I thinks there's been an error  in the thinking of those whose knees I hear knocking in the corridors of the JNF offices.

I have just been provided with the original Certificate of Amendment of the Certificate of Incorporation of the JNF in the USA from 1939 wherein it states quite plainly that the funds collected are:

"to be devoted to and expended in the purchase of land in Palestine and in promoting...general welfare of Jewish settlers...and to aid, encourage and promote the development of Jewish life in Palestine". (*)

Now, as far as I can recall, America was and still is a democracy.  It was clear then as it should be now that Israel was to be the Jewish national homeland.  If I buy a piece of real estate and bequeath it to my children as part of the family inheritance, no Arab can go to court and claim he wants to buy it and if I don't sell it to him then I am a discriminatory racist.  In a further court case that Dassie Marcus of the Central Israel Fund was involved in - and it was Dassie that provided me with the documents above and more - it is clear from the court decisions that not using funds raised by the JNF for the explicit purposes for which the corporation was established is illegal and criminal.

The JNF land was similarly purchased with the same "family" intention.  I do realize that there is a claim that portions of the lands currently held by the JNF were not bought with Jewish money but came into its possession by a grant of the Israel government but that still shouldn't force the JNF to cave in entirely.  Perhaps a separate status for those lands could be arranged.

In any case, in the name of liberalism, Israel is approaching a threshhold it cannot afford to cross.

============

(*)  I use the terms "settlers" and "Palestine" only in their historical context and as part of a quotation.  This doesn't break my rules about my semantic practices.

UN Secretary Ban expressed remarks yesterday after the latest Quartet Meeting at UN Headquarters in New York.

Here is an excerpt:

"The Quartet expressed support for the international meeting on Israeli-Palestinian peace called for by President Bush in his July 16th statement. Principals discussed the meeting and agreed that it should be substantive and serious, providing support to the parties in their bilateral discussions and negotiations in order to move forward urgently on a successful path to a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza that will unite all Palestinians."

Now, in my finely-tuned ear, that statement is problematic.

First of all, it seems that even the struggle against the Zionist enemy hasn't managed, over the past 80 years and more, to unite the Arabs that prefer to refer to themselves as "Palestinians". (And please note, in this blog, there are no "Palestinians" and I shorten that to Pals.).  So why should a state be successful?

In 1923, the Arabs resident in the area of the Jewish national home rejected a proposed representative council by the British and did not participate in the vote - only the Jews.  Another "Parity" institution was rejected later.  All territorial compromises likewise were ignored and shunned.

Secondly, it is my belief that a Pal. state will be the most serious security threat to Israel and its Jews short of an Iranian (or now Syrian) A-bomb.

Thirdly, dear Mr. Ban, can we at least mention peace once an a while in close proximity to this idea of a Pal state?  Like the whole idea of this, excuse my bluntness, idiocy of a Pal. state is theoretically supposed to bring about peace?

The BBC has a story on the death of Marcel Marceau.  You can read it here http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/7009040.stm

What's missing?

Well, Marcel, you should know was Jewish.  Yes, he was one of the tribe.  Family name was Mangel.

As the Wikipedia notes - and you'd think someone at the BBC knows all about Wiki - "At 15, his Jewish family was forced to flee their home when France entered the Second World War."

Why would the BBC hide his identity?

A mistake?  Something overlooked?  It's their policy not to mention religious/cultural/national identities?

Odd that, as my British friends would say.

"Radical Chic" stems from the famous Leonard Bernstein party that Tom Wolfe satirized.

In "Radical Chic," Wolfe describes an intriguing phenomenon of the late Sixties: the courting of romantic radicals — Black Panthers, striking grapeworkers, Young Lords—by New York's socially elite. He focuses primarily on one symbolic event: the gathering of the radically chic at Leonard Bernstein's duplex apartment on Park Avenue to meet spokesmen of the Black Panther Party, to hear them out, and to talk over ways of aiding their cause. Tom Wolfe re-creates the incongruous scene — and its astonishing repercussions — with high fidelity. But he gives us more than just a wry account of life among the Beautiful People; he also provides a historical perspective on that impulse of the upper classes to identify themselves with what they imagine to be the raw, vital lifestyle of the lower orders.

and this:-

Such apparent incongruity had been observed also in France before and during the "May Revolution" of 1968. A contemporaneous account of early disturbances at the University of Nanterre noted that "it is the girls that give the show away - culottes, glossy leather, mini-skirts, boots - driving up in Mini-Coopers ...". Similarly, in Paris, "the theatre of the barricades ... attracted its share of chic walk-ons in Saint Laurent"

Well, it has mutated. Read on:

Mohammad Bakri will be in New York next week and he has put himself in our hands for two nights. We of Al Jisser Group and the Defend Mohammad Bakri Committee decided that two quiet dinner meeting with Mohammad would be ideal. Two nights so that we would be small groups able to talk with him directly over dinner. We hope to have between 15 and 20 people each night. Thus we invite you to join us on either of the two nights as we circulate Mohammad from table to table to talk one on one. There are two subjects that we wish him to talk about and they are the reasons we are doing these fundraising dinners. We want him to give us a progress report on the terrible suit that is being brought against him by five Israeli soldiers who claim that the film Jenin, Jenin ruined their lives. And amid the troubles we want to remember that his art must continue and thus we will ask him about the film he is now working on. Mohammad will do a small piece of one of his plays for us -- a brief solo performance and we will show one of his films late after dinner for those who might wish to stay. This dinner will be the familiar feast that Mamlouk Restaurant provides. Salam al Rawi of Mamlouk has graciously offered us space and permission and equipment to project the videos. Please invite you friends, circulate this announcement. Come hungry and bring your checkbook. The hour is 7:00 pm The dates are: Tuesday September 25 or Wednesday September 26, 2007 Dinner donation is $100 or $50 allowing people to self select what they can afford. Mamlouk Restaurant is at 211 E. 4th St. at Avenue A If you can't come and would like to donate, you can do so in two ways: Send a tax deductible check made out to "Al Jisser Group" Mail it to: Al Jisser Group P.O.Box 255 New York, NY 10013 or go to www.aljisser.org and donate via Paypal using a credit card.

Bakri is a liar, a sued propagandist. His film was fiction yet he gets away with it because, despite his "pineapple" pocked face, he's thought of as beautiful and smart and representative of the New Arab, and all the while ignoring the fact that a relative of his was involved in a terrorist act.