H/t The Jewish Press
Archive for the ‘Netanyahu’ category
Cartoons of the day
October 22, 2015Coverage of Palestinian “Stabbing Intifada” Sets New Lows
October 22, 2015Coverage of Palestinian “Stabbing Intifada” Sets New Lows, Investigative Project on Terrorism, October 22, 2015
IDF graphic
Imagine if social media lit up with Israeli memes justifying or endorsing the vigilante violence; “When in doubt, take them out.” Imagine public rallies featuring Israeli children brandishing symbols of this violence.
Would reporters write stories explaining the roots of this attitude? Would they try to balance their reports by explaining the Israeli anger and frustration? Would news outlets issue misleading headlines, minimizing the attackers’ responsibility for the violence? Would the State Department advise “both sides” to tone down their rhetoric?
More likely, a chorus of global condemnation would rain down on Israel, with demands that such reckless incitement halt immediately. And that would be justified.
*********************************
Israelis have a new cause for horror.
In addition to the fear and anger stemming from a wave of wanton stabbing and vehicle attacks on Israelis during the past month – and there were at least two more Thursday, including two Palestinians armed with knives who tried to board a bus full of children – they now are dealing with the horror and shame of realizing an innocent Eritrean migrant fell victim Monday to panic and rage.
When an Arab killed a soldier at a Be’er Sheva bus station, grabbed his victim’s gun and opened fire, a security guard mistook 29-year-old Haftum Zarhom for a second attacker and shot him. Some bystanders, believing he was a terrorist, then beat the wounded Zarhom, who later died from the gunshot.
Israeli leaders reacted swiftly, announcing Monday twin IDF and national police investigations to identify the perpetrators and indict them.
In an attack, people “should evacuate the area and let the emergency services do their job,” Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said. “No one will take the law into his own hands. That’s the first rule.”
Defense Minister Moshe Yaalon called for the perpetrators to be arrested.
“We must bring the attackers to justice,” Yaalon said. “No one should behave this way, even when there is great anger and sadness.”
By late Wednesday, four suspects were in custody.
This does not reduce the tragedy of Zarhom’s death, but it does reinforce a message to Israeli society that mob violence is wrong and will not be tolerated. But is a message with which most Israelis already wholeheartedly agree, and they have expressed their deep revulsion and anger at previous acts of lawless violence and terrorist acts by Jewish terrorists against Arabs in years past—from Baruch Goldstein’s massacre in a Hebron mosque to the horrific killing of the 18-month-old Ali Dawabsheh and subsequent death of his mother in a firebombing of their home in the West bank three months ago. Newspaper editorials and politicians from left to right uniformly expressed outrage at such despicable actions. Watching the Israeli news one can see the deep sense of shame that the Israeli public feels.
Just for a moment, imagine if Israeli leaders had reacted differently. What if they tried to rationalize the death, saying the people who set on Zarhom were striking a blow for their people and merely acting out of understandable anger and frustration? They’ve been living under siege for a long time, subjected to the prospect that they could be attacked at any time, on virtually any street in their homeland.
Imagine if social media lit up with Israeli memes justifying or endorsing the vigilante violence; “When in doubt, take them out.” Imagine public rallies featuring Israeli children brandishing symbols of this violence.
Would reporters write stories explaining the roots of this attitude? Would they try to balance their reports by explaining the Israeli anger and frustration? Would news outlets issue misleading headlines, minimizing the attackers’ responsibility for the violence? Would the State Department advise “both sides” to tone down their rhetoric?
More likely, a chorus of global condemnation would rain down on Israel, with demands that such reckless incitement halt immediately. And that would be justified.
Yet journalists and government officials are engaging in all these exercises in reacting to the wanton acts of slaughter Palestinians are carrying out daily. Palestinian society – from the PA leadership to U.S.-subsidized education ministries to nearly the entire Palestinian media have engaged for decades in horrific incitement to terrorism and the demonization of Jews similar to the way Nazis demonized Jews. But yet, a review of Washington Post stories since 2013 finds none which focused primarily or explored the depth of this incitement that drives this latest outbreak of violence.
The State Department continues to walk back comments by Secretary of State John Kerry and his chief spokesman, John Kirby, in which they falsely connected the violence to Israeli settlements and also gave life to the lie that really sparked the attacks. Palestinians, led by Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas, have stoked passions for weeks by claiming Israel was changing the “status quo” at Muslim holy sites above Jerusalem’s Temple Mount and diminishing Muslim access.
In fact, the Israelis have not changed the status quo one iota on the Temple Mount since they captured the Eastern part of Jerusalem in the defensive Six Day War. From 1948-67, Jews and Christians were denied any access to the Christians sites in Old Jerusalem and the Jews were denied access to the most holy site in their religion, the Western Wall of the Jewish Temple built by King Herod and destroyed by the Romans in 70 A.D. When General Moshe Dayan captured the Old City in June 1967, he handed over administration of the Temple Mount with the two great mosques, revered by Muslims around the world, to the Waqf, a religious trust that included Jordanian officials and Palestinians. Jews were not allowed to pray on the Temple Mount but could visit as tourists. To this day, successive Israeli administrations have scrupulously upheld this status quo.
But many Palestinian leaders began to fabricate incendiary allegations that Israel was changing the status quo, even alleging plots to raze the two mosques in order to build the Third Temple. While a crazy handful of Jewish fanatics promote this idea, they are a fringe of a fringe enjoying no credibility. Figures just released by the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs show that nearly 4 million Muslims visited Haram Al Sharif in the past year, compared to about 200,000 Christians and 12,000 Jews.
But the rhetoric from Abbas makes it sound like the area is under assault, and that violence against Israelis is justified to protect holy sites.
“The Al-Aqsa [Mosque] is ours… and they have no right to defile it with their filthy feet,” Abbas said in a speech last month on PA TV, and translated by Palestinian Media Watch. “We will not allow them to, and we will do everything in our power to protect Jerusalem… We bless every drop of blood that has been spilled for Jerusalem, which is clean and pure blood, blood spilled for Allah, Allah willing. Every martyr (Shahid) will reach Paradise, and everyone wounded will be rewarded by Allah.”
He reinforced that message during his speech at the United Nations, accusing Israel of trying to seize control of the area from an Islamic trust that has been in place since before Israel controlled Jerusalem in 1967. “The Palestinian people will not allow the implementation of this illegal scheme,” Abbas said. Israel’s actions are aggravating “the sensitivities of Palestinians and Muslims everywhere.”
Last week, Abbas falsely claimed that Israel was executing “our children in cold blood” after video emerged of a young Palestinian lying wounded in the street. The boy isn’t dead, he was released from an Israeli hospital Sunday, and Abbas failed to mention that his injuries came after he stabbed a 13-year-old boy moments earlier, critically wounding him.
Abbas’ Fatah party, meanwhile, extols its “martyrs” on social media. “We are a nation that dies a Martyrdom-death with a smile on its face,” an Oct. 14 on the Rafah Fatah party Facebook page said.
A children’s program on Palestinian television last week hailed those attacking people on Israel’s streets as “the young heroes who have sacrificed their lives for Jerusalem, and who carried out all those great heroic acts. We love them and kiss their hands, because they are true heroes,” a Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) report shows.
Any restrictions on Muslim access to the holy sites have come in response to violence by Palestinians, or out of concern violence might erupt. The issue, journalist Jeffrey Goldberg recently explained, is rooted in a Palestinian rejection of Jews’ rights to be at their most sacred site, or even to be in the land at all.
The New York Times fed into this incitement bypublishing a story which erroneously called into question the very foundation of Judaism’s claim on Jerusalem. A correction followed after the article triggered immediate criticism on social media and elsewhere.
On Monday, State Department spokesman Mark Toner finally gave a clear statement that this “status quo” has not been altered. “Israel has made it clear that they do not intend to and have not changed the status quo” at the Temple Mount, Toner said. “And I think perhaps what we’re talking about is just clarity on all sides, and that includes the Palestinian side, that there is no change in the status quo, that all sides need to recognize that, make every effort possible to reduce tensions…”
Despite this statement, Hanan Ashrawi, a member of the Palestine Liberation Organization’s executive committee, repeated the canard. “We know that Israel is changing the status quo in Haram al-Sharif,” she said. “They say no, they’re not.”
During the peak of the bloodshed, Ashrawi chose to stoke anger.
Some news stories may refer to isolated examples of the inflammatory rhetoric coming from Palestinian leaders and media, but major U.S. news outlets thus far have failed to devote a story to the depth and consistency of Palestinian incitement.
Meanwhile, headlines and stories about Palestinian attacks repeatedly are phrased in ways that minimize the fact that Palestinians are attacking Israelis, often elderly Israelis, at will. When Palestinian casualty figures are cited, often there is no distinction to show how many were killed or injured carrying out an attack, said Gilead Ini, a senior research analyst for the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA).
He blames an entrenched media narrative that holds Israel responsible, no matter what is taking place on the ground. “It’s worse than ever, or as bad as ever,” he said.
New examples seem to emerge almost every day. Among them:
MSNBC reporter Ayman Mohyeldin was corrected on air after witnessing security forces shoot a Palestinian as he raced toward the Damascus Gate intent on attacking. Mohyeldin told viewers the man was unarmed, when even the anchor could see the man’s knife. MSNBC then had to apologize for airing maps purportedly showing the loss of Palestinian land to Israel since 1946. The network acknowledged that the maps were “completely wrong.”
When a Palestinian mob torched Joseph’s Tomb in Nablus, CNN’s original headline merely reported that the site “Catches Fire” with no one responsible.
An example Ini believes epitomizes the news media’s consistent minimizing of Palestinian culpability in violence is this Sept. 14 New York Times story by Diaa Hadid. Israeli citizen Alexander Levlovich, 64, was killed when his car was struck by a hail of stones thrown by young Palestinians and crashed. The Times story, however, says the youth were throwing stones at “the road he was driving on,” as if the road was the target and Levlovich’s death an unfortunate accident.
There’s a tendency among some journalists to avoid directly ascribing blame to Palestinians, even in clear acts of violence like this, Ini said. “Journalists are supposed to scrutinize. In this case, I believe they are doing the exact opposite of their jobs: they are protecting Palestinians from scrutiny.”
Commensurate acts of violence by Israelis against Palestinians are relatively few and far between, Ini said. But when they do occur, such as the recent arson attack against a Palestinian home that killed a woman and her baby, they trigger a series of stories about Israeli society and whether it is growing more intolerant.
“We are not seeing the same” stories about racist statements and incitement by Palestinian leaders, he said, and that “warps the world’s view of the conflict.” In addition, journalists go out of their way to “understand roots of anger that drives violence against Israelis.” But in the few instances in which Israelis attack Palestinians, a double standard applies and that same attempts at perspective never materialize.
Besides journalists failing to hold Palestinians accountable for their actions via a deliberate refusal to report on their incitement, there is another byproduct of this one-sided affair. Palestinians end up being rewarded for incitement, terrorism and rampant bloodshed.
France proposed sending an international force to quell tensions on the Temple Mount. UNESCO proposed a resolution making the Western Wall, among Judaism’s most significant sites, to be part of the Al Aqsa mosque. The Palestinian Authority is demanding full control over Jews who visit the Temple Mount.
Meanwhile, the Palestinian narrative receives massive media coverage despite this uprising’s roots in a manifestly fabricated conspiracy. There is no international penalty, no moral condemnation. This all but guarantees that the current wave of stabbings, terrorism and vicious anti-Semitic incitement against Israelis will continue.
An Open Letter to The Guardian About Netanyahu’s Comments on the Mufti and Hitler
October 22, 2015An Open Letter to The Guardian About Netanyahu’s Comments on the Mufti and Hitler, Algemeiner, Maurice Ostroff, October 21, 2015
I believe you owe your readers an explanation for referring to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s statement about the Mufti as “incendiary,” while barely noticing Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas’ truly incendiary statements praising the murderers of Jewish civilians, including children, and his use of hateful rhetoric, including calling for Jews “with their filthy feet” to be banned from entering the Temple Mount.
While Netanyahu’s statement may have been unnecessary and undiplomatic, it was not as absurd as the Guardian and other mainstream media make out. Editors are supposed to check their facts before rushing to publish.
There is no excuse for the Guardian to be ignorant of the Madagascar Plan, which confirms the PM’s assertion that Hitler initially wanted to expel, not exterminate, the Jews.
In 1938, the notorious Adolf Eichmann prepared a report advocating an evacuation plan for 4 million Jews to be shipped to Madagascar. In his paper, “Madagascar Plan,” Christopher Browning quotes Heinrich Himmler in May 1940 stating: “However cruel and tragic each individual case may be, this method is still the mildest and best, if one rejects the Bolshevik method of physical extermination of a people out of inner conviction as un-German and impossible.”
The plan was endorsed by the Third Reich in August 1940.
Damming evidence of the Mufti’s exhortations to exterminate the Jews was presented at the Nurenberg trials by none other than senior Nazi official Dieter Wisliczeny. On September 15, 1947, Drew Pearson, one of the best-known American columnists of his day, quoted Wisliczeny’s evidence in his column, “Washington Merry-Go-Round,” as follows:
-
In my opinion, the grand mufti, who has been in Berlin since 1941 played a role in the decision of the German government to exterminate the European Jews, the importance of which must not be disregarded. He had repeatedly suggested to the various authorities with whom he had been in contact, above all before Hitler, Ribbentrop and Himmler, the extermination of European Jewry. He considered this as a comfortable solution to the Palestinian problem. In is messages broadcast from Berlin, he surpassed us in anti-Jewish attacks. He was one of Eichmann’s best friends and had constantly incited him to accelerate the extermination measures. I heard him say that, accompanied by Eichmann, he has visited incognito the gas chamber of Auschwitz.
Mufti Advised Hitler on Holocaust, Says Middle East Forum Scholar
October 22, 2015Mufti Advised Hitler on Holocaust, Says Middle East Forum Scholar, Middle East Forum, October 21, 2015
Noted Middle East Forum scholar Dr. Wolfgang G. Schwanitz responds to criticism of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Schwanitz, a leading expert on ties between Nazis and Islamists, says al-Hajj Amin al-Husaini was instrumental in the decision to exterminate the Jews of Europe.
Philadelphia, PA – Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has drawn criticism for comments about the role of al-Hajj Amin al-Husaini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, in conceiving and perpetrating the Holocaust. Indeed, leading Nazi aides testified that al-Husaini was one of the instigators of the genocide. In his 1999 autobiography, a senior Nazi official admitted how he advised Hitler and other leading Nazis, and that he acquired full knowledge of the ongoing mass murder.
Middle East Forum scholar, historian, and author Wolfgang G. Schwanitz added, “It is a historical fact that the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem al-Hajj Amin al-Husaini was an accomplice whose collaboration with Adolf Hitler played an important role in the Holocaust. He was the foremost extra-European adviser in the process to destroy the Jews of Europe.”
Although Schwanitz hadn’t previously heard the dialogue between Hitler and al-Husaini as told by Netanyahu, he says it is absurd to ignore the role played by al-Hajj Amin al-Husaini, a war criminal, in encouraging and urging Hitler and other leading Nazis to exterminate European Jewry.
According to the foremost expert on the ties between Nazis and Islamists, there is much evidence that al-Husaini’s primary goal was blocking all of the ways out of Europe. He pushed Hitler to slam the last doors of a burning house shut.
In their 2014 book Nazis, Islamists, and the Making of the Modern Middle East, published by Yale University Press, Schwanitz and co-author Barry Rubin delve into the deep ties between Hitler and the Grand Mufti:
At their meeting [on November 28, 1941, Hitler and al-Husaini] concluded the pact of Jewish genocide in Europe and the Middle East, and immediately afterward, Hitler gave the order to prepare for the Holocaust. The next day invitations went out to thirteen Nazis for the Wannsee Conference to begin organizing the logistics of this mass murder.
The highly acclaimed book also examined the Grand Mufti’s efforts to prevent Europe’s Jews from finding refuge in the land that would become Israel:
And since any European Jews let out of Europe might later go to Palestine, al-Husaini made it clear that if Hitler wanted Muslims and Arabs as allies he must close Europe’s exits to Jews. At the same time, al-Husaini and Arab rulers also told Britain that if it wanted to keep Arabs and Muslims from being enemies, it must close entrance to Palestine to all Jews. By succeeding on both fronts, al-Husaini contributed to the Holocaust doubly, directly, and from the start.
Statements by PM Netanyahu and UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon
October 20, 2015PM Netanyahu at the 37th Zionist World Congress
October 20, 2015PM Netanyahu at the 37th Zionist World Congress, PM Netanyahu, October 20, 2015
The West has developed a dangerous concern for ‘proportionality.’
October 20, 2015The West has developed a dangerous concern for ‘proportionality.’ National Review, Victor Davis Hanson, October 20, 2015
The question is not only whether the Obama administration, in private, favors the cause of the radical Palestinians over a Western ally like Israel, but also whether it is even intellectually and morally capable of distinguishing a democratic state that protects human rights from a non-democratic, authoritarian, and terrorist regime that historically has hated the West, and the United States in particular — and is currently engaged in clear-cut aggression.
**************************
In the current epidemic of Palestinian violence, scores of Arab youths are attacking, supposedly spontaneously, Israeli citizens with knives. Apparently, edged weapons have more Koranic authority, and, in the sense of media spectacle, they provide greater splashes of blood. Thus the attacker is regularly described as “unarmed” and a victim when he is “disproportionately” stopped by bullets.
The Obama State Department has condemned the use of “excessive” Israeli force in response to Palestinian terrorism. John Kirby, the hapless State Department spokesman, blamed “both” sides for terrorism, and the president himself called on attackers and their victims to “tamp down the violence.”
In short, the present U.S. government — which is subsidizing the Palestinians to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars a year — is incapable of distinguishing those who employ terrorist violence from the victims against whom the terrorism is directed. But why is the Obama administration — which can apparently distinguish those who send out drones from those who are blown up by them on the suspicion of employing terrorist violence — morally incapable of calling out Palestinian violence? After all, in the American case, we blow away suspects whom we think are likely terrorists; in the Israeli instance, they shoot or arrest those who have clearly just committed a terrorist act.
Two reasons stand out.
One, Obama’s Middle East policies are in shambles. Phony red lines, faux deadlines, reset with Putin, surrendering all the original bargaining chips in the Iranian deal, snubbing Israel, cozying up to the Muslim Brotherhood, dismissing the threat of ISIS, allowing Iraq to collapse by abruptly pulling out all American troops, giving way to serial indecision in Afghanistan, ostracizing the moderate Sunni regimes, wrecking Libya, and setting the stage for Benghazi — all of these were the result of administration choices, not fated events. One of the results of this collapse of American power and presence in the Middle East is an emboldened Palestinian movement that has recently renounced the Oslo Accords and encouraged the offensive of edged weapons.
Mahmoud Abbas, the subsidized president of the self-proclaimed Palestinian State, and his subordinates have sanctioned the violence. Any time Palestinians sense distance between the U.S. and Israel, they seek to widen the breach. When the Obama team deliberately and often gratuitously signals its displeasure with Israel, then the Palestinians seek to harden that abstract pique into concrete estrangement.
Amid such a collapse of American power, Abbas has scanned the Middle East, surveyed the Obama pronouncements — from his initial Al Arabiya interview and Cairo speech to his current contextualizations and not-so private slapdowns of Netanyahu — and has wagered that Obama likes Israel even less than his public statements might suggest. Accordingly, Abbas assumes that there might be few consequences from America if he incites another “cycle of violence.”
The more chaos there is, the more CNN videos of Palestinian terrorists being killed by Israeli civilians or security forces, the more NBC clips of knife-wielding terrorists who are described as unarmed, and the more MSNBC faux maps of Israeli absorption of Palestine, so all the more the Abbas regime and Hamas expect the “international community” to force further Israeli concessions. The Palestinians hope that they are entering yet another stage in their endless war against Israel. But this time, given the American recessional, they have new hopes that the emerging Iran–Russia–Syria–Iraq–Hezbollah axis could offer ample power in support of the violence and could help to turn the current asymmetrical war more advantageously conventional. The Palestinians believe, whether accurately or not, that their renewed violence might be a more brutal method of aiding the administration’s own efforts to pressure the Israelis to become more socially just, without which there supposedly cannot be peace in the Middle East.
But there is a second, more general explanation for the moral equivalence and anemic response from the White House. The Obama “we are the ones we’ve been waiting for” administration is the first postmodern government in American history, and it has adopted almost all the general culture’s flawed relativist assumptions about human nature.
Affluent and leisured Western culture in the 21st century assumes that it has reached a stage of psychological nirvana, in which the Westernized world is no longer threatened in any existential fashion as it often was in the past. That allows Westerners to believe that they no longer have limbic brains, and so are no longer bound by Neanderthal ideas like deterrence, balance of power, military alliances, and the use of force to settle disagreements. Their wealth and technology assure them that they are free, then, to enter a brave new world of zero culpability, zero competition, and zero hostility that will ensure perpetual tranquility and thus perpetual enjoyment of our present material bounty.
Our children today play tee-ball, where there are no winners and losers — and thus they are schooled that competition is not just detrimental but also can, by such training, be eliminated entirely. Our adolescents are treated according to the philosophy of “zero tolerance,” in which the hero who stops the punk from bullying a weaker victim is likewise suspended from school. Under the pretense of such smug moral superiority, our schools have abdicated the hard and ancient task of distinguishing bad behavior from good and then proceeding with the necessary rewards and punishments. Our universities have junked military history, which schooled generations on how wars start, proceed, and end. Instead, “conflict resolution and peace studies” programs proliferate, in which empathy and dialogue are supposed to contextualize the aggressor and thus persuade him to desist and seek help — as if aggression, greed, and the desire for intimidation were treatable syndromes rather than ancient evils that have remained dangerous throughout history.
Human nature is not so easily transcended, just because a new therapeutic generation has confused its iPhone apps and Priuses with commensurate moral and ethical advancement. Under the canons of the last 2,500 years of Western warfare, disproportionality was the method by which aggressors were either deterred or stopped. Deterrence — which alone prevented wars — was predicated on the shared assumption that starting a conflict would bring more violence down upon the aggressor than he could ever inflict on his victim. Once lost, deterrence was restored usually by disproportionate responses that led to victory over and humiliation of the aggressive party.
The wreckage of Berlin trumped anything inflicted by the Luftwaffe on London. The Japanese killed fewer than 3,000 Americans at Pearl Harbor; the Americans killed 30 times that number of Japanese in a single March 10, 1945, incendiary raid on Tokyo. “They have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind” was the standard philosophy by which aggressive powers were taught never again to start hostilities. Defeat and humiliation led to peace and reconciliation.
The tragic but necessary resort to disproportionate force by the attacked not only taught an aggressor that he could not win the fight he had started, but also reminded him that his targeted enemy might not be completely sane, and thus could be capable of any and all retaliation.
Unpredictability and the fear sown by the unknown also help to restore deterrence, and with it calm and peace. In contrast, predictable, proportionate responses can reassure the aggressor that he is in control of the tempo of the war that he in fact started. And worse still, the doctrine of proportionality suggests that the victim does not seek victory and resolution, but will do almost anything to return to the status quo antebellum — which, of course, was disadvantageous and shaped by the constant threat of unexpected attack by its enemies.
Applying this to the Middle East, the Palestinians believe that the new American indifference to the region and Washington’s slapdowns of Netanyahu have reshuffled relative power. They now hope that there is no deterrent to violence and that, if it should break out, there will be only a proportionate and modest response from predictable Westerners.
Under the related doctrine of moral equivalence, Westerners are either unwilling or unable to distinguish the more culpable from the more innocent. Instead, because the world more often divides by 55 to 45 percent rather than 99 to 1 percent certainty, Westerners lack the confidence to make moral judgments — afraid that too many critics might question their liberal sensitivities, a charge that in the absence of dearth, hunger, and disease is considered the worst catastrophe facing an affluent Western elite.
The question is not only whether the Obama administration, in private, favors the cause of the radical Palestinians over a Western ally like Israel, but also whether it is even intellectually and morally capable of distinguishing a democratic state that protects human rights from a non-democratic, authoritarian, and terrorist regime that historically has hated the West, and the United States in particular — and is currently engaged in clear-cut aggression.
The ‘Jerusalem Awakening’
October 19, 2015The ‘Jerusalem Awakening’ Front Page Magazine, Richard L. Cravatts, October 19, 2015
The carnage in Jerusalem and other parts of Israel continued this week with an increased ferocity and barbarity, with stabbings, shooting, bombings, car ramming, rocket attacks, and other assaults on Israeli citizens claiming the lives of five Israelis and twenty-five Palestinians in the past two weeks alone. While the violence intensifies and seems to be spiraling out of control, not only touching Jerusalem but also the West Bank, Gaza, and other Israeli towns, officials are intent on identifying the inspiration for the latest escalation of jihad against Jews.
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry was quick to assign blame, not to the perpetrators of the deadly attacks—psychotic young men acting in the name of Allah to purge the land of Jews—but to the victims themselves, Israelis. Speaking at the Belfer Center at Harvard University, Kerry disingenuously observed in a question and answer session after his talk that, “There’s been a massive increase in settlements over the course of the last years and there’s an increase in the violence because there’s this frustration that’s growing.” Blaming the settlements for being an obstacle to peace is a favorite refrain for this administration, of course, and it puts the responsibility for the outbreak of violence squarely on Israel, and Netanyahu, instead of where it more justifiably belongs: namely, with Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian Authority, and a culture of death where “resistance” and martyrdom are promoted as virtuous rather than inhumanly counterproductive.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was more accurate in identifying the inspiration of the current uprising, this so-called “Jerusalem Awakening,” that has increased the tension of everyday life for Israelis and Arabs alike. At a weekly cabinet meeting Netanyahu correctly observed that Israel is “. . . in the midst of a wave of terrorism originating from systematic and mendacious incitement regarding the Temple Mount – incitement by Hamas, the Palestinian Authority, and the Islamic Movement in Israel.”
Secretary Kerry may well wish that it is the dreaded settlements that have motivated young Arab men to begin indiscriminately slashing and shooting Jews, but the prime minister’s view is clearly more accurate, and more believable, given PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas’s own words of warning when he spoke at the UN at the end of September. He was, he said before the morally-challenged audience, “. . . compelled to sound the alarm about the grave dangers of what is happening in Jerusalem, where extremist Israeli groups are committing repeated, systematic incursions upon Al-Aqsa Mosque . . , while preventing Muslim worshipers from accessing and entering the Mosque at those times and freely exercising their religious rights.”
These actions, Abbas claimed, are “in direct violation of the status quo since before 1967 and thereafter, [and are] aggravating the sensitivities of Palestinians and Muslims everywhere. I call on the Israeli government, before it is too late, to cease its use of brutal force to impose its plans to undermine the Islamic and Christian sanctuaries in Jerusalem, particularly its actions at Al-Aqsa Mosque, for such actions will convert the conflict from a political to religious one[emphasis added], creating an explosive in Jerusalem and in the rest of the occupied Palestinian territory.”
Putting aside the laughable contention that Muslims care even the slightest bit about the sanctity and protection of Christian holy places, the claim that Israel is trying to destroy or undermine mosques on the Temple Mount is an oft-repeated charge, used by Arabs against Israel as a way of inciting hatred toward Jews for their alleged perfidiousness and guile. Israeli columnist Nadav Shragrai has referred to this tactic as the “Protect the Al Aqsa Mosque” blood libel—a propaganda tool that has been employed since the 1920s to cause mistrust of Jews when the then-Grand Mufti Haj Amin al-Husseini, Hitler’s Middle East ally, exhorted Muslims everywhere to defend Islamic holy places in Jerusalem from the pernicious Jews, causing riots, bloodshed, and 133 Jewish deaths.
Abbas was surprisingly candid in admitting that the incursion onto the Temple Mount, where Jews and Christians have traditionally been barred from worshiping, changed the nature of the conflict between the Palestinians and Israelis from a political debate to a religious war. Of course, a holy war against Israelis specifically, and Jews in general, has been a core tenet of Islam since Jews rejected Mohammed in the seventh century, and animates the foundational charters of the PA and Hamas as part of a theological responsibility devout Muslims feel to purify the world through the extirpation of the rapacious, thieving Jews.
The perceived assault by Israel on the Al Aqsa Mosque, and the Temple Mount in general, then, is yet another affirmation to the Muslim world that the scheming Jews seek to weaken and eventually destroy the House of Islam—here in Jerusalem at Islam’s third holiest spot—and replace it with a Third Temple. What seem like random, “lone wolf” attacks on Israeli civilians at bus stops and on streets are actually thought of as part of a religiously-inspired war in the defense of Islam, a holy war in the form of jihad.
The Hamas Charter, for instance, proclaims that the circumstances through which the “Zionist regime” was established through the perfidy of the Jews is, in the honor/shame culture of the Middle East, an open wound on the Islamic world, a situation which demands jihad to restore the sanctity of Islamic land and rid the world of the festering sore that is Israel. “[T]he land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf [Islamic religious endowment] consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgment Day,” the Charter states. “The day that enemies usurp part of Moslem land, Jihad becomes the individual duty of every Moslem,” stipulating that jihad is not only a tactical choice for ridding Palestine of the Zionist interloper, it is seen as a religious duty; in fact, it is demanded of true believers.
The Charter’s Article 7 also contains the oft-cited hadith which exhorts Muslims to seek out and murder Jews specifically as a sacred obligation. Islamic teaching depicts Jews as the descendants of “monkeys and pigs,” treacherous deceivers, manipulative barbarians and thieves who attempted to murder the prophets, and who are satanic, murderous, unlawful occupiers of holy Muslim land whose elimination is sacralized in Koranic and hadithic precepts. “. . . The Islamic Resistance Movement aspires to realize the promise of Allah, no matter how long it takes,” Article 7 reads. “The Prophet, Allah’s prayer and peace be upon him, says: ‘The hour of judgment shall not come until the Muslims fight the Jews and kill them, so that the Jews hide behind trees and stones, and each tree and stone will say: “Oh Muslim, oh servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him,” except for the Gharqad tree, for it is the tree of the Jews.’”
It is no surprise that in a culture marinated in Jew-hatred, where Jews are debased, portrayed as a subhuman species, bacteria, a disease, fomenters of wars and strife—in fact, are portrayed as the enemies of Allah and mankind—the extermination of Jews, especially in defense of Islam and its holy places, would therefore become not only a reasonable goal but a desired outcome. Who would not murder Jews if they pose such threats to mankind and Islam specifically? Who would ever make peace with the eternal enemies of Allah, let alone negotiate a peace and borders for a new Arab state with them? And would not those jihadis who willingly sacrifice themselves to murder Jews in the name of Allah be celebrated as shahids, martyrs, and have town squares and summer camps named for them and their bravery, exactly as they are by Palestinian leadership now?
If Jews are the most wretched of humans, and the “liberation” of all of Palestine—including the Temple Mount, including Jerusalem, including all of Israel—is considered a sacred duty and religious obligation, then the murder of Jews must, and will, continue in this millennial apocalyptic struggle in which devote Muslims see themselves playing a central role.
Abbas’s disingenuous and lethal tactics in inciting rage against Jewish “interlopers” and “defilers” of Muslim holy ground on the Temple Mount are not new. Scholars and archeologists remember, for instance, the howls of outrage that arose from the Arab world in February 2007, when Israeli authorities initiated a project to rebuild a ramp to the Mugrabi Gate, an entrance to the Temple Mount plaza and the Al Aqsa Mosque platform that had been damaged in an earlier storm. Riots and protests began immediately, with accusations against Israel coming from throughout the Arab world for its “scheme” and treachery in digging under and threatening to destroy the Al Aqsa Mosque itself. The committee of Muslim scholars in Jordan’s Islamic Action Front, for one, “urge[d] … jihad to liberate Al Aqsa and save it from destruction and sabotage from Jewish usurpers”—a spurious claim, since construction was taking place well outside the Mount platform, some 100 meters from the mosque, and clearly posed no possible threat.
But false irredentist claims, Islamic supremacism which compels Jews and Christians to live in dhimmitude under Muslim control, and an evident cultural and theological disregard for other faiths— while troubling in the battle over sovereignty in Jerusalem—are not, according to Dore Gold, Israel’s former ambassador to the United Nations, the most dangerous aspects of a diplomatic capitulation which would allow the Palestinians control holy places and to claim a shared Jerusalem. In his engaging book, The Fight for Jerusalem: Radical Islam, the West, and the Future of the Holy City, Gold pointed to a far more troubling aspect: in their desire to accede to Arab requests for a presence and religious sovereignty in Jerusalem, the State Department, EU, UN member states, and Islamic apologists in the Middle East and worldwide may actually ignite jihadist impulses they seek to dampen with their well-intentioned, but defective, diplomacy.
Why? Because, as Gold explained, “In the world of apocalyptic speculation, Jerusalem has many other associations—it is the place where the messianic Mahdi [the redeemer of Islam] is to establish his capital. For that reason, some argue that it also should become the seat of the new caliphate that most Islamic groups—from the Muslim Brotherhood to al-Qaeda—seek to establish.”
In September, Abbas announced in Ramallah that “We will not forsake our country and we will keep every inch of our land,” reaffirming his belief that all of Jerusalem would, and should, be retained by the Palestinians as the capital of their new state. “Every drop of blood spilled in Jerusalem is pure, every shahid [martyr] will reach paradise, and every injured person will be rewarded by God.” In facgt, the establishment of the Palestinian capital in East Jerusalem is the first important step in the long-term strategy to rid the Levant of Jews and reestablish the House of Islam in all of historic Palestine. “Jerusalem’s recapture is seen by some as one of the signs that ‘the Hour’ and the end of times are about to occur,” Gold suggested. “And most importantly, because of these associations, it is the launching pad for a new global jihad powered by the conviction that this time the war will unfold according to a pre-planned religious script, and hence must succeed.”
So far from creating a political situation in which both parties—Israelis and the Palestinians—feel they have sought and received equal benefits, such negotiations and final agreements would have precisely the opposite effect: destabilizing the region and creating, not the oft-hoped for Israel and Palestine “living side by side in peace,” but an incendiary cauldron about to explode into an annihilatory, jihadist rage. Those in the West who are urging Israel “to redivide Jerusalem by relinquishing its holy sites,” Dore cautioned, “may well believe that they are lowering the flames of radical Islamic rage, but in fact they will only be turning up those flames to heights that have not been seen before.” If Kerry’s State Department and other Western diplomats are intent on mollifying the Arab street by pressuring Israel to divide Jerusalem as a peace offering to the Palestinians, it may well be setting into motion the exact opposite result—a jihadist, apocalyptic movement invigorated by the misguided diplomacy of the West that, once more, asks Israel to sacrifice its security and nationhood so that Islamists can realize their own imperial and theological ambitions at the Jewish state’s expense.
anneinpt
artaxes
danmillerinpanama
davidking1530
Peter Hofman
Joseph Wouk
Peter
Louisiana Steve
WarSclerotic 
Recent Comments