- Book Burning - Next?
- Historical Amnesia
- The Case of PA Accession to International Conventions
Amb. Alan Baker
- 8 Emirates for the Palestinian Clans - That's the Answer
Dr. Mordechai Kedar
Middle East 10:52 AM 4/18/2014
News from America 8:23 AM 4/18/2014
Inside Israel 10:36 AM 4/18/2014
Amb. Alan Baker
Dr. Mordechai Kedar
The Jay Shapiro Hour
I am a resident of Shiloh, with my wife and children, and now grandchildren, since 1981, having come on Aliyah in 1970. I have served in a volunteer capacity as a Yesha Council spokesperson, twice a member of Amana's secretariat, Benjamin Regional Council plenum member and mayor of Shiloh. I was a parliamentary aide for Geula Cohen and two other MKs, an advisor to a Minister, vice-chairman and executive director of Israel's Media Watch and currently, am Information and Content Resource coordinator for the Begin Heritage Center.
The New York Times published an op-ed, another was last October, by a former Palestinian Authority Minister.
Ali Jarbawi's op-ed, "The Man Who Made Peace Impossible", on Ariel Sharon, is full of lies.
But I found something else.
He wrote that in 2000, Sharon "entered the Al Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem". But he didn't. He did not enter any building but rather walked around a bit. The Temple Mount compound is open-air. Al-Aqsa Mosque is the southern building. What bothers Jarbawi about Sharon's presence at the Temple Mount? Why does he claim it "triggered the second intifada"?
Yes, I am aware that Muslims refer to the entire area as one big mosque but we need not accept that. But more importantly, let's not forget that it is also a Jewish holy site. Every day, non-Muslim tourists in their hundreds, and at times more, visit the site. So, why would Muslims respond in such a violent fashion to that 2000 tour?
Maybe the problem is not with Sharon but with a theological-political interpretation that views Jews as the failed of God? Like the former Christian outlook, we've been replaced by the religion of Muhammed.
If anything is "impossible", it is the twisted approach to Jews that Jarbawi and others of his ilk propogate. Like these among others:-
On December 30, 1973, King Feisal of Saudi Arabia proclaimed on Radio Riyadh
The Jews have no connection whatsoever with Jerusalem and have no sacraments there. They claim that the Temple of Solomon is there…The Temple of Solomon does not exist in Jerusalem…Therefore the Jews have no connection or right to have any presence in Jerusalem, or any authority there.
Saudi historian Muhammed Hassan Sharab declares that the Quranic Al Aqsa mosque encompasses the entire Temple Mount compound including the Western Wall and that the Temple of Solomon was never located there.
Egyptian archaeologist Abed al-Rahim Rihan Barakat, Director of Antiquities in the Dahab area of Sinai. Barakat asserts:
The legend about the Jewish temple is the greatest historic crime of forgery.
University of Cairo lecturer and one-time TV host Abed al-Tuwab Mustafa claims that there is no basis for the Jewish claim of a holy Temple on Mount Moriah.
But the NYTimes ignores all this, doesn't check or vet and allows such claptrap as that of Jarbawi to appear in print.
Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, interviewed for an upcoming Canadian TV broadcast, on the occasion of Canad'a state visit of PM Harper, was quoted as saying the following to the interviewer, CTV’s Lisa LaFlamme:
“...Now in the Palestinian state, the way its being contemplated, no Jew can live there, it has to be Jew free, ethnic cleansing...they can’t contemplate Jews living there.”
“I think the issue of settlements will be resolved, the question of the territories, in general, will be resolved in the negotiations...“It’s not about settlements, it’s not about territory, and it’s not even about a Palestinian state, which we agreed right from the start to recognize. It’s about a Jewish state...they’re not willing to recognize the Jewish state, the nation state of the Jewish people. There’s something wrong there.”
Of course Netanyahu is correct but it is worse than that.
It is not only the negating of the Jewish national ethos. It is not what I term Palestinianism, which is the "Disinventivity Model of Nationalism". What it is is a theological-rooted denial of the Jew as a Jew.
As explained, since we didn't "get the job done', we are no longer the 'Chosen People'. That is just an echo of the Christian view - and we know where that led.
Despite attempts otherwise, the Quranic verses are quite negative about the Jews, in a religious, personal and national view. Sura 47, in particular, are quite clear on the subject. And as even Benny Morris concluded, after decades of research, the Arav opposition to Zionism was couched in Islamist Jihadi conceptualization:
If until now the War of Independence was characterized as a "territorial struggle between two national groups or a political battle with a military façade," in his new book, Morris claims that the facts necessitate a different assessment: "The War of Independence was a jihad—an Islamic holy war" as well as a territorial and political war.
Lamm: You mean a religious war from square one?
Morris: What I discovered in the documentation relating to the war, at least from the Arab side, was that the war had a religious character, that the central element in the war was an imperative to launch jihad. There were other imperatives of course, political and others—but the most important from the enemy's perspective was the element of the infidels who had the nerve to take control over sacred Muslim lands and the need to uproot them from there. The decisive majority in the Arab world saw the war first and foremost as a holy war, but until today historians have not examined the documentation that proves this. In my view, they have also ignored Arab rhetoric of the day, which universally included religious hatred against the Jews, because they thought the Arabs adopted this as normal speech that did not emanate from deep mental resources. They thought this was something superficial, that everyone talked like this. But I am positive the Arab spokesmen in 1948 did go beyond this and clearly and explicitly talked about jihad...
It is difficult to verbalize that to audiences who presume we're saying such things either to cover up our own "price tag' actions or we're just crazy. But a way must be found to sharpen the message, to clarify to our friends and those who still prefer to be more comfortable with anti-Semitism that the Arab hostility is not based on what we do in "their Palestine" but on who we are in relation to their religion.
PM Benjamin Netanyahu yesterday made a clear and forthright statement:
"Not for one moment do we deny this; this is our land. We are not foreigners in Jerusalem, Beit El or Hebron. We know what we want to achieve but this achievement cannot erase the rights of the State of Israel, the rights of the Jewish People, and the basic right to a Jewish national state. I reiterate that in my view, this is the root of both the conflict and the incitement, the non-recognition of this basic fact."
Yes, It Is Our Land, Mr. Netanyahu!
If my English comprehension is as good as I think it is - and as good as it should be - this element:
"We know what we want to achieve but this achievement cannot erase the rights of the State of Israel, the rights of the Jewish People, and the basic right to a Jewish national state"
means he is convinced many Jews will not be living in locations where we have full rights to be living when peace is achieved.
What do you think?
Am I miscomprehending?
I was recently in England, participating in the Limmud Conference and on the Shabbat of Shemot, I presented this Dvar Torah at a Kiddush in Golders Green:
In Chapter 4 of Exodus, in charging Moses with his mission to redeem the Children of Israel and to take them out of slavery and bring them to the Land of Promise, God instructs Moses in verses 22-23:
And thou shall say unto Pharaoh: Thus saith the LORD: Israel is My son, My first-born. And I have said unto thee: Let My son go, that he may serve Me…
The Hebrew verb employed for “serve” is vayavduni (ויַעַבְדֵנִי) and yet, in the next chapter, when Moses appears before Pharoah for the first time to make his demand face-to-face, the message, in verse 1, is different:
'Thus saith the LORD, the God of Israel: Let My people go, that they may hold a feast unto Me in the wilderness.'
And the Hebrew verb is וְיָחֹגּוּ , vayachogu, which is more indicative of a celebration. Of course, Jewish holidays were marked by sacrificial worship but nevertheless, Moses was not quoting God but, perhaps, interpreting Him for Pharoah. Hasbara.
Rashi’s commentary, quoting from the Midrash Rabbah, highlights that when Moses set off for the palace with Aharon, he was accompanied by the 70 Elders with whom he had shared the charge he had been tasked with by God but that they began dropping off and slipping away and by the time he arrived at his destination, Moses was alone, with his brother.
Leaders can be outstanding personalities. Intelligent, energetic and fearless, feeling the sense of public responsibility, they are the right person at the right place at the right time. They can formulate a vision for the public and explain to foreign powers why the country needs to do what it does.
But if they begin to feel a sense of a lack of full backing from those they are to represent, even they may feel a necessity to alter what was the original purpose, even if only out of a momentary lack of confidence and even they think what they are expressing is just a “different way of saying things”.
Moses heard God’s words, and, as we read in 4:30, Aharon spoke to the Elders
all the words which the LORD had spoken unto Moses.
Did he? All? Without the Elders with him, when the moment came to inform Pharaoh what God wanted, the content was altered, if only but slightly.
Perhaps Moses felt that Pharoah could not grasp the full import of Judaism’s monotheism in that God was to be “served” in a form or worship that created a unique bond between the human and the Divine. He changed the term to something that Pharoah could more easily understand to one in which what was understood by Pharoah was that the Children of Israel were to have a festival but not that their allegiance was to be reserved for someone other than Pharoah. The two terms were not exclusive for a Jewish understanding but for the non-Jewish ear, there is a difference. God was demanding that His authority was to override that of a temporal ruler. The point of the festival was not an enjoyment for the slaves, of a simple ‘good time’, but a reordering of their commitment, from one “god” to another God.
Is there a political lesson here?
Perhaps. Even two.
In the first instance, Hasbara does have its limits. You can alter the format of the message, its formulation, its presentation, even its impact. But if you get caught up with word-play, you just may lose the message entirely.
And in the second instance, even the most talented leaders can fail if the people are not behind them. In a democracy, even after electing a leader, the people still continue to have a task which is to back their leaders and assure thereby that they are doing what they should and what was agreed upon.
At this first moment in history of someone "speaking truth to power", there was a faltering.
Let us hope this lesson has been learned.