Friday, October 22, 2004

  • Friday, October 22, 2004
  • Elder of Ziyon
Well, Palestinian Arab children are in the midst of their sixth week of the school year. These school children are learning from new Palestinian Authority school books, made possible through grants made possible by US AID, CIDA of Canada and special grants from EU countries made available for educational institutions that operate in the Palestinian Authority.

This week, the Center for Monitoring the Impact of Peace, an agency that monitors expression of peace and reconciliation in all educational systems of the Middle East, acting under the mandate of UNESCO that encourages education for peace and reconciliation, provided translations of the new Palestinian Authority school books at a press conference in Jerusalem, and published their findings at www.edume.org

In the new schoolbooks of the Palestinian Authority, no Jewish connection to the Holy Land is mentioned whatsoever. Indeed, Jews are only referred to in the context of their wars with Prophet Muhammad, where they are depicted in an unfavorable light, as violators of a treaty they had signed with him and as ”employers of trickery”. And the 5.5 million Jewish citizens of Israel are not even counted in the population figures of the new Palestinian geography schoolbook that covers all of the Holy Land, from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea.

There is a single historic reference in the new Palestinian school books to the role of Jews in “early Palestinian history” – as the people who killed Christ.

At the same time, the new Palestinian Authority textbooks somehow transform the Canaanites and Jebusites of Biblical times into Palestinian Arabs, generations before Ishmael, the primordial ancestor of the Arabs was born, and many more generations before the Muslim conquest ever occurred.

In terms of how the new Palestinian school books define the state of Israel, the Jewish state appears nowhere on the maps in the new PA school books, while series of three maps in the Palestinian Authority history atlas which show the “Jewish Zone” in the 1937 Partition Plan, the 1947 Partition Resolution and the 1949 armistice lines.

However, Palestinian children learn from their new schoolbooks that the Palestinian Arab entity is the sovereign state in the region, encompassing Israeli regions, cities and sites which are presented as part of the Palestinian Arab State. Israeli territory is referred to as “the lands of 1948” or “the Green Line”

The new Palestinian school books describe the Middle East conflict as “a confrontation between “Zionism backed by Imperialism” – and its victims – the Palestinians. Not one word is mentioned in these new textbooks about the UN Partition Resolution of 1947 or about the invasion of the nascent state of Israel by seven Arab nations on the day of Israel’s declaration of independence in 1948.

And how do the new textbooks of the Palestinian Authority explain the creation of the Palestinian refugee problem in 1948 to a new generation of Palestinian Youth? As nothing less than the “outcome of a premeditated plan by Zionism and British Imperialism to expel the Palestinian Arabs from their land”. The new Palestinian textbooks suggest only one solution to their plight” the return of the refugees (or, rather, their descendants) to their former homes inside today’s Israel.

Jerusalem is presented by the new Palestinian Authority as an Arab city from time immemorial. Its Jebusite founders are Arabized and the Israelite or Jewish historical ties to this city, both national and religious, are not mentioned. Jerusalem is declared to be the capital of Palestine.

Jihad and martyrdom are still exalted as ideals, though to some lesser extent than in the earlier books. Individual Palestinian terrorists who were killed in the act of terror are defined as martyrs and prisoners-of-war, and praised in the new Palestinian textbooks as role models for the Palestinian youngster to emulate.

Perhaps what is most worrisome about the new textbooks of the Palestinian Authority is that the western democracies are funding them – the first school system since the Third Reich to inculcate Children to make war on the Jews.

Not only are Western democracies funding the new Palestinian school system. Jewish organizations in the US and Canada and throughout Western Europe encourage their respective countries to aid Palestinian Authority education. Despite wishful thinking that the Palestinian education would change for the better, the brand new Palestinian school books convey another impression entirely.
Hirsh Goodman
Yasser Arafat told an interviewer recently that he wants to be remembered like Nelson Mandela, and that he would retire from his current position as president of no state only when the Palestinian state is established.

For Yasser Arafat to be like Nelson Mandela, day will have to turn to night, and night to day, the Messiah would have to arrive and ice cream be given out free, Madonna would have to become Esther and the Seven Dwarfs giants and camels would need to fly.

Mandela knew when to stop. He fought for his people, sat in prison, used terror, but he knew when to negotiate an end to the bloodshed. He was prepared to share with the whites. Arafat is not prepared to end the conflict and bloodshed, and he’s apparently not prepared to share what he sees as his people’s historic homeland. President Clinton, with the permission of then-prime minister Ehud Barak, offered Arafat 96 percent of the West Bank, all of Gaza, a land exchange for the remainder and, unbelievably, sovereignty over the mosques on Haram al-Sharif, the Temple Mount. Arafat, his appetite insatiable, refused.

After his victory in South Africa, Mandela could have done what others in Africa have done -- get rid of white colonialists, just as Robert Mugabe has been doing in Zimbabwe. Instead, Mandela decided to embrace the whites, immediately make them an integral and secure part of the new South Africa, building on their skills rather than dancing on their ashes. Mandela saw a new future for all the peoples of South Africa, built on tolerance and democracy. Picture Arafat in Mandela’s place: Can we call Arafat tolerant? Democratic? Embracing? Compromising? Another Mandela?

It is extremely unfortunate for all of us in this region that Arafat is not and can never be another Nelson Mandela. Arafat is, as President Bush has said, a failed leader. For proof, take a quick visit to Gaza or a drive through what could have been Palestine and is now more and more becoming Israeli-held Judea and Samaria, where there’s hardly a hilltop left without a Jewish settlement. Nothing more needs to be said.

Arafat has led his people to hell; Mandela led his to salvation. Arafat has brought about the destruction of Palestinian cities, towns, villages and homes. The new South Africa, with all its problems, is flourishing. Arafat has embraced suicide bombers and merchants of death. Mandela’s South Africa is about being reborn in a society of equals.

It has become very chic to say that Israel is the reincarnation of apartheid South Africa. The Palestinians are playing the odious comparison for all it’s worth at every possible opportunity, from the Durban 2002 conference on racism to the International Court of Justice in The Hague this year. The comparison between Israel with its free press and independent courts to apartheid South Africa, where people disappeared into the night never to be seen again, is about as accurate as Arafat comparing himself to Mandela.

Israel’s continued occupation of the territories is morally wrong, though it may be militarily justified. The point is that Israel had a prime minister who tried to give them back and the offer was refused and Arafat was the man who refused it. He could just not bring himself to make peace with the occupiers of Acre and Jaffa and Haifa. Mandela turned South Africa’s apartheid police force into South Africa’s police force, changing their mandate from enforcing apartheid to ending it. Mandela urged the diplomats representing apartheid South Africa at missions abroad to stay in their posts and represent the New South Africa, using their diplomatic skills to best further their country’s cause.

Arafat has seven security forces under his command. He uses one against the other. He turns a blind eye to groups within his own Fatah movement who send suicide bombers on their missions. Mandela had real strength as a leader. He did not need intrigue to stay in power. Arafat survives on intrigue. Without it he would be long gone.

The thought of comparing himself with Mandela is a symptom of the same megalomania that brought Arafat to start the current war with Israel, now in its fifth year, believing that the Jews would run and Israel would collapse. Mickey Mouse will become Mandela before that happens.
  • Friday, October 22, 2004
  • Elder of Ziyon
TEL AVIV – Israel has successfully demonstrated a series of advanced military systems during the war against Palestinian insurgency groups.

Officials said the equipment included unmanned air vehicles, anti-tank missiles and munitions, laser-targeting devices and electronic warfare systems. They said some of these systems would not be fully deployed until 2009.

"Many of these systems were developed to counter a conventional military threat, particularly from Syria," an official said. "Instead, we have found ourselves testing these systems in operations against the Palestinians and see that the equipment can be used in multiple applications."

Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz said the Israeli military has employed what he termed "unique measures" in the Gaza Strip, Middle East Newsline reported. Mofaz said this included new systems and technology, but would not elaborate.

Officials said the new systems successfully demonstrated the fusion of tactical intelligence, airborne platforms and precision-guided weapons. They said the systems have significantly reduced the so-called sensor-to-shooter loop, in which the military has sought to destroy a target within minutes of its identification.

"Israel has adopted the U.S. model of a network-centric force," Col. Didi Ben Yoash, a former senior Defense Ministry official, said. "The use of network-centric is meant to achieve firepower superiority."

The new systems have been tested separately and within a network in both battlefield and laboratory environments. This week, the Ground Forces Command staged a company-level urban warfare simulation to demonstrate the military's network-centric capability.

Officials said one of the goals of the exercise – held at Rafael, Israel Armament Development Authority and scheduled to end on Thursday – sought to overcome limitations on bandwidth communications, a key obstacle to network-centric systems. They said the military planned to conduct a folo-up exercise in February 2005.

Israel invests about $700 million a year in defense research and development, focusing on systems meant to bolster firepower, targeting capability and intelligence, officials said. At a recent conference by the military's C4I directorate, a senior officer disclosed a range of new capabilities developed for both urban and conventional warfare.

Col. Ehud Gal, a former senior official in the Defense Ministry, said Israel has tested a range of new UAVs. Gal, who served as a deputy science chief in the ministry's Defense Research Directorate, said the platforms included micro and combat UAVs.

"We tested a micro-UAV equipped with a camera that went around the room and out the window," Gal told the C4I conference on May 18.

Gal said the military has demonstrated Israeli UAV capability to detect, track and destroy ground vehicles. Gal said the Israeli combat UAV effort was based on the Harpy, an unmanned platform meant to destroy radars and bunkers. He said the Harpy was introduced in the late 1980s but kept under wraps until 1999.

Other capabilities disclosed in the conference were the development of a 30-kilogram micro-satellite and a 155 mm artillery shell that could split into four autonomous warheads. Officers also told of a system that could disrupt and deceive enemy GPS.

"The future battlefield is becoming empty," Gal said. "If you are there, you are destroyed. The only options are stealth or autonomous systems."

Thursday, October 21, 2004

  • Thursday, October 21, 2004
  • Elder of Ziyon
The newly discovered diary of an 18-year-old Jewish girl has offered a haunting insight into life inside a holocaust-era Dutch prison camp in a find archivists are comparing to the Anne Frank diaries.

The writings of Helga Deen describe her last month of imprisonment at the Vught detention centre during the Nazi occupation of the Netherlands before she and her family were transported to the Sobibor concentration camp in Poland where they were murdered almost immediately after arrival.

'Even though everybody is very nice to me, I feel so lonely. Every day we see freedom from behind barbed wire,' she wrote in an extract from her 1943 journal made public yesterday by archivists in Tilburg, in the southern Netherlands.

Ms Deen's entries, written as love letters to her boyfriend, were concealed in a green school notebook marked 'Physics'. Inside its pages the youngster paints a haunting portrait of everyday life inside the camp, charting everything from her feelings of powerlessness and despair to arguments between inmates and the taste of the kale stew they were forced to live on.

David Barnouw of the Dutch Institute for War Documentation said the doomed teenager's writings were an extraordinary find: 'Very few diaries have been written in the camps because of the conditions of life there,' he said. 'If diaries were written in the camps they were rarely recovered because people's luggage was taken away when they were deported,' he said.

Ms Deen's diary is only the third so-called camp journal discovered in the Netherlands, and the first written by a woman. In it, she wrote about how the prisoners were deloused and children put on the transports to Auschwitz.

The diary of another Jewish girl, Anne Frank, helped the world to put a name and a recognisable face to the anonymous millions slaughtered in the holocaust. It records the time the Frank family and friends went into hiding in an Amsterdam attic in July 1942 to escape Nazi persecution. They were eventually betrayed two years later and Anne died of typhus in the Bergen-Belsen concentration camp in March 1945. The diary has sold more than 25 million copies and has been translated into 55 languages.

Ms Deen's diary journal shows how desperation slowly set in. In an excerpt dated 6 June, 1943, just after 1,300 children were deported to Auschwitz and Sobibor death camps, she wrote: 'Transport. It is too much. I am broken and tomorrow it will happen again. But I want to [persevere], I want to because if my happiness and willpower die, I too will die.'

'Packing, this morning a child dying which upset me completely. Another transport and this time we will be on it,' she wrote. It was her last diary entry.

Ms Deen had been in her final year of school in nearby Tilburg when she was sent to barracks 34B of the Vught camp, where she would spend her final weeks before boarding the one-way train to Sobibor. More than 31,000 people - half of them Jews - were held at camp Vught between January 1943 and September 1944.

The journal was brought to the Tilburg archive by the son of her wartime boyfriend, Kees van den Berg, who discovered it after six decades in a brown purse, along with a lock of hair and a fountain pen. 'The purse was like a religious relic for my father. Nobody could touch it,' he said.

Archivists say they have no idea how the diary was smuggled out of the detention camp.
  • Thursday, October 21, 2004
  • Elder of Ziyon
Ten years after Jordan signed a peace treaty with Israel, relations between the two neighbours are far from warm, with most Jordanians persisting in branding Israel 'the enemy', politicians and analysts say.

Political ties are cool, the economic benefits of peace limited and popular animosity towards Israel is widespread over the violence and bloodshed linked to Israeli policies in the occupied Palestinians territories.

Even intellectuals like Hassan Barari who lived three years in Israel to learn Hebrew say they are fed up.

'Every time I see the scenes of Palestinian deaths and destruction on television I feel disgust' towards the Israelis, said this researcher from the University of Jordan's Center of Strategic Studies.

'A poll conducted in 1999-2000 (before the terror uprising - EoZ) showed that 80 per cent of Jordanians consider Israel 'the enemy'. If it was conducted today the percentage would be much higher because of what has happened over the past four years,' he said.
  • Thursday, October 21, 2004
  • Elder of Ziyon
Eight suspected terrorists arrested in Spain this week were planning to bomb the national court in Madrid, police said yesterday.

The suicide attack on the building, a nerve centre in the country's fight against terrorism, would have been timed to kill two senior judges and destroy archives of investigations into Islamic terrorist activity, said a police report.
  • Thursday, October 21, 2004
  • Elder of Ziyon
THE Lebanese Prime Minister resigned and dismantled his Government yesterday, vowing not to return as his country faces intense international scrutiny.

“I deemed it appropriate to present the Government’s resignation, together with declining to nominate myself to the premiership” of the next government, Rafik Hariri said in a statement.

His resignation came after Syria imposed an extension of the mandate of Lebanon’s President Lahoud last month, a move that spurred the United Nations to demand that Damascus stop meddling in the affairs of its smaller neighbour.

Mr Hariri and Mr Lahoud are bitter rivals whose disagreements have paralysed the economy. A spokesman for Mr Hariri said that he “couldn’t see eye to eye with President Lahoud on forming a new government. He’s not coming back.”

A self-made billionaire and a political moderate, Mr Hariri, 60, has served as Lebanon’s Prime Minister for ten of the past twelve years. He was the driving force behind the multibillion-pound reconstruction programme after the country’s civil war in 1975-90.

But the collapse of the Middle East peace process in the mid-1990s and relentless political bickering among Lebanon’s leadership have saddled the country with £17.2 billion debt.

The departure of Mr Hariri, who is well respected internationally, could further isolate Lebanon and its political master, Syria. On Tuesday the UN Security Council released a demand that Syria should abide by a resolution calling on Damascus to withdraw its 14,000 troops from Lebanon, dismantle the Hezbollah organisation and respect Lebanon’s independence. The Security Council instructed Kofi Annan, the UN Secretary-General, to report back every six months on Syria’s compliance.
  • Thursday, October 21, 2004
  • Elder of Ziyon
Rev. Ronald Stone, a retired social ethics professor at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary, was quoted on Hezbollah's satellite TV network as saying 'relations and conversations with Islamic leaders are a lot easier than dealings and dialogue with Jewish leaders,' and that 'we treasure the precious words of Hezbollah and your expression of good will towards the American people.'

The Rev. Clifton Kirkpatrick, the chief executive at church headquarters in Louisville, Ky., said the Hezbollah visit and comments from delegation members 'do not reflect the official position of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) on peace in the Middle East,' and that they should not be interpreted as lessening its 'commitment to continued Jewish-Christian dialogue, Muslim-Christian dialogue, or Jewish-Christian-Muslim dialogue.'

Wednesday, October 20, 2004

  • Wednesday, October 20, 2004
  • Elder of Ziyon
The phrase “occupied territories” has come to mean only one particular place in the entire world - namely Gaza and Judea/Samaria (i.e. the West Bank). That phrase is increasingly becoming a battle cry in a rising tide of global anger directed against Israel. Many view this “occupation” as a crime, so heinous that it exceeds all others in the world, and that it justifies the barbaric murder of Jewish men women and children. Few international issues attract so much wide support or generate so much anger. It seems that the nations are evolving into an international angry lynch mob ready to apply increasing punishment to impose their will even if it threatens Israel’s ability to defend itself.

Many people simply assume, without further investigation, that these assertions and accusations must be true because they are so widely held and because an effective refutation is rarely heard. With so much at stake the accusers have a moral obligation to review the facts before taking sides. This article attempts to briefly review the relevant history and to directly challenge the majority view.

Consider two questions: What entitles any group of people to possess any particular tract of land? How can we decide whether Jews or Arabs have the true rights to posses the “occupied territories”?

In the absence of any universally accepted rules, and in general practice among the nations, it usually boils down to who was there first and also right by conquest, especially if the conquest occurred long ago. There are 191 member nations in the U.N. with some having major territorial conflicts of their own, such as India and Pakistan regarding Kashmir. Also within nations there are separatist groups that seek independence, such as Basques in Spain, the Kurds in Turkey and Iraq, and the Chechens in Russia. To further complicate this question is the appearance and disappearance over time of peoples and of nations. Many peoples of antiquity have long ceased to exist. Also, nations and even empires, come and go over the centuries. During the last century countries such as Iraq and Jordan were established although they never existed before.

With such intense feeling over the “occupied territories” there should at least be some standard against which to determine who is right and who is wrong. In the absence of any universally accepted standard I will set forth my own four criteria before proceeding.

1. Tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, insofar as possible.

2. Apply the same rules to all nations and all disputes.

3. Keep all promises or else have a compelling reason not to.

4. Respect the vital interests of all sides.

Both Jews and Arabs trace their origins back to Abraham of the Bible. Jews descended through Abraham and Sara, Isaac and Jacob (who was later renamed Israel). Arabs descended through Abraham and Hagar the Egyptian, and through their son Ishmael whose daughter Mahalath also married Esau, the brother of Jacob. Thus Jews and Arabs are actually two branches of the same family which have diverged over the centuries. Both Jews and Arabs come to pray at the tomb of Abraham and Sara who are buried in Hebron. Note that today Jews can pray only with armed Israeli guards present because the Arabs attempt to deny Jews access to the tomb.

The Bible, in the book of Genesis, clearly states that descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob will eventually receive their inheritance in the form of the Promised Land, which is later identified to include the general location of present day Israel. But Ishmael and his descendants are also promised an inheritance,

“...for I will make a great nation of him [i.e. Ishmael]” Gen. 21:18.

The very first words in the Bible depict the creation of the world by G-d, Who can therefore assign any land to whomever He chooses. Note that the Jews are assigned only a modest portion of the land in the Middle East, with remaining lands distributed among the other nations. Unlike certain other empires and religions throughout history, the Jews are not promised nor commanded to seize all of the lands in the world, nor to convert all others to their beliefs.

This promise was made at the time of Abraham, about 4,000 years ago and takes further shape in the time of Moses, about 3,300 years ago, where the Jewish People became irrevocably linked to the land of Israel, the “Promised Land.” The Bible assigns this one people to this one specific land and does not do this for any other people. Today there are two billion Christians, plus 14 million Jews, in the world who accept the Five Books of Moses as a pillar of their religion. They all embrace a religion which clearly defines that land as belonging to the Jewish People in perpetuity. Those who deny the validity of this Biblical assignment must then fall back on man-made rules which are subject to constant alteration, disagreement, and conflict.

Historians tell us that at the time of Mohammed, about 1,400 years ago, the Arabs, along with Jews, Christians, and others lived in the Arabian Peninsula. The Quran is the holy book for Islam and is attributed to the prophet Mohammed. The Muslims claim to revere and to follow the teachings of the Quran. It is revealing to compare the frequency of certain key references in the Jewish Bible, the Christian Bible and the Quran as summarized below:

Book / Subject / Number of times mentioned
Jewish Bible / Jerusalem / 669
Jewish Bible / Zion (i.e. Jerusalem or the land) / 154
Christian Bible / Jerusalem / 154
Christian Bible / Zion / 7
Both Jewish and Christian Bibles / Judah or Judea / 877
Both Bibles / Samaria / 123
The Quran / Israel or Israelites / 47
The Quran / Jew or Jewish / 26
The Quran / Christian or Christians / 15
The Quran / Mecca and Medina / 8
The Quran / Jerusalem / Zero!

These numbers provide a telling story. The many references in both the Hebrew and Christian Bibles testify to the integral historic connections between the Jewish People and the Land of Israel and also to Jerusalem, the eternal capital of Judaism and of the Jewish People. Jerusalem was the capital of Israel 3,000 years ago under King David. The Quran was written about 1,600 years later. And unexpectedly, the Quran has more references to things Christian and Jewish than to their own two holy cities of Mecca and Medina. This indicates their early awareness of Jewish roots in that region. But most remarkable is the failure of the Quran to mention Jerusalem even once. And with Muslims facing towards Mecca while praying, and not towards Jerusalem, it is clear that Islam has no Quranic connection to either Jerusalem or to the land of Israel and hence no claim to either.

In addition we have Islamic scholars such as Khaleel Mohammed, at San Diego State University, saying that the Quran actually supports the right of Jews to the land of Israel. He cites Sura 5:20, 5:21 in the Quran which are translated as follows:

5:20. Remember Moses said to his people: “O my People ! call in remembrance the favor of Allah unto you, when He produced prophets among you, made you kings, and gave you what He had not given to any other among the peoples.

5:21. “O my people ! enter the holy land which Allah hath assigned to you, and turn not back ignominiously, for then will ye be overthrown, to your own ruin.”

Reference: The Meaning of the Illustrious Qur’an by A. Yusuf Ali

The essence of the Quran’s message is very similar to that in the Jewish Bible. But this Quranic message is evidently not being taught, or not being believed, by certain Muslims. The Quran also never mentions Palestine or Palestinians. We now have the holy books of Judaism, Christianity, and even Islam, recognizing the Jewish claim to the Land of Israel. Those three religious represent half of all humanity.

Two thousand years ago Rome ruled much of the known world. The Jews in the land of Israel (called Judea at that time) were a colony of Rome with their capital in Jerusalem. The Jews revolted against harsh Roman rule and were defeated after a long and brutal war. As punishment the Romans destroyed Jerusalem and renamed that city Aelia Capilolina and renamed the land from Provincia Judea to Provincia Philistia/Palaistina in an attempt to even erase Jewish history. No Arabs were involved in this action. The capital’s name later reverted back to Jerusalem but the name Philistia/Palaistina evolved into Palestine and came to designate only a region, but never a country or a distinct people. This is the origin of the term “Palestine” which is not even an Arabic name.

Over the following centuries that land was overrun multiple times by various armies until about 1517 when that area became part of the Turkish Ottoman Empire. Four hundred years later in 1917, during WWI the British armies defeated the Turks, and that vast Middle East region, including Palestine, was now the subject for setting new boundaries.

Briefly, England and the victorious allies designated new nations along with establishing new boundaries, such as Iraq and Jordan. Those allies assigned all of Palestine to be a British Mandate to become the Jewish National Home. At international conferences following WWI, boundary issues were settled with Jewish and Arab delegations participating. The Palestine Mandate included all of present day Israel, Jordan, Gaza, the “occupied territories” plus the Golan Heights. The Jews would receive about 45,000 square miles which would be less than 1% of the 5,000,000 square miles assigned to the Arabs.

At the time there was amicable agreement between Emir Feisal and Dr. Chaim Weizmann, representing the Arab and the Zionist delegations respectively.

The League of Nations ratified this agreement making it legally binding under international law. It has never been legally altered or abrogated.

“Under this settlement, the whole of Palestine on both sides of the Jordan was reserved exclusively for the Jewish People as the Jewish National Home, in recognition of their historical connection with that country, dating from the Patriarchal Period ... The Palestine aspect of the global settlement was recorded in three basic documents that led to the founding of the modern State of Israel: ...”

The conventions are cited and they include implementing the Balfour Declaration with commitments by the League of Nations, and the governments of France, England and America.

The British unilaterally detached three fourths of the Palestine Mandate and created Trans Jordan, which was only for Arabs and banned to Jews. The British detached the Golan Heights and transferred that area to French-controlled Syria. They also instigated the local Arabs against the Jews to sabotage the very obligation they were duty bound to implement.

“The British Government repudiated the solemn obligation it undertook to develop Palestine gradually into an independent Jewish state.” ... “The US aided and abetted the British betrayal of the Jewish People by its abject failure to act decisively against the 1939 White Paper [which severely limited Jewish immigration from Nazi controlled Europe into Palestine] despite its own legal obligation to do so under the 1924 treaty. The UN Partition Resolution of November 29, 1947 illegally recommended the restriction of Jewish legal rights to a truncated part of Palestine.

... “Despite all the subversive actions to smother and destroy Jewish legal rights and title of sovereignty to the entire Land of Israel, they still remain in full force by virtue of the Principle of Acquired Rights and the doctrine of Estoppel that apply in all legal systems of the democratic world.”

Had the Western nations and the Arabs honored their international agreements and obligations there would never have been an Israeli-Palestinian conflict today.

In 1947 the U.N. voted to partition the remaining one-fourth of the original Mandate into a Jewish and an Arab sector. The Jews accepted and the Arabs rejected it. Five Arab armies attacked the re-born State of Israel on the day it declared independence. The U.N. totally failed to support its own resolution. During the subsequent war the boundary changed and, when fighting ceased, the armistice line of 1949 became what is referred to as the lines of pre Six-Day War. That armistice line is NOT a legal border or boundary as some prefer to call it, and there is no geographic, demographic, or legal requirement, for it to become permanent.

At this point designations changed. The term Palestine becomes temporarily moot. In that area there were now Israel and Jordan, and the so-called West Bank was occupied by Jordan while Egypt occupied the Gaza strip. The term “Palestinian” originally referred to Jewish pioneers who were returning to reclaim their historic homeland. Local Arabs were simply called Arabs, and they did not want to be confused with the appellation of “Palestinians” who were the Jews.

In the 1960’s Yasser Arafat and others invented their own Palestine/Palestinian identity. In 1964, three years prior to the Six-Day war, and prior to the “occupied territories”, the PLO had issued its infamous PLO Covenant calling for the destruction of Israel. Upon Israel’s rebirth the terms Palestine and Palestinians were now vacated and the local Arabs now seized that identity for themselves as a political tool to use against Israel. A revealing statement comes from PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein as quoted in the Dutch newspaper Trouw on March 3, 1977. In a moment of candor he admitted:

“The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct ‘Palestinian people’ to oppose Zionism.”

Their forged identity now matched their covenant which denied Israel‘s right to exist. The Six-Day War provided another excuse to claim a Palestinian territory and a Palestinian People that never existed. Jewish leadership failed to challenge that identity theft which allowed time for that falsehood to acquire legitimacy. Local Arabs were then taught from birth that they were Palestinians who had their “Palestinian” land stolen by the Jews. This falsehood has existed for decades with little challenge. By now it acquired the status of established truth.

A map of the Middle East shows a vast Arab territory of 5 million square miles plus another area of Muslim non-Arab countries that occupy nearly another 5 million square miles. How did all that come about? At the birth of Mohammed the Arabs resided on the Arabian Peninsula and Islam did not yet exist. Mohammed’s legacy was the Quran, the holy book of Islam, plus a militant drive to spread the faith by conversion and by conquest. Except for the Arabian Peninsula, all the Muslim countries of today, both Arab and non-Arab, are the result of that early expansionist drive. In places such as Spain, that expansion was eventually repulsed but most of that conquest remains in force to this day.

We can now view the Middle East with new eyes. It is not Israel but the Arabs who are the true occupiers in the Middle East. Their long possession of conquered lands does not necessarily legitimize their original conquest. The entire Land of Israel itself bears testimony to the presence of two Jewish commonwealths in ancient times, as evidenced by archaeology, with that presence including the Golan Heights, Gaza, Judea and Samaria (the West Bank). Palestinian claims are totally fabricated. There is no evidence of any prior Palestinian culture, language, religion, coinage, leadership or any other evidence backing their extravagant claims.

But if all that is true how come almost everyone believes that the Jews stole part of “historic Palestine”? This happened over recent decades because of Arab fabrications and the dismal failure of the Jewish leadership to even tell the truth in their own behalf. The Arabs committed a crime in lying against the Jews and the Jews committed a crime in acquiescing in these lies.

A brief word for those Americans, both Jewish and non-Jewish, who are adamant in attacking Israel over the so-called “occupied territories.” The lands beneath their own feet are also occupied territories by this logic. America was colonized after Columbus by foreigners who invited themselves over here. They displaced the native peoples, and slaughtered many of them, mainly in the 1800’s. The Indians ‘traded land for peace’ and received neither. Their reservations house the poorest of all the minorities in this country, with over 300 treaties with the U.S. government still unfulfilled. People who live in glass houses should not be throwing stones, as the saying goes.

This conflict has destroyed many lives in the course of the past century with no end in sight. There is much blame to assign to the major powers and to the Arabs. But it is also time to assign blame to those Jewish leaders who failed, from the start, to stand firm for Jewish rights to the land. They foolishly allowed the big lie to grow and over time to become deeply entrenched in popular thinking and even in the minds of many Jews. To this day these failed leaders cannot bring themselves to speak the simple truth on behalf of their own people. It would be revealing if readers would send this article to those in the U.S. Jewish leadership requesting a reply and see if any of them will be able to respond honestly.
BY JACOB GERSHMAN - Staff Reporter of the Sun
October 20, 2004

At a history class, a professor mockingly tells a female Jewish student she cannot possibly have ancestral ties to Israel because her eyes are green.

During a lecture, a professor of Arab politics refuses to answer a question from an Israeli student and military veteran but instead asks the student, "How many Palestinians have you killed?"

At a student meeting on the topic of divestment from Israel, a Jewish student is singled out as responsible for death of Palestinian Arabs.

Those scenes are described by current and former students interviewed for an underground documentary that is causing a frisson of concern to ripple through the Morningside Heights campus of Columbia University, where the incidents took place.

The film, about anti-Israel sentiment at the school, has not yet been released to the public, but it has been screened for a number of top officials of Columbia, and talk of its impact is spreading rapidly on a campus where some students have complained of anti-Israel bias among faculty members.

"The movie is shocking," one Columbia senior, Ariel Beery, said.

"It is shocking to see blatant use of racial stereotypes by professors and intimidation tactics by professors in order to push a distinct ideological line on the curriculum," Mr. Beery, who was interviewed for the film, said.

The film is the creation of the David Project, a 2-year-old group based in Boston that advocates for Israel and is led by the founder of the American Anti-Slavery Group, Charles Jacobs. The David Project, which is refusing to make the film public, has screened it for Barnard College's president, Judith Shapiro, and Columbia's provost, Alan Brinkley, according to sources.

Neither Ms. Shapiro nor Mr. Brinkley would return calls seeking comment about the film, though at a meeting in Washington this week with women active in Jewish charitable work the Barnard president is said to have spoken of how emotionally affected she was by the film.

With versions at 11 minutes and 25 minutes in playing time, the film consists of interviews with several students who contend that they have felt threatened academically for expressing a pro-Israel point of view in classrooms.

One of the scholars discussed most in the film, according to a person who has seen the film, is Joseph Massad, a non-tenured professor of modern Arab politics, who is teaching a course about Middle East nationalism this fall. Mr. Massad, a professor at Columbia's department of Middle East and Asian languages and cultures, has likened Israel to Nazi Germany and has said Israel doesn't have the right to exist as a Jewish state.

In the film, a former Columbia undergraduate, Tomy Schoenfeld, recalls attending a lecture about the Middle East conflict given by Mr. Massad in spring 2001. At the end of the lecture, Mr. Schoenfeld prefaced a question to the professor by informing Mr. Massad that he was Israeli, Mr. Schoenfeld told The New York Sun. "Before I could continue, he stopped me and said, 'Did you serve in the military?'" Mr. Schoenfeld, who served in the Israeli Air Force between 1996 and 1999, recalled. He said that he told Mr. Massad he had served in the military and that Mr. Massad asked him how many Palestinians he had killed. When Mr. Schoenfeld refused to answer, Mr. Massad said he wouldn't allow him to ask his question.

Mr. Massad did not return phone calls for comment yesterday. Mr. Schoenfeld told the Sun that his encounter with Mr. Massad was not representative of his dealings with Columbia professors and that the Middle East-Asian department is "usually balanced."

Mr. Beery, the senior at the school, told the Sun that anti-Israel bias is prevalent in the department and said the documentary film demonstrates how many students at Columbia have been affected by it.

"You would be surprised," Mr. Beery said, "to find the number of students who were willing to stand up and be counted as members of the student body who oppose the intimidation of students in the classroom, especially on topics related to the Middle East."

In 2003, Columbia's president, Lee Bollinger, convened a committee of six Columbia professors to investigate the possibility of the school's declaring stricter boundaries between academic expression and political activism. But the credibility of the investigation came into doubt among those following the issue seriously when Mr. Bollinger told the New York Daily News that the committee found no claims or evidence of bias or intimidation in the classroom.

Mr. Beery said the committee did not look hard enough for bias and said Jewish students at Columbia have no avenue for pressing complaints about anti-Israel prejudice among faculty members.

"Because Jews are seen as this overrepresented ethnic group and not prone to protests, they sweep it under the rug," he said.

Columbia is looking to raise money for an endowed professorship in Israeli studies to make up for what Mr. Bollinger has said is lack of contemporary Israel scholarship at the school.

That effort comes at a time when the university is under a cloud for having accepted money from the United Arab Emirates, one of the worst human rights violators in the Middle East and a country hostile to Jews and Israel, to help finance a chair named for the late professor Edward Said, who was a writer and anti-Israel Palestinian activist. Harvard University returned money from the UAE after complaints were raised about the propriety of taking money from that source.
  • Wednesday, October 20, 2004
  • Elder of Ziyon
By Joshua Muravchik, Joshua Muravchik, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, is working on a study of the United Nations that will be published by the AEI Press early next year.

This month, the United Nations Security Council voted to condemn terrorism. The resolution was introduced by Russia, still grieving over the terrorist attack on a school in Beslan, and perhaps the unanimous vote will give it a measure of solace.

But the convoluted text and the dealings behind the scenes that were necessary to secure agreement on it offer cold comfort to anyone who cares about winning the war against terrorism. For what they reveal is that even after Beslan and after Madrid and after 9/11, the U.N. still cannot bring itself to oppose terrorism unequivocally.

The reason for this failure is that the Organization of the Islamic Conference, which comprises 56 of the U.N.'s 191 members, defends terrorism as a right.

After the Security Council vote, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John C. Danforth tried to put the best face on the resolution. He said it "states very simply that the deliberate massacre of innocents is never justifiable in any cause. Never."

But in fact it does not state this. Nor has any U.N. resolution ever stated it. The U.S. delegation tried to get such language into the resolution, but it was rebuffed by Algeria and Pakistan, the two OIC members currently sitting on the Security Council. (They have no veto, but the resolution's sponsors were willing to water down the text in return for a unanimous vote.)

True, the final resolution condemns "all acts of terrorism irrespective of their motivation." This sounds clear, but in the Alice-in-Wonderland lexicon of the U.N., the term "acts of terrorism" does not mean what it seems.

For eight years now, a U.N. committee has labored to draft a "comprehensive convention on international terrorism." It has been stalled since Day 1 on the issue of "defining" terrorism. But what is the mystery? At bottom everyone understands what terrorism is: the deliberate targeting of civilians. The Islamic Conference, however, has insisted that terrorism must be defined not by the nature of the act but by its purpose. In this view, any act done in the cause of "national liberation," no matter how bestial or how random or defenseless the victims, cannot be considered terrorism.

This boils down to saying that terrorism on behalf of bad causes is bad, but terrorism on behalf of good causes is good. Obviously, anyone who takes such a position is not against terrorism at all — but only against bad causes.

The U.S. is not alone in failing to get the Islamic states to reconsider their pro-terror stance. Following 9/11, U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan pushed to break the deadlock on the terrorism convention. He endorsed compromise language proscribing terrorism unambiguously while reaffirming the right of self-determination. But the Islamic Conference would not budge.

Far from giving ground on terrorism, the Islamic states have often gotten their way on the issue, with others giving in to them. As early as 1970, for instance, the U.N. General Assembly adopted a resolution "reaffirm[ing] … the legitimacy of the struggle of the colonial peoples and peoples under alien domination to exercise their right to self-determination and independence by all the necessary means at their disposal."

Everyone understood that this final phrase was code for terrorism. Similar formulas have been adopted repeatedly in the years since. Originally, the Western European states joined the U.S. in voting against such motions. But in each of the last few years the U.N. Commission on Human Rights has adopted such a resolution with regard to the Palestinian struggle against Israel, with almost all the European members voting in favor.

Danforth may feel that the U.S. position was vindicated in the new Security Council resolution, but that is not what OIC representatives think. As Pakistan's envoy to the U.N., Munir Akram, put it: "We ought not, in our desire to confront terrorism, erode the principle of the legitimacy of national resistance that we have upheld for 50 years." Accordingly, he expressed satisfaction with the resolution: "It doesn't open any new doors."

Who is right? Hours of parsing the resolution won't resolve that question. But in the end it does not matter. As long as the Islamic states resist any blanket condemnation of terrorism, we will remain a long way from ridding the Earth of its scourge. And the U.N., in which they account for nearly one-third of the votes, will be helpless to bring us any closer.
  • Wednesday, October 20, 2004
  • Elder of Ziyon
HRW'S REPORT ON GAZA: LACKING CREDIBILITY
AND REFLECTING A POLITICAL AGENDA

On October 18, Kenneth Roth, leader of Human Rights Watch, and Sarah Leah Whitson, head of HRW's Middle East and North Africa Division, held a press conference at the American Colony Hotel in Jerusalem to publicize a 135-page report condemning Israeli security actions in Gaza. (see www.hrw.org)

The press release and report reflect the style of other HRW publications related to Israeli security actions during the past four years of intense violence, consisting of political and ideological claims, unsupported 'military assessments', and denunciations that downplay the context of terrorism. This press release and report regarding IDF operations in Gaza reflect unverifiable Palestinian allegations and unsubstantiated security judgements for which HRW's politicized Middle East Division has no credentials.

For example, HRW claims that IDF actions were taken despite the absence of 'military necessity' and that the 'IDF has apparently failed to explore well-established methods to detect and destroy tunnels...' However, the only evidence presented to back this claim is from interviews with three 'experts', whose personal backgrounds, professional qualifications and assessments remain entirely hidden. Other sources cited in the report consist of journalistic impressions, claims by PLO-based NGOs such as Al Mezan, and unsubstantiated claims from Palestinians and Egyptians (on the other side of the smuggling tunnels). In many cases, these reports are circular, with one source simply quoting another, without verification. This closed process has been responsible for false allegations in the past, and as a result, HRW's dismissal of legitimate security actions are without credibility.

This report also contains numerous allegations and assumptions that reflect HRW's dominant ideology. In this context, Roth asserts that the Israeli response to the lethal missile attacks is a 'pretext to justify home demolitions' and other actions are taken under the 'pretext of protecting its soldiers'. Such statements are clearly subjective, as is also true for claims regarding the legality of specific responses to terror.

This pattern of exploiting the rhetoric of human rights to advance a political agenda has been used repeatedly, as in the case of HRW's role in the 2001 Durban conference that demonized Israel; in HRW's exploitation of the term 'war crimes' to refer to the IDF offensive in Jenin during Operation Defensive Shield following the murder of over 100 Israelis; in its one-sided condemnations of the Israeli anti-terror separation barrier, and in many other examples.

In addition, HRW's 135-page report focusing on Israel's security responses stands in stark contrast to this NGO's minimalist approach to terrorism. In the past four years, HRW has issued well over 100 reports, press releases, and other condemnations of Israeli defensive actions, in contrast to a handful of low-profile reactions to terror. HRW's single substantive analysis was issued in October 2002, and is never mentioned, including in the case of the current publicity campaign.

In conclusion, as this evidence indicates, HRW reports on Israel lack substantive credibility and are driven by a clear and consistent political and ideological agenda. Beyond contributing to the destruction of human right norms and demonization of Israel, this agenda also diverts attention from genuine human rights catastrophes, such as in Sudan, which received far less attention from HRW.

AddToAny

EoZ Book:"Protocols: Exposing Modern Antisemitism"

Printfriendly

EoZTV Podcast

Podcast URL

Subscribe in podnovaSubscribe with FeedlyAdd to netvibes
addtomyyahoo4Subscribe with SubToMe

search eoz

comments

Speaking

translate

E-Book

For $18 donation








Sample Text

EoZ's Most Popular Posts in recent years

Hasbys!

Elder of Ziyon - حـكـيـم صـهـيـون



This blog may be a labor of love for me, but it takes a lot of effort, time and money. For over 19 years and 40,000 articles I have been providing accurate, original news that would have remained unnoticed. I've written hundreds of scoops and sometimes my reporting ends up making a real difference. I appreciate any donations you can give to keep this blog going.

Donate!

Donate to fight for Israel!

Monthly subscription:
Payment options


One time donation:

subscribe via email

Follow EoZ on Twitter!

Interesting Blogs

Blog Archive