Anyone mentioned Democracy?

1 03 2011

Why the World’s Leftists see only the positive side of the demonstrations in the Arab world. Whether and how real democracy can grow from them?

The Czech writer Milan Kundera identified the limits of the Leftists’ understanding in their adherence to kitsch. Kitsch, he claims, allows the Left to take the multi-dimensional complex reality that requires a deep understanding and make it a flat poster that hides the things too difficult to deal with. Or, as Milan Kundera described it in his book “The Unbearable Lightness of Being”: “When the heart speaks, the mind finds it indecent to object. In the realm of kitsch, the dictatorship of the heart reigns supreme. The feeling induced by kitsch must be a kind the multitudes can share. Kitsch may not, therefore, depend on an unusual situation; it must derive from the basic images people have engraved in their memories.”

When it came to Israel the Left has always been shallow, and it did not even produce any original basic images for it. For example – during the Lebanon War (both), it used the metaphors of the war in Vietnam, although Vietnam. as anyone knows well, didn’t fire rockets on Wisconsin. When it is trying to discuss the complicated situation in the “West Bank”, it immediately runs the image of apartheid. Forgetting that the blacks in South Africa didn’t have a Legislative Council, a president and a police of their own. Thus the world’s Leftists immediately eliminate the need to understand, analyze, doubt or ask questions – through kitsch images known to everyone.

When the Leftist sees a demonstrator facing a tank, he immediately draws the image of Tiananmen Square, when a crowd of people clash with police, kitsch immediately brings to mind the fall of the Berlin Wall. From then on, the heart expands, the excitement is rising, and any attempt to examine the facts in depth becomes annoyingly unnecessary.

That’s how Israel found itself as a party pooper that deals with petty details, rather than be moved with all the world’s Leftists by “democracy” flourishing in Arab countries.

But if we ignore the images and examine the reality of all demonstrations in the Arab world we will be surprised to find out that there was not a single demonstration, where any of the demonstrators ever embarked shouting: “We want democracy! We want democracy!” For the simple reason that this is not the reason for their gathering. In most cases, the protesters simply want to replace the existing ruler by someone or something else. Usually they do it because they think the current regime is corrupt, and lives in ostentatious wealth at their expense. All they want is the rise of a new regime that will not rob them, or rob them less, so they can live more comfortably. That’s it.

This was well demonstrated by the Tahrir Square protesters in Egypt who were not interested at all in the organized elections offers. They were satisfied only when the dismissed head of Hosni Mubarak was submitted. Even as in the same breath, they were informed about a cult of generals that seized power. Next time they gathered in the square was just to welcome Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi. His speech, not surprisingly did not deal with democracy.

When we examine in which countries these demonstrations occur in and in which they do not occur, we notice that it doesn’t matter how democratic the regimes in question are. If at all it’s vice versa. What matters is the economic situation, or tribal conflicts as in Libya, or anti-Sunni-regime subversion by Iran as in Bahrain. If there is a place where there is a linkage between the demonstrations and a democratic demand it’s in Iran itself. But unfortunately the chances of protests success there are pretty slim. Their protest interest the global Left least of all, as in Iran they already celebrated the outbreak of “democracy” in 1979.

Democracy for DUMMIES

But perhaps, optimists will criticize me, democracy will be a welcome side-effect of these protests. I doubt that true democracy can happen by accident. But to not get confused, and for the sake of those elements who might really try to apply democracy, here are some rules for how to turn mere elections into really democratic elections. So I guess the first rule to remember is that democracy is not just elections, and certainly not those in which the existing ruler is elected by a majority of between 90 to 98 percent, or using fraud like in Iran.

Elections should be free. For those who want to be freely elected the freedom to organize is needed. Preferably not too much, to not allow organization of entities seeking to undo the democracy. The voters should have the freedom to choose freely who they want. But for a person to choose freely, he should be able to think freely, without clergies, or employers, or armed militias applying various measures to prevent him from thinking freely and expressing himself freely, not just on election day, but also throughout the year in which a person is formulating his opinion, arguing, trying to convince others and exchanging opinions with those who think differently. Finally, in order for the elections to be free, candidates and voters also need to know that even if their parties don’t win, no one will settle an account with them, and the rights of the minorities will be respected. Otherwise no one would dare running for election unless he is sure in advance he is guaranteed to win.

In other words, democracy requires a democratic culture. As long as it does not exist, the celebrations are too early.





Delete the UN, Restart a New and Better One

24 01 2011

The UN was created following WWII when the world has perceived that the League of Nations was not fit for its objectives. Will we need another World War to realize that the UN is not fit for current challenges?

In recent years the UN has failed several times in handling critical international crises. This was the case when NATO forces had to intervene in former Yugoslavia, and even they did not stop the genocide. This was the case in the genocide that went-on uninterruptedly in Rwanda. The UN was so far useless when it came to handling the phenomena of terrorism, and in stopping North Korea or Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. The UN force in Lebanon is ineffective in preventing the violation of Security Council Resolution 1701, and is basically cooperating with the Hezbollah terrorists’ organization. So, is the UN capable of handling the challenges of our era, or is it one of them?
The UN that was established after the Second World War was probably just good enough instrument to negotiate some of the conflicts between the world great powers in times such as the cold war. This objective does not require that attention any more. Instead the organization is required to handle at least three other major challenges – the war against terrorism, the nuclear race of lunatic regimes such as North Korea and Iran, and the poverty of third world countries that is usually coupled with wars and human rights crises.
Currently the UN is a stage of ridiculous crooked dictators coupled with a corrupt and incompetent administration that generate cynical decisions such as those that present the US and Israel as the prime human rights violators of the world, while ignoring and even protecting mass murdering and terror supporting regimes. When it comes to fighting poverty, money spent on the UN ends up subsidizing corruption, waste and wrong causes, due to its scandalous organization. As for handling the nuclear race of North Korea and Iran, the UN cannot reach any effective decision due to the interests of Russia and China that conflict with that cause.
To be able to change this, the entire basis of the UN needs to be transformed, mainly, the members that comprise it. The charter of the UN must be changed in a way that will allow only democratic countries to be members in that organization. All the various types of dictatorships should be excluded entirely from participating in any of its processes. This was not possible during the cold war when Eastern Europe was still communist, but it is possible and it is a necessity today if we would like to take this organization seriously. You cannot expect an organization that is run by characters such as Chávez, Castro, Mugabe, Ahmadinejad or Gaddafi to handle human rights sincerely. Only when it will be run by trustworthy governments that do not twist the truth to cover their own atrocities, the UN will be able, among other things, to fight against the corruption within its administration. It will be able to stand for the real values of true human rights, fight against terrorism effectively, and spend money on progressing third world countries wisely.
If that does not happen soon, the US and the rest of the free world would be wasting their money and time on an organization that is worse than worthless.

If the free world will not pull down the UN, the UN will pull down the free world.

Now, such a change will not happen on its own. Governments and legislators of the free world need to take action urgently to lead this change.





Peace in Our Time

3 05 2010

The Complete Guide to Middle East Peacemaking

Peace is the heart’s desire of all the Israelis since they have regained their sovereignty in their country. With every child born in Israel, his parents express a wish that he will no longer have to be recruited to defend his country. Most of them are eagerly willing to undertake difficult concessions to achieve peace.

Israelis heart’s desire - Peace

It seems obvious to them that if they will flex their position and bring it closer to those of their enemies, it will promote the possibility to achieve peace. So why is it not working? Every time Israel presents a more far-reaching compromise in an attempt to narrow the gap between the positions of the negotiating parties they discover at the end of the day that the other side has only hardened its positions, and the gap remained.

The general public opinion in Israel always insists before the start of every negotiation to make sure Israel’s representatives would propose enough compromises to allow the success of the negotiations, while the other side always comes up with more extreme positions than those who had ended previous negotiations in failure. In fact, the leaders of the Fatah never made any compromise proposal; they always focused only on justifying their radical position which included delegitimizing Israel’s mere existence.

Is this just a tactic of negotiations? Let’s assume for the time being that this is so. If so, why Israelis shouldn’t use this same effective tactic of negotiations? Maybe if they had been wiser to do the same, the gaps could be reduced or even reach closure. Imagine that Israel would demand the Arabs to recognize its sovereignty over all of Judea and Samaria. Maybe the Arabs would then come with an idea to leave only the existing settlements as is. Then the Americans could force Israel to agree to some kind of a territorial compromise in this area, and so we would come to an impartial agreement forced on Israel in spite of itself. What a sense of achievement for Abu Mazen? He would become a hero among his people. Instead, Israel presents a far-reaching compromise that is even beyond what Israel is really able to give up, and then wonders that Abbas requires more, and is not accepting the “Israeli position” as it is which would make him a traitor in the eyes of his people.

Peacemakers

One branch of practice developed in Israel is the peace-making industry. Some say its not quite small sector of functionaries who make a living and even considerable profit from dealing with it, and they even earn foreign currency for the country while doing so (q.v. the New Israel Fund). Over the years, the peace-makers were able to really transform the way the Israeli public is thinking, and increased their readiness to make concessions. From refusal to acknowledge the existence of a “Palestinian” people, and argument about whether Israel should or should not return territories, conducted in late 1967, Israelis came to engage in public debate on how to promote the establishment of a “Palestinian” state, and how much land should be given to it.

Apparently the peacemakers in Israel are more determined to establish the “Palestinian” state than the Arabs themselves. Nevertheless, ironically, it is precisely this success in the Israeli public that is behind their failure in the end result. If instead of incessantly convincing only the Israeli public opinion to increase its readiness for painful concessions, they were focused a little on softening the other side’s positions, it might have been possible to reach a compromise by now. Then, in retrospect, if further convincing of Israel’s public would have been required, it could have been accomplished after the agreement was signed, as it was following the peace treaty with Egypt.

But maybe the peace-makers were looking for the penny under the lantern, and not where it was lost (in the dark)? Maybe they focused on flexing Israel’s side, because only Israelis will ever be willing to be flexible?

Since 1977 there was not one Israeli prime minister who didn’t spend most of his time on the “peace process.” If they invested the same amount of time promoting the education system, for example, Nobel Prize committees in physics, chemistry, medicine, literature and economics would permanently move their domicile to Israel, simply because there was no point to trouble all the winners each year from Israel to Sweden of all places. If they spent the same amount of time dealing with delinquency prevention, criminal lawyers were forced to undergo retraining in professional computer programming. Imagine what would have been if they spent so much time on the elimination of poverty, war against road accidents, improving healthcare or promoting civil service. But instead, every prime minister of Israel was engaged over his head for more than 30 years in “peace processes”, the result is – nothing, nada, rien.

Could be that nobody wants to make peace with Israel? No! Not possible.

Nature of peace

Let’s go one step back and ask ourselves what we really want in peace. This topic reminds me of the joke about a billionaire on vacation, fishing in a poor fisherman’s boat. Asked the fisherman – why do you bother to accumulate all your billions? Obviously, the billionaire said. So I can afford to go fishing on vacation as I please. Strange, the fisherman said, that’s exactly what I do, without all the billions.

The context of the joke in our case is quite simple. We want peace so we can live in neighborly relations and friendship, without fear of one another, and develop the economy and welfare for all. So what is preventing the Israelis and the Arabs from doing it right away? I mean, if everyone really wants peace, all they have to do is focus on promoting the co-existence, instead of wasting time on fruitless diplomatic processes.

But, then you might ask, what will happen to the settlements, what about Jerusalem, what about the “refugees”?

Wait, didn’t you say you want peace? But to answer the question seriously, I will review each of the obstacles to peace – the imaginary and the real ones.

Imaginary barriers

What’s wrong with the settlements? Suppose that the two-state solution is implemented. Why is it okay for the Jewish state to have Muslim communities, while the Muslim state can’t have any Jewish community in it? I think the answer is pretty clear. Jewish settlements in a Muslim state will become permanent targets for riots and massacres. Everyone knows it, but no one drew the conclusion derived from this insight. The conclusion being that the two-state solution is not truly a peace plan, but rather a Survivor TV series plan. Hostility towards Israelis will continue everywhere, and they will have to live in fear and make more concessions.

Jerusalem, the holy city of at least three religions, is open to all, and it enjoys freedom of religion as it did never have, and as it will never will if the political situation of Jerusalem will change. Attempt to divide the city between two peoples, and it will become a city strewn with barricades, where life and worship would be intolerable. The current situation remains objectively the most preferable situation to any other option.

And last but not least the problem of “refugees.” A pseudo-problem invented to avert the existence of Israel. The people who have become hostages of the “problem” will be released from their nightmare as soon as it will be clear that there will never be a way to pillage lands in Israel. So long as it is possible to delude them that they can conquer some lands in Israel they will live in deprivation. Deprivation for which the responsibility is lying on Arab states that although they themselves persecuted and expelled hundreds of thousands of Jews from their territory have remained unwilling to acknowledge that an irrevocable process of population exchange took place.

Once we have removed from the agenda the imaginary barriers to peace, let’s look at the real obstacles to peace.

Real barriers

The point of no return after which peace-making became impossible was precisely during the “success” of the Oslo Accords. This is when the infrastructure of incitement and extremism that raises the young generation for relentless anti-Semitic armed struggle was created in Judea, Samaria and Gaza. The fact that at the time leaders of the Oslo process did not work against this incitement, and did not insist on stopping the indoctrination of hatred, extremism and agreed silently to its empowerment both in talking and in practical preparations, is what made it impossible even for the moderate Arab leaders to compromise with Israel’s existence.

Anti-Semitic propaganda from Iranian TV

Even in these very days, Abbas leads a two-faced policy. One face is supposed to show moderation, and negotiate peace. But the other face allows the incitement and armed struggle education to go on, and like his predecessor overlooks the continued existence of anarchy that allows radical terrorism to flourish.

Radicalization reached such a state that it led to the victory of the Hamas over the Fatah in the elections, even though the Fatah itself has radicalized its objection to the Jewish state. The fact that despite the elections of Hamas, Abu Mazen continues to control Judea and Samaria and doesn’t turn into a bullets perforated corpse as did his supporters in the Gaza Strip, can be attributed only to the IDF presence in the area and the use of such political exercises as the indefinitely postponement of the new elections.

No Arab leader intends to fight the radicals in his own jurisdiction. Even after what they have learned about them in Gaza, they will prefer the status-quo of anarchy over cleaning the area and enforcing law and order. Incidentally, the chain of extremism has no limit. Not only is the Fatah not enforcing law and order in Judea and Samaria over its extremists. Hamas is also not enforcing law and order over extremists that are even more extreme than itself inside the Gaza Strip. Extremist organizations will always remain Israel’s problem, and it will be able to cope with it only as long as it stays in control.

One can only make peace with a country whose peoples’ hearts are open and ready to accept it. Without preparing the hearts of the country’s people, one might sign peace with its dictatorial ruler alone and that may last only as long as he can impose his will reasonably, and when there is enough physical distance between the parties of that imposed peace. This is the type of peace Israel has with Egypt and Jordan.

But when one people’s major population centers are within a slingshot range from the other, whose rulers have no enforceable authority, one can never establish even a fake peace, so long as the public’s cognition regarding the desire to live in peace is not changed radically. Such a process could take generations, given current situation and its trend of intensifying radicalization.

Achieving peace requires both sides to be able to give up their dreams. Israelis to give up the dream of “Greater Israel” (a dream almost all Israelis are ready to give up in exchange for a true peace), and the Arabs to give up their dream of Israel’s destruction and spoilage of lands for the so-called “refugees.” Paradoxically, only the keeping of current situation may allow both sides to keep up the hope of realizing their dreams.

The only obstacle and the most significant one to achieving peace is the lack of ruthless fighting against anti-Semitic incitement in most Islamic countries and in particular in Judea, Samaria and Gaza. As long as the teaching of blood libels and the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, the denial of the Holocaust, while using Nazi literature and the dissemination of Islam based anti-Semitic myths will be widely prevalent in the nations of Islam, peace will not stand a chance. How can one make peace with someone he regards as subhuman? As long as their leaders do not adapt the language of peace in their statements to their own people, so long as they do not say things like “we are destined to live together”, or “you make peace with enemies”, or “be prepared for painful concessions” (quotations from statements often made by Israeli leaders), and continue their impassioned rhetoric, there will be no peace.





What is this conflict about?

26 04 2010

Just when the bon ton is to blame Israeli “stubbornness” for the conflict, if we really want to understand it, and what’s impeding its solution, we should go back to its source, and no – it did not start in 1948, and certainly not in 1967

One cannot understand the story of World War II if started from the Allies invasion of Europe, or the beginning of the bombing of Dresden. The story of the Second World War has to be started when the book “Mein Kampf” was written by Hitler. The same way – you cannot understand the nature of the Arab-Israeli conflict if you start the story from 1967 or even 1948. The story of the Arab-Israeli conflict should be started well before 1920.

From 1881 to 1920 and indeed many years later there was no problem of “refugees”, no “territories” problem, no “occupation” or even land confiscation. Despite centuries of Muslim anti-Semitism toward Jews, the majority tended to believe that Jews and Muslims can live side by side in good neighborly relations. Naive Zionists believed that the Arabs will be happy with the progress and economic development, and other material benefits that will be brought by the fresh population that the mostly deserted land had no problem absorbing. Jews lived peacefully in ancient Jewish communities in many mixed cities in the Land of Israel, including Jerusalem, Hebron, Nablus, Jenin, Ramla, Acre, and even Gaza. Though there were quite a few attacks and harassment by the Arabs on Jewish settlements at the time, these were perceived as acts of robbery and violence, the result of internal security anarchy that prevailed during the Ottoman rule, and not a national conflict. All this began to change dramatically since 1920. All the events that occurred in that decade characterize the motifs of the conflict ever since.

Friends of the Great Powers, East Jerusalem and “balance”

In 1920, in the San Remo conference, the four Principal Allied Powers of World War I, were about to draw the borders of the Middle East – based on different and conflicting commitments given to various parties during the war, among them – the French in the “Sykes-Picot Agreement”, Sheriff Hussein the Hashemite dynasty founder in the “McMahon–Hussein Correspondence”, and Lord Lionel Rothschild as the representative of the Zionists in the “Balfour Declaration”. It is noteworthy that of the three, only the “Balfour Declaration” was public, official and legally approved by the British Cabinet.

But while the Emir Faisal, son of Sheriff Hussein, agreed that the Land of Israel (aka Palestine at that time) was not included in “McMahon–Hussein Correspondence”, there were serious contradictions between the “Sykes-Picot Agreement”, that was signed secretly, and “McMahon–Hussein Correspondence” that was not a formal agreement. According to the “Sykes-Picot Agreement”, Syria and Lebanon were to be handed to French rule. As a result of Faisal’s disappointment, as he was already declared king of all Syria, a guerrilla war erupted against the French. In one of the operations in this war, the Arabs attacked on March 1, 1920 (11th day of Adar) four Jewish communities in Galilee: Tel Hai (where Joseph Trumpeldor and other seven members were killed), Hamra, Kfar Giladi and Metula. One may ask, what did the Arabs who were fighting against French rule have against Jewish localities in Galilee? The answer which sounds familiar ever since with different versions was: the Jews were caught in their eyes as representatives of the colonial powers. Yes, today it’s called “Great Satan” and “Little Satan”, with the U.S. rather than France and Britain. So, ever since, while on the one hand Israelis are being attacked because they are friends of the great powers, on the other hand – these seemingly friends make their life difficult exactly from the opposite reason.

As a result of the rebellion suppression, and the French takeover of Syria, Emir Faisal lost his confidence in the promises of the British, and the Jews lost the only Arab recognition of their right to a national home in the Land of Israel. Not that it mattered much to the leaders of Israeli Arabs at the time, led by Haj Amin al-Husseini (who was about to be appointed as the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem). Similarly they were indifferent to the fact that the Balfour Declaration stated explicitly that “nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine”.

Nabi Musa procession on the way to the pogrom

Their negativism towards Jews was sweeping and they expressed it by launching a pogrom against the Jews of East Jerusalem (who were not at all Zionists) – committed by inflamed mob upon completing the Nabi Musa procession on April 4, 1920. Six Jews were killed and about 200 injured in this pogrom. The British regime was helpless against this pogrom, but they had enough power to block the arrival of improvised defense forces led by Ze’ev Jabotinsky, from the west of the city.

After the pogrom, some of the initiators of the pogrom were prosecuted, including al-Husseini, and for “balance”, some of the defense officials, including Jabotinsky were also jailed. And you thought the “balance” between the terrorist perpetrators and the defenders is a new invention of Goldstone.

Regardless of these events, San Remo Conference approved the British Mandate over Palestine (i.e. the Land of Israel and Transjordan) that incorporated the Balfour Declaration. Thus international recognition has been given to the right of Jews to the Land of Israel.

Radicalization, extreme left, and “uncontrollable rage”

Following these events, while the Jews were content with their achievement of international recognition of the Balfour Declaration, Arabs radicalized their opposition following the above mentioned “balanced” British attitude and some other encouraging clues they received from the British Colonial Office officials (who were not pro-Zionists to say the least). Looks like Barack Obama has no copyright on radicalizing Arab positions trough the attitude to the Jewish leadership.

On May 1, 1921 there were two May Day demonstrations. One neat demonstration approved by the authorities, was organized by the Labor Party and was limited to several Jewish neighborhoods in Tel Aviv. The second one, a wild demonstration that was banned by the authorities, at the initiative of the Jewish-Arab Communist Party, who identified Zionism with capitalism, opposed the Jewish immigration that they considered bourgeois, while regarding the Arab riots as a socialist revolution of workers and farmers. The demonstration came from Jaffa, but moved toward the Jewish neighborhoods and ended in a violent collision with the Labor Party demonstration. British police had to intervene, and chased the demonstrators who fled back to Jaffa. The incident quickly degenerated to violence. Arab rioters attacked Jaffa border Jewish neighborhoods, including a massacre carried out in an immigrant hostel in the neighborhood of Ajami. 43 Jews were murdered in Jaffa area riots, including the writer J.H. Brenner and the poet Zvi Schatz, and 143 were injured.

Thus, the extreme left has begun playing the role of anti-Zionist instigator, which provides grounds for the pogroms against the Jews. There is nothing new under the sun. In retrospect it became clear that the “uncontrollable rage” of the crowd was planned in advance, and groups of Arab extremists armed with cold arms came to Jaffa in preparation from other cities. Violence spread soon to Petah Tikva, Hadera, Rehovot, Kfar Saba and Kfar Malal. Again, this has been typical to Arab riots worldwide till these days.

Eventually the British army had to intervene to stop the riots. These military measures, some anti-Zionism steps taken by the British following the events in order to appease the Arabs, and lowering the profile of the Zionists themselves, who decided to proceed carefully with the “acre here, and acre there” policy, brought several years of virtual silence. There were even quite a few in the Jewish community who deluded themselves that the danger had passed. In practice, the Arab public has been taken over by a nationalist populist religious leadership – led by the extremist Mufti Haj Amin Al-Husseini.

Economic peace and “al-Aqsa is in danger”

Unfortunately for the extremist leadership of the Arabs of Palestine, their flock rather enjoyed the reality on the ground. Development of the country brought material wellbeing for everyone. Landowners could sell high-priced land, peasants sold their produce and were living comfortably, and thousands of Arab employees found jobs with Jews. Ostensibly, the realization of the economic peace vision of Netanyahu and Ya’alon. But “The Arab Higher Committee”, founded by the Mufti, soon found a way to obstruct the region’s serenity.

Day of Atonement at the Western Wall, in the 1920s

On the Day of Atonement of September 28, 1928 the attendant of the prayers in the Western Wall set a portable screen for separating between men and women. The screen was removed immediately and brutally by the British authorities, but the incident has been fully exploited by the Mufti.

All mosques began immediately incitement under the false slogan so well know till these days – “al-Aqsa is in Danger.” Incitement to jihad began to give the results of increased incidents relating to the wall. On August 21, 1929 tensions led to the murder of a Jewish boy who mistakenly infiltrated an Arab courtyard during a game. Two days later, after the Friday sermons at the Temple Mount, it was a rush of crowds armed with clubs, knives and weapons on the Jewish neighborhoods in Jerusalem. 19 Jews were murdered, but the successful organization of improvised defense managed to prevent a graver massacre. This was not the fate of the Jews of Hebron. On Saturday, August 24, thousands of Arab rioters attacked the Jewish quarter in Hebron and killed with knives and axes 66 Jews, looted property, raped and abused the Jewish residents of Hebron. Disturbances spread to the entire country including Tel Aviv, Haifa, Acre, Safed, Hartuv, Kfar Uria, Hulda, Ekron, to Gaza, to Mishmar HaEmek, Geva, Beit Shean, Beit Alfa and Ein Zeitim. The Jewish communities in Nablus, Ramle, Jenin, Gaza and Acre were evacuated by the British. During the riots, 133 Jews were killed and 339 wounded.

The British brought the riots to stop, and put on trial few of the rioters, but no action was taken against the agitators and the Mufti continued in office.

At this point, someone might say – the Arabs feared that the Jews are planning to become the majority in the country. Well, what if so? Let’s think. These days many Muslims immigrate to France, buy homes and set up mosques. At least 10% of French citizens are already Muslims, and they do not hide their intention to become a majority. Does that give the French the right to kill them? The answer is obvious. And let’s not forget that France was owned by Catholic Frenchmen since the dawn of French history. Unlike the Muslims in the Land of Israel where they arrived only in the last few centuries with the conquering forces, and most of them immigrated during the same period as the Zionists did.

Palestinian Nazism and a planned genocide

Despite the reconciliation attempts by the British authorities, or probably because of them, the radicalization of the Arabs intensified. In 1936, severe riots broke out that lasted 3 years. These events occurred simultaneously with the rise of Nazism, and there is evidence that the Arab Revolt was funded by the government of Nazi Germany.

1936 Jaffa riots

It began by attacking Jewish neighborhoods in Jaffa and the burning of houses, but soon the events expanded to the entire country. The expansion of the disorders to the whole country forced the British to suppress them by force. During these events more than 5,000 Arabs, 400 Jews and 200 British were killed. Only then after many gave their lives, in 1937 a warrant was issued against the main agitator Haj Amin al-Husseini and he fled the country to join his counterpart – the Nazis. Unfortunately, many of his successors were left behind and many of them and many even more militant are still in the area.  Al-Husseini planned to return with the German forces in North Africa that were moving toward the land of Israel, to head an operation to exterminate the Jews in Israel. After the Second World War, Husseini was arrested in France as a war criminal, but he escaped before he was prosecuted, and returned to lead the Arab community during Israel War of Independence. His followers till this very day did not forsake his dream even as the World War has ended, and are still hoping to fulfill Hitlers’ plan, while still using his old anti-Semitic terminology. If you will, for the Jews in Israel WWII has not ended.

On November 29, 1947, the UN General Assembly by vote of 33 votes in favor, 13 against and 10 abstentions received a resolution on the establishment of two states in the Land of Israel. Supposedly this program had many shortcomings in terms of the Jewish community, and benefits to the Arabs. Arabs were to receive most of the inhabited area; they were given access to Jerusalem and better territorial contiguity. But the Arabs were not interested in the benefits the plan gave them. In fact, the leaders of the Arab population did not examine any of the advantages or disadvantages of the proposed division. The reaction was also not motivated out of fear that from now on Jews may take their land. On the contrary, there was no real reason to believe that the Jews will be able to stand against the Arabs, as they did not have yet any real force. Until then, the British quite effectively prevented significant accumulation of weapons by the Jewish community. The truth is that the content of the UN resolution did not interest them at all. They were convinced that there was no need to consider it or contemplate about the future. They were sure that they can just kill all the Jews and end the affair once and for all.

Attacks began immediately. A bus was attacked and five passengers were killed; masses of Arabs attacked the Jewish commercial center in Jerusalem and robbed it; car bomb destroyed the Jewish Agency building in Jerusalem and caused 12 deaths and 40 wounded; settlements were attacked, and the remote ones were put under siege; transportation routes were blocked, and so on.

Irregular Arab forces of Fawzi al-Quwakji as they cross into the country

Even before the British began to evacuate the country, irregular Arab forces started to infiltrate the Land of Israel to attack Jews. The Arabs were convinced that the British withdrawal would leave smoldering Jews’ ashes and rivers of blood. Meanwhile, the Arabs did not bother at all to set up their own statehood institutions or get organized. Extermination of the Jews was the essence of everything, and a state for themselves interested them as snow under the bridge.

Against all odds, and notwithstanding the military embargo that was enforced mainly by the U.S. and the U.K. against the embryonic Jewish state, the Jewish military underground managed to pull together its poor resources and got organized. While the initial battles left little doubt that this resistance will not end differently than that of the Warsaw mutiny, the troops brought about a turning point in the fighting. Soon the tables were turned, and the attackers have become victims, and communities that served as operation bases for Arab gangs, were occupied by the defending forces. As a result of their defeat in battle, gang members and their families had to flee to safer places, but others simply answered the call of Arab leaders, headed by Haj Amin al-Husseini, to temporarily evacuate their homes so as not to be harmed when the invading Arab armies will overrun the country. Some of them even refused to listen to their Jewish neighbors who urged them to stay.

Even then that the Jewish defense forces proved their merit against the irregular forces and gangs, the leaders of the Arabs had no doubt that the trained regular armies of five Arab states, equipped with tanks and planes, who have to face nothing but a collection of non-trained volunteers equipped with mostly improvised weapons, will be able to complete the work of exterminating the Jews in an instant. But again, the heroic stance of the Jewish community disrupted their plans. As a matter of fact, the entire world, and in particular the American State Department were surprised that against all their assessments, the Jews have survived. Once their plan to genocide the Jews has failed, the Arabs called the events of 1948 – Naqba.

It is noteworthy that in every battle in which the situation was reversed, that is, the reach of the Arabs had the upper hand, the battle ended in a total massacre of the Jews. This was the fate of 79 doctors, nurses and employees of University Hadassah convoy who were burned to death; of 39 Haifa refinery workers who were slain; of 11 unarmed fighters from Rishon Lezion who were captured, stripped of their clothes, and then cruelly abused and brutally murdered, and of the massacre of Kfar Etzion.

Analysts warn Israel not to turn this conflict into a religious one. As you can see they are too late. It’s almost a hundred years that this is a religious conflict, and beyond – this is a jihad driven by Muslim anti-Semitism from the teaching of Nazi Al-Husseini. Even in recent years, Israel has several times pulled out of areas it didn’t intend to occupy (e.g. Gaza and Southern Lebanon) in attempt to foster peace, only to find out that its enemies still have this genocidal urge, that won’t let them continue peacefully with their lives as long as there is a Jew to kill within range.

Recommended reading:





Arab Jewry Holocaust Day

12 04 2010

We know about the Inquisition, the pogroms, the Cossacks and the Nazis, but where are the millions of Jews from Muslim countries?

The natural population growth in Arab lands, including their Jewish communities, had never fallen significantly from that of Europe. Until the beginning of the twentieth century when extensive use of vaccines had begun, or the Second World War era when the use of penicillin began, there was no significant difference between their level of natural mortality, yet, on the eve of World War II Polish Jewry numbered over three million alone, while all the Jews from all the Arab Countries as a whole have not passed the million.

One may say that they were fewer in the first place. It’s difficult to test this claim, although it’s known that Jews lived in these countries starting from the Babylonian exile, and that at least from the geographical aspect, a Jew who fled the Land of Israel must have found himself near it at first. In addition, a more careful examination of the situation of the Jews in Muslim countries during the exile period would raise another option for explaining the huge demographic difference.

Dhimmi Pacts of Arabia

The monotheistic culture of the Jewish tribes that lived in Arabia since the Roman epoch was among the factors that encouraged the emergence of Islam. But as Muhammad has begun his wars, these tribes have refused to accept Islam and became his enemies.

Hard to believe, but according to Muslim sources, the city of Al Madinah, which is the second holiest city in Islam, had a Jewish majority at the time. Jews arrived in the city in the 2nd century AD in the wake of the Jewish–Roman wars. In 622, when the city was still called Yathrib, Muhammad and his followers arrived in it following a warning he received of a plot to assassinate him in Mecca. Muhammad united the non-Jewish tribes of the city against the Jews. Some Jews were massacred, and some escaped. Muhammad and his followers took over the property of the Jews, who had flourished economically as they were farmers and merchants, unlike the other tribes. Through this property Muhammad managed to establish a well-equipped army of warriors, and the rest is history.

It was not the only battle of Muhammad against Jewish tribes. Another famous battle was the Battle of Khaybar. After he killed about 100 Jews, and the rest surrendered, Muhammad agreed, as experience had taught him to appreciate the economic benefits inherent in it, to let the Jews live, provided they paid a tax (“jizya”) for their right to live. So the Jews became protégés – “dhimmis”, and Islamic law began to form about the living conditions of non-Muslims in Islamic countries. It got further elaboration by the Caliph Umar ibn al-Khattāb, the Muslim leader who captured Jerusalem from the Byzantines.

The regulations pertaining to dhimmis are therefore called the “Pact of Umar”, and they include a series of laws that restrict, and degrade non-Muslims. In addition to the obligation to pay a poll tax, dhimmis are prohibited from building houses higher than Muslims, and required to dress distinguishably. Christians were required to wear a blue star and Jews yellow star. Thus, the yellow star was not invented by the Nazis, who were preceded by the Muslims. Construction of new places of worship is banned, as well as the use of the shofar (ram’s horn), or church bells. Dhimmis are obliged to respect the Islam and the Muslims, and so on.

Obviously, a dhimmi who murders a Muslim is sentenced to death. However, a Muslim who murders a dhimmi is only charged a fee of “blood money”. If a dhimmi violates one of the rules, he loses the status of protégé and the law of jihad applies to him. For example, a non-Muslim that fails to pay the poll tax, or, God forbid, shows disrespect to a Muslim, he’s dead. Now, since according to Muslim law the testimony of someone who is not Muslim is not admissible, then in any case of murdering a Jew or a Christian, a Muslim can argue that he violated one of the Pact of Umar terms, and so long as no two eligible Muslims will testify otherwise, his claim will be accepted.

The implementation of an Islamic Anti-Semitism

Besides of the economic value of the poll tax (jizya), the measures established by the Dhimmitude were intended to convince the dhimmis to convert to Islam “voluntarily”. This method actually worked quite successfully for Zoroastrians, less successfully towards the Christians, and had almost no success at all towards the Jews. This has irritated the Muslims, and made them prejudice toward Jews more than any other non-Muslim. Additionally, Jewish role during Muhammad’s wars was presented as grotesque and treacherous by the Koran. But, the Jews were also the only non-Muslims who could not escape the Arab countries to another country in the world where they were not a minority. Consequently, Jews soon became almost the sole minority in Islamic countries, though they were the most oppressed.

The Pact of Umar had many versions throughout history and it was implemented at different severity levels. There were also enlightened Muslim rulers who have not applied those laws at all, giving non-Muslims equal rights. Shiites, though they never recognized Umar’s caliphate, adhere to his rules, and even exacerbate them. These rules prevail till these days in more than a few Muslim countries, in some formally and in some informally.

The Pact of Umar may be regarded as the religious version of the Nazi Nuremberg laws, except that for obvious reasons – they do not include restrictions on the economic activity of the dhimmis – so they can enrich the rulers’ coffer with their jizya tax. In addition, unlike the Nazi racial laws from which it was impossible to get rid of even after generations of assimilation, a dhimmi could instantly convert to Islam. Left-wing anti-Zionist propaganda may try to compare these laws to some hallucinatory quotes of rabbis from the edge of the ultra-orthodox camp, but keep in mind that the rules of the Ddimmitude were the laws of the main leaders of the Muslim world, and were the official rules of their empires for centuries.

The bottom line is that Jewish life in Muslim countries where Dhimmitude laws were enforced, were prone to mischief on a regular basis, without the need for special grounds at any time. This daily hardship of Jewish life did not come instead, but in addition to events of riots and special occasions of incitements that were inflicted upon the Jews. It may be assumed that the historical documentation of the Orient in general and those of tribulations of the Jews in particular, fall far behind what we know about what has happened in Europe, yet some incidents have survived the historical oblivescence. I will try to present just very few of them.

Massacres, rapes, looting, destruction, deportations and more

Moroccan Jews boast for having good relations with the Moroccan Kings in recent generations, but even they must have forgotten the centuries of suffering in which Moroccan Jews were humiliated and murdered. Take the community of Fez in Morocco, which was probably not an exception. In 1032, 6,000 Jews were murdered, robbed and raped. This did not prevent the community from becoming in mid-11th century the largest community in Morocco. Jews constituted the majority in the city. But after the Almohad Dynasty came to power 100 thousand people of the community were slaughtered in 1146, and it was almost extinct. The fate of hundreds of thousands of Jews in other communities in Morocco at that time was not different. Later, in 1465 the city’s Jews were massacred again. In 1790 Jews were deported and their synagogues destroyed. After a few of them returned, in 1820 their property was looted by Muslim tribes. 1864 saw another massacre. In 1912 under French rule 60 Jews out of 1,200 were murdered their property was looted and their houses were burned. Constant harassment continued during the Vichy regime of World War II.

Yemen was one of the countries where the Pact of Umar was rigidly enforced, mainly because of the Shiite-Zaydi clan (a radical faction of the Shia) that ruled Yemen most of the time. Their rulers occasionally tried to force the conversion of the Jews, and hence in certain periods the majority of Jews were forced to adopt the semblance of Islamism. The suffering of the Jews as well as their adherence often brought them to yearn for false prophets, who only brought more disasters upon them. The Zaydi Imams who regained control of Yemen in 1629 imposed additional decrees, synagogues were destroyed, and community leaders were executed. In 1679 the Jews of Yemen were expelled to Mauza – an arid desert area, where about a third of them died of starvation and dehydration, until allowed to return after two year. Even then they were only allowed to live outside the walls of the cities, which made them the first casualties of attacks of enemies or robbers, even if they were not directed specifically against Jews. Jews were forbidden to engage in farming, forbidden to ride even an ass (not to mention a horse or a camel, which were off limits to Jews in all lands of Islam).

A group of Jews in Yemen. End of 19th century.

During the period of the Ottoman Empire control Jews in Yemen were relatively well-off. But when uprisings against the Ottoman government in Yemen occurred, between 1903 and 1905 Jews were the scapegoats. They were massacred, starved, were driven to the beach to die of hunger and thirst, and many of those who fled to Aden (which was under British rule) had died en route. Most of the Jewish community in San’a perished.

In 1921, the Jews in Yemen were subject to a new decree that was unusual even for the Pact of Umar. The Zaydi Imam ruled that every Jewish child who lost a father would be taken from his home and raised as a Muslim. The decree caused some Yemenite Jews to flee to the Land of Israel (that was under British Mandate), but in 1925 following the intervention of the Mufti of Jerusalem – Al Hosseini, Jews were prohibited from leaving the country. Those who fled – their properties were confiscated, and they risked their lives. The Orphan’s Decree remained in force, and children continued to be snatched from their families even as the evacuation of Jews from Yemen in Operation “Magic Carpet” took place.

The Jewish Heritage of Cairo is mostly known for the Cairo Geniza and Maimonides, but we should also remember its suffering. During the Mamluk period between 1250 and 1517 non-Muslims in Cairo suffered from persecution. At 1265 Sultan Baybars threatened them that if they do not pay him large sums of money, he will burn them alive. The high payment was carried out and continued throughout the years. In those years Jews were forbidden to renovate or expand synagogues, and occasionally they were charged with false accusations that the order was violated, and they were often summoned for questioning. During the Turkish occupation that started in 1517 the Jews were under frequent attacks of the crowd. Among others, Jewish funerals were attacked, and they had to bury their dead during the night, or without an audience, or sponsored by Muslim bodyguards who has to be well paid.

Jews of Cairo who were close to power and engaged in funds were targets for false accusations, and executions, with or without reason. So you won’t assume that Jewish persecution in Cairo took place only during the Middle Ages, I’d add that the pogroms against the Jews of Cairo took place also in 1844, 1890, in 1901-1902,  and in 1945 at the end of World War II. In 1947, after the UN resolution in November, another pogrom against the Jews of Cairo took place. In August 1948, while the Arab League was gathering, about 150 Jews were murdered; their property and homes were confiscated. In June and July 1954 Egyptian Jews were arrested and taken to concentration camps.

Iran‘s Jews enjoyed prosperity only under the Mongols, and during the Pahlavi monarchy (that was overthrown by the Khomeini Revolution). Before and after these periods, from the 7th century onward their conditions were poor, especially after the Shiite takeover of the country in early 16th century. In the late 18th century Tabriz Jewish community was destroyed, and in 1839 pogroms against the Jews of Mashhad erupted, and they were forced to convert to Islam. Some of them lived as crypto-Jews. In 1884 a massacre of Jews in Barforush has occurred.

As of the ninth-century Iraqi Jews adapted to live as second-class citizens in conformity with the Pact of Umar. In 1333 the Jewish community in Baghdad was looted, synagogues were destroyed and many Jews were murdered. In 1776 – a massacre of Jews in Basrah. Jewish situation improved only after the First World War, with the start of the British mandate on Iraq. But when Iraq became independent in 1932 the situation took a turnabout. Nazi propaganda has found fertile ground in Iraq, which peaked in 1941 when rioters that included military and police personnel carried out a notorious pogrom, dubbed Farhud. Over 150 people were murdered in the massacre (about 600 – according to the historian Elie Kedourie), hundreds injured and thousands of houses were looted. Injuries included torn girls’ organs resulting from plucking of jewels, and slit stomachs of pregnant women.

A genocide and its implications

I referred only briefly and only to very few communities of the many Jewish communities of Muslim countries. Completion of information requires a vast research scope and depth. It is doubtful if we will ever know all that occurred, as due to the attitude of Muslim historians to non-Muslims, they did not bother to document all that happened to them.

There is little in common between the persecution of Jews by the Inquisition inspired by Catholicism, and the persecution of Jews by the Nazis inspired by Hitler’s ideology. But the persecution of Jews in Muslim countries was in all cases inspired by the same factors, had the same background and was almost identical. Therefore, it should be regarded as one continuous event, not separate phenomena. The responsibility for the crimes of the Nazis falls on a known group of people, and they were committed in a relatively short period of time, making it easy to understand their severity. The fact that the Genocide of Jews in Muslim countries was performed by a mass of unidentified people, and it simmered slowly over several centuries, makes it difficult to grasp its scope and meaning.

It is important to emphasize that in contrast to the persecution of the Jews (called deceptively Anti-Semitism) in Europe, which is currently illegal, and governments often try to educate against it, in Arab countries it is still legal, and the education system fosters it. Among other things – by the continued spreading of lies as the blood libel of Passover, and the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, with the addition of newly fabricated blood libels, and of course the studying of the Pact of Umar that is still applicable in countries where Islamic laws are state laws. The need to deepen the awareness of the Genocide of the Jews that was carried out in Muslim countries is therefore not just a matter of historical scholarship, but an urgent actual necessity.

But even if the commemoration of the Holocaust that was inflicted on the Jews in Muslim countries had no practical need, as a son to a mother that walked almost barefoot in the snow in the death march to Bergen Belsen, and a pioneer father who volunteered to fight the Nazis in the Jewish Brigade while his family that remained in Galicia was annihilated, and there is no sign of whether it was the act of the Soviets, the Ukrainians or the Germans, I consider myself morally obligated to demand that our brothers from Arab countries will have their own Holocaust Memorial. That in addition to the Holocaust museums there will be a museum in memory of the destruction of Arab Countries’ Jewry, and as prevention activities are taking place against oblivion of European Jewry, so will we take measures to remind ourselves of the glorious communities we had in the lands of Islam. There is no question that the Holocaust of the Jews of Europe during World War II was the ultimate evil. But even evil so vast, must not impose a shadow of forgetfulness on the other serious abuses that should be remembered.

We need to make sure that this subject is taught in schools. We have to ensure that the evidence of the few still alive who lived through these events in the twentieth century will be collected and recorded. Finally I urge the governments to take a decision to set an Arab Jewry Holocaust Memorial Day in the calendar of special yearly events.  I guess we will soon have deniers for this Holocaust as we have for the Holocaust of Europe Jewry, including probably some Jews among them. But if we will not stand against the denial of Arab Jewry Holocaust and prevent its silencing, in time we will not stand even against WWII Holocaust deniers, and both of these events will deteriorate into oblivion.

Recommended reading:





Building in Jerusalem

14 03 2010

Mr. Vice President, recently you joined the chorus condemning the Jewish building in Jerusalem. I must admit I find it difficult to understand how you can condemn building. How can you condemn the development of barren mountains into housing that will provide living places and employment? I could understand the condemnation of killing, but what’s wrong with construction? We on the other hand don’t condemn construction by the other side. On the contrary, we welcome it. As a matter of fact – nothing would please us more if the financial aid they received from you and the Europeans, would have been invested in residential construction and development of infrastructure, instead of accumulation of explosives and encouraging suicide bombers.

I understand that one can condemn the indiscriminate killing of innocent civilians by terrorists. I haven’t heard much of such condemnation in the world. But why condemn construction?

I understand that one can condemn the breaching of UN resolutions, such as the blatant disregard for the existence of Resolution 1701. I haven’t heard such condemnations, not even from the UN itself. But why condemn construction?

I certainly understand that one can condemn the statements calling for the destruction of a state; using anti-Semitic expressions that were not heard from a nation’s leader since Hitler’s suicide. Here I must admit I’ve heard several condemnations, but until now I did not see any practical action taken against the practical steps that make it very practical to implement the dictator’s intent.

During your speech on Mount Herzl you set yourself as a Zionist (BTW: Zion is a synonym to Jerusalem). No one could ask the Vice President of the United States to be a Zionist. But you should know that all the real Zionist in the world wholeheartedly support the Jewish construction in Jerusalem, and would never agree to relinquish the city that was the capital of the Jewish people for over 3,000 years. But not just the Zionists. All those who know history know that only under Israeli rule has freedom of worship and access to the holy places for all religions been available. It did not happen during the Crusaders’ rule, not during the Mamluks’ rule, not during the Ottomans’ rule, not during the British Mandate, and certainly not under Jordanian rule or in places that are today under the rule of Mahmoud Abbas.

We have many enemies who oppose Jewish building in Jerusalem. We can’t expect them to agree. We surely don’t expect the likes of Ahmadinejad to fund the construction of Jerusalem by the Jews as did his historical predecessors Cyrus the Great and Darius I. But we expect those who declare themselves our friends, and even more so those declaring themselves supposedly Zionists to express their joy over the redemption of Zion by its sons.





Goldstone Report Isn’t Worthy of Deliberation

17 10 2009

The Goldstone committee was given birth in sin by the so called “United Nations Human Rights Council” who is controlled by such infamous “human rights protectors” as Angola, Cuba, Gabon, China, Saudi Arabia and more. No wonder this council has never dealt with issues of human rights in places such as Sudan, North Korea, Iran and Myanmar. In fact the council has even praised the Sudanese Government for its “co-operation” in Darfur. Instead it has devoted most of its time and effort to a single case – Israel. When this council has called for a committee to report on the Gaza conflict, even Mary Robinson, the former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, who can’t be suspected as pro-Israeli (understatement), refused to lead this committee as she strongly felt that the council’s resolution was one-sided.

To make sure the committee would realize its one-sided charter its members have been hand-picked among anti-Israeli NGOs, including Prof. Christine Chinkin who has already convicted Israel of war crimes through petitions and essays prior to joining the committee, and its chairman Richard Goldstone who was until recently a member of the board of the self-proclaimed “Human Rights Watch”, an organization that is devoted to spreading anti-Israeli propaganda and is financed by Saudi Arabia among others.

The committee has indeed done above and beyond duty to fulfill its senders’ expectations. The records of the testimonies posted on the UN web site show how superficially they have carried them out: Ignoring contradictions between the witnesses and reports issued by the terrorist organizations themselves; allowing the witnesses to hide vital information from the commission regarding issues such as the presence of armed terrorists; ignoring reports from other sources in Gaza (e.g. local news reporters) which contradict the testimony; mostly irrelevant questions; and not a single question asked about the activities of Hamas and the other terrorist organizations operating in the Gaza Strip.

To make sure they don’t accidentally run into the truth, the committee visited Gaza only twice. The rest of the report was created in their offices in Geneva, where they probably simply used ‘copy’ and ‘paste’ to include in the report all the propaganda material they received from the Hamas, other terrorist organizations and their followers and supporters in some anti-Israeli organizations with a menagerie of farcical names. Yes, one of them was the organization where Goldstone himself served on the board of directors. While doing so they did not exercise even the slightest scrutiny, thus the report includes “findings” so ridiculous that could make the paper blush. Here are some typical examples: blaming only Israel for blockading the Gaza strip, while any schoolchild knows it also has a border with Egypt; describing the Gaza strip as occupied by Israel in contradiction to the Hague Convention ever since Israel left it in 2005; calling the Hamas “police force” “civilian objects”, while anyone who watches news from the Mideast knows that calling them “Death Squads” would be more accurate; repeating the infamous accusation by the UN that Israel had shelled a school, while the UN itself has already admitted that this was entirely false; claiming that since 1967 about 750,000 have been detained at some point, while simple arithmetic would show that this means an absurd figure of 500 arrests per week, when even “human rights” organizations report much less than tenth of it.

Now the UNHRC has reached the climax of its hypocrisy by sending this report to the UN Security Council. What a disgrace. A bunch of regimes, where opposition demonstrators may be shot in the streets, are libeling against the only democracy in the Middle East, where the army is constantly being scrutinized by one of the world’s most reputable legal system. A democracy that has to defend itself against barbaric terrorists that don’t hesitate to booby-trap their own population, which the ludicrous report is falsely calling “administration”.

Requiring that Israel would investigate the allegations raised by Goldstone committee is like requiring it to investigate the allegations raised by “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion”.








Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.