The Nakba: Facts VS Fiction

The times in which we're living impose on us certain game rules, whether we want it or not. One of such rules is "the narrative" and the time imposing it on us is postmodernity. Theoretically, it claims that any perspective on the facts that took place, and on the chronology in which they took place, is viable. At first glance, that seems to be a perfectly legitimate observation. However, practically, it too often means for too many that notions such as facts and chronology become outdated and inconsequential altogether. Not the perspective on the facts changes, but rather facts change to fit one's perspective. Questions like - Who's the aggressor? Who attacked who first? Who started the war? Why was it started? What is the actual chronological order of events? What is the cause and consequence? Who's a terrorist and who's a freedom fighter? - All lose significance.

If any point of view is acceptable, then no one is a liar. If everyone has their own truth, then there's no truth altogether. No facts, no truth - no right or wrong.  Let's keep that on the conscience of the people responsible for killing Truth as a concept, by introducing postmodernity into our lives - the academia.

The Nakba, the "Palestinian" mourning day, commemorated on the Gregorian calendar day of the proclamation of the establishment of Israel, is the ultimate example of a "narrative" gone wild. "The catastrophe", "the disaster" of the "Palestinian" people has all the main characteristics of the typical postmodern moral and historical "relativism"; ignoring history, flipping cause and consequence, blowing events out of every proportion, throwing any context out of the window, applying replacement theory and, of course, singling out and using double standards.

What have become of the Nakba farce today in a nutshell is the following:

Evil Zionist Jews came from Europe in 1948 to a completely foreign to them Palestine, escaping the Holocaust (which is usually denied as well), occupied it, starting a brutal genocide on the innocent, civilian indigenous Palestinian population (that continues to this day!), and establishing the Zionist Israel on the ruins of Palestine. Those who weren't slaughtered, were brutally kicked out of their homes and are refugees to this day (along with all their descendants!) in an evil act of ethnic cleansing. This is to be regarded as the greatest crime in human history, Israel should be perceived as the last colonial project, Zionism should be seen as racism and as an unprecedented evil.

Terrible, isn't it?

From the point of view of the progressive-liberal-postmodern-relativist all that is as legitimate and as tangible as any other telling. If it was indeed so, then Israel would be an incarnation of Satan and all the boycotts, bias and disproportionate obsession would have been justified.

From the point of view of a normal person? Not quite so.

With the Nakba Day "celebrated" just last week, on May 15th, it's crucial to set the record straight and make a decisive stand: lies are no narrative.

Let's debunk the Nakba farce for the lies it's built of:

Myth #1: "Jews came to Israel in 1948! / Israel was only established because of the Holocaust!"

Putting aside ancient history, religion, the Bible AND the Quran, this lie ignores the building of Israel by European Jews for some fifty years before WWII. It ignores the first and the second "Aliyahs" - waves of Jewish repatriation to Israel in 1882-1902 and 1904-1914 respectively, way before WWII or the Holocaust. It ignores the establishment of the Zionist movement - the national movement of the Jewish people - in the 19th century. It further ignores the original repatriation of Yemenite Jews to Israel in the 19th century at the same time of and unrelated to the First Aliyah.

Myth #2: "Jews occupied "Palestine"!"

Never at any given time in history was there an independent state called "Palestine", the Jews could occupy. "Palestine" was only a name given to a geographic area by foreign occupiers; Romans, Turks, Brits. The name comes from a Hebrew word "Plishtim", that means... "invaders" (oopsie!), and was given to a foreign, ancient Greek tribe that invaded the land from the sea. There never was a political entity called "Palestine". There never was any unique "Palestinian" people, separate from the rest of the Middle Eastern Arabs.

Myth #3: ""Palestinians" are an indigenous people to Israel!"

With the establishment of UNRWA some brand new criteria have been established for Arab refugees from British Palestine, different and unique than the criteria for any other refugee in the universe. As opposed to any other refugee in the world, who receives status if he has been driven out of his homeland, the Arab refugee from British Palestine receives status if he's been living in British Palestine for... two years. (Along with his children. And his children's children. And the children of the children...) 

Why was this unique criteria needed? Clearly because the universal standard didn't apply to the Arabs from British Palestine. While the exact numbers are disputed among scholars, obviously a significant enough chunk of what's referred to today as "Palestinians" are in no way indigenous to Israel. Children of foreign workers brought in by the Ottomans, result of migrating tribes, gangs moved in during the Arab revolt. Their claim is in no way more primal, than that of the first and second Aliyahs. Not to mention the historical claim on Israel, unique to the Jews.

Now, if we look at UNRWA's original number of 711,000 refugees (even though today they brazenly claim "about 750,000" on their official website!), we'll discover a surprise as well. Prof. Karsh's meticulous research proved the max. estimation of "Palestinian" Arab refugees can only stand at 609,000. That means some 100,000 neighboring, non-"Palestinian" Arabs jumped on to suck on the global community's generous tit.

Myth #4: "Zionists kicked "Palestinians" out! They started it! "Palestinian" terrorism is only a response to Zionist aggression!"

Here comes that pesky-little-insignificant-outdated nuisance called "chronology".

Five Arab armies attacked the Jews on May, 1948 before they "kicked out" anybody. To what were they "responding" then?

Arabs murdered some 300 Jews during the 1936-1939 Arab revolt. Before the Jews "kicked out" anybody or "occupied" anything. To what were they "responding" then?

Arabs slaughtered 18 Jews in Safed and 67 in Hebron in 1929. To what were they "responding" then?

That list goes on.

Still feel like justifying and rationalizing Islamic terrorism?

Now without even getting into the numbers of the (rather substantial) question of how many Arabs were actually physically expelled by Jews, how many fled on their accord and how many left adhering to the plea from Arab generals to leave (ignoring Jewish leadership pleas to stay and build a life together), so that they could wipe out the Jews quickly and allow them to "come back in two weeks", let's remember a few basic facts:

#1: Arabs were the ones who attacked Jews; five foreign armies, as well as local gangs.

#2. Their directly expressed goal was Jewish extinction and genocide.

#3. They started the war. They planned genocide. They lost. Where's the Nazi "Nakba Day"?

Myth #5: "Zionists have comitted genocide of "Palestinians"! / The Nakba is the "Palestinian" holocaust!"

The Holocaust is not a matter of perspective.

A genocide is not an issue of narrative.

You don't get to call your defeat in 1949 a "Holocaust" just because it's "a Holocaust for you".

The lie of the Israeli perpetrated genocide is a lie of monstrous magnitude, bearing a metaphysical purpose. Its purposes are to prove "Jews are evil after all" - thus exempting Western guilt over the Holocaust, and that "what the Nazis have done to them, they're now doing to the Palestinians", turning Zionism into modern day Nazism and all of Israel into a sort of a Freudian complex. The only conceivable reason for this audacity to bear any succeess whatsoever is to assume Hitler's Big Lie propaganda technique works: "tell a lie so colossal that no one would believe that someone could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously".

Okay, let's engage in intellectual self abuse: A genocide is the systematic destruction of all or a significant part of a racial, ethnic, religious or national group - courtesy of Wikipedia.

Example #1: During the Armenian genocide, the Turks slaughtered some 1.5 million of the 2 million of Armenians living in the Ottoman empire. That's some 75% of the Armenian population under the Ottoman empire. That's a genocide.

Example #2: During the Holocaust some 6 million of the 9.5 million of European Jews were slaughtered. That's some 63% of the Jewish population. That's a genocide.

Example #3: During the Rwandan Genocide some 500,000 out of the 770,000 Tutsis were slaughtered. That's some 65% of the Tutsi population. That's a genocide.

That list goes on.

Now coming to Israel and the Arabs, out of the 711,000 (UN numbers) displaced "Palestinians" (not out of the entire Arab population of British Palestine, mind you), some 13,000 people were killed. That's some 1.8% of the displaced Arab population. I deliberately used the numbers bearing the seal of the "Palestinian Narrative" approval, even though they're disputed and inflated.

Even their own numbers prove beyond a reasonable doubt there never was a genocide.

Myth #6: "Okay, no genocide, but the Zionists ethnically cleansed Palestine! Secret Zionist documents prove that was their intention all along!"

No matter how much certain progressive-liberal-postmodern-relativist "scholars" will try to twist certain phrases or quotes, take them out of context and detach them from historic perspective, there was a wide consensus of opposition to an expulsion of Arabs across the Jewish political map, left and right.

With that being said, let's also understand "ethnic cleansing" is the postmodern historian's way of demonizing population exchange. In the years after WWII (i.e. the years in question) population exchange with the purpose of creating homogeneous nation states was the international norm, approved and encouraged by the global community in general and specifically in Israel (even by some Arab leaders!). Sure, leaving one's home is always a tragedy, but this was, sadly, happening all over the world and in much (much) higher numbers. All of these exchanges were tragically accompanied by major loss of life as well.

Example #1: 14.5 million were exchanged between India and Pakistan. There was no war. On the contrary it was done to prevent one by uniting the Hindus with the Hindus and the Muslims with the Muslims. Yet both countries were unable at the time to take care of the mass population exchange, and massacres occured on both sides. The exact number of the people killed as a result of the transfer is still disputed, with some estimations going as high as a million dead. Most scholars cite around 500,000.

Example #2: Approximately 12 million of ethnic Germans from all over Europe were driven out of their homes after the Nazi defeat by furious local populations. Even though they were indigenous to their homes, and unrelated in any way to the Nazis. Around 550,000 were killed during the expulsions.

Example #3: The end of WWII has left some significant grudge between the Poles and the Ukrainians as well. 1.5 million were expelled from their homes. As many as 100,000 were killed.

That list goes on.

Population exchange cases worldwide compared.

In blue: the total amount of displaced in each case. In red: those killed during the process.

Some 850,000 Jews (that's 100,000 more than even the current inflated numbers of UNRWA) driven out of Arab lands as a result of the establishment of Israel also come to mind. Those actually were indigenous citizens of their origin countries, living there for centuries. They weren't at war with the Arab population of their countries. They didn't invade the Arabs with five hostile Jewish states. They never swore to drive the Arabs into the sea.

You know, small, insignificant, pesky differences.

Out of all of the millions of refugees the world have seen since WWII only one group keeps its refugee status till today and passes it on to its descendants. Only one has turned their displacement to the core of their national identity. Only one whines and moans till this very day of their "great disaster". Guess which.

By the same token, where's the Indian Nakba Day? Where's the Pakistani Nakba Day? Where's the German?..

That list goes on.

Myth #7: "Zionists are committing genocide of "Palestinians" today!"

Even if you know absolutely nothing about history, international law, politics, the Middle East, the Israeli-Arab conflict or anything else about anything, you still have to be brain-dead to take these accusations seriously.

You cannot have a genocide with a steady growth of population. (You know, as opposed to a sharp decline.)

You cannot have a genocide with a steady growth in life expectancy, higher than that of the world average.

You cannot have a genocide with a steady decline in infant mortality rate, lower than that of the world average.

That list goes on.

Myth #8. "Israel is a colonialist project!"

The Jews didn't come to Israel with the flag of Poland, Russia, Morocco or Yemen. They didn't come to abuse the "riches" and "indigenous population" of Israel for some other homeland. They came to settle in Israel, a persecuted people, leaving everything behind to build a new, Jewish life in their new homeland. To work the land, to build the cities, to develop their own independent, Jewish culture. Zionism is not colonialism, nor is it racism. It's the Civil Rights Movement of the Jewish people.

Coming back to the "narrative era", sure, one man's victory is another man's tragedy. Granted. Even if it's entirely self-inflicted. Granted every loss, every displacement is a tragic event for the people involved. Granted had there never been wars in the world, it'd have been a better place. No question about it. Now, say you've turned this loss into a defining moment in your history, into a cornerstone of your national identity (unprecedented, really). Say, you've turned misery into a career. Say, you've perpetuated the suffering of (the descendants) of your refugees. Say, your national idea is a strikingly negative one, in an absolutely unique way compared to the global practice.

Consider the following, Israel's vice ambassador to Norway, George Deek (who happened to be an Israeli Arab), has brought up this question: Why is the Nakba commemorated on the date of Israel's declaration of independence? Why not, say, this expulsion, or that massacre, or this defeat? What is the Palestinian "catastrophe" all about? Their loss? Their expulsion? Their diaspora? Or is it our victory that is their main cause of mourning?

This is what it's all about. The very essence of the entire conflict. The Palestinians' main problem is not a lack of a country, it's the existence of ours. No other nation got the amount of opportunities the Palestinians did to establish their own state. It's not a matter of territory. As long as a Jewish state exists anywhere within historic Israel, the Palestinian "Nakba" won't end.

Don't let "narratives" brainwash you.

Insist on using your brains at all costs.

Tweet

The triumph of Israeli democracy and the people unhappy with it

It all started with an elections slogan. "Just not Bibi". Catchy, effective, primitive at first, but hiding within it a much deeper meaning. Deeper, perhaps, than what its authors planned to reveal. Later in the campaign, The Labor Party (who switched their name for the upgraded, attractive "Zionist Camp" after joining forces with Tzipi Livni), the main rivals of the Netanyahu led Likud, came up with the somewhat Voldemort-ish "it's either Us or HIM" ("him" - being Netanyahu). But the slogan that stuck most in the collective memory, that was most often quoted and that symbolized the very purpose and essence of these elections for many in the wide public was "just not Bibi".

Anyone but Bibi. Labor's characterless  Herzog? Cynical, party-jumping Livni? Veteran TV star and rising political star Lapid? Far left Gal-On? PA's Abbas? Hamas' Mashal? Bin Laden? Doesn't matter. "Just not Bibi". This phrase, in fact, wasn't meant to criticize, since it offered no alternative and, for that matter, no serious argument, but rather delegitimize altogether, practically demonize Netanyahu.

This was also the first time V15, the authors of the "just not Bibi" slogan, entered the Israeli public eye. V15 (V - for victory) officially states it's a "non-partisan movement", set to "replace the Israeli government".

Now, since when do non-partisan movements deal with replacing governments?

Comitted to being "apolitical", as they are, they never stated it was The Labor and Isaac "Boozhi" Herzog, they're supporting, just "replacing the government", but since the Herzog-Livni union was the only one large enough to pretend to replace Likud, and was even leading in the polls for a while, the tiptoeing became insulting. Veteran Israeli TV host, Yaron London, who cannot be "suspected" of rightist views,  grilled a spokesperson for the organization, for her insistence "it's not a left-wing government they're working for" and that "any vote for Kachlon (former Likud minister, now heading a centrist, economy-oriented party) and further left is fine with them".

"Just not Bibi", remember?

I wrote here a month ago about V15's alleged absolutely scandalous connections to the Obama administration. Since then the evidence of the criminal Obama intervention attempt in the Israeli elections keeps mounting. Republican strategist John McLaughlin mentioned in an interview, "Obama was playing in the elections to defeat PM Netanyahu", stating U.S. taxpayer dollars were "moved" through non-profits. Judge Jeanine Pirro of Fox News, named a specific sum: 350,000$. That's notwithstanding millions of dollars more raised by various "liberal" American groups, suggesting all of V15 is merely a ploy, a U.S.-E.U. co-production. Meanwhile the senate is looking into these accusations.

President Barack Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu, 2010.

Photo credit: Reuters.

That money was well spent. A massive door-to-door campaign, launched in the Tel-Aviv area (à la the Obama campaign and done by the same people), was followed with the best, most expensive, largest scale video clips ever produced for an Israeli campaign. Mimicking movies and TV shows, echoing the Chilean "NO!" campaign. Slamming, slandering, demonizing, vilifying and blaming Netanyahu for each and every problem of each and every citizen personally. Top U.S. dollars well spent.

The media joined in this circus. Forgetting any and all ethical codes, and neglecting their most basic duties of delivering the news, the absolute majority of the press (besides the pro-Netanyahu "Israel HaYom" newspaper and a number of honest individuals) jumped on board with the Anti-Bibi campaign in one of the most shameful chapters in Israeli media's history. The attempt to blame Netanyahu with a "fear mongering campaign" in the last three days before the elections is audacity of unbelievable magnitude. Whatever the press was blaming Netanyahu with in three days, it itself and the left have brazenly done for three months.

Another failed attempt was trying to abuse Netanyahu's "Arabs coming in droves" statement, made on elections day, as a racist slur. This is an insult to intelligence. His criticism was towards V15, organizing buses for the Arab citizens to try and affect the elections' results - a cross interference with the democratic process, not towards the Arabs expressing their civilian rights.

President Obama quickly rode on the, perhaps poorly constructed, address, in his Huffington Post interview. Among a number of highly poignant and incredibly revealing messages on his positions on Israel, he mentioned Netanyahu's "rhetoric" contradicted Israel's principles of democracy and equality, suggesting thus, Israel under Netanyahu might no longer be democratic and equal.

And we all know how America treats the "undemocratic" and "unequal". President Obama then went on to claim statements like that "give ammunition to folks who don't believe in a Jewish state."

The President has successfully found an excuse and a rationalization for Anti-Semitism.

What a sharp change in the views of our "greatest ally".

Furthermore, in the aforementioned interview McLaughlin cited an American effort to unite the different Arab Knesset factions into one party and "teach them about voter turnout". Not only was Netanyahu warning against a perfectly factual occurence, the entire situation might have been a trap by the Obama administration. Don't address the nation to shake it out of apathy and risk losing. Address the nation and we'll present you as a racist to the world. Netanyahu, rather bravely, chose the second option. Later he appologized to the Israeli Arabs for any possible misunderstanding.

And then election day came and all the grand schemes went down the drain. Israeli democracy triumphed. Israelis sent a number of decisive messages to whom it may concern.

A decisive message to the "honest, unbiased, objective" media: No to mindless, stupefying propaganda. We were not born yesterday.

A decisive message to all foreign agents, V15 or others, who wish to meddle in our democracy, in the will of our people, in the fate of our country for their own, alien agenda: We will not become the next Egypt, nor the next Ukraine.

The message was heard loud and clear, but in most probability wasn't learned. Last month I wrote that these players are unlikely to admit defeat and simply walk away. These kind of players never back down. They usually double down. Just like they did during the so called "Arab Spring". Just like they did in Ukraine. And, indeed, no intention of backing down is now displayed by the V15 organization. Its official Facebook and website proudly state "we're not stopping here". Elections day was never the endgame. Nobody's giving up the loads of cash they invested. Nobody's giving up the fat paychecks.

Excerpts from V15's official Facebook page.

Highlighted on the right: "...until victory isn't achieved, our mission isn't achieved. We're here to stay...", "We're not going anywhere.", "Soon we'll update on how we continue, and we hope you'll all choose to keep on walking with us." 

Highlighted on the left: "We're not stopping here. Join us for the rest of the way." 

When a slogan like "just not Bibi" is your basis, it really speaks volumes of things to come and things that already took place. If Netanyahu is a "deligitimized pariah to be replaced by all means", then all of his supporters are deligitimized pariahs to be replaced by all means as well, and, surprise, surprise, his supporters are the absolute majority of the nation. The absolute majority that voted either Likud, or other right wing, or even centrist parties, with the clear desire of continuing to see Netanyahu as PM are to be declared idol worshippers, Neanderthals, battered wives... oh, wait... they already have been...

The elections are over and neither the media nor the intelligentsia (full participants in the Anti-Bibi campaign and sore losers) seem to slow down their fury. Neither seem to calm down and return to normal.

What will happen next?

Well, the infrastructure is already laid down: thousands of young activists are already there. Their hatred towards everything and anything related to Netanyahu has been ignited. They're ready to put in double effort for free, on pure enthusiasm. They're a hierarchical organization that's already been set and prepared. The media will jump on board readily. The intelligentsia is already prepared, ready to fight. All the basic requirements for a coup d'etat are there, waiting for a sign. For a call to action. Leftists are and will be pitted even more against rightists . Ashkenazi are and will be pitted even more against Sephardi. Secular against religious. Tel-Aviv against Jerusalem.

Print screens out of a famous Israeli singer Achinoam Nini's (known worldwide as Noa)

official Facebook page.

When will it go off?

They'll wait for the coalition to form. Then a month or two more for an excuse. Any excuse.

The Haredi parties are given major seats? Evil Bibi's selling out "the people" for a government! (The idea the Haredi themselves are part of the Israeli people is unlikely to frequent the "liberal" mind.)

There's no Health Minister? Evil Bibi's neglecting national priorities for his seat! (The notion a deputy minister is appointed from Haredi "Yahadut HaTora" party, because the latter refuse to take ministerial seats due to an historic dispute with the leadership, and the difference between Minister and Deputy in such a case is purely semantic, would actually require some prior knowledge from your average leftist.)

Ministry of Education is given to a right wing, nationalist party? Evil Bibi wishes to brainwash our kids! (Never mind the absolute majority of Israelis voted right, and by so they identify themselves with the right's ideals, and would welcome a patriotic change in their kids' curriculum after the office mutated in the hands of Labor and Yesh Atid parties.)

The prices of housing didn't miraculously drop in two months? Evil Bibi breaks his promises to the people! He only cares about himself! He's corrupt! Detached! Undemocratic! A dictator! (No comments needed.)

It doesn't matter. Anything would do. We've seen a number of large scale social protests in Israel in recent years. When there was no new protest the media was quick to build one out of thin air. Taking out a few isolated incidents, they were all peaceful. Taking people out on the streets is easy. The techniques are well known and practiced to perfection. This time every effort will be made to spur violence. Massive violent clashes with the police are the main ingredient of any revolt. Any scenario from that point on is bloody and disturbing.

This will be the purpose. This we must prevent.

U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt

hand out bread to the Maidan rioteers, Dec 11, 2013. Rabin Square next? Photo credit: Reuters.

This is the time to stress out that the absolute majority of our friends from the left, our Anti-Bibi enthusiasts and even our V15 members are good, decent people, genuinely seeking the betterment of life for all Israelis. This is why I implore all: don't allow yourself to be dragged to the discourse of hate. Don't fall for cheap provocations and propaganda. Ignore the next "spontaneous, apolitical, social" protest on Rabin Sqare. It's so "spontaneous", I've predicted it since February.

Left wing, V15 supported rally on Rabin Square, March 07. The harbinger?

Photo taken from V15's official Facebook page.

The Israeli Perspective will keep following the unfolding of these events.

You, keep using your brains.

Tweet

For whom the bell tolls

Perhaps you've noticed that ever since the announcement of Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu's planned speech in Congress (next month) hit the news (last month), the media won't stop vomit. Much ado has been made over Bibi's typical "Israeli chutzpah", who allows himself to fly "just like that", receiving a "mere, expendable" invitation from the Speaker of The House of Representatives. What with procedure? What with regulations? What the hell?!

And what with the facts?

On January, 29th, world's most democratic-liberal-progressive-enlightened newspaper, "The New York Times", released an article, dealing with Netanyahu's tireless attempts to persuade Democratic leaders not to boycott his speech. So far, so good. Thing is, on January 30th, in the best traditions of the democratic-liberal-progressive-enlightened newspapers around the world, "The New York Times" issued a paragraph long "correction", clarifying Netanyahu has accepted the invitation only *after* The White House was notified. Meaning both Boehner and Netanyahu acted in perfect accordance to protocol.

The New York Times article and the correction.

What an honest way to make journalism, isn't it?

In fact, The Speaker of The House has every right to invite whomever he wants. That's absolutely within the norm and within his jurisdiction. And while waiting for the President's explicit approval would, probably, be the way the book goes, the *norm* is that it's never really practiced. It wasn't practiced back when Netanyahu visited in 2011. It wasn't practiced now, when Boehner invited The Pope. The Speaker of The House *doesn't* have to wait for White House "okays". So why the sudden, extraordinary, care for every single aspect of decorum with this specific visit?  

Netanyahu addresses Congress in 2011. 

Do you really think the invitation procedure was different back then?

Photo credit: AP.

What does it mean?

It means the over-hyped, over the top, boiling hot "ego-crazed Netanyahu willing to harm Israeli-U.S. relations for election campaign's sake" line of coverage is based on a big, fat lie. It also means, the American administration invented a "spat" out of thin air and with absolutely artificial means. It means Netanyahu is not the one "undermining Obama and the Democrats". He's not the one to blame for "the biggest crisis in Israeli-US relations history". It means the exact opposite. It means the Obama administration is the one undermining, inciting and looking for excuses systematically and consistently to harm the relations with us.

Now, just for argument's sake, let's take the side of the cynics. Let's assume, a nuclear Iran poses absolutely no danger at all. Not to the world and not to Israel. Let's assume all Netanyahu cares about is, in fact, his chair, his elections and absolutely nothing else. A politician in the middle of campaign receives an invitation to speak in Congress. Why on Earth should he turn it down? And who would?

As a leader of the free world, as the president of the most democratic-liberal-progressive-enlightened country, as a Nobel Peace Prize winner (!), as the first black president (for crying out loud!), why would you be so nervous and petty about the Israeli PM's planned speech? So, he'll present an opinion different to yours! So what?!

"Because you can't appear to be siding with a candidate in upcoming elections"? That excuse is just an insult to intelligence. Not only because you constantly interfere with each and every issue of each and every country, but because you hosted British PM David Cameron, who's up for reelection himself. Sure, his is due in May, not in March. "Huge" difference. Still, if "purity of elections" is your main argument, while you hosted a foreign politician in the middle of his campaign less than a month ago, excuse the many eyebrows, that rise in light of your reasoning.

President Obama and PM Cameron in the Oval Office, Jan. 16, 2015.

The topic at hand, by the way, was the same - Iran.

Photo credit: Getty Images.

We, in Israel, are about to witness one of the dirtiest campaigns ever, and it's all going to be against The Likud. More accurately against Netanyahu. All of the left's different factions has been united under the hollow, superficial slogan "just not Bibi". It gets worse as the elections get closer. New allegations rise of the illegal connections of that campaign to the V15 group, and from there to the OneVoice International movement. Likud claims Labour breaks the law, because OneVoice is linked to the U.S. *State Department*. Not just to some billionaire private citizen sponsor. The State Department.

It's still early to tell anything for sure. We do know for a fact, The State Department has funded OneVoice on a couple of occasions just two years ago. We do know for a fact, a main backer of V15 is also a major donor to Labour leader, Isaac "Boozhi" Herzog, despite denials on both sides. These accusations will be checked in courts. However, if indeed, there's any truth to them at all, then the situation is more than grave - it's scandalous and shocking. It would mean the U.S. *government* is actively interfering with Israeli democracy (despite the "purity of elections" excuse), and is massively funding the defeat of the acting Prime Minister. It would prove, yet again, Obama is the one set to undermine Netanyahu - not the other way around.

Were you apalled by Netanyahu's "public support" of Romney?

Then what would you say about a multi-million-dollar-elections-campaign-funding kind of support?

And if that has any truth to it, add it to Obama's capricious scenes over Netanyahu's planned visit and connect the dots. *When* Netanyahu wins again, do you really think the American government, would just back off? Admit its failure and go: "Oh, well, we tried! Until next time!"? Think "Arab Spring". Think Ukraine.

"This can't happen to Israel", you think? "We're plenty democratic-liberal-progressive-enlightened ourselves", you believe? There's an "unbreakable bond" between us, isn't there?

"And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; 

 It tolls for thee."

I, for one, would not like to see Rabin Sqare next in line after Tahrir and Maidan.

I would like to see you using your brains.

U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt
visit the Maidan rioteers in Kiev, Ukraine. Dec. 10, 2013. Photo credit: AP. 

P.S.

Israelis, I really don't care who you're going to vote for.

This is not what this article is about.

Tweet

The yearly Arab Christmas scam

Every year around Christmas a clever routine has been figured out by the Anti-Israeli campaigners. From the best minds of the unholly Islamist-leftist coalition comes the scam, that shamefully hijacks Christmas, to shock the average Western media consumer. The purpose is, as always, the demonization and vilification of Israel. And it works. Just look at what The Independent twitted on December 25th - the day of Christmas:

No normal human being can remain indifferent in the face of such "injustice". No human being can ignore the suffering of the "poor Palestinians" at the hands of the "evil Zionist occupation". And on the most sacred of holidays, close and dear to everyone in the world too!

A picture is worth a thousand words, and this would, understandably, be the natural human reaction to such an image. I don't doubt that this was the emotion, The Independent Twitter editor was guided by, when he retwitted the image. Yet, since pictures do tell us a thousand words, let's not miss a single one. Look at it closely. What's that lying on the ground on the left side of the image? Besides the foot of one of the paramedics? And in the hand of the other? That's right, it's a gas mask. And why would a "peacefully protesting" "Santa" need a gas mask? Well, that would be why:

Photos by Iyas Abu Rahma.

The scam works as follows: Arab provocateurs dress up like Santa and then go on violent riots against the IDF and/or The Border Police. When the violent riots are suppressed, amazing, perfect, highly effective photos are ready for the gullible world media - photos of struck down Santas!

Works like a charm every year.

Now, here are a few crucially important facts to know and realize about Bethlehem. The believed birthplace of Jesus Christ, has been almost entirely emptied of Christian population. Since the implementation of The Oslo Accords in 1995, the city was governed by the Palestinian Authority. Since then the life of Chrisitians in the town has been made practically impossible by their fellow Muslim Arabs. From a Christian majority under Israeli rule, the Christian population in Bethlehem has dwindled to less than 7% under Palestinian rule, and roughly a thousand leave every year. Most Bethlehem Chrisitians live abroad today. Muslims pretend to be Christians for tourists. Muslims pretend to be Christians for Pope's visits. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10]

That "peaceful Santa protester"? 93% he's not a Christian.

Christy Anastas, a Christian from Bethlehem, tells her story in Uppsala University earlier this year.

Another popular, recurring line of "narrative" is the "Mary and Joseph meeting the IDF" storyline. "What would happen if Mary and Joseph would come to Bethlehem today?" The fallacy claims "Joseph and pregnant with baby Jesus Mary would be stopped at an Israeli checkpoint, at the security barrier, by the IDF. Oh, those evil Zionists!"

The reality is, as usually, vastly different. If there was no security barrier in today's situation, the couple of Jews, Mary and Joseph, would have been lynched by a crazed Arab mob upon entering Bethlehem. Tragically, this is not a mere "racist slur". Exactly that happened in another Palestinian governed city - Ramallah in 2000. A crowd of some 1,000 Arabs, who were minding their own daily business just moments before, quickly flocked together demanding the blood of Israelis, who mistakenly entered the town. 

So Mary and Joseph, if alive today, would thank God for having the security given to them by the IDF.

The projections of leftist fantasy (left) and the grim reality of Ramallah, 2000.

The reality, of course, infuriates the Islamist-leftist agitator. In reality Israel is the only safe haven for Christians not only in the entire Middle East, but also in the entire North Africa. Israel is the only place in the region where Christians, just like any other religious confession, are free to worship as they please.  Israel is the only place in the region where Christian population actually grows. Israel is the only place in the region where Christians are not only not persecuted, but are encouraged to take an active part in soceity.

Much like in Bethlehem, Christians are persecuted in the entire Muslim world. 

Raymond Ibrahim, author of 'The Al Qaeda Reader', explains.

So, enjoy this beautiful Holiday Season, wether you celebrate Hannukah, Christmas or The New Year. May this season finally bring more quiet than conflict to the world.

And may you use your brain every day this new year!

Tweet

The source of violence in the world

How many times have you heard the claim that Israel is one of the most violent places on Earth? The source of violence in the world, in fact? The root cause of global Islamic terrorism? How many world polls have put Israel among the biggest threats to world peace [1, 2, 3, 4]? This claim is repeated way too often and absolutely matter-of-factly, as if it was some common knowledge, an undisputed axiom. It is repeated by highly influential individuals; statesmen, scholars [1, 2], media [1, 2, 3]. Many of those individuals are otherwise perfectly sane and quite intelligent.

So how can they be so ignorant in this matter?

Let's try to put emotions aside and look at the facts. Just some cold numbers.

In the entire (entire!) 154 (one hundred and fifty four) years of the Israeli-Arab conflict a total (total!) of 121,879 people (Arabs AND Jews) were killed. During that period of time we had all-encompassing wars, military operations, Intifadas and also many years of relative quiet. Still that's a lot of people. That's a lot of wasted lives. That's something we all wish to put an end to already.

But let's compare that to some of the other current conflicts. Just a few from the top of my head.

In 2006 the then Mexican President Felipe Calderón proclaimed a war on the drug cartels. Since then, according to a leading Mexican newspaper 'La Jornada', and up to 2012 (6 years) more then 136,000 people were killed as a result of this drug war. That's approximately 11.6% more than the casualties of our entire conflict, except they were slaughtered some 29 times faster. Since the drug war isn't over, it's safe to assume these numbers are much higher today.

Mass protests in Mexico City, demanding justice for the 43 missing students,

recently identified dead, as the violence in Mexico continues. 

Since 2011 (4 years) more then 200,000 people were killed in the ongoing Syrian civil war. That's approximately 40% more, 38.5 times as fast.

Homs, a destroyed Syrian city.

Numbers vary significantly, but the most modest of estimations talk of 2.7 million (million!) dead in the many civil wars in Congo since 1998. These conflicts still continue to this day and the country is in a state of constant crisis. I won't even do the math on Congo.

When was the last time you even heard of Congo?

A fragment of the two million Congolese refugees.

Too bad they don't have a private, unique refugee agency all for them.

Now, don't get me wrong, dear Anti-Semites; I'm not saying that the Israeli-Arab conflict is okay, because in many other places in the world the carnage is much worse. I, just like any other Zionist, am not proud of a single dead. I, just like any other Zionist, wish for the violence to stop. But with that said, a certain sense of proportionality must be implied. My point is - Israel is not "the root cause of violence in the world". It's a tiny insignificant speck in the vast oceans of global violence.

The claim Israel is the reason for the rise of Islamic terrorism is equally absurd. The Syrians are not slaughtering each other because of the "Israeli occupation" of 1967. Nigerian Sunnis don't murder hundreds of other Sunnis because of Israel. The Islamic State is not slaughtering Kurds and Yazidis because Jews go up on The Temple Mount. They can't even show it on a map.

And you'll tell me: "But Israel is a democracy! We hold Israel to a higher standard!"

The moment you hold the Israelis to a "higher standard", you automatically hold the Congolese, the Syrian and the Mexican (who, are democratic as well, by the way) to a lower standard.

Not to speak of the supremacist patronizing of the Palestinians that phrase implies.

Besides, it'll be interesting for you to know, that Jerusalem as the capital of, not only Israel, but also the entire Israeli-Arab conflict, with all its religious and national tensions is much safer right now than such "perfectly peaceful" and "fully democratic" cities like: Edinburgh, Reykjavik, Copenhagen, Toronto, Berlin, Amsterdam, Vienna, Helsinki, Madrid, Sydney, Oslo, London, New York, Los Angeles, St. Petersburg, Moscow, Rome and Dublin - just to name a few. Speaking in violence rates, Jerusalem is not even on the same planet as Baltimore, New Orleans and Detroit.

So, you see, wether you "hold it to it" or not, Israel is on a higher standard than the absolute majority of countries.

Former AP correspondent Matti Friedman explains CNN the media bias over Israel.

Despite what the media and the academia tell you, the Israeli-Arab conflict is not one of the main, most significant, highly crucial conflicts in the world. While solving it, is obviously an utmost priority to its direct participants, it bares practically zero impact on the planet. Solving it won't solve the world's problems, won't stop Islamic terrorism and won't prevent a third World War.

So next time you hear your local media pumping "Israel this, Israel that" in your local news, switch to something more relevant to you, something closer to home or, perhaps, something truly crucial to the world's security.

Or just try using your brains. It's simple and pleasant.

Tweet

What makes a 'right wing activist'?

What does it take to be labeled a 'right wing activist'? Radical ideas? Hardliner beliefs? Violence? 

In the case of Rabbi Yehuda Glick, it seems a long beard and a yarmulke were enough.

On Wednesday last week Rabbi Yehuda was shot four times by an Arab terrorist at close range in Jerusalem. He was badly wounded. As I was writing these lines, he was operated four times, and now, it seems, he's recovering. The media, reporting on the (political) assassination attempt was quick to label Glick 'a right wing activist', as if explaining to the readers: "this is all his fault, the poor Arab terrorist had no choice". But is it fair to label Glick thus? Let's look at the facts, and examine his actual activity.

Photo from Yehuda Glick's official Facebook page.

Yehuda Glick advocates for the right of Jews to visit and pray on the holiest place for Jews - The Temple Mount. As it currently stands  Jews are allowed to visit the sacred site only a number of hours a day, excluding Fridays. Saturdays and Muslim Holidays. They, much like the tourists, can enter the Mount from one specific entrance alone, but unlike the tourists they are subjugated to meticulous security checks to make sure they're not carrying any Judaic items. They are also strictly forbidden from praying, and are usually accompanied by a Jordanian Waqf member, who makes sure they don't even mutter anything or appear to be praying at heart.

Let me repeat that: Jews are not allowed to pray in the holiest place for Jews in the Jewish state. Most of the time they're not even allowed in. Furthermore, the single entrance allowed to Jews is often closed depending solely on the mood of the Arabs (1, 2, 3, 4).

Apartheid, anyone?

The Arabs, who also claim The Mount to be a (third most) holy place to them, on the other hand are free to enter the Mount from any entrance at any time. Entrance to the Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock, that are located there, is barred from all non-Muslims. This discriminatory status-quo is kept in order to "keep the peace" and to "avoid provocation". Many believe in all seriousness that this is "the most inflammable / explosive / tense place in the Middle East / the entire world" and that "it would start for sure The Third Intifada / World War III" (!). The moronic notion the Second Intifada started because of then PM Ariel Sharon's visit to The Temple Mount (!) still prevails in the Israeli mainstream.

These absurd claims are, of course, overblown beyond belief. No serious comparative, academic study can actually compare or connect The Temple Mount, and the violence it might have "ignited", to the rivers of blood being spilled right now in the Middle East, let alone the world. No sane person would ever buy into the "it's all Sharon's visit's fault". Still, if IQ isn't your top feature, there is now a multitude of evidence revealing Yasser Arafat's careful pre-planning of the Intifada (1, 2). And yet, Israeli governments tiptoe around the Temple Mount issues, perpetuating both the racist and the religious discrimination against its own people. Status Quos seem to be an addiction.

By the way, if you support these Status Quos, you're either: A. An Anti-Semite - believing a "Judenrein" policy is the best way for peace. B. A racist - "understanding" and thus - enabling and encouraging senseless and violent Arab behavior, the likes of which you wouldn't tolerate from anyone else on the planet. C. Both.

Congrats!

In the meantime Arabs destroy archaeological relics in their "holy site", pile garbage at their "holy site", allow kids to play soccer at their "holy site", stockpile rocks and fireworks to riot violently and attack Jews with inside their "holy site".

The sad state of things at the Muslim administered "holy site".

In the meantime that infamous, much feared "Third Intifada" is already raging for months in Jerusalem and Judea and Samaria. No matter how silent will the media be, or what euphemisms will it come up with to describe the situation, forgetting that "Intifada" is in itself a euphemism for "terror war".

As Churchill is commonly paraphrased:
"You were given the choice between war and dishonor.
You chose dishonor and you will have war."

So coming back to my original question and to Rabbi Yehuda Glick. What was he doing to deserve 4 bullets? Was he indeed a "right wing radical"? Was he indeed "provoking" the Muslims? Was he "inflaming" the entire Middle East, as all the radical Muslim Facebook pages shout, and the "liberal" media cheerfully repeats? Was he, perhaps, calling to destroy the Muslim holy sites and replace them with Jewish ones? Was he indeed "the most dangerous man in the Middle East"(!) ?

A photo taken from a radical Islamic Facebook page.
Tagline says in broken Hebrew: "Death to you soon".

Not at all. Not even close. His message is a message of peace, coexistence and unity. Just check the videos below. This has always been his message both in Hebrew and in English. Even those videos on YouTube with incitement in Arabic over them prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Yehuda is a man of peace. A Human Rights activist advocating for freedom of religion, not a "right wing activist".

He, on the other hand, was often a victim on The Temple Mount of verbal and often physical abuse.

Rabbi Yehuda Glick. Judge for yourselves.

Furthermore, Rabbi Yehuda is as apolitical a person as one could get. He never goes into any of the issues I described above. He always makes it his point not to pass judgement on any politicians or any government decisions. In one of the Temple Mount conventions he arranged, that I visited (a convention much like the one after which he was shot), some of the speakers were, for example, quick to call for the resignation of the Internal Security Minister, in light of the growing and violent unrest in the capital. Not so Yehuda. He publicly pronounced in the very beginning of the conference he has no criticism to pass on any politician, nor on the work of the police. Just a deep belief that All is One and a dream of a Prayer House for All Nations, a center for all monotheistic religions.

Rabbi Glick's ideology put to practice on The Temple Mount.
Sharing a prayer with the Muslims in Arabic and later in Hebrew in good spirits.

And this is, of course, the reason he was targeted by the radical Islamists. Not because he's a radical, but because he's a moderate. Because he's the epitome of moderation. And that's scary to the Arab extremist. That is much more dangerous to the radical, militant Islam than any far-right oponent, because The Temple Mount must remain a "scary" place for the Jews. Rabbi Yehuda is bringing the Temple Mount to the mainstream consciousness of the Jewish people, where it belongs, and he does it without violence or extremism. And if that happens, if The Temple Mount will return to the mainstream of the Jewish people, the entire "indigenous Palestinian" narrative will collapse as the fallacy that it is.

Glick's humorous reaction to a shoe, thrown at him by a Muslim woman on The Temple Mount.

And that's what it's all about. This is why the enemy positions The Temple Mount as the heart of the conflict and gives it so much weight in their propaganda. We, the "enlightened" and the "civilised" in Israel and in the West, can fool ouserves that it's about the "67 borders", or "the occupation", or "the two state solution", or whatever. It's not. It's time for all to realize, The Temple Mount is not a sideline issue for the fanatic and religious, but the very heart of our national conflict.

As a Western, liberal, atheist, I'd like to add that I would expect my country, as a free, democratic country that it is, to equate this religious site to all other religious site, of which our tiny land has an abundance of. No reason whatsoever to treat The Temple Mount with "special needs". Visiting hours should be, if not the same then, similar to the visiting hours of the Jewish Western Wall or the Christian Church of the Holy Sepulchre. Access should be opened to all without exception, like it is on the Jewish Western Wall or the Christian Church of the Holy Sepulchre. Finally, a site so obviously filled with history, should have archaeological works on it 24/7. 

Those of you who pray, pray for Rabbi Yehuda Glick's speedy and full recovery.

Those of you who don't, keep using your brains.

Yours truly at The Temple Mount earlier this year. 

A "right wing provocation", isn't it?

Tweet