew "Beit HaMikdash" - the Holy Temple.

Practically every mention of Jews in this history is a lie. A couple of examples:
1882: The start of the waves of mass Jewish immigration from Russia to Jerusalem and Palestine.
Only from Russia? Plenty of Jews came from many countries, including Arab countries like Yemen, in the 19th century.
June 1967: Confiscation of 116 dunums within the old city and the demolition of the buildings therein for the purpose of building new ones to house the Jews.
That is the restoration of the Jewish Quarter that was destroyed by these Jordanians in 1948.

21 August 1969: The Jew, Michael Denis Rohan, set fire to the blessed Aqsa Mosque.
Rohan was a Christian.
Jerusalem : The Inhabitants

– In 1918, the number of Palestinians in Old and New Jerusalem was circa (ca.) 30,000 .
– In 1918, the number of Jews in Old and New Jerusalem was ca. 10,000.

I cannot find any record of a 1918 census of Jerusalem, but this is all clearly a lie. In 1922, there were 34,000 Jews in Jerusalem, outnumbering Christians (15,000) and Muslims (13,000) combined.

This official Jordanian document also says:
– In 2000, the number of Jews in the western part of Occupied Jerusalem was ca. 275,000 colonial Jews.
Here and elsewhere, it refers to all Jews in Israel as colonialist - not just the "settlers."
Finally, it falsely claims that the number of Christians in Jerusalem has gone down from over 18,000 in 1967 to 5,000 in 1998. In reality, the number plummeted under Jordanian rule from 29,000 to 12,000 in 1967, and it has modestly increased to about 16,000 today.

This is Jordanian, state-sanctioned antisemitism.


 
A Jan. 3, 2023 dispatch, “Right-wing Israeli minister challenges own government with visit to Temple Mount,” contained misleading omissions and falsehoods. Reporter Shira Rubin detailed Israeli politician Itamar Ben-Gvir’s recent visit to the Temple Mount, noting that it prompted “objections” by the prime minister’s office and “senior security officials,” as well as criticism from both the United States and Arab nations.

The Post described the Temple Mount merely as a “sensitive holy site in Jerusalem.” But this fails to properly denote the centrality of the site to the Jewish faith. In fact, the Temple Mount is the holiest site in Judaism. Despite this fact, Jewish access to the site is severely restricted — particularly when compared to the access granted to Muslims. The Temple Mount also houses what some consider to be the third-holiest mosque in Islam, the Al-Aqsa Mosque.

As Ricki Hollander, a senior research analyst for the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting and Analysis (CAMERA) has detailed, the Temple Mount has been revered by Jews “for millennia,” and “is the focus of their prayers and the site of Jewish pilgrimage, just as Mecca is Islam’s holiest site and the site of Muslim pilgrimage.”

The Temple Mount’s centrality to Judaism has made it a focal point for those who seek to deny Jewish political and social equality in the Jewish people’s ancestral homeland. Indeed, for this very reason, it has become a battleground — a place to contest not only Jewish rights but the very history of Judaism itself.

As the historian Daniel Pipes has persuasively argued, the Al-Aqsa Mosque had languished in the latter part of Jerusalem’s rule by the Ottoman Empire (1517-1917). Only in recent decades has the mosque come to be described as the “third-holiest” site in Islam.

Fatah, the movement that controls the Palestinian Authority (PA), calls its terrorist wing “al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade” and terrorists the world over, from Hamas in the Gaza Strip to the ruling theocrats in Tehran, have used the mosque as a staple of their propaganda.

Indeed, as CAMERA has documented, the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), the umbrella organization that includes Fatah and other movements, has even issued “guidelines” to reporters that encourage minimizing the Jewish connection to the Temple Mount. Ditto for Hamas, Fatah’s rival.

Palestinian Arab rulers have also used the religious site to incite anti-Jewish violence, by claiming that Jews seek to “destroy” or “desecrate” Al-Aqsa and upend the status quo. As the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs (JCPA) noted in an exhaustive report on the subject, “’Al-Aqsa is in danger’ is a classic libel that was embroidered in the first half of the twentieth century against the Jewish people, the Zionist movement, and eventually the state of Israel.”

Unfortunately, the Washington Post’s description of the Temple Mount doesn’t convey this important history. Indeed, the Post simply describes the Temple Mount as “revered in Judaism,” while noting that it is “also revered” by Muslims.

Worse still, the newspaper incorrectly asserts that “a visit to the site by Ariel Sharon, then opposition leader, in 2000 with an army of security guards set off the years of fighting of the second intifada.”


(full article online)



 
FIsibn-WYAAHWq6
 
It is an unquestionable fact that the name we today pronounce as “Palestine” was imposed on the Land of Israel by the Roman conquerors. This was standard Roman procedure to weaken or destroy the Jewish connection to their land. Thus, for example, they also renamed Jerusalem to be called Aelia Capitolina, and Shechem to be called Neopolis (called Nablus in Arabic).

An apparently universal assumption states that Rome derived the name 'Palestine' from the name of Israel’s Philistine enemies, an assumption that is repeated endlessly even by Israel’s supporters. But that assumption, however, is entirely incorrect. The name “Palestine” has no connection, linguistic or otherwise, to the biblical Philistines. Not only that, the actual source for the name “Palestine” is nothing short of surprising.

But before getting into source of the name “Palestine”, let’s look more closely at the Philistines. The Philistines were not native Canaanites; they were later invaders from Crete and the Aegean islands. The Hebrew pronunciation that is biblically applied to these invaders is “Pelishtim”, which means invaders or squatters; and the area under their control was collectively called Peleshet (i.e., territory held by the invader or squatters). It is the Hebrew term “Pelishtim” that ater devolved into the common term “Philistine”.

The Philistines completely disappeared by the end of the 5th century C.E. It is no small irony that the Arab invaders to the Land of Israel have built up a mythology, inconsistent and absurd, linking themselves to the Philistine invaders. Consider their oft cited claim that Jesus was the first 'Palestinian', while simultaneously denying that there was a Judea or that the Temple Mount ever held the Holy Temples.

The question is: If no linguistic connection exists between 'Palestine' and Philistine invaders, where did the Roman-applied name 'Palestine' come from?

An excellent book by Stuart Arden, called “Sense and Nonsense – What You Need to Know About the Arab-Israeli Conflict” (Gefen Publishing House, 2013), provides the details, and they are stunning. [See the footnote at the end of this article.]

When Rome first conquered Israel, it called the territory Provincea Judaea. Though it derived that name from the Kingdom of Judea, it applied the name to the entire conquered territory, which included land on both sides of the Jordan, Samaria, the Coastal Plain, most of the Galilee and the Golan Heights. In short, they applied it to the whole Land of Israel.

But following the Bar Kochva revolt, Rome sought to replace the name Judea, and chose the name Palaestina, or more fully, Syria Palaestina. (The “Syria” portion of the name identified an exceedingly large region – the entire Levant/Fertile Crescent; the “Palaestina” portion of the name, the portion that concerns us, identified a specific area within that larger Syria region.)

The name Syria Palaestina had been coined by the Greek historian/geographer Herodotus, who lived in the 400’s B.C.E. To the Romans, Palaestina seemed like the ideal name replacement for Provincea Judaea since it seemed to derive from the Philistine enemies of the Jews.

Except that, in reality, it did not.

As Herodotus knew, the Philistines occupied a relatively small portion of the Land of Israel consisting of five city states: Gaza, Ashkelon and Ashdod on the Mediterranean coast, and Gath and Ekron a bit further east. And In fact, the area occupied by the Philistines was collectively termed Philistia. But Herodotus applied the name Palaestina to the entire region he described as being located between Phoenicia in the north and Egypt in the south, and which he referred to as the “land of the circumcised” (which the Philistines notably were not). In short, Herodotus applied the name Palaestina to the entire land of Israel.

One would expect that Herodotus had a compelling reason to call the entire Land of Israel by the term “Palaestina”. And, indeed, there was a compelling reason, and that reason wonderfully and absolutely confirms the Jewish connection to the Land of Israel.





















As a historian and geographer, Herodotus was very familiar with the inhabitants of the Land of Israel, and their stories and history. And a key story is that of the Patriarch Jacob wrestling a man/angel all night, before encountering his brother Esau. Jacob emerged from that wrestling match victorious, and the man/angel gave Jacob a new name – Yisrael (Israel) – “because you strove with G-d and man and prevailed”, and he blessed Jacob/Israel (Genesis 32:25 – 30). Yisrael/Israel means the one who wrestled/strove with G-d.

That wrestling match and subsequent new name were so pivotal that they redefined Jewish identity forever. From then on, the Jacob’s descendants would be known as Bnei Yisrael -- the Children of Israel; and the promised land became known as Eretz Yisrael – the Land of Israel.

(Even today, as we merit to see the ongoing ingathering of the Jewish exiles as promised by G-d, the name chosen for the new Jewish state is Medinat Yisrael - the State of Israel.)

The importance and meaning of that biblical event was not lost on Herodotus, and is the key to his coining the name now devolved to “Palestine”:

The Greek word for wrestler is Palaistis, and Herodotus called Eretz Yisrael “Palaistine” – the Land of the Wrestler (Jacob/Yisrael/Israel). Palaistine is simply a Greek translation of the Hebrew name “Eretz Yisrael”, the Land of Israel.

It is time to set the record straight and jettison the false linkage between Palestine and the Philistine invaders. Palestine is an ancient Greek translation of the Hebrew name Eretz Yisrael. It actually constitutes an ancient acknowledgement that the Land of Israel belonged to its Jewish inhabitants; that it never contained an ancient so-called “Palestinian” people. The so-called 'Palestinians' of today are merely Arab invaders who came not so long ago.

And, ironically, every time the anti-Israel world uses the term “Palestine” they are unwittingly confirming the connection of the Jews to the Land of the Wrestler, to the Land of Israel.

From the river to the sea Palestine is already free, and with G-d’s help may we soon merit to see the return of the rest of the Land of Israel that lies on the other side of the Jordan river.




 
[ More reasons why Dayan should have never allowed the Arabs to stay . Time for the PA to go, and most Arabs with them ]

srael will not allow Palestinians to damage a major archaeological site located deep in the biblical heartland of Samaria, one that is revered by millions of Jews and Christians as the location where Joshua built an altar, Defense Minister Yoav Gallant said.

The minister spoke following Palestinian media reports regarding a planned Palestinian construction project in the area of Mount Ebal, an early Israelite cultic site near the ancient city of Shechem. The city, referred to today as Nablus, appears in the Bible as the first capital of the Kingdom of Israel.

The site, located in Area B of Judea and Samaria, commonly called the West Bank, has been under joint control with the Palestinians, as stipulated by the Oslo Accords, for the last quarter century.


The Mount Ebal issue also highlights the need for the preservation, upkeep and safeguarding of Israeli archaeological sites in Palestinian-controlled areas after decades of neglect, damage and disrepair.

“In the wake of reports over the last days in the Palestinian media over planned construction in the area of the Mount Ebal altar, it has been clarified…to the Palestinian Authority that we will not allow any damage to the altar, which has been defined as an archaeological site of historic cultural and religious significance,” Gallant wrote in an official letter.

The Jan. 18 missive, a copy of which was obtained by JNS, was sent to MK Limor Son Har-Melech (Otzma Yehudit).

The defense minister added that he has instructed the IDF to carry out frequent patrols in the area, and to prevent any activity which could damage the site.

“The matter raised…will be examined by the authorized offices, and the enforcement authorities in the Judea and Samaria area will take action, if necessary, in accordance with the responsibilities they carry under the law and the agreements,” read a response sent to JNS by COGAT, the Israeli Defense Ministry body that deals with Palestinian civilian affairs.


(full article online)



 
[ Why do Palestinians want to destroy what is allegedly their Archeological inheritance? ]

The “Forum for the Struggle for Every Dunam” recently acquired official documents from the Palestinian Authority’s Ministry of Local Authorities. They showed construction plans for dozens of units on Mount Ebal in Samaria near the historic Altar of Joshua.

Following the news that the P.A. is actively marketing the parcels at the site, Samaria Regional Council Chairman Yossi Dagan is now demanding action.

“This is the ultimate chutzpah. It’s absolutely brazen. I call on the government to intervene to halt this disgrace immediately,” said Dagan, reported Arutz 7.

“Joshua’s Altar is a site with historical significance, one of the sole remains dating all the way back to the period when the Children of Israel first settled the Land,” he said.

Dagan added, “This crime is not to be blamed on the murderous Palestinian Authority, whose intentions are known, but rather on the Israeli government and every official who could be stopping it and isn’t.”



 

I have even seen academics suggest it is true – using a silly argument that Jews had it better in Islamic lands than in Europe. Is the industrial slaughter of 6 million Jews really the bar we want to measure things by? That’s just twisted.

When you study the actual history you soon realise that Jews ‘knew their place’ and were suffering under numerous special Islamic laws – They weren’t just 3rd class citizens – they were defenceless and vulnerable to vindicitive accusations and frequent mob attacks.


There are examples everywhere – such as this report from a massacre of Jews in Tunis in 1857. There used to be 105,000 Jews in Tunis – now there are less than 1000.

FnmKYDjWYAIrQ5T.png

Or this one from Algeria in 1806. Algeria used to have 140,000 Jews. Now there are none.


(full article online)



 
Former HRW head Ken Roth and other haters of Israel like to claim that antisemitic attacks by Muslims to Jews are often a response to Israel's actions, and therefore Israeli actions is partially responsible for those antisemitic attacks.

There is a tiny grain of truth there, but the modern antisemites are looking at the issue from the wrong angle.

We need to have a short overview of Islamic attitudes towards Jews.

Many apologists claim that Jews thrived under Muslim rule, and insist that Jews had a "golden age" in Spain under Islam. They purposefully airbrush two major but critical features of Jewish life in Muslim countries.

The first thing they ignore is that, while Jews under Islam did not suffer nearly as much as they did under Christendom, there were still some periods of serious persecution. Jewish Virtual Library summarizes some of the worst cases:

On December 30, 1066, Joseph HaNagid, the Jewish vizier of Granada, Spain, was crucified by an Arab mob that proceeded to raze the Jewish quarter of the city and slaughter its 5,000 inhabitants. The riot was incited by Muslim preachers who had angrily objected to what they saw as inordinate Jewish political power.

Similarly, in 1465, Arab mobs in Fez slaughtered thousands of Jews, leaving only 11 alive, after a Jewish deputy vizier treated a Muslim woman in an offensive manner. The killings

touched off a wave of similar massacres throughout Morocco.

Other mass murders of Jews in Arab lands occurred in Morocco in the 8th century, where whole communities were wiped out by Muslim ruler Idris I; North Africa in the 12th century, where the Almohads either forcibly converted or decimated several communities; Libya in 1785, where Ali Burzi Pasha murdered hundreds of Jews; Algiers, where Jews were massacred in 1805, 1815 and 1830 and Marrakesh, Morocco, where more than 300 hundred Jews were murdered between 1864 and 1880.

Decrees ordering the destruction of synagogues were enacted in Egypt and Syria (1014, 1293-4, 1301-2), Iraq (854-859, 1344) and Yemen (1676). Despite the Koran's prohibition, Jews were forced to convert to Islam or face death in Yemen (1165 and 1678), Morocco (1275, 1465 and 1790-92) and Baghdad (1333 and 1344).
Even so, these persecutions and pogroms did not approach the horror of those under Christian rule, for two reasons: Islam did not have the same antipathy towards Judaism as a religion as Christianity did, and Muslim leaders would allow Jews who were forced to convert to convert back in later generations. At the same time, most Jewish rabbinical leaders in Muslim lands said that conversion to Islam was not considered idol worship and did not require martyrdom; Jews could accept the Muslim declaration of faith without violating Torah law and remain secret Jews much easier than the crypto-Jews of Spain and Portugal.

The second thing that the apologists ignore is the pervasive issue of dhimmitude. Jews were legally defined as second class citizens, and usually had to submit to humiliating rules and the jizya tax, in exchange for state protection. By any yardstick, this was official persecution of a minority - apartheid, if you will - limiting how Jews could act, dress, pray, work, travel and interact with Muslims.

Given that Jews didn't have any better options, they generally accepted this tradeoff, because most Christian countries were worse. Muslims were of course quite comfortable with this class system with Muslims on top, dhimmis in the middle and infidels on the bottom, not to be tolerated at all.

For the better part of a millenium this was the situation of Jews in the Muslim world - second class citizenship that was accepted, punctuated with occasional cases of major persecutions.
This was the status quo.

And Zionism has upset that status quo.

(full article online)


 




In 2020, Arab News published an article titled "Arabs founded Jerusalem, says Jordan-based institute."


Among the many references the document uses to make its point is the Amarna Correspondence, a series of diplomatic letters between Canaanite city-state kings and their Egyptian overlords during the 14th century B.C., which mention Jerusalem. The paper presents pictures of the cuneiform tablets uncovered in Egypt in the late 19th century to validate its argument.

Along with archaeological discoveries, the Biblical record is also used as a source to establish original Arab presence in Jerusalem. The Bible, the paper says, shows that “the Arabs, Hamites, Canaanites, and Jebusites were the original inhabitants of the land of Palestine, including the area of Jerusalem.” Canaanites and Jebusites were there long before the Jews, even before Judaism was revealed.

The 108-page document quotes passages from the Old Testament to establish that “Jerusalem was always an Arab city” and notes that, “the Palestinian Arabs of today are largely the direct descendants of the indigenous Canaanite Arabs who were there over 5,000 years ago. Modern-day Arab Muslim and Christian Palestinian families (such as the “Kanaan” tribe, direct descendants of the Canaanites) are the oldest inhabitants of the land.”
The bolded quote makes it sound like the Torah mentions the "Arabs" as one of the Canaanite nations along with the Hamites, Canaanites and Jebusites. And indeed that is what the paper by the Jordanian Royal Aal Al-Bayt Institute for Islamic Thought says.

Obviously the Torah never mentions a nation called the "Arab" nation along with the nations that occupied the land of Canaan. The author made that up.

The paper's argument is contradictory and circular. It doesn't prove at all that Arabs were there - it merely asserts that Canaanites and Jebusites were Arabs, after saying that Arabs were separate from the Canaanites and Jebusites. Then it mentions how the Tanakh mentions that Canaan was inhabited by these nations as if that proves they are Arab.
It also brings as "proof" that "Jerusalem is mentioned by name in the Amarna Correspondence, a series of diplomatic letters between Canaanite city-state kings and their Egyptian overlords during the 14th century."
But no one disputes that the Torah says that it was the land of Canaan and that those nations lived there.. What the paper pretends to do, and fails, is find a connection between Jebusites and Arabs, or Canaanites and Arabs.

The word "Arab" is quite rare in the Hebrew scripture, and never refers to the residents of Canaan. A character named Geshem the Arabian is mentioned in Nehemiah; in Jeremiah 3:2 the word "Arab" is used as a synonym for "bandit."
The term was clearly known to the writers of the Hebrew scripture, and clearly none of them said that Canaan was an Arab land.

Clearly the authors of the paper knew this, and pretended that the Tanach said things it never says.

But why would we expect anything else?



 
The claim that Israel is an illegal occupier of Palestinian land is arguably the most common allegation made against the Jewish State. This broadside, disseminated by anti-Israel activists, positions Israel as having no legitimate basis in international law.

But beyond the rhetoric, does international law back up this statement, or does Israel possess legal rights to the land in question, including Judea & Samaria (often called the West Bank). To help answer this question, HonestReporting Canada is joined by Avi Bell, Professor of Law at Bar Ilan University, who has extensive experience in writing and lecturing on this topic.


(audio online)


 

Forum List

Back
Top