Israel Military Forum

Welcome to the Israel Military Forum. You are currently viewing our Israel Forum as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions, Image Forum and access our other features. By joining our Israel Military Forum you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so
Join Our Israel Community Today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
Go Back   Israel Military Forum > Social > World News > Middle East
Register FAQ Pictures Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Middle East News from the Middle East

Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-26-2014, 07:18 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Arrow Video: Walid Shoebat and Robert Spencer discuss Islam and the Middle East

Walid Shoebat and Robert Spencer discuss Islam and the Middle East

O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”

Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-2014, 12:31 AM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Exclamation Abbas Says No to Israel as a Jewish State

Abbas Says No to Israel as a Jewish State
What did the Palestinians agree to exactly in 1993 at the start of the Oslo process?
by P. David Hornik

At Davos, Switzerland on Friday, at the meeting of the World Economic Forum, Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu again sounded the Jewish-state theme.

After meeting there with U.S. secretary of state John Kerry, Netanyahu told reporters:
The meeting was very good. … I restated the two principal issues that concern us: mutual recognition of two nation states—with one of them being recognized as the Jewish people’s nation state—and of course, security.
The next day on Israeli TV, Justice Minister Tzipi Livni, a dove and outspoken believer in a “two-state solution” who is also chief Israeli negotiator in the current Israeli-Palestinian talks, made a surprising, uncharacteristically stern statement of her own:
If [Palestinian Authority president] Mahmoud Abbas continues to insist on positions that we and the rest of the world consider unacceptable, the Palestinians will be the ones who pay the price.
At least one of the “positions” she was referring to was undoubtedly one that Abbas voiced yet again—as on many other occasions—last week. In an interview to Moroccan TV, Abbas said quite plainly: “Palestine can never recognize Israel as a Jewish state.”

Just a week before that he had received backing from nine foreign ministers of the Arab League, who notified Kerry that they, too, would not accept Israel as a Jewish state.

Some believe the Jewish-state issue is no big deal in itself, a hitch created by Netanyahu to foil the negotiations. Didn’t the Palestinians already recognize Israel in 1993 at the start of the Oslo process?

That was, of course, the “peace process” that resulted in the creation of the Palestinian Authority, waves of terror against Israel, and repeated attempts—up to the present one driven by the Obama administration—to reach a final agreement.

The process was officially launched by an exchange of letters, dated September 9, 1993, between the then leader of the PLO, Yasser Arafat, and the then Israeli prime minister, Yitzhak Rabin. Arafat’s letter stated:
The PLO recognizes the right of the State of Israel to exist in peace and security…. [T]he PLO affirms that those articles of the Palestinian Covenant which deny Israel’s right to exist, and the provisions of the Covenant which are inconsistent with the commitments of this letter are now inoperative and no longer valid.
The PLO in fact never invalidated those articles and provisions of its Covenant. Even more significantly, though, the meaning of Arafat’s “recognition” of Israel emerged in the 2000 Camp David Summit, which basically broke down over Arafat’s insistence on the “right” of millions of descendants of refugees to “return” to Israel.

In other words, Israel could exist—so long as it was flooded by Arabs and, by demographic fiat, ceased being the Jewish state.

As Yair Rosenberg has made clear, Netanyahu was not the first to realize that without the “Jewish state” clause, no Palestinian—or larger Arab—“recognition” of Israel would have any meaning or even hold out a hope for “peace and security.”

The Jewish-state demand was first made by a group of leftist Israeli intellectuals in talks with a group of Palestinian intellectuals in July 2001—nine months after the “Second Intifada” terror onslaught against Israel had erupted in the wake of Camp David.

The demand was first officially raised by none other than Livni, then foreign minister in Ehud Olmert’s government, in 2007 negotiations with a Palestinian delegation.

In adopting the demand, then, Netanyahu was in no way breaking new ground.

Which brings us back to the present—and the continued ironclad Palestinian and Arab refusal to accept the existence in their midst of a single non-Arab, non-Muslim, Jewish state.

In a sense, all the failure and havoc wrought by the “Oslo process”—from suicide bombings and rocket attacks to UN-centered Palestinian diplomatic warfare against Israel to unending incitement—were implicit in that lack of a “Jewish state” proviso in the original Oslo documents.

It is not that, even if a Palestinian or Arab leader were to endorse those words, a miraculous transformation would occur. The absence of those words, however, speaks volumes about the real, religio-historical depth of the regional delegitimization of Israel.

On the Israeli left, in Washington—including, in recent times, the Clinton, Bush, and Obama administrations—there is great resistance to internalizing that lesson. Finally assimilating it, however, would mean getting over the pointless obsession with the Palestinian issue and taking the U.S.-Israeli alliance out of its baneful shadow.

O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”

Last edited by Paparock; 01-28-2014 at 12:39 AM..
Reply With Quote
Old 06-10-2014, 03:30 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Exclamation U.S. Fostering Closer Iran-Saudi Ties

U.S. Fostering Closer Iran-Saudi Ties
An American president now serves as an agent for the Mullahs.
by Joseph Puder

According to Arab News, (June 2, 2014) a high official in the Obama administration is “encouraging Riyadh and Tehran to end their dispute.” This was quoted in Kuwait’s Al-Rai Arabic daily in an interview with an unnamed U.S. diplomat. Meanwhile, the Kuwaiti Emir Sheikh Sabah Al-Sabah ended his visit to Tehran.

Last month, U.S. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel visited Saudi Arabia’s capital Riyadh in a quest to establish a détente between Iran and Saudi Arabia. Hagel got his cue from earlier remarks made by Iran’s President Rouhani, suggesting that Iran would like to improve its ties with Saudi Arabia.

It seems that the Obama administration is now serving as an agent for Iran. The Islamic Republic that has encouraged street demonstrations calling for “death to America,” is the same regime that has been working hard to remove U.S. influence in the region. Iran is an oppressive and radical Islamic state backing the Assad regime in Syria which murdered over 200,000 of its own people, and used chemical agents to poison thousands of innocent civilians. The Obama administration has hitherto not been able to stop the Tehran regime from producing advanced centrifuges. Iran has continued its quest for nuclear weapons, despite its ongoing nuclear talks with the P5+1 (U.S. China, Russia, Britain, France, and Germany).

Saudi-Iranian reconciliation talks are scheduled to take place in the middle of June, and the Obama administration hopes for a new era in the relationship between the two Gulf powers. The Saudis are less than thrilled about the impending talks. Jamal Khashoggi, a Saudi political analyst, is skeptical about the talks, pointing out that “Iran has occupied Syria,” and is backing the Assad regime. He added that, the “Iranians want to drag us into an extended dialogue and divert attention from the core issue of Syria.”

Iran’s mouthpiece, Press TV reported (April 27, 2014) that Saudi Foreign Minister, Saud al-Faisal will be removed from his post in a second phase of changes in the ruling family’s key positions. It also revealed that on April 15, 2014, Saudi King Abdullah has replaced Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the Saudi intelligence chief with Youssef al-Idrisi. Press TV added that Bandar, the former Saudi ambassador to the U.S., is known to have had close ties with former U.S. President George W. Bush, and that he was an advocate of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003.

The Iranian interpretation that is apparently stemming from Press TV is that President Obama, in seeking to reverse his predecessor’s (G.W. Bush) foreign policy, has persuaded the Saudis to get rid of the anti-Iranian elements among the Kingdom’s leadership. Apparently, this has resulted in the removal of Prince Bandar, and the impending retirement of Saud al-Faisal.

It was Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal who, in a December, 2009 interview with the New York Times said, “Iran should never be allowed to have nuclear weapons.” He also added that he was suspicious of Iran’s claims to be pursuing a peaceful nuclear program.

Saudi Arabia has accused Iran of fomenting unrest among the Shia majority in Bahrain, its close neighbor, and the Shia minority in its own Eastern Province. In addition, the Saudis have charged the Islamic Republic of Iran of plotting to assassinate its ambassador in Washington in 2011.

Iran’s efforts to cozy up to the Gulf States and Saudi Arabia in particular, are aimed at isolating Israel and preventing what has been rumored to be a secret Israeli-Saudi understanding that would enable Israel to use Saudi airspace in an attack against Iran’s nuclear facilities. Thus, in the meeting between Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and Kuwait’s Emir Sheikh Sabah Al-Sabah, the former sounded “conciliatory.” According to Iranian state TV, which quoted Khamenei as saying that regional security “depends on good relations among all countries in the region, and that differences between them will only benefit their common enemies,” appears to be a veiled reference to Israel and the U.S.

In entering negotiations and signing the interim nuclear agreement with the P5+1, Iran has neutralized the U.S. and its allies from using the military option against it. This one-sided détente between the U.S. and Iran has apparently convinced the Saudis to change course. Pressured by its so-called ally, the U.S., to improve relations with Iran, Riyadh has realized that it is time to play along with Washington. MSNBC headlined it (May 15, 2014) “Admission of defeat.” In sending an invitation to his Iranian counterpart Mohammad Javad Zarif, Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal welcomed him to come to Riyadh “anytime he chooses.” Explaining the Saudis reversal regarding Iran, Al Faisal said “Iran is a neighbor, we have relations with them, and we will negotiate with them.”

U.S. President Obama has articulated a revised approach to the Middle East. The U.S. will no longer seek to isolate Iran but will instead attempt to “get Iran to operate in a responsible fashion” to foster a “new equilibrium” between Iran and Saudi Arabia that will be marked by “competition, perhaps suspicion, but not an active or proxy warfare.”

Secretary of State, John Kerry may not have realized it when he put “all the eggs in the Israeli-Palestinian peace basket,” that no bilateral relationship in the Middle East is more consequential for the region’s future and U.S. interests than the relationship between Saudi Arabia and Iran. These two regional powers are on opposite sides on virtually every single issue, both vying for power and influence in the Persian Gulf, the Levant (in Syria, Iran supports the Assad regime and Hezbollah while the Saudis support the Sunni rebels in Syria and the anti-Hezbollah forces in Lebanon), the Palestinian territories (the Saudis support Mahmoud Abbas and Fatah, and the Two-State solution, while the Iranians back Hamas and reject the Two-State solution), and Iraq (Iraq’s Shiite Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is an Iranian ally, while the Saudis support the Sunni rebels). They are also in competition within the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC). In addition to these conflicting interests, there are the ethnic (Arab versus Persian) and sectarian (Sunni Saudi Arabia versus Shiite Iran) differences.

There are also two other factors. Iran and Saudi Arabia have radically different forms of government and advance divergent visions for Middle Eastern order. They also have a major disagreement on the American presence in the region. The Saudis have been allied with the U.S. and seek its presence in the region. The Islamic Republic of Iran, on the other hand, wishes to expel the U.S. from the region.

It is for this reason alone that the Obama administration’s attempt to foster a détente with Iran and bring the Saudis and the Iranians closer is confounding if not disturbing. In legitimizing Iran, the Obama administration is either naïve in its belief that it can change the nature of the Iranian regime, or miscalculating in its attempt to create a “new equilibrium.” Iran will continue to support Hezbollah and Hamas’ terror against Israel, and deny Israel’s right to exist. The Tehran regime is also likely to come up short on the nuclear deal with the U.S. and its allies. These are the issues that the U.S. Congress, if not the Obama administration, will eventually find difficult in normalizing relations with Iran. It would also impede on President Obama’s efforts to affect a rapprochement between Iran and Saudi Arabia. Regardless of the Obama administration’s goodwill toward Iran, the Islamic Republic is unlikely to fall in love with the “Great Satan.”
O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”

Last edited by Paparock; 06-10-2014 at 03:39 PM..
Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2015, 11:19 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road

January 7, 2015
Special Report No.43

From Carnage To Culture: Understanding The Current Arab And Muslim World

By: Y. Carmon*

January 2015
For five consecutive years, the Arab and Muslim world has been descending into chaos. Storms of violence and mass-murder have engulfed the region, effectively dismantling its foundational structure. Numerous countries have disintegrated, causing the displacement of millions of people. Reports and images of the war-torn region seem to have been taken directly from World War II. As if all this weren't enough, 2014 witnessed the emergence of a new, horrific phenomenon, the Islamic State, whose beliefs and savage conduct emanate from the 7th Century.

What is even more bewildering is the fact that all this erupted after a promising period of progress - the Arab Spring - which epitomized a fight for fundamental human dignity. Citizens of all religions and ethnicities, men and women, young and old, came together in a collective struggle to create a free and democratic future. Yet, this heroic expression of human unity degenerated into the total fragmentation of nations and states in which regional, ethnic, and religious groups turned against each other in war. How can such a contradiction be explained?

This article will attempt to make sense of that which seems so confusing about the Arab and Muslim world, and even to make future events, to a certain degree, predictable, by examining them through a historical perspective. Europe's evolution from carnage to culture throughout the past millennium can serve as a model to help explain the current events in the region, to assess potential future developments, and also clarify what cannot happen.

This article is not an attempt to foretell the future. Rather, it aims to show probable developments based on the historical precedent set by European history. Most importantly, this article will try to answer the current critical and urgent questions with which Western policy-makers are struggling: how long will this process take to conclude, and what can Western countries do to impact it in a meaningful and positive way?
Edited By: A. Braunstein

Historical Déjà Vu
The events currently taking place in the Arab and Muslim world have parallels with events that have happened before, in another time and place. The history of Europe throughout the last millennium, having already witnessed such events, can help elucidate and explain the region as it is today.

Europe's history will provide four key insights. First, it will enable us to accurately diagnose current events in the region and will argue that the current chaos signifies a historical process with a potentially positive final outcome. However, prior to any such outcome, there will be inevitable ups and downs, just as there were in Europe: periods of human progress interspersed with periods of devastating war.

Second, it will provide us with a timeframe for the conclusion of this historical process: just as in Europe's case, the conclusion will take hundreds of years. There can be no shortcuts in history: human development, as the driver of this process, cannot be rushed.

Third, it will enable us to better understand specific phenomena within the larger historical process, such as the contradiction between the promise of the Arab Spring and the violence and chaos that followed.

Finally, European history will show how free will, a pillar of human progress, can become a destructive force when not restrained by values such as equality, coexistence, tolerance, self-determination, and human rights.

Europe And The Arab And Muslim World – Historical Parallels
The Arab and Muslim world, like Europe, experienced centuries of authoritarian political structures in which peoples, religions, ethnic groups, and vast lands were forcefully united into empires. Those empires, which began with the rise of Islam in the 7th century, were later replaced first by European colonialism, which restructured the region politically, and then by Arab nationalism (and other forms of nationalism in the non-Arab parts of the Muslim world) – all of which kept the forced, artificial political structures unified by the power of the sword. Now, like Europe before it, the Arab and Muslim world is experiencing the bloody fragmentation of the past authoritarian empires into separate entities based on distinct identities and interests.

The French Revolution provides an explanation to the aforementioned question: how can the contradiction between the Arab Spring and all that followed it be explained? A parallel phenomenon already happened in Europe: the French Revolution, in which people rose against the absolute rule of the monarchs in a heroic manifestation of human progress, immediately deteriorated into a phase of mass-murder known as the Reign of Terror, in which approximately 17,000 "enemies of the Revolution" were decapitated. This is similar to what is happening now in the wake of the Arab Spring, although the death toll is, currently, not as high as it was in France.

The transition from authoritarian rule to rule by the people in Europe took hundreds of years. For example, it took approximately 800 years for Britain to progress from the absolute rule of the king, to the Magna Carta (1215), and finally to its present-day democracy. This was largely the case throughout Europe, where absolute monarchies gradually transitioned into constitutional monarchies in which the actual rule was put in the hands of the people. The monarchies, then, were often reduced simply to symbols of the state.

Libya and Egypt provide examples akin to this model. Libya's transition began with the ousting of the tyrannical ruler Muammar Gaddafi. Soon after, however, the revolution deteriorated into its own "Reign of Terror," and continues today without an end in sight. Similarly in Egypt, the process began with the ousting of president and military leader, Hosni Mubarak, and continued with the election of a leader from the Muslim Brotherhood, Mohamed Morsi. However, Morsi was quickly overthrown in a military coup supported by the same revolutionaries who had just overthrown Mubarak, following his attempt to Islamize the country. Egypt is now reverting to a power struggle between the Muslim Brotherhood and the former military regime – also with no end in sight. The same applies to Syria and Yemen, which are devastated by the fight between the rebels and the ruling regimes, and where the transition to democracy will similarly take many years.

The only country in the Arab and Muslim world which has successfully completed this transition, and in only five years, is Tunisia. However, the Tunisian experience is an exception due to the legacy of the legendary national leader Habib Bourqiba, who led the fight for independence and secularity. The new leader, Essebsi, was a minister in Bourqiba's cabinet, and continues his legacy. Still, the outcome of this new democracy is uncertain: Islamists may yet refuse defeat and reverse the progress that has been made, making the country no different than Libya or Egypt.

The idea of national or ethnic self-determination is another parallel which connects the modern Arab and Muslim world to European history. This idea, which sprang from the socio-economic development of early capitalism, was the basis for the creation of many states in Europe which were born in the wake of the fall of European empires. The Spanish Empire was finally forced to grant independence to the lowlands of Holland and Belgium in the 17th Century; some of the Balkan states won their independence from the Ottoman Empire as a result of the decline of the Turkish Caliphate, itself the result of the rise of modernity; and the British and French Empires both resisted relinquishing the colonies they ruled, but eventually had to grant the national and, partly, religious communities that demanded self-determination independence in the mid-20th Century.

Numerous groups in the Arab and Muslim world are now striving for their own self-determination and independence from their conservative, half-feudal, and partly pan-Arab rulers. In fact, it is commonly assumed that the coming years will witness the rise of new Arab and/or Muslim states from the ashes of the old regimes: Libya, Yemen, Iraq, and Syria will likely split into several separate political entities.

Another parallel is the principle of separation of religion, particularly religious law, from the state. This progressive principle was endorsed in Europe only after hundreds of years of fighting, which continued into the 20th Century. In the Arab and Muslim world, this struggle began in Egypt in the 1950s with the military coup of the Free Officers, led first by Naguib and then by Nasser, and was sustained by the military oligarchy which executed leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood. A resurgent Muslim Brotherhood, headed by Morsi, returned to power as a result of the Arab Spring, and attempted to enforce religious law and instate a religiously-based constitution. Morsi's subsequent removal by another military coup, led by Sisi, demonstrated that the battle between the secular military and the Muslim Brotherhood over the future of Egypt continues to rage.

The most dismal parallel between the events in the Arab and Muslim world and European history is the phenomenon of religious wars. The fierce and bloody war between the Catholics and the Protestants bears many similarities to the present Sunni-Shiite struggle: the former fully concluded only centuries after the 30 Years' War with the Peace of Westphalia (1648), and it is unlikely that the latter will conclude in any shorter a time period.
Other parallels may be found between the unfolding history of the Arab and Muslim world and European history with regard to other values such as equal rights for minorities, women's rights, accommodation as a means of conflict resolution, etc. In the West, the endorsement of these values culminated in the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, although the realization of these ideals is still very much a work in progress. The parallel process in the Arab and Muslim world has only just begun.

Culmination Of The Process – Doubts And Expectations
The early 21st Century witnessed the rise of peoples in the Arab and Muslim world against their dictatorial regimes, thus beginning their own march to join the history of free nations. Still, there are those who doubt that the peoples of this region are capable of following through like other nations before them, opting for a democratically-based unity out of free will and choosing to apply the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The current violence and chaos in the region seem to support these doubts. However, the parallels drawn here show that these pitfalls are to be expected: the process will not conclude without intermittent periods of such violence and chaos.

In contrast, others believe that not only will the Arab and Muslim world follow the European model, but that the process will conclude in a much shorter time period due to modern methods of communication. These methods have freed people in the region from the blindness inflicted upon them principally by dictatorial regimes' censorship and propaganda, and as a result, they have fought to topple these regimes to win their long-sought freedom. However, modern communications lend themselves to both the reformist and destructive forces in the region. Indeed, one cannot imagine the rise and power of the global jihadi movement and the Islamic State without satellite television, the Internet, and social media. These technologies have also enhanced each individual group's ability to fight other groups for identity, interests, security and independence, further hindering progress in the region.

Still others place importance on the power of Islam as a hindrance to progress in the Arab and Muslim world, and cite the rise of the Islamic State and Turkey's gradual regression from secularism to an increasingly religious state as examples. Scholars debate whether a religious reformation, similar to the Reformation in Europe, can happen in Islam and speed up progress in the region. However, this debate deals with a theoretical question that may not be so relevant: future progress may be determined more by Muslims who leave the religion and thereby diminish the role of Islam than by such theoretical questions.

A generation and a half after World War II, which was the worst war between peoples and nations in history so far, there came in Western Europe a healing period in which those same peoples opted to set aside the past and create the European Market, thus prioritizing unity over fragmentation and life over enmity and war. They subsequently followed with political unity by creating the European Union, under which each state relinquished certain elements of sovereignty for the sake of a new, united political entity (although there, too, it is a work in progress rather than a final achievement). However, the Arab and Muslim world is just beginning its parallel period of fierce internal war; it will therefore take many years to arrive at the creation of any similar economic or political entity.

Looking at the history of Europe across the centuries, renowned Arab intellectual Hashem Saleh questioned in Asharq Al-Awsat on August 10, 2013 whether there might be any shortcuts that would spare the Arab and Muslim world its present devastation. He answers, painfully, in the negative, and expresses a hypothetical desire to fall asleep and wake in years to come to see Syria like present-day Holland. In this way, the Arab and Muslim world would be spared all the suffering Europe endured as it developed to its present state. Alas, there are no shortcuts in history; the process will take just as long and be just as arduous for the Arab and Muslim world as it was for Europe.

The situation in the region will get worse – perhaps much worse – before it gets better. One can understand the need of Western policy-makers to impact this process in a meaningful and urgent way. However, very little can be done to change the course of history. It was not possible in Europe's history, and it is not possible today. No policy can shorten the time required for this process to conclude, not even resorting to reconquering the Arab and Muslim world in the face of mounting terrorism in the West. So what, then, is left for Western policy-makers to do? They can and are morally obligated to prepare for major rescue operations to save those in danger of annihilation, such as the Christians in Iraq and Syria, the Kurds, the Yazidis, and many others.

Yet, hope remains that, in the unforeseeable future, the Arab and Muslim world will rise out of this period of violence and chaos - as did Europe - to form the United States of the Arab and Muslim world, or another political entity modeled after the European Union, which endorses the humanistic values and ideals of free nations and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

*Y. Carmon is President and Founder of The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI).
O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”

Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2015, 08:16 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Exclamation U.S. Seen in Middle East as Ally of Terrorists

U.S. Seen in Middle East as Ally of Terrorists

February 4, 2015

Many Egyptians and moderate Arabs and Muslims were shocked to hear that the U.S. State Department recently hosted a Muslim Brotherhood delegation. They were equally shocked when an EU court decided to remove Hamas from the bloc's list of terror groups.

"Just two days after the controversial visit, the Brotherhood called for a war against their fellow Egyptians." — Linda S. Heard, Middle East Expert, Gulf News.

"The Muslim Brotherhood is seeking to return to the political arena through the American door and terrorist attacks.

The U.S. policy appears to be devious and unreliable." — Ezzat Ibrahim, columnist, Al Ahram.

"[Ousted Egyptian President] Mohamed Morsi, before his election, described these Jews as descendants of apes and pigs. In English, the Muslim Brotherhood says one thing and in Arabic something completely different." — Mohamed Salmawi, Egyptian columnist
While the Egyptian government has been waging war on the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamic radical groups, the U.S. Administration and some Europeans are continuing to hamper efforts to combat terrorism.

Many Egyptians and moderate Arabs and Muslims were shocked to hear that the U.S. State Department recently hosted a Muslim Brotherhood delegation. They were equally shocked when an EU court decided to remove Hamas from the bloc's list of terror groups.

The State Department's hosting of the Muslim Brotherhood leaders has outraged Egypt's President Abdel Fattah Sisi, who has been waging a relentless war against the organization over the past year.

One member of the delegation, Muslim Brotherhood judge Waleed Sharaby, posed for a picture while at Foggy Bottom, as he held up the organization's four-finger "Rabia" sign. (The gesture is named for Cairo's Rabia Square, where counter-demonstrations backing ousted Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi -- who is from the Muslim Brotherhood -- took place in August 2013.)

While being hosted by the State Department on a visit to Washington, Muslim Brotherhood judge Waleed Sharaby (left) flashed the organization's four-finger "Rabia" sign. At right, ousted Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi (from the Muslim Brotherhood) displays the Rabia sign.

"If the White House is out to offend some of its closest Arab allies and is intent on heightening their suspicions, it's succeeded," wrote Middle East expert Linda S. Heard. "If there's a plot, then it's unfolding," she added. "Just two days after the controversial visit, the Brotherhood called for a war against their fellow Egyptians."

A statement issued by the Muslim Brotherhood said, "It is incumbent upon everyone to be aware that we are in a process of a new phase, where we summon what is latent our strength, where we recall the meanings of jihad and prepare ourselves, our wives, our sons, our daughters, and whoever marched on our path to a long, uncompromising fight, and during this stage we ask for martyrdom."

The Egyptian government condemned the hosting of the Muslim Brotherhood officials by the State Department. Egyptian Foreign Minister Same Shoukry denounced the State Department's move, saying, "The Muslim Brotherhood is not a political party, but according to the Egyptian law, which must be respected, it is designated as a terrorist organization."

The timing of the meeting between State Department officials and Muslim Brotherhood leaders could not have been worse for many Egyptians -- it took place shortly after Islamist terrorists killed 31 soldiers and wounded 45 others in a series of attacks on Egypt's Sinai Peninsula.

Although the Islamic State terror group took credit for the attacks, Sisi held the Muslim Brotherhood responsible. "Egypt is waging a war against the strongest clandestine group over the past two decades," he said. "This organization has secretive arms, secretive thoughts and secretive forums."
Egyptian columnists and newspaper editors have also attacked the U.S. Administration for its ties with the Muslim Brotherhood.

"The U.S. Administration is continuing to jeopardize its relations with Egypt by appeasing Muslim Brotherhood," remarked columnist Ezzat Ibrahim. "The Muslim Brotherhood is seeking to return to the political arena through the American door and terrorist attacks. The U.S. policy appears to be devious and unreliable."

Another Egyptian columnist, Mohamed Salmawi, launched a scathing attack on the U.S. Administration; he accused it of deception and double standards. He said that the meeting between U.S. officials and Muslim Brotherhood leaders exposes the U.S. Administration's deceptive policy toward Islamic terror groups.

"The U.S. Administration says it is combating these groups at home while it is supporting them abroad," Salmawi wrote. "This meeting has grave indications because it shows that Washington has not abandoned its policy of double standards toward Islamic terrorism.

Salmawi also took issue with the U.S. Administration for turning a blind eye to the hypocrisy and double talk of the Muslim Brotherhood. "One of the leaders of Muslim Brotherhood, for example, told the world that he welcomes the Jews of Israel," he added. "But this same leader announced in front of the Egyptian people that they should march in the millions to liberate Jerusalem from the occupation of the Jews. [Ousted President] Mohamed Morsi, before his election, described these Jews as descendants of apes and pigs. In English, the Muslim Brotherhood says one thing and in Arabic something completely different."

Said Lindawi, a prominent Egyptian international affairs expert, said that the meeting of the Muslim Brotherhood leaders with State Department officials means that the Obama Administration has given the organization a green light to carry out terrorist attacks against Egypt.

"The U.S. Administration has refused to recognize the Muslim Brotherhood as a terror group," he said. "The Americans continue to insist that the Muslim Brotherhood is not responsible for the terrorist attacks in Egypt."

By embracing the Muslim Brotherhood, the U.S. Administration has sent the wrong message to moderate Arabs and Muslims. This is a message that says that Washington believes that there are good terrorists and bad terrorists.

Judging from the angry reactions of Egyptians, it has become obvious that most moderate Arabs and Muslims no longer see the U.S. as an ally in the war against Islamic terror groups. What is even more disturbing is that they view the U.S. as an ally and friend of the terrorists.

O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”

Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2015, 06:45 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Exclamation Jews in Turkey: Unending Discrimination

Jews in Turkey: Unending Discrimination
by Uzay Bulut

February 7, 2015

The Jewish homes in Israel are not an obstacle to peace. The only obstacle to peace is the hatred of Israel's neighbors.

Many of us in other countries in the Middle East see Israel as the only light of freedom and democracy in the midst of darkness, terrorism and hatred in the region.

The concept of real freedom and democracy seems foreign to anti-Semites. From here, it looks as if many of these self-proclaimed liberals have a self-congratulatory concept of what is right and wrong as closed-minded, un-free and un-democratic as that of the most rigid tyrant.

When people show solidarity with the Muslim Brotherhood or Hamas, or with those who jail, try or flog people for free speech, it just further proves Israel's rightfulness and legitimacy.

You would defend yourself against incoming rockets; why shouldn't they? Israel has nothing to apologize for.

It is really hard to please the Jew-haters.

When Jews cannot protect themselves because they do not have a military, they are "cowards" and are persecuted in Turkey and worldwide. When they do protect themselves, thanks to their military, they are "oppressors."

To anti-Semitic or anti-Israel people, Israel is the problem.

Many of us in other countries in the Middle East, on the contrary, see Israel as the only light of freedom and democracy in the midst of darkness, terrorism and hatred in the region.

Just recently, on January 12, Mahmoud Abbas, a Holocaust denier and terrorism glorifier, met with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan in Ankara.

Before that, on December 29, Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal spoke to the congress of the ruling AKP and said "Inshallah we will liberate Palestine and Jerusalem again in the future."

The crowd in the congress shouted slogans "Mujahid Mashaal," "Hamas, I [am ready to] lay down my life for you" and "Down with Israel!"

The problem is: the concept of real freedom and democracy seems foreign to anti-Semites. From here, it looks as if many of these self-proclaimed liberals have a self-congratulatory concept of what is right and wrong as closed-minded, un-free and un-democratic as that of the most rigid tyrant. When people refer to Israel as "the problem," they imply that the existence of Jews is the problem.

When people show solidarity with the Muslim Brotherhood or Hamas, or with those jail, try or flog people for free speech, it just further proves Israel's rightfulness and legitimacy.

When people in this region say, "Down with Israel" it really means: We do not want democracy; we do not want equality. We want our own state to be supreme and we want Jews to be stateless and defenseless. We do not want the wisdom or knowledge of Jews. We just need more darkness, arrogance and enmity. We are as ignorant as can be and we are happy this way. And if possible, we want another Holocaust, just as Hamas calls for it. At the same time, we definitely want peace. And this is our understanding of peace.

Israel is where the ancestors of the Jews lived, learned and toiled. Jews need to be there not only to be safe from further massacres but also to learn in the light of their ancestors -- who brought what are among the first laws of social justice to the word after Hammurabi. It is right there, all you have to do is read it. Pay the day-laborer by sunset. Do not cook the lamb in the milk of its mother. Do not steal. Do not murder. There are books more of them. These are the genuine messages of freedom.

Jews are Israel's indigenous people and they have extended their hand in peace to both Palestinians and others many times -- and been rejected. You would defend yourself against incoming rockets; why shouldn't they? Israel has nothing to apologize for.

There is a popular belief that anti-Semitism had not been promoted in Turkey until the current Islamist Justice and Development Party [AKP] took power in 2002. However, taking a closer look at the lives of Jews in modern Turkey makes it clear that this was just a myth. The truth is that to be a Jew in Turkey seems to mean having been exposed to more than 90 years of systematic discrimination including pogroms, forced assimilation, and prohibitions against the use of their native language.

On November 21, 2014, MEMRI [Middle East Media Research Institute] published a must-read special dispatch entitled, "Anti-Semitism Hits New High In Turkey: Threats Against Turkish Jews, Expressions Of Admiration For Hitler, Calls For Jews To Be Sent To Concentration Camps; Jews Should Pay A 'Special Tax'."

"At the same time that President Erdogan was denying, in his September 22, 2014 speech at the Council of Foreign Relations, that he or his government were in any way anti-Semitic," the dispatch read, "members of his party back home were tweeting praise for Hitler, and shops in Istanbul were displaying signs reading "No Admittance To Jewish Dogs."

As MEMRI points out, it is obvious that under the AKP government, anti-Semitism in Turkey has been hitting new high. But these gruesome realities are not the product only of the Islamist AKP, nor are they first in Turkey's history.

Jews in Turkey were already sent to forced-labor battalions in 1941-1942, required to pay a special tax in 1942-1944, and exposed to forced assimilation in Turkey. They were systematically subjected to hate speech in the Turkish press, which also played a role in the 1934 anti-Jewish pogrom in Eastern Thrace. With the enforcement of the surname law, Jewish children had to change their names and surnames and adopt Turkish sounding names. Ladino, the language of Turkey's Jews, was also banned by the Turkish regime. Since 1923, when the Turkish Republic was established, Jews have systematically been discriminated against (as well as all other non-Muslim communities), and Jews have been deprived of their freedom of movement at least three times: in 1923, 1925 and 1927.

The Turkish republic had been founded by the so-called "secular" Republican People's Party [CHP], now the main opposition party in Turkey's parliament.

Although anti-Semitism during the AKP's rule has been widely reported by the media, anti-Semitism during and after the establishment period of the Turkish Republic has been largely overlooked.

In Turkey, anti-Semitism has a long history among state authorities, opinion shapers, political circles (both right- and left-wing), Islamist and non-Islamist groups, and particularly in the media. Not a single Turkish university has a Jewish- or Holocaust-studies department. The reestablishment of the Jewish state in 1948 just turned anti-Semitism into anti-Zionism, which seems to be an implicit, disingenuous kind of anti-Semitism.

From the time of the founded of the Republic of Turkey in 1923, until 1950, when the first national elections took place, these practices were carried out by the non-Islamist governments of the Republican People's Party [CHP], which established the Turkish state.

It is impossible to mention all the anti-Semitic incidents in Turkey in one article, but a short chronology of the most important developments relating to Jews would help one realize what kind of a life Jews were forced to live in Turkey for decades.

Traditional Anti-Semitism in Turkish Media

The historian Ayse Hur, based on the comprehensive writings of independent scholar Rifat Bali, recounted some of the anti-Semitic campaigns of the Turkish press during the first decades of the Turkish Republic.[1]

In January 1923, the Turkish Voice (Türk Sesi) and Burnt Land (Yanık Yurt) newspapers, published in the province of Izmir, called on Turkish traders to struggle against "the immoral and sordid Jewish threat." The pieces claimed that the Jews were the breeding ground for germs in Turkey and especially in Izmir. Then Akbaba, a satirical magazine, joined the chorus, publishing a series of pieces which featured titles such as "haven't you heard that you should not do business with the Jews," and "Shall we allow these germs to live with us?"

In December 1925, after the rumors were spread that at least 300 Jews sent a telegram to the celebrations of the 435th anniversary of Columbus' discovering America, an anti-Semitic campaign was started in mainstream newspapers. The published pieces referred to Jews as "ungrateful" and as "leeches who cling on the back of the country," and suggested that they be exiled as a solution. Some people provoked by those writings killed a young Jew and attacked the synagogue in the town of Kuzguncuk.[2] Whether such a telegram was ever sent remains unknown.

In January 1937, the fascistic and national-socialistic waves of Europe arrived in Turkey: A German Information Office was opened in Istanbul. Türkische Post and Cumhuriyet (The Republic) newspapers started to repeat Nazi propaganda.

In August 1938, the government issued decree No.# 2/9498, which read: "The Jews who are exposed to pressures in terms of living conditions and travelling in the states of which they are nationals are forbidden to enter and live in Turkey regardless of their current religion." Twenty six Jewish employees of the Anatolian News Agency, then the only official news agency of Turkey, were dismissed. There was a massive increase in the number of articles and cartoons in newspapers and magazines that held minorities, especially Jews, responsible for the problems that Turkey was going through.

On December 28,1939, a powerful earthquake hit the province of Erzincan in Turkey, killing tens of thousands of people. Upon hearing that, Jewish communities in Tel Aviv, Haifa, Buenos Aries, New York, Geneva, Cairo and Alexandria collected money and clothes among themselves and sent them to Turkey. Instead of appreciating this act, articles and cartoons ridiculed it and suggested bad intentions.

In 1948, when Jews wanted to go to the newly-founded State of Israel, Turkey's state and state-directed media, which had done everything in their power to make the Jews flee Turkey, now referred to those wanting to emigrate as "traitors."

Ancestry Codes of Armenians, Greeks and Jews

Research by the daily newspaper Radikal and interviews with officials has revealed a century-long saga of discrimination in Turkey. According to Radikal's findings, Turkey has been secretly assigning codes its Armenian, Greek, Jewish, Syriac and other non-Muslim minorities ever since the establishment of the Turkish Republic. The Population Directorate of Turkey codes Greeks using the number 1, Armenians 2 and Jews 3.

"This is obviously a scandal that should shake Turkey to its core, but the country is so busy with its own agenda," wrote Orhan Kemal Cengiz, a human rights lawyer and columnist in his column on Al Monitor.

"Given Turkey's history, which is full of unfair practices toward non-Muslims, perhaps the significance of this scandal can best be understood through comparison. For a moment, imagine that Jews in Germany today were secretly being identified through coding by the German government and that this was exposed. It would register as a political earthquake big enough to shake the German political system down to its roots. In contrast, the scandal in Turkey remained in the news only for a few days in a few newspapers."

Laws that excluded Jews and other non-‎Muslims from certain professions

Even in the beginning of 1923 and 1924, foreign companies and banks were required to employ only Turkish-Muslim citizens and to dismiss non-Muslims. Greeks, Jews and Armenians were dismissed in groups without being paid.

On January 24, 1924, "being Turkish" became the requirement for working as a pharmacist in accordance with a new law relating to pharmacists.[3]

On April 3, 1924, in accordance with the law of lawyers, 960 lawyers were evaluated as to whether they had good morals. As a result of the evaluation, work permits of 460 lawyers were cancelled. Thus, 57% of Jewish lawyers, and three out of four Greek and Armenian lawyers, lost their jobs.[4]

In the 4th article of the 1926 law on civil servants, it was stated that only "Turks" could work at public institutions. The law included all employees in public institutions, from tramway drivers to harbor workers. Due to this law, thousands of non-Muslims lost their jobs.

During 1928, new laws about requirements for carrying out certain jobs were enacted. According to these laws, only "Turkish" citizens could be doctors, dentists, midwives, nurses and so on.

The "Turkish citizens" in these laws referred only to "ethnic Turks." So to carry out these jobs, one had to be not only Muslim but an "ethnic Turk."

On April 22, 1926, after a law was enacted that made Turkish the only language of commercial correspondence, non-Muslims who were working in administrative bodies and did not have a full command of written Turkish, were dismissed.

On June 11, 1932, the Turkish parliament enacted law #2007, which prohibited foreigners from many jobs. The law read[5]:

The jobs and services mentioned below can be carried out by Turkish citizens alone. It is prohibited for those who are not Turkish citizens to carry out these jobs and services:

A.) being a peddler; musician; photographer; hairdresser; compositor; estate agent; dress, hat and shoe manufacturer; stock trader; seller of products which are under state monopoly; translator; guide; working in construction, iron and wooden works; working permanently or temporarily on public vehicles; working in the fields of water, lighting, central heating, mailing and telecommunication sectors; loading and commissioning [in ships];working as a driver and turnboy; doing assistant works in general; being a watchman, janitor or headwaiter at all kinds of companies, businesses, hotels and firms; working at hotels, motels, public baths, cafes; being a waiter at clubs, dance halls, or pubs, dancer or singer at pubs.

b.) Being a veterinarian and chemist.

This "law of occupations" was the most extreme law of the Kemalist government after the proclamation of the new Republic in 1923.

Employment bans were also big obstacle for refugees exiled from Germany. They were trying to find jobs that had not been banned, or to make use of legal loopholes. Some of them -- particularly women -- received residence permits for marriages with Turkish men. If Turkish authorities learned that the marriages were "fake," women were faced with the danger of being deported.[6]

"Citizen, Speak Turkish!" Campaign, Prohibitions against Ladino and Forced Assimilation

On January 13, 1928, the student union at the Law School in the Ottoman University (today's Istanbul University) launched a campaign to prohibit the use in public of all languages other than Turkish.

The campaigners placed posters in many cities across Turkey with the slogan "Citizen, speak Turkish!" Some other signs proclaimed, "We cannot call a Turk those who do not speak Turkish" or "Speak Turkish or leave the country!" Hundreds of people were harassed in public, given fines or arrested, with full support of the government.[7]

Isil Demirel, a Turkish anthropologist, examined the process by which Turkish replaced Ladino as the mother tongue of Sephardic Jews in Turkey.[8] "The Jews were exposed to great pressures during the attempts of spreading Turkish in 1920s," Demirel wrote. "Since Turkish was starting to be used among Jews instead of Ladino, cultural differences emerged between the old generation, who used Ladino as their mother tongue, and the young generation who were raised with Turkish. Ladino, which is a dying language in Turkey today, is used only by Jews older than 50, and embodies a rooted and long-running culture."

Demirel quoted a Sephardic Jew who experienced the "Citizen, Speak Turkish!" campaign: "When you spoke two words of Spanish (Ladino) back then, they immediately raised their hands. 'Heeeeyyy Madame, Monsieur! Citizen, speak Turkish!,' they shouted or they had sticks behind them and shook them at you."

In another forced-assimilation campaign, in November 1932, every Jew in the province of Izmir was made to sign an agreement in which they promised "to embrace the Turkish culture and speak the Turkish language." This was followed by the Jews in the provinces of Bursa, Kiklareli, Edirne, Adana, Diyarbakir and Ankara. Newspapers were filled with reports of Jewish (and Armenian) girls who were converting to Islam in groups.

1934 Anti-Jewish Pogroms in Eastern Thrace

The pogroms, in June 21- July 4, 1934, occurred in the provinces of Tekirdag, Edirne, Kirklareli, and Canakkale in Eastern Thrace, and were initiated by articles written by Pan-Turkic authors Cevat Rıfat Atilhan and Nihal Atsız. The pogroms began with a boycott of Jewish businesses, and were followed by physical attacks on Jewish-owned buildings, which were first looted, then set on fire. Jews were beaten, attacked and some Jewish women were reportedly raped.

In terror, more than 15,000 Jews fled the region. Anti-Semitic pressures on the Jewish communities at schools, markets and state institutions, even after the pogroms, lingered on. A "confidential" circular sent by the headquarters of the ruling CHP to its local branches in Eastern Thrace also revealed that the government had at least condoned the pogroms.

Turkey during the Holocaust

During the Holocaust, Turkey opened its doors to very few Jewish and political refugees. The attempts of many famous people or Jewish organizations to make Turkey accept more Jewish refugees bore no result. That is the reason Turkey is not in the statistics of countries to which Jewish refugees fled.[9]

In 1937, Turkey took measures to prevent Jewish immigration. When the number of Jewish refugees increased rapidly in 1938, Turkey enacted two laws that prohibited people with no passport or citizenship documents from entering and settling in Turkey. These laws were not openly related to Jews. But behind them was the reality that Germany and other countries had stripped Jews of their citizenship rights. On 29 August 1938, the Turkish government issued a policy letter preventing "Jews whose rights had been limited in their countries" from entering Turkey.[10]

Tragedies of Jewish Refugees

The historians Corry Guttstadt and Rifat Bali reported the tragedies of Jewish refugees who were trying to escape Nazi persecution and reach Israel, their historic homeland, during the Holocaust.[11]

On August 8, 1939, the ship, Parita, had to dock in the province of Izmir, due to some problems it had experienced while carrying 800 Jewish refugees from Germany, Poland and Czechoslovakia to the land of Israel (then, under the British mandate, called Palestine). The Jewish refugees sat for a week off the coast of Izmir with no coal, water or food. The ship was denied a berth in the port and the captain was finally forced, after threats from the Turkish police, to sail on.

Turkish satirical magazines such as Karikatür and Akbaba ridiculed the Jewish refugees who sought refuge throughout the world in vain. The caricature on the cover of the Akbaba from August 24, 1939, referred to the Jewish refugees on the Parita. The caption had one of the Jews saying: "We are hungry and out of money. For God's sake, allow us to disembark for five minutes to get rich." After the ship had left the coast of Izmir, the semi-official daily Ulus wrote, "The Jews who have been roaming around here have finally left."

On December 6, 1940, a ship named Salvador, traveling to the land of Israel from Varna, in Bulgaria, arrived in Istanbul with 327 Czech and Bulgarian Jews aboard it. The Salvador was forced out to sea on December 12, despite bad weather, only to sink same day during a heavy storm off the coast of Silivri, on the Sea of Marmara. As a consequence, 204 people drowned, at least 70 of them children.

On December 15, 1941, the Struma ship, in an effort to save 769 Romanian Jews from the German extermination, had left Constanza harbor to carry them to the land of Israel, and tried to dock in Istanbul. Not only was the ship completely overloaded but it was also not seaworthy because of a defective engine. A banner which read "Save Us" was fastened to the ship. For 70 days during the winter months of 1941-1942, Turkey did not allow it to dock; those on the ship struggled against disease and deaths off the coast of Istanbul, near Sarayburnu. The ship's anchor finally was cut, and the ship fastened to a pilot boat, to be drawn away to the Black Sea.

With no motor, fuel, food, water or medicine, the Struma was abandoned to its fate and was towed into the open sea. On February 24, 1942, it was torpedoed by a Soviet submarine at 2:00 a.m. Only one person survived. After the incident, then Prime Minister Refik Saydam said: "Turkey cannot become the home of those who are not wanted by anyone else."

Labor Battalions of Non-Muslims (1941-1942)

On April 22, 1941, 12,000 non-Muslims, including Jewish men between the ages of 27 and 40, were sent in extreme hot weather as soldiers to camps with no infrastructure and a shortage of water, which were infested with mosquitoes, dampness, mud -- all of which spread malaria. Those soldiers, also known as "the Twenty Classes," were not given guns. They were forced to wear the clothes of garbagemen and to work endless hours, and were insulted and ridiculed as "infidel soldiers." Even blind and physically disabled persons were conscripted. They were made to work under terrible conditions at places such as tunnel constructions in Zonguldak and in the construction of the Youth Park in Ankara. There was hard labor, such as rock crushing and road construction in the provinces of Afyon, Karabuk, Konya, and Kutahya. The "Twenty Classes" were discharged on June 27,1942.[12]

"Due to the poor conditions during the service there were deaths and diseases among the conscripts," reported the Turkologist Ruben H. Melkonyan.

The prevailing and widespread point of view on the matter was that, wishing to participate in World War II, Turkey gathered in advance all unreliable non-Turkish men regarded as a potential "fifth column", wrote Melkonyan.

The Law of Wealth Tax (1942-1944)

On November 11, 1942, the government, led by then PM Sukru Saracoglu, enacted a Wealth Tax law, with the stated aim of overcoming the economic problems that had emerged during World War II. 87% of tax payers, however, were non-Muslims.

"The real reason for the Wealth Tax was the elimination of non-Muslims from the economy, wrote Basak Ince, an Assistant Professor of political science.[13]

Taxpayers were divided into four separate groups according to their religious background:

M, for Muslims,
G, for non-Muslims,
E, for foreigners,
D, for converts.
The amount of taxes to be paid by Armenian traders was 232%, by Jewish traders was 179%, by Greek traders was 156%. Only 4.94% of Turkish Muslims had to pay the wealth tax. So those who suffered most severely were non-Muslims such as the Jews, Greeks, Armenians, and Levantines; it was the Armenians who were most heavily taxed.

The Turkish researcher Ridvan Akar refers to the wealth tax as an economic genocide against minorities. [14]

The law was also imposed on poor non-Muslims, such as drivers, workers and even beggars, whereas their Muslim counterparts were not required to pay anything. Non-Muslims had to pay their taxes within 15 days, in cash. People unable to pay were sent to forced labor camps in eastern Anatolia.

"And those unable to pay were packed off to a camp at Askale, near Erzerum -- an area cooler than Moscow in the winter -- where they were put to work breaking stones," reported the author Sidney Nowill.[15]

The historian Corry Guttstadt, in her book Turkey, the Jews, and the Holocaust, wrote that "Although the law stipulated that people over 55 years old were exempt from labor service, 75 and 80 year old men and even sick people were dragged to the train station and deported."

These taxes ruined the lives and finances of many non-Muslim families; there were a number of suicides of non-Muslims in Istanbul. "Some people committed suicide in despair," Guttstadt wrote.

Of the people who were sent to the labor camps, 21 died there; the Turkish government confiscated their assets and sold them to Turkish Muslims at low prices.[16] "The Wealth Tax was withdrawn in March 1944, under the pressure of criticism from Britain and the United States," Ince reported.

Murders and Unjust Trials

On August 17, 1927, Elza Niyego, a 22-year-old Jewish woman, was stabbed to death by Osman Ratip Bey, a married man, age 42, who had proposed her but was rejected. The dead body of the young woman was left out for three hours in the street. Elza's mother was not allowed to cover her daughter's dead body, an order that aroused a great reaction among the Jewish community. Masses who joined the funeral on 18 August shouted, "We want justice!". After the funeral, attended by crowd whose number was estimated to range between 10 to 25 thousand, the Cumhuriyet (Republic) newspaper started an intense anti-Semitic campaign. The Cumhuriyet and other newspapers featured headlines which referred to Jews as "the ungrateful" or "the arrogant."

At the end of the trial, the murderer Osman Ratip Bey was sent to a mental asylum, but not to prison. Nine Jews and a Russian witness of the murder, however, were brought to court for "insulting Turkishness," and four were imprisoned. And once again, the freedom of movement of Jews across Anatolia was denied by the government, as of 29 August 1927.

On January 30, 1947, all members of a Jewish family, which consisted of seven people, were found dead in the Kendirli neighborhood of the province of Urfa. The Jewish community of Urfa was held responsible for the murder, and all Jewish men in the city were arrested. Throughout the trials, the people of Urfa boycotted Jews. The Jews who were arrested were released after three years but the Jews of Urfa had to leave the city.

Jews in Turkey Today

Jews in Turkey, even under Kemalist, non-Islamic governments, were exposed to severe and systematic discrimination for decades. Today, under an Islamist government, they are feeling unsafe and threatened again. Many people from Turkey's Jewish community are leaving the country or planning to, a prominent businessman from the community wrote in a December 2014 article for the Istanbul-based Jewish newspaper, Salom. Mois Gabay, a professional in the tourism industry, wrote, referring to the murder of Armenian-Turkish journalist Hrant Dink in 2007: "We face threats, attacks and harassment every day. Hope is fading. Is it necessary for a 'Hrant among us' to be shot in order for the government, the opposition, civil society, our neighbors and jurists to see this?"

Gabay added that increasing numbers of Turkish Jews are making plans to move abroad with their families: "Around 37 percent of high school graduates from the Jewish community in Turkey prefer to go abroad for higher education ... This number doubled this year compared to the previous years."

It is not only students who have begun to think about building a life abroad for their families and children, Gabay wrote, but also young business people: "Last week, when I was talking to two of my friends on separate occasions, the conversation turned to our search for another country to move to. That is to say, my generation is also thinking more about leaving this country."

When anti-Semitism turns into anti-Zionism

If there had been a Jewish state while all this persecution had been taking place, Jews could have gone there in time of need.

Had there been such a state before the Holocaust, European Jews could have sought refuge. Had they had a military, they could have defended themselves from the Nazis.

After all this persecution and discrimination against Jews, the anti-Semitic tradition of Turkey still continues. In 2005, Mein Kampf, by Adolf Hitler, became a best seller in Turkey after it was published by 13 publishing houses.

Jewish homes being built in Israel are not an obstacle to peace. The only obstacle to peace is the hatred from Israel's neighbors.

Uzay Bulut, born a Muslim, is a Turkish journalist based in Ankara.

[1] Hur, Ayse , 8 February 2009, "Isolated (!) Incidents of Anti-Semitism." Taraf Newspaper.
Bali, Rifat (1999). Turkish Jews in the Republican Years - An Adventure of Turkification (1923-1945). Iletisim Publishing House.
Bali, Rifat (2001). The Children of Moses, The Citizens of the Republic. Iletisim.
Bali, Rifat (2004). The Jews of the State and the "Other" Jew. Iletisim.

[2] Ibid

[3] Hur, Ayse, 22 January 2012, "The 'minority report' of the Republic." Taraf Newspaper.

[4] Ibid

[5] Yabancılara Çalışma Yasağı

[6] Ibid

[7] Bali, Rifat (1999). Turkish Jews in the Republican Years - An Adventure of Turkification (1923-1945). Iletisim Publishing House. Ince, Basak (2012). Citizenship and Identity in Turkey: From Atatürk's Republic to the Present Day. I. B. Tauris.

[8] Demirel, Isil (2011). "Ladino: Turkey is Forgetting a Language." Atlas Magazine.

[9] Türkiye'de Sürgün

[10] Ibid

[11] Guttstadt, Corry (2013). Turkey, the Jews, and the Holocaust. Cambridge University Press. Bali, Rifat (2004). The Jews of the State and the "Other" Jew. Iletisim.

[12] Bali, Rifat (2008). The Twenty Classes: The Episode of Military Service of Non-Muslims during the Second World War. Kitabevi Publishing House.

[13] Ince, Basak (2012). Citizenship and Identity in Turkey: From Atatürk's Republic to the Present Day. I. B. Tauris.

[14] "Report: The law that coveted the 'wealth' of minorities," by Zeynep Ozakat, Milliyet newspaper, 15/12/2009.

[15] Nowill, Sidney E. P. (2011). Constantinople and Istanbul: 72 Years of Life in Turkey. Matador.

[16] Ince, Basak (2012). Citizenship and Identity in Turkey: From Atatürk's Republic to the Present Day. I. B. Tauris.
O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”

Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2015, 05:23 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Exclamation Diplomat Debunks Obama’s Yemen ‘Success’ Story

Diplomat Debunks Obama’s Yemen ‘Success’ Story
If this is a foreign policy achievement, what does failure look like?
by Andrew Harrod

Yemen has been an “always almost failing state” for as long as Ambassador Barbara K. Bodine can remember, she affirmed in her February 3 Georgetown University luncheon lecture, “Yemen: If This is a Policy Success, What Does Failure Look Like?” The truth of Bodine’s sobering presentation to a fifty-person conference room packed to standing-room-only was confirmed when, eight days later, America’s embassy in the capital Sanaa fell to Houthi rebels and U.S. Marines were forced to destroy their weapons before fleeing the country to prevent them from falling into rebel hands. The humiliating failure of American policy demonstrated that, President Barack Obama’s wishful thinking notwithstanding, Yemen will not be a policy success anytime soon.

Bodine, a career Foreign Service officer with extensive experience in the Middle East, directs Georgetown’s Institute for the Study of Diplomacy. She spoke at the invitation of Georgetown’s Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding (ACMCU). Associate director of ACMCU and Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Professor of Islamic Civilization Jonathan Brown moderated and professor emeritus John Voll attended.

According to Bodine, Obama left professionals with experience in Yemen “all baffled” when he “touted Yemen as a success” of anti-terrorism policy in a September address. “Whatever Yemen is, it is not yet a success,” she stated, describing the “resource deprived” country whose Sunni majority was overtaken by an insurgency of Shiite Houthi rebels supported by Iran earlier this year. Bodine warned that “solutions based on our timelines” do not work for a country like Yemen, which “never really gets fully stable, but . . . doesn’t quite go off the cliff, either.” Yemenis “do conflict resolution so well because they do conflict prevention so poorly,” she added.

Bodine criticized the Obama administration’s emphasis on using drones to fight al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), which is, “in many ways . . . the smallest problem in Yemen” given its instability. In her words, “drones have gone from being a tool to a strategy,” but they “tend . . . to **** people off” and do “not make friends” among local Yemenis when unaccompanied by explanation. She also criticized the “efficacy” of drones given that AQAP has grown from hundreds of followers in 2009 to thousands who now control Yemeni territory. Moreover, the Yemeni military, “never . . . a strong institution,” is often bested by Yemeni tribes and desperately needs aid.

Bodine lamented that drone strikes “have corroded an already fairly fragile state” and caused Yemenis to view Americans as merely “fighting a proxy war” while “not . . . engaged in governance” that benefits the populace. Americans “need to be seen as visible” in their ongoing aid to Yemen and to change their rhetoric from “always talking about al-Qaeda,” which causes Yemenis to “think that all we are is drones.” Not countering Yemeni “drivers of instability” entails that problems other than AQAP will plague the strategically placed country. A failed Yemeni state, for example, with twenty-five million refugees would mean that “Saudi Arabia has a problem.”

Yemen has “played host to other people’s proxy battles over the millennia,” Bodine noted, such as that between the Saudi Royal Family and Egypt’s former dictator Gamal Abdel Nasser during the Cold War. Iranians “muck around” in Yemen, supporting the Houthis as a means of countering the Saudis, who, in turn, “muck around” in Syria by providing aid to the rebels fighting that country’s dictator, Bashar Assad, an Iranian ally. However, she noted, Saudi Arabia’s “existential worry” in Yemen is not the Houthis, but AQAP. “If you are overly confused, you are doing well,” she joked, in reference to Yemen’s convoluted political dynamics.

Audience members did not challenge Bodine’s presentation, with one person agreeing with her assessment that “drones are ineffective” and commenting on the “lack of depth in our understanding of foreign policy.” Similarly, Georgetown adjunct professor Joseph Saba, a specialist in fragile state development with World Bank experience in Yemen, concurred that “American interests are deeper and broader” in Yemen than drone policy.

Bodine succeeded in her principal objective of urging a dramatic rethinking of American policy towards Muslim-majority societies. Yemen’s decent into chaos contradicts Obama’s premature proclamation of “success,” while the future remains as murky in Afghanistan as it does with incessant efforts to achieve “land for peace” in the Arab-Israeli conflict. The shifting sectarian political sands in the region allow for groups like the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) to implement what Bodine termed a “brutal” yet “very clear idea” of “governing philosophy.” Such daunting realities demand policies derived from a clear grasp of the region’s history and current affairs, not vapid pronouncements of victory based on little more than fantasy.
O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”

Reply With Quote
Old 04-02-2015, 06:06 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Exclamation Tehran vs The Awakening Sunni Arab Camp

March 31, 2015
Inquiry & Analysis Series Report No.1150

Tehran vs The Awakening Sunni Arab Camp: Significance And Implications
By: A. Savyon and Y. Carmon*

The March 26, 2015 attack by the Saudi-led coalition on the strongholds of Iran's proxy in Yemen, the Houthi, sent shockwaves through Tehran. The rousing of the Sunni Arab camp, and the formation of a fighting coalition, as well as the backing of the entire Arab League – all within the short space of a few weeks – took the Iranian regime completely by surprise.

In recent years, and especially in the last few months, Tehran has ratcheted up its direct involvement in several Arab countries, thanks to the silence on the part of the U.S.; this silence has been interpreted in the Arab world as support for Iran becoming a hegemonic military and political regional superpower. The Sunni Arab camp has appeared to be in a state of disintegration and division both politically and militarily, after nearly five years of internal erosion following the Arab Spring.

In this situation, official Iranian spokesmen had stepped up their threats against Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states,[1] as well as against the U.S. military. These threats were backed up by maneuvers conducted by naval, ground, and missile forces, and by advanced weaponry development.[2] Several Iranian officials spoke of Iran's control of four Middle East capitals and four seas.[3] A senior advisor to Iranian President Hassan Rohani, Ali Younesi, even declared that the Persian Empire was now revived.[4]

The surprise Sunni Arab move blocked Iran in Yemen, and is a warning sign of Sunni camp intentions to cut Iran back down to size and to let it know that it is no empire, as Younesi said, but rather a mere 10% of the Islamic world – the vast majority of which is Sunni.

The political and military echelons of Iran's leadership – Supreme Leader Khamenei, IRGC commander Jafari, and Basij commander Naqdi – from which many threats have emanated, have not yet responded. However, Foreign Minister Javad Zarif expressed willingness to cooperate and help promote comprehensive internal dialogue in Yemen, as his Houthi allies fell under Sunni coalition bombardment.

However, there were threatening declarations from Iran's pragmatic camp, specifically Hashemi Rafsanjani, filling the vacuum left by Supreme Leader Khamenei's failure to respond.[5] Rafsanjani expressed his outrage at the Saudi-Arab operation, but his threats were vague, due perhaps to his wish to avoid impacting the nuclear talks that are currently underway.

Significance And Implications

The Iran Nuclear Dossier

In light of the resurgence of the Sunni Arab camp, and its aim to set Iran back, Tehran can ill afford – now less than ever before – to sign away the deterrent of its military nuclear capabilities and global recognition of it as a threshold nuclear state.

Relations With The U.S. And The U.S.-Iran Nuclear Agreement
The U.S.'s immediate and public show of support for the Sunni camp is a harsh blow for both Khamenei's ideological camp and for the pragmatic camp of Rafsanjani and Rohani. The ideological camp believes that it has successfully forced its position on the U.S., and Tehran seems to have dictated its demand for regional hegemony to it.[6] However, the American show of support for the Sunni coalition has reshuffled the Iranian deck, and could cement the Iranians' belief that the U.S. can never be trusted and that Tehran must obtain all of its demands, such as a complete lifting of the sanctions as a condition for its signing a nuclear agreement.

Two Models For Tehran's Political And Military Conduct
Two distinct models characterize Tehran's geopolitical and military conduct vis-à-vis its rivals in the region and internationally:

1. The "Intimidating Bully" model – Used vis-à-vis the U.S. The latter has been forgiving and sympathetic to the Iranian regime's demands and to its expansion in the region, in addition to seeing it as a partner in its strategic interests, such as the fight against ISIS – despite Iran's international terrorist activity. The U.S. has even shown willingness to grant Tehran limited nuclear status despite its violations of Security Council resolutions and IAEA regulations. Iran has continued its military and political expansion in the region alongside its ongoing issuing of threats, even against the U.S. military.[7] It has become clear that the U.S.'s sympathetic stance has neither softened nor curbed Iran's offensive activity in the region, but has only encouraged its hostile policy.

2. The "Paper Tiger" model – Faced with the empowered military and political Sunni Arab bloc, which is stronger than Iran, the Iranian regime could back down, revealing itself again as a paper tiger. This model has come into play twice, with Iran hesitating to implement its threats: first in 2003, when the U.S. besieged Iran from the south (Iraq) and the east (Afghanistan), and again in Bahrain in 2011, when a pro-Iranian Shi'ite coup was thwarted by a show of Saudi-Gulf military might.

* A. Savyon is Director of the MEMRI Iranian Media Project; Y. Carmon is President and Founder of MEMRI.

[1] See MEMRI Inquiry & Analysis Series Report No. 1144, Tehran Threatens Saudi Arabia; Khamenei: Iran Will Answer Saudi Arabia 'A Blow With A Blow', February 10, 2015; MEMRI Special Dispatch No. 5918, IRGC Weekly To Saudis: 'Iran Has Many Options For Harming Saudi Arabia... All [It] Needs To Do Is Use A Single One Of [Them] So That Nothing Remains Of The Entity Named The Aal-Saud Regime Or Of Saudi Arabia Itself', December 31, 2014; MEMRI Special Dispatch No. 5877, Iranian Campaign Touts IRGC Qods Force Commander Qassem Soleimani As 'Savior Of Iraq'; Soleimani: Iran Has Thousands Of Organizations Like Hizbullah; I Pray To Die A Martyr, November 10, 2014; MEMRI Special Dispatch No. 5858, Associates Of Iranian Supreme Leader Khamenei: Saudi Arabia Is The Source Of Scheming Against The Islamic World; The Al-Saud Family Is Of Jewish Origin – And Its Turn To Fall Has Come, October 14, 2014; and MEMRI Special Dispatch No. 5848, Iranian Media Reports Deleted Following Publication (1): Senior IRGC Official Speaking On Iran's Military Involvement In Syria Says Iran Has Established 'Second Hizbullah' There, September 25, 2014.

[2] See MEMRI Special Dispatch No. 6004, Iran Escalates Naval Threats Against U.S. In Persian Gulf, March 24, 2015; MEMRI Special Dispatch No. 5996, Iranian Leader Khamenei: A Society Steeped In The Spirit Of Martyrdom Is Unstoppable; Khamenei's Representative In IRGC Qods Force: We Shall Not Rest Until We Raise Flag Of Islam Over The White House, March 17, 2015; MEMRI Special Dispatch No. 5974, Revolution Day 2015 In Iran: A Regime-Organized Display Of Hatred For U.S., Obama, February 24, 2015; MEMRI Inquiry & Analysis Series Report No. 1135, Iranian IRGC Missile Unit Commanders: We've Developed 2,000-km Range Missiles And Equipped Hizbullah With 300-km Range Missiles; Fars News Agency: Israel's Illusions About Its Natural Gas Fields Will Be Buried In The Mediterranean, December 4, 2014; MEMRI Special Dispatch No. 5742, IRGC Naval Commander: Iran Can Destroy The U.S. Navy With Suicide Operations, Missiles, And Speedboats; 'When The Hoot Missile Hits The Americans, [They] Will See Which Units Fired It', May 15, 2014; MEMRI Special Dispatch No. 5674, Iranian Military Receives New Ballistic Missiles, Official Threatens The U.S., March 11, 2014; and MEMRI Special Dispatch No. 5661, On Iranian Revolution Day 2014, Commander of IRGC Navy Says: The Americans Will Understand When Their Warships With Over 5,000 Crew Aboard Sink To The Depths Of The Sea And They Have To Search For Their Bodies, February 27, 2014.

[3] See MEMRI TV Clip #4530 – Iranian Analyst Mohammad Sadeq Al-Hosseini: Saudi Arabia Is on the Verge of Extinction; We Are the New Sultans of the Mediterranean, the Gulf, and the Red Sea, September 24, 2014. In a September 24, 2014 interview with Mayadeen TV, which is close to Hizbullah, Mohammad Sadeq Al-Hosseini said, "The Saudi ruler represents a tribe on the verge of extinction" and "a third world war has begun." He added, "We in Tehran, Damascus, [Hizbullah's] southern suburb of Beirut, Baghdad, and Sana'a will shape the map of the region." See MEMRI Special Dispatch No. 5858, Associates Of Iranian Supreme Leader Khamenei: Saudi Arabia Is The Source Of Scheming Against The Islamic World; The Al-Saud Family Is Of Jewish Origin – And Its Turn To Fall Has Come, October 14, 2014.

[4] See MEMRI Special Dispatch No. 5991, Advisor To Iranian President Rohani: Iran Is An Empire, Iraq Is Our Capital; We Will Defend All The Peoples Of The Region; Iranian Islam Is Pure Islam – Devoid Of Arabism, Racism, Nationalism, March 9, 2015.

[5] See MEMRI Special Dispatch No. 6008, Immediate Iranian Reaction To Sunni Arab Military Campaign To Push Back Shi'ite Expansion: Calls For Houthis To Attack Saudi Oil Wells And Tankers, Operate In Saudi Territory And Straits Of Bab Al-Mandeb And Hormuz, March 26, 2015.

[6] See MEMRI Special Dispatch No. 5996, Iranian Leader Khamenei: A Society Steeped In The Spirit Of Martyrdom Is Unstoppable; Khamenei's Representative In IRGC Qods Force: We Shall Not Rest Until We Raise Flag Of Islam Over The White House, March 17, 2015; and MEMRI Inquiry & Analysis Series Report No. 1127, Iran's Pragmatic Camp Calls For Exploiting Obama's Weakness To Attain Comprehensive Nuclear Agreement On Tehran's Terms, October 26, 2014.

[7] See MEMRI TV Clip #4838 – Iranian Leader Khamenei: Death to America; Obama Is Trying to Turn Our People against the Regime, March 21, 2015; MEMRI Inquiry & Analysis Series Report No. 1132, Khamenei Camp In Indirect Response To Obama Letter, On Anniversary Of U.S. Embassy Takeover: 'America Is Still The Great Satan And The No. 1 Enemy' Of Iran, November 16, 2014; and MEMRI Special Dispatch No. 5728, Tehran Friday Sermon: The Iranian President Should Punch Obama In The Mouth When He Talks Nonsense, May 2, 2014.
O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”

Last edited by Paparock; 04-02-2015 at 06:10 PM..
Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2015, 01:18 PM
noman noman is offline
Gold Member
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 394
noman is on a distinguished road

With Arab "Friends" who needs enemies?
Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-2015, 04:04 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Exclamation Filling the Vacuum in Syria

Filling the Vacuum in Syria
Islamic State, Al-Nusra Front, and Hezbollah

by Yaakov Lappin

May 28, 2015

The idea that, because Sunni and Shi'ite elements are locked in battle with one another today, they will not pose a threat to international security tomorrow, is little more than wishful thinking.

The increased Iranian-Hezbollah presence needs to be closely watched.

A policy of turning a blind eye to the Iran-led axis, including Syria's Assad regime, appears to be doing more harm than good.

As the regime of Bashar Assad continues steadily to lose ground in Syria; and as Assad's allies, Iran and Hezbollah, deploy in growing numbers to Syrian battlegrounds to try to stop the Assad regime's collapse, the future of this war-torn, chaotic land looks set to be dominated by radical Sunni and Shi'ite forces.

The presence of fundamentalist Shi'ite and Sunni forces fighting a sectarian-religious war to the death is a sign of things to come for the region: when states break down, militant entities enter to seize control. The idea that, because Sunni and Shi'ite elements are locked in battle with one another today, they will not pose a threat to international security tomorrow, is little more than wishful thinking.

The increased presence of the radicals in Syria will have a direct impact on international security, even though the West seems more fixated on looking only at threats posed by the Islamic State (ISIS), and disregards the possibly greater threat posed by the Iranian-led axis. It is Iran that is at the center of the same axis, so prominent in entangling Syria.

The threat from ISIS in Syria and Iraq to the West is obvious: Its successful campaigns and expanding transnational territory is set to become an enormous base of jihadist international terrorist activity, a launching pad for overseas attacks, and the basis for a propaganda recruitment campaign.

It has already become a magnet for European Muslim volunteers. Their return to their homes as battle-hardened jihadists poses a clear danger to those states' national security.

Yet the threat from the Iranian-led axis, highly active in Syria, is more severe. With Iran, a threshold nuclear regional power, as its sponsor, this axis plans to subvert and topple stable Sunni governments in the Middle East and attack Israel. Iran's axis also has its sights set on eventually sabotaging the international order, to promote Iran's "Islamic revolution."

This is the axis upon which the Assad regime has become utterly dependent for its continued survival.

Today, the radical, caliphate-seeking Sunni organization, ISIS, controls half of Syria, while hardline Lebanese Shi'ite Hezbollah units can be found everywhere in Syria, together with their sponsors, Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) personnel, fighting together with the Assad regime's beleaguered and worn-out military forces.

The increased Iranian-Hezbollah presence needs to be closely watched. According to international media reports, an IRGC-Hezbollah convoy in southern Syria, made up of senior operatives involved in the setting up of a base designed to launch attacks on the Golan Heights, was struck and destroyed by Israel earlier this year. The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan too has reason to be concerned.

Lebanese Shi'ite Hezbollah fighters are deeply involved in Syria's civil war. (Image source: Hezbollah propaganda video)

Syria has become a region into which weapons, some highly advanced, flow in ever greater numbers, allowing Hezbollah to acquire guided missiles, and allowing ISIS and the Al-Nusra Front to add to their growing stockpile of weaponry.

Other rebel organizations, some sponsored by Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Qatar, are also wielding influence in Syria. These groups represent an effort by Sunni states to exert their own influence there.

Despite all the efforts to support it, the Assad regime suffered another recent setback when ISIS seized the ancient city Palmyra in recent days, making an ISIS advance on Damascus more feasible. To the west, near the Lebanese border, Al-Qaeda's branch in Syria, the Al-Nursa Front, also made gains. It threatened to enter Lebanon, prompting Hezbollah to launch a counter-offensive to take back those areas.

These developments provide a blueprint for the future of Syria: A permanently divided territory, where conquests and counter-offensives continue to rage, and the scene of an ongoing humanitarian catastrophe, producing waves of millions of refugees that could destabilize Syria's neighbors. Syria is set to remain a land controlled by warring sectarian factions, some of whom plan to spread their destructive influence far beyond Syria.

Events in Syria have shown that the notion that air power can somehow stop ISIS's advance is a fantasy. More importantly, they have also illustrated that Washington's policy of cooperation with Iran in a possible "grand bargain" to stabilize the region, while failing to take a firmer stance against the civilian-slaughtering Assad regime, is equally fruitless.

A policy of turning a blind eye to the Iran-led axis, including Syria's Assad regime, appears to be doing more harm than good.
O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”

Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2015, 05:14 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Exclamation When Baghdad Burned – the June 1941 Farhud Massacre

When Baghdad Burned – the June 1941 Farhud Massacre
In memory of the victims of the bloody pogrom against Iraqi Jewry.
by Edwin Black

[Photo: Mufti of Jerusalem Haj Amin al-Husseini with Adolf Hitler.]

Editor’s note: On June 1, 2015, the author of this article will proclaim International Farhud Day ( at a live globally streamed side event at the United Nations. The Farhud was the bloody pogrom against Iraqi Jewry, June 1-2, 1941. The article below is drawn from the author’s book The Farhud — Roots of the Arab-Nazi Alliance in the Holocaust (

“Violent dispossession.” In an Arabic dialect, the word is Farhud. For decades after it occurred, many thought the nightmare was a sudden and unexpected convulsion that afflicted the Iraqi Jewish community, one that lived in that land for some 2,600 years. But in truth, the wild rape and killing spree of June 1–2, 1941 was not unexpected. For years, the Jew hatred, anti-British rage, and Nazi agitation seethed just below the surface, like a smoking volcano waiting to erupt.

Soon after Hitler took power in 1933, Germany’s chargé d’affaires in Baghdad, German Arab specialist Fritz Grobba, acquired the Christian Iraqi newspaper, Al-Alem Al Arabi, converting it into a Nazi organ that published an Arabic translation of Hitler’s Mein Kampf in installments. Then, Radio Berlin began beaming Arabic programs across the Middle East. The Nazi ideology of Jewish conspiracy and international manipulation was widely adopted in Iraqi society, especially within the framework of the Palestine problem that dominated Iraqi politics.

As Arab Nationalism and Hitlerism fused, numerous Nazi-style youth clubs began springing up in Iraq. One pivotal group known as Futuwwa was nothing less than a clone of the Hitler Youth. In 1938, Futuwwa members were required to attend a candlelight Nazi Party rally in Nuremberg. When the delegation came back from Germany, a common chant in Arabic was, “Long live Hitler, the killer of insects and Jews.”

By the outbreak of World War II in September 1939, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini, and a coterie of transnational Palestinian agitators, had thoroughly permeated Baghdad’s ruling circles. For example, Taha al-Hashimi, Iraqi Chief of Staff, doubled as the head of the Committee for the Defense of Palestine.

To lure more Arabs to the Nazi cause, Grobba employed such tactics as dispensing lots of cash among politicians and deploying seductive German women among ranking members of the army. German radio broadcasting in Baghdad regularly reported fallacious reports about non-existent Jewish outrages in Palestine. Grobba, in conjunction with the Mufti, cultivated many Iraqis to act as surrogate Nazis.

By April 1, 1941, with WWII in full swing, a group of pro-Nazi Iraqi military men known as the Golden Square staged a coup, ousting the British-dominated government. Quickly, the Golden Square welded Iraqi actions to Berlin’s iron will. Why did they become partners? The Golden Square wanted Germany to destroy the British and Jewish presence in their country. The Third Reich craved what was beneath the ground — oil. Without that oil, still controlled by a British oil company, Germany could not invade Russia.

An abortive effort to seize British oil and military facilities in Iraq roiled throughout May 1941. But on May 28, 1941, a British military column determined to protect the oil installations finally punched toward the outskirts of Baghdad to defeat the insurgency. The Nazi-allied Golden Square and the Reich’s wirepuller, Grobba, fled the capital. On May 31, at 4 a.m., with the morning still more dark than dawn, the acting mayor emerged with a white flag on behalf of the residuum of official authority in Iraq.

The next day, on June 1, with British authority nominally restored but still withdrawn beyond the outskirts of Baghdad and the Golden Square coup plotters out of the country, the British puppet regent, Prince ‘Abd al-Ilah, returned to Iraq. During the few hours surrounding the regent’s return, a power vacuum existed in the country. It resulted in the bloodbath of June 1–2 that became known as the Farhud.

The original plans for a sweeping anti-Jewish action on June 1, organized before the pseudo-success of the British, were intended to mimic Nazi mass murder campaigns in Europe. Lists of Jews had already been compiled. Jewish homes had been marked in advanced with a blood-red hamsa, or palm prints, to guide the killing. The text announcing the mass murder and expulsion was already prepared and scheduled for radio broadcast.

But Jewish leaders who learned of the impending disaster begged for mercy from the temporary local mayoral authorities, who successfully engineered the expulsion from Baghdad of the massacre planners. The radio broadcast on May 31 merely announced that the British-appointed regent would return to his palace from his temporary refuge in Trans-Jordan.

Baghdad’s Jews had every reason to celebrate. June 1 was the joyous holy day of Shavuot, commemorating when the Law was given to the Jews on Mt. Sinai. Baghdad’s Jews thought stability had returned to their 2,600-year existence in Iraq. They were so wrong.

At about 3:00 p.m. that June 1, Regent ‘Abd al-Ilah had landed at the airport near Baghdad. He was making his way across al-Khurr Bridge to the Palace when a contingent of Baghdadi Jews went out to greet him. As the group came to the bridge, they encountered a contingent of dejected soldiers just returning from their dismal surrender to British forces. The mere sight of these Jews, bedecked in festive holiday garb, was enough to enrage the soldiers.

Suddenly, the Jews were viciously attacked with knives and axes. Several were hacked to death right then and there on the bridge. The planned systematic extermination, now foiled, broke down into a spontaneous citywide slaughter.

Baghdad became a fast-moving hell. Frenzied mobs raced throughout the city and murdered Jews openly on the streets. Women were raped as their horrified families looked on. Infants were killed in front of their parents. Home and stores were emptied and then burned. Gunshots and screams electrified the city for hours upon hours. Beheadings, torsos sliced open, babies dismembered, horrid tortures, and mutilations were widespread. Severed limbs were waved here and there as hideous trophies.

As Baghdad burned, Jewish existence became smoke spires against the sky. Jewish shops and homes were looted and then torched. A synagogue was invaded and its Torahs burned in classic Nazi fashion. Yet British troops remained minutes away, under orders from London not to move in lest it stir Arab sentiment against the oil infrastructure.

The streets were not safe for Jews. Their homes, already well-marked as Jewish residences, were even less safe. Gangs comprised of soldiers, police, and civilian looters invaded Jewish neighborhoods with impunity.

In home after home, furniture was moved up against the door to create a barricade. As the invaders pushed at the doors, more and heavier furniture was shoved into place. The ceaseless battering and kicks eventually made progress, and inevitably, in house after house, the killers broke in. As the Arabs breached the entrances, many families would escape to the roof, one step ahead.

Fleeing Jews jumped from one roof to another. In some instances, parents and siblings threw children down from roofs to waiting blankets below. When there was no place beyond the roof, some Jews held off their attackers with boiling oil, stones, and whatever other makeshift defenses they could muster.

Women were defiled everywhere. Arabs broke into the girl’s school and the students were raped — endlessly. Six Jewish girls were carted away to a village fifteen kilometers north and located only later. One young girl was raped, and then her breasts slashed off — an all too typical crime that day. Young or old, Jewish females were set upon and mercilessly gang raped and often mutilated.

Finally, the Mayor telephoned the Regent, momentarily the supreme authority in the country, and beseeched him to issue orders to loyal troops. That he did. As the order circulated, loyal units began opening fire on the rioters, especially when they turned to Muslim neighborhoods to continue their pillage. Once the shooting began, rioters fled.

Days later, when the Regent eventually restored order, the British entered the city limits. The oil was secure. The Jews of Baghdad were not.

In truth, no one will ever know many were murdered or maimed during those two dark days. Official statistics, based on intimidated and reluctant witnesses, listed about 110 Jews dead. Hundreds were listed as injured. But Jewish leaders said the real numbers were far greater. One Iraq historian suggested as many as 600 were murdered during the overnight rampage. The Jewish Burial Society was afraid to bury the bodies. The corpses were ignominiously collected and entombed in a large, long, rounded mass grave that resembled a massive loaf of bread.

Farhud — in Arabic, the word means violent dispossession. It was a word the Jews of wartime Europe never knew. Holocaust — it was a word the Jews of wartime Iraq never knew. But soon they would all know their meaning regardless of the language they spoke. After the events of June 1–2, 1941, both words came together.

Edwin Black is the author of IBM and the Holocaust, and The Farhud — Roots of the Arab-Nazi Alliance in the Holocaust. (IBM and the Holocaust: The Strategic Alliance Between Nazi Germany and America's Most Powerful Corporation-Expanded Edition)
O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”

Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2015, 03:58 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Exclamation A Myth Called "The Palestinian People"

A Myth Called "The Palestinian People"

Myth Of The Palestinian People
(Original Source:
By Yehezkel Bin-Nun
December 26, 2001

"Palestinians doubt Blair can deliver," announces the BBC. "Four Palestinians die in West Bank," reports CNN. "IDF demolishes building used by Palestinian gunmen," announces Israel's government run Channel 1 News. The modern media is filled with stories about the Palestinians, their plight, their dilemmas and their struggles. All aspects of their lives seem to have been put under the microscope. Only one question never seems to be addressed: Who are the Palestinians? Who are these people who claim the Holy Land as their own? What is their history? Where did they come from? How did they arrive in the country they call Palestine? Now that both US President George Bush and Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon (in direct opposition to the platform he was elected on) have come out in favor of a Palestinian state, it would be prudent to seek answers to these questions. For all we know, Palestine could be as real as Disneyland.

The general impression given in the media is that Palestinians have lived in the Holy Land for hundreds, if not thousands of years. No wonder, then, that a recent poll of French citizens shows that the majority believe (falsely) that prior to the establishment of the State of Israel an independent Arab Palestinian state existed in its place. Yet curiously, when it comes to giving the history of this "ancient" people most news outlets find it harder to go back more than the early nineteen hundreds. CNN, an agency which has devoted countless hours of airtime to the "plight" of the Palestinians, has a website which features a special section on the Middle East conflict called "Struggle For Peace". It includes a promising sounding section entitled "Lands Through The Ages" which assures us it will detail the history of the region using maps. Strangely, it turns out, the maps displayed start no earlier than the ancient date of 1917. The CBS News website has a background section called "A Struggle For Middle East Peace.'' Its history timeline starts no earlier than 1897. The NBC News background section called ''Searching for Peace'' has a timeline which starts in 1916. BBC's timeline starts in 1948.

Yet, the clincher must certainly be the Palestinian National Authority's own website. While it is top heavy on such phrases as "Israeli occupation" and "Israeli human rights violations" the site offers practically nothing on the history of the so-called Palestinian people. The only article on the site with any historical content is called "Palestinian History - 20th Century Milestones" which seems only to confirm that prior to 1900 there was no such concept as the Palestinian People.

While the modern media maybe short on information about the history of the "Palestinian people" the historical record is not. Books, such as Battleground by Samuel Katz and From Time Immemorial by Joan Peters long ago detailed the history of the region. Far from being settled by Palestinians for hundreds, if not thousands of years, the Land of Israel, according to dozens of visitors to the land, was, until the beginning of the last century, practically empty. Alphonse de Lamartine visited the land in 1835. In his book, Recollections of the East, he writes "Outside the gates of Jerusalem we saw no living object, heard no living sound...." None other than the famous American author Mark Twain, who visited the Land of Israel in 1867, confirms this. In his book Innocents Abroad he writes, "A desolation is here that not even imagination can grace with the pomp of life and action. We reached Tabor safely.... We never saw a human being on the whole journey." Even the British Consul in Palestine reported, in 1857, "The country is in a considerable degree empty of inhabitants and therefore its greatest need is that of a body of population..."

In fact, according to official Ottoman Turk census figures of 1882, in the entire Land of Israel, there were only 141,000 Muslims, both Arab and non-Arab. This number was to skyrocket to 650,000 Arabs by 1922, a 450% increase in only 40 years. By 1938 that number would become over 1 million or an 800% increase in only 56 years. Population growth was especially high in areas where Jews lived. Where did all these Arabs come from? According to the Arabs the huge increase in their numbers was due to natural childbirth. In 1944, for example, they alleged that the natural increase (births minus deaths) of Arabs in the Land of Israel was the astounding figure of 334 per 1000. That would make it roughly three times the corresponding rate for the same year of Lebanon and Syria and almost four times that of Egypt, considered amongst the highest in the world. Unlikely, to say the least. If the massive increase was not due to natural births, then were did all these Arabs come from?

All the evidence points to the neighboring Arab states of Egypt, Syria, Lebanon and Jordan. In 1922 the British Governor of the Sinai noted that "illegal immigration was not only going on from the Sinai, but also from Transjordan and Syria." In 1930, the British Mandate -sponsored Hope-Simpson Report noted that "unemployment lists are being swollen by immigrants from Trans-Jordania" and "illicit immigration through Syria and across the northern frontier of Palestine is material." The Arabs themselves bare witness to this trend. For example, the governor of the Syrian district of Hauran, Tewfik Bey el Hurani, admitted in 1934 that in a single period of only a few months over 30,000 Syrians from Hauran had moved to the Land of Israel. Even British Prime Minister Winston Churchill noted the Arab influx. Churchill, a veteran of the early years of the British mandate in the Land of Israel, noted in 1939 that "far from being persecuted, the Arabs have crowded into the country and multiplied."

Far from displacing the Arabs, as they claimed, the Jews were the very reason the Arabs chose to settle in the Land of Israel. Jobs provided by newly established Zionist industry and agriculture lured them there, just as Israeli construction and industry provides most Arabs in the Land of Israel with their main source of income today. Malcolm MacDonald, one of the principal authors of the British White Paper of 1939, which restricted Jewish immigration to the Land of Israel, admitted (conservatively) that were it not for a Jewish presence the Arab population would have been little more than half of what it actually was. Today, when due to the latest "intifada" Arabs from the territories under 35 are no longer allowed into pre-1967 Israel to work, unemployment has skyrocketed to over 40% and most rely on European aid packages to survive.

Not only pre-state Arabs lied about being indigenous. Even today, many prominent so-called Palestinians, it turns out, are foreign born. Edward Said, an Ivy League Professor of Literature and a major Palestinian propagandist, long claimed to have been raised in Jerusalem. However, in an article in the September 1999 issue of Commentary Magazine Justus Reid Weiner revealed that Said actually grew up in Cairo, Egypt, a fact which Said himself was later forced to admit. But why bother with Said? PLO chief Yasir Arafat himself, self declared "leader of the Palestinian people", has always claimed to have been born and raised in "Palestine". In fact, according to his official biographer Richard Hart, as well as the BBC, Arafat was born in Cairo on August 24, 1929 and that's where he grew up.

To maintain the charade of being an indigenous population, Arab propagandists have had to do more than a little rewriting of history. A major part of this rewriting involves the renaming of geography. For two thousand years the central mountainous region of Israel was known as Judea and Samaria, as any medieval map of the area testifies. However, the state of Jordan occupied the area in 1948 and renamed it the West Bank. This is a funny name for a region that actually lies in the eastern portion of the land and can only be called "West" in reference to Jordan. This does not seem to bother the majority of news outlets covering the region, which universally refer to the region by its recent Jordanian name.

The term "Palestinian" is itself a masterful twisting of history. To portray themselves as indigenous, Arab settlers adopted the name of an ancient Canaanite tribe, the Phillistines, that died out almost 3000 years ago. The connection between this tribe and modern day Arabs is nil. Who is to know the difference? Given the absence of any historical record, one can understand why Yasser Arafat claims that Jesus Christ, a Jewish carpenter from the Galilee, was a Palestinian. Every year, at Christmas time, Arafat goes to Bethlehem and tells worshippers that Jesus was in fact "the first Palestinian".

If the Palestinians are indeed a myth, then the real question becomes "Why?" Why invent a fictitious people? The answer is that the myth of the Palestinian People serves as the justification for Arab occupation of the Land of Israel. While the Arabs already possess 21 sovereign countries of their own (more than any other single people on earth) and control a land mass 800 times the size of the Land of Israel, this is apparently not enough for them. They therefore feel the need to rob the Jews of their one and only country, one of the smallest on the planet. Unfortunately, many people ignorant of the history of the region, including much of the world media, are only too willing to help.

It is interesting to note that the Bible makes reference to a fictitious nation confronting Israel. "They have provoked me to jealously by worshipping a non-god, angered me with their vanities. I will provoke them with a non-nation; anger them with a foolish nation (Deuteronomy 32:21)."

On second thought, it may be unfair to compare Palestine to Disneyland. After all, Disneyland really exists.


Myths, Hypotheses and Facts
Concerning the Origin of Peoples

The True Identity of the So-called Palestinians

In this essay I would like to present the true origin and identity of the Arab people commonly known as "Palestinians", and the widespread myths surrounding them. This research is intended to be completely neutral and objective, based on historic and archaeological evidences as well as other documents, including Arab sources, and quoting statements by authoritative Islamic personalities.

There are some modern myths -or more exactly, lies- that we can hear everyday through the mass-media as if they were true, of course, hiding the actual truth. For example, whenever the Temple Mount or Jerusalem are mentioned, it is usually remarked that is "the third holy place for muslims", but why it is never said that is the FIRST Holy Place for Jews? It sounds like an utterly biased information!

In order to make this essay better comprehensible, it will be presented in two units:

·1) Myths and facts concerning the origin and identity of the so-called Palestinians;

·2) Myths and facts regarding Jerusalem and the Land of Israel.

I - Origin and identity of the so-called Palestinians

Palestinians are the newest of all the peoples on the face of the Earth, and began to exist in a single day by a kind of supernatural phenomenon that is unique in the whole history of mankind, as it is witnessed by Walid Shoebat, a former PLO terrorist that acknowledged the lie he was fighting for and the truth he was fighting against:

“Why is it that on June 4th 1967 I was a Jordanian and overnight I became a Palestinian?”

“We did not particularly mind Jordanian rule. The teaching of the destruction of Israel was a definite part of the curriculum, but we considered ourselves Jordanian until the Jews returned to Jerusalem. Then all of the sudden we were Palestinians - they removed the star from the Jordanian flag and all at once we had a Palestinian flag”.

“When I finally realized the lies and myths I was taught, it is my duty as a righteous person to speak out”.

This declaration by a true "Palestinian" should have some significance for a sincerely neutral observer. Indeed, there is no such a thing like a Palestinian people, or a Palestinian culture, or a Palestinian language, or a Palestinian history. There has never been any Palestinian state, neither any Palestinian archaeological find nor coinage. The present-day "Palestinians" are an Arab people, with Arab culture, Arabic language and Arab history. They have their own Arab states from where they came into the Land of Israel about one century ago to contrast the Jewish immigration. That is the historical truth. They were Jordanians (another recent British invention, as there has never been any people known as "Jordanians"), and after the Six-Day War in which Israel utterly defeated the coalition of nine Arab states and took legitimate possession of Judea and Samaria, the Arab dwellers in those regions underwent a kind of anthropological miracle and discovered that they were Palestinians - something they did not know the day before. Of course, these people having a new identity had to build themselves a history, namely, had to steal some others' history, and the only way that the victims of the theft would not complain is if those victims do no longer exist. Therefore, the Palestinian leaders claimed two contradictory lineages from ancient peoples that inhabited in the Land of Israel: the Canaanites and the Philistines. Let us consider both of them before going on with the Palestinian issue.

The Canaanites:

The Canaanites are historically acknowledged as the first inhabitants of the Land of Israel, before the Hebrews settled there. Indeed, the correct geographic name of the Land of Israel is Canaan, not "Palestine" (a Roman invention, as we will see later). They were composed by different tribes, that may be distinguished in two main groups: the Northern or Coastland Canaanites and the Southern or Mountain Canaanites.

·The Northern Canaanites settled along the coast of the Mediterranean Sea from the southeastern side of the Gulf of Iskenderun to the proximities of the Gulf of Hayfa. Their main cities were Tzur, Tzidon, Gebal (Byblos), Arvad, Ugarit, and are better known in history by their Greek name Phoenicians, but they called themselves "Kana'ana" or "Kinachnu". They did not found any unified kingdom but were organized in self-ruled cities, and were not a warlike people but rather skilful traders, seafarers and builders. Their language was adopted from their Semitic neighbours, the Arameans, and was closely related to Hebrew (not to Arabic!). Phoenicians and Israelites did not need interpreters to understand each other. They followed the same destiny of ancient Israel and fell under Assyrian rule, then Babylonian, Persian, Macedonian, Seleucian and Roman. Throughout their history the Phoenicians intermarried with different peoples that dwelled in their land, mainly Greeks and Armenians. During the Islamic expansion they were Arabized, yet, never completely assimilated, and their present-day state is Lebanon, erroneously regarded as an "Arab" country, a label that the Lebanese people reject. Unlike the Arab states, Lebanon has a western democratic-style official name, "Lebanese Republic", without the essential adjective "Arab" that is required in the denominations of every Arab state. The only mention of the term Arabic in the Lebanese constitution refers to the official language of the state, which does not mean that the Lebanese people are Arabs in the same way as the official language of the United States is English but this does not qualify the Americans as British.

The so-called Palestinians are not Lebanese (although some of them came from Syrian-occupied Lebanon), therefore they are not Phoenicians (Northern Canaanites). Actually, in Lebanon they are "refugees" and are not identified with the local people.

·The Southern Canaanites dwelled in the mountain region from the Golan southwards, on both sides of the Yarden and along the Mediterranean coast from the Gulf of Hayfa to Yafo, that is the Biblical Canaan. They were composed by various tribes of different stocks: besides the proper Canaanites (Phoenicians), there were Amorites, Hittites and Hurrian peoples like the Yevusites, Hivvites and Horites, all of them assimilated into the Aramean-Canaanite context. They never constituted an unified, organized state but kept within the tribal alliance system.

When the first Hebrews arrived in Canaan they shared the land but did not intermarry, as it was an interdiction for Avraham's family to marry the Canaanites.

Nevertheless, eleven of the twelve sons of Yakov married Canaanite women (the other son married an Egyptian), and since then, the Tribes of Israel began to mix with the local inhabitants. After the Exodus, when the Israelites conquered the Land, there were some wars between them and the Canaanites throughout the period of the Sofetim (Judges), and were definitively subdued by King David. By that time, most Canaanites were married to Israelites, others voluntarily accepted Torah becoming Israelites, others joined up in the Israelite or Judahite army. Actually, the Canaanites are seldom mentioned during the Kings' period, usually in reference to their heathen customs introduced among the Israelites, but no longer as a distinguishable people, because they were indeed assimilated into the Israelite nation. When the Assyrians overran the Kingdom of Israel, they did not leave any Canaanite aside, as they had all become Israelites by that time. The same happened when the Babylonians overthrew the Kingdom of Judah.

Therefore, the only people that can trace back a lineage to the ancient Canaanites are the Jews, not the Palestinians, as Canaanites did not exist any longer after the 8th century b.c.e. and they were not annihilated but assimilated into the Jewish people.

Conclusion: the Palestinians cannot claim any descent from the ancient Canaanites - if so, why not to pretend also the Syrian "occupied territories", namely, Lebanon? Why do they not speak the language of the ancient Canaanites, that was Hebrew? Because they are NOT Canaanites at all!

The Philistines:

It is from the term "Philistines" that the name "Palestinians" has been taken. Actually, the ancient Philistines and modern Palestinians have something in common: both are invaders from other lands! That is precisely the meaning of their name, that is not an ethnic denomination but an adjective applied to them: Peleshet, from the verb "pelesh", "dividers", "penetrators" or "invaders". The Philistines were a confederation of non-Semitic peoples coming from Crete, the Aegean Islands and Asia Minor, also known as "Sea Peoples". The main tribes were Shekelesh, Shardana, Tsikel or Thekker, Akhaiusha or Ekwesh, Danauna or Denyen, Masa or Meshuesh, Uashesh, Teresh or Tursha, Keshesh or Karkisha, Lukka or Rukka, and Labu. The original homeland of the group that ruled the Philistine federation, namely the "Pelesati", was the island of Crete. When the Minoic civilization collapsed, also the Minoic culture disappeared from Crete, as invaders from Greece took control of the island. These ancient Cretans arrived in Southern Canaan and were known as "Peleshtim" by Hebrews and Canaanites (that became allied to fight the invaders). They also invaded Egypt and were defeated by Pharaoh Ramose III in the 12th century b.c.e. The Philistines were organized in city-states, being the most important the Pentapolis: Gaza, Ashdod, Ashkelon, Gath and Ekron, and their territory was close to the Mediterranean coast, a little longer and broader than the present-day "Gaza Strip" - not the whole Judah, they never reached Hevron, Jerusalem or Yericho!

Those Sea Peoples that invaded Egypt were expelled towards other Mediterranean lands and did not evolve into any Arab people, but disappeared as distinguishable groups in Roman times. Those dwelling in Canaan were defeated by King David and reduced to insignificance, the best warriors among them were chosen as David's bodyguard. The remaining Philistines still dwelling in Gaza were subdued by Sargon II of Assyria and after that time, they disappeared definitively from history. They are no longer mentioned since the return of the Jewish exiles from Babylon.

Conclusion: there is not one single person in the world who may be able to prove Philistine lineage, yet, if Palestinians insist, they have to recognize themselves as invaders in Israel, and then they must ask Greece to return them back the Isle of Crete! The Philistines are extinct and claims to alleged links with them are utterly false as they are historically impossible to establish. In any case, claiming a Philistine heritage is idle because it cannot legitimate any land in which they were foreign occupants and not native dwellers. Philistines were not Arabs, and the only feature in common between both peoples is that in Israel they should be regarded as invaders, Philistines from the sea and Arabs from the wilderness. They do not want Jerusalem because it is their city, which is not and never has been, they simply want to take her from the Jews, to whom she has belonged for three thousand years. The Philistines wanted to take from Israelites the Holy Ark of the Covenant, modern so-called Palestinians want to take from them the Holy City of the Covenant.

The Palestinians: No, they are not any ancient people, but claim to be. They were born in a single day, after a war that lasted six days in 1967 c.e. If they were true Canaanites, they would speak Hebrew and demand from Syria to give them back their occupied homeland in Lebanon, but they are not. If they were Philistines, they would claim back the Isle of Crete from Greece and would recognize that they have nothing to do with the Land of Israel, and would ask excuses to Israel for having stolen the Ark of the Covenant.

The land called "Palestine"

In the 2nd century c.e., the last attempt of the Jews to achieve independence from the Roman Empire ended with the well-known event of Masada, that is historically documented and universally recognized as the fact that determined the Jewish Diaspora in a definitive way. The Land where these things happened was until then the province known as Judæa , and there is no mention of any place called "Palestine" before that time. The Roman emperor Hadrian was utterly upset with the Jewish Nation and wanted to erase the name of Israel and Judah from the face of the Earth, so that there would be no memory of the country that belonged to that rebel people. He decided to replace the denomination of that Roman province and resorted to ancient history in order to find a name that might appear appropriate, and found that an extinct people that was unknown in Roman times, called "Philistines", was once dwelling in that area and were enemies of the Israelites. Therefore, according to Latin spelling, he invented the new name: "Palæstina", a name that would be also hateful for the Jews as it reminded them their old foes. He did so with the explicit purpose of effacing any trace of Jewish history. Ancient Romans, as well as modern Palestinians, have fulfilled the Hebrew Scriptures Prophecy that declares: "They lay crafty plans against Your People... they say: ‘come, let us wipe them out as a nation; let the name of Israel be remembered no more'." - Tehilim 83:3-4 (Psalm 83:3-4). They failed, as Israel is still alive. Any honest person would recognize that there is no mention of the name Palestina in history before the Romans renamed the province of Judea, that such name does not occur in any ancient document, is not written in the Bible, neither in the Hebrew Scriptures nor in the Christian Testament, not even in Assyrian, Persian, Macedonian, Ptolemaic, Seleucian or other Greek sources, and that not any "Palestinian" people has ever been mentioned, not even by the Romans that invented the term. If "Palestinians" allegedly are the historic inhabitants of the Holy Land, why did they not fight for independence from Roman occupation as Jews did? How is it possible that not a single Palestinian leader heading for a revolt against the Roman invaders is mentioned in any historic record? Why there is not any Palestinian rebel group mentioned, as for example the Jewish Zealots? Why every historic document mentions the Jews as the native inhabitants, and the Greeks, Romans and others as foreigners dwelling in Judea, but not any Palestinian people, neither as native nor as foreigner? What is more, there is no reference to any Palestinian people in the qur'an (koran), although muslims claim that their prophet was once in Jerusalem (an event that is not mentioned in the koran either). It appears evident that he did not meet any Palestinian in his whole life, nor his successors did either. Caliph Salahuddin al-Ayyub (Saladin), knew the Jews and kindly invited them to settle in Jerusalem, that he recognized as their Homeland, but he did not know any Palestinian... To claim that Palestinians are the original people of Eretz Yisrael is not only against secular history but also against Islamic history!

The name "Falastin" that Arabs today use for "Palestine" is not an Arabic name, but adopted and adapted from the Latin Palæstina . How can an Arab people have a western name instead of one in their own language? Because the use of the term "Palestinian" for an Arab group is only a modern political creation without any historic or ethnic grounds, and did not indicate any people before 1967. An Arab writer and journalist declared:

"There has never been a land known as Palestine governed by Palestinians. Palestinians are Arabs, indistinguishable from Jordanians (another recent invention), Syrians, Iraqis, etc. Keep in mind that the Arabs control 99.9 percent of the Middle East lands. Israel represents one-tenth of one percent of the landmass. But that's too much for the Arabs. They want it all. And that is ultimately what the fighting in Israel is about today... No matter how many land concessions the Israelis make, it will never be enough".

- Joseph Farah, "Myths of the Middle East" -

Let us hear what other Arabs have said:

"There is no such country as Palestine. 'Palestine' is a term the Zionists invented. There is no Palestine in the Bible. Our country was for centuries part of Syria. 'Palestine' is alien to us. It is the Zionists who introduced it".

- Auni Bey Abdul-Hadi, Syrian Arab leader to British Peel Commission, 1937 -

"There is no such thing as Palestine in history, absolutely not".

- Professor Philip Hitti, Arab historian, 1946 -

"It is common knowledge that Palestine is nothing but Southern Syria".

- Representant of Saudi Arabia at the United Nations, 1956 -

Concerning the Holy Land, the chairman of the Syrian Delegation at the Paris Peace Conference in February 1919 stated:

"The only Arab domination since the Conquest in 635 c.e. hardly lasted, as such, 22 years".

The preceding declarations by Arab politicians have been done before 1967, as they had not the slightest knowledge of the existence of any Palestinian people. How and when did they change their mind and decided that such people existed? When the State of Israel was reborn in 1948 c.e., the "Palestinians" did not exist yet, the Arabs had still not discovered that "ancient" people. They were too busy with the purpose of annihilating the new Sovereign State and did not intend to create any Palestinian entity, but only to distribute the land among the already existing Arab states. They were defeated. They attempted again to destroy Israel in 1967, and were humiliated in only six days, in which they lost the lands that they had usurped in 1948. In those 19 years of Arab occupation of Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria and the Gaza Strip, neither Jordan nor Egypt suggested to create a "Palestinian" state, since the still non-existing Palestinians would have never claimed their alleged right to have their own state... Paradoxically, during the British Mandate, it was not any Arab group but the Jews that were known as "Palestinians"!

What other Arabs declared after the Six-Day War:

"There are no differences between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. We are all part of one nation. It is only for political reasons that we carefully underline our Palestinian identity... yes, the existence of a separate Palestinian identity serves only tactical purposes. The founding of a Palestinian state is a new tool in the continuing battle against Israel".

- Zuhair Muhsin, military commander of the PLO and member of the PLO Executive Council -

"You do not represent Palestine as much as we do. Never forget this one point: There is no such thing as a Palestinian people, there is no Palestinian entity, there is only Syria. You are an integral part of the Syrian people, Palestine is an integral part of Syria. Therefore it is we, the Syrian authorities, who are the true representatives of the Palestinian people".

- Syrian dictator Hafez Assad to the PLO leader Yassir Arafat -

"As I lived in Palestine, everyone I knew could trace their heritage back to the original country their great grandparents came from. Everyone knew their origin was not from the Canaanites, but ironically, this is the kind of stuff our education in the Middle East included. The fact is that today's Palestinians are immigrants from the surrounding nations! I grew up well knowing the history and origins of today's Palestinians as being from Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Morocco, Christians from Greece, muslim Sherkas from Russia, muslims from Bosnia, and the Jordanians next door. My grandfather, who was a dignitary in Bethlehem, almost lost his life by Abdul Qader Al-Husseni (the leader of the Palestinian revolution) after being accused of selling land to Jews. He used to tell us that his village Beit Sahur (The Shepherds Fields) in Bethlehem County was empty before his father settled in the area with six other families. The town has now grown to 30,000 inhabitants".

- Walid Shoebat, an "ex-Palestinian" Arab -

How long do "Palestinians" live in "Palestine"?

According to the United Nations weird standards, any person that spent TWO YEARS (!!!) in "Palestine" before 1948, with or without proof, is a "Palestinian", as well as all the descendants of that person. Indeed, the PLO leaders eagerly demand the "right" of all Palestinians to come back to the land that they occupied before June 1967 c.e., but utterly reject to return back to the land where they lived only 50 years before, namely, in 1917 c.e. Why? Because if they agree to do so, they have to settle back in Iraq, Syria, Arabia, Libya, Egypt... and only a handful Arabs would remain in Israel (by Israel is intended the whole Land between the Yarden River and the Mediterranean Sea, plus the Golan region). It is thoroughly documented that the first inhabitants of Eretz Yisrael after some centuries were the Jewish pioneers, and not the Arabs so-called Palestinians. Some eyewitnesses have written their memories about the Land before the Jewish immigration:

"There is not a solitary village throughout its whole extent (valley of Jezreel, Galilea); not for thirty miles in either direction... One may ride ten miles hereabouts and not see ten human beings. For the sort of solitude to make one dreary, come to Galilee... Nazareth is forlorn... Jericho lies a mouldering ruin... Bethlehem and Bethany, in their poverty and humiliation... untenanted by any living creature... A desolate country whose soil is rich enough, but is given over wholly to weeds... a silent, mournful expanse... a desolation... We never saw a human being on the whole route... Hardly a tree or shrub anywhere. Even the olive tree and the cactus, those fast friends of a worthless soil had almost deserted the country... Palestine sits in sackcloth and ashes... desolate and unlovely...".

- Mark Twain, "The Innocents Abroad", 1867 -

Where had the Palestinians been hidden that Mark Twain did not see them? Where was that "ancient" people in the mid XIX century c.e.? Of course, modern biased Arab politicians try to discredit Mark Twain and insult and blame him of racism. Yet, it seems that there were other people that did not achieve in recognizing a single Palestinian in those times and earlier:

"In 1590 a 'simple English visitor' to Jerusalem wrote: 'Nothing there is to bescene but a little of the old walls, which is yet remayning and all the rest is grasse, mosse and weedes much like to a piece of rank or moist grounde'.".

- Gunner Edward Webbe, Palestine Exploration Fund,
Quarterly Statement, p. 86; de Haas, History, p. 338 -

"The land in Palestine is lacking in people to till its fertile soil".

- British archaeologist Thomas Shaw, mid-1700s -

"Palestine is a ruined and desolate land".

- Count Constantine François Volney, XVIII century French author and historian -

"The Arabs themselves cannot be considered but temporary residents. They pitched their tents in its grazing fields or built their places of refuge in its ruined cities. They created nothing in it. Since they were strangers to the land, they never became its masters. The desert wind that brought them hither could one day carry them away without their leaving behind them any sign of their passage through it".

- Comments by Christians concerning the Arabs in Palestine in the 1800s -

"Then we entered the hill district, and our path lay through the clattering bed of an ancient stream, whose brawling waters have rolled away into the past, along with the fierce and turbulent race who once inhabited these savage hills. There may have been cultivation here two thousand years ago. The mountains, or huge stony mounds environing this rough path, have level ridges all the way up to their summits; on these parallel ledges there is still some verdure and soil: when water flowed here, and the country was thronged with that extraordinary population, which, according to the Sacred Histories, was crowded into the region, these mountain steps may have been gardens and vineyards, such as we see now thriving along the hills of the Rhine. Now the district is quite deserted, and you ride among what seem to be so many petrified waterfalls. We saw no animals moving among the stony brakes; scarcely even a dozen little birds in the whole course of the ride".

- William Thackeray in "From Jaffa To Jerusalem", 1844 -

"The country is in a considerable degree empty of inhabitants and therefore its greatest need is of a body of population".

- James Finn, British Consul in 1857 -

"There are many proofs, such as ancient ruins, broken aqueducts, and remains of old roads, which show that it has not always been so desolate as it seems now. In the portion of the plain between Mount Carmel and Jaffa one sees but rarely a village or other sights of human life. There are some rude mills here which are turned by the stream. A ride of half an hour more brought us to the ruins of the ancient city of Cæsarea, once a city of two hundred thousand inhabitants, and the Roman capital of Palestine, but now entirely deserted. As the sun was setting we gazed upon the desolate harbor, once filled with ships, and looked over the sea in vain for a single sail. In this once crowded mart, filled with the din of traffic, there was the silence of the desert. After our dinner we gathered in our tent as usual to talk over the incidents of the day, or the history of the locality. Yet it was sad, as I laid upon my couch at night, to listen to the moaning of the waves and to think of the desolation around us".

- B. W. Johnson, in "Young Folks in Bible Lands": Chapter IV, 1892 -

"The area was underpopulated and remained economically stagnant until the arrival of the first Zionist pioneers in the 1880's, who came to rebuild the Jewish land. The country had remained "The Holy Land" in the religious and historic consciousness of mankind, which associated it with the Bible and the history of the Jewish people. Jewish development of the country also attracted large numbers of other immigrants - both Jewish and Arab. The road leading from Gaza to the north was only a summer track suitable for transport by camels and carts... Houses were all of mud. No windows were anywhere to be seen... The plows used were of wood... The yields were very poor... The sanitary conditions in the village [Yabna] were horrible... Schools did not exist... The rate of infant mortality was very high... The western part, toward the sea, was almost a desert... The villages in this area were few and thinly populated. Many ruins of villages were scattered over the area, as owing to the prevalence of malaria, many villages were deserted by their inhabitants".

- The report of the British Royal Commission, 1913 -

The list of travellers and pilgrims throughout the XVI to the XIX centuries c.e. that give a similar description of the Holy Land is quite longer, including Alphonse de Lamartine, Sir George Gawler, Sir George Adam Smith, Siebald Rieter, priest Michael Nuad, Martin Kabatnik, Arnold Van Harff, Johann Tucker, Felix Fabri, Edward Robinson and others. All of them found the land almost empty, except for Jewish communities in Jerusalem, Shechem, Hevron, Haifa, Safed, Irsuf, Cæsarea, Gaza, Ramleh, Acre, Sidon, Tzur, El Arish, and some towns in Galilee: Ein Zeitim, Pekiin, Biria, Kfar Alma, Kfar Hanania, Kfar Kana and Kfar Yassif. Even Napoleon I Bonaparte, having seen the need that the Holy Land would be populated, had in mind to enable a mass return of Jews from Europe to settle in the country that he recognized as theirs' - evidently, he did not see any "Palestinian" claiming historical rights over the Holy Land, whose few inhabitants were mainly Jews.

Besides them, many Arab sources confirm the fact that the Holy Land was still Jewish by population and culture in spite of the Diaspora:

·In 985 c.e. the Arab writer Muqaddasi complained that in Jerusalem the large majority of the population were Jewish, and said that "the mosque is empty of worshippers..." .

·Ibn Khaldun, one of the most creditable Arab historians, in 1377 c.e. wrote:
"Jewish sovereignty in the Land of Israel extended over 1400 years... It was the Jews who implanted the culture and customs of the permanent settlement".

After 300 years of Arab rule in the Holy Land, Ibn Khaldun attested that Jewish culture and traditions were still dominant. By that time there was still no evidence of "Palestinian" roots or culture .

·The historian James Parker wrote: "During the first century after the Arab conquest [670-740 c.e.], the caliph and governors of Syria and the [Holy] Land ruled entirely over Christian and Jewish subjects. Apart from the Bedouin in the earliest days, the only Arabs west of the Jordan were the garrisons".

Even though the Arabs ruled the Land from 640 c.e. to 1099 c.e., they never became the majority of the population. Most of the inhabitants were Christians (Assyrian and Armenian) and Jews.

If the historic documents, comments written by eyewitnesses and declarations by the most authoritative Arab scholars are still not enough, let us quote the most important source for muslim Arabs:

"And thereafter We [Allah] said to the Children of Israel: 'Dwell securely in the Promised Land. And when the last warning will come to pass, we will gather you together in a mingled crowd'.".

- Qur'an 17:104 -

Any sincere muslim must recognize the Land they call "Palestine" as the Jewish Homeland, according to the book considered by muslims to be the most sacred word and Allah's ultimate revelation.

Permanent Jewish presence in the Holy Land

Whenever the issue concerning the Jewish population in Israel is discussed, the idea that Jews are "returning back" to their Homeland after almost two millennia of exile is taken for granted. It is true that such is the case for the largest number of Jews, but not for all of them. It is not correct to say that the whole Jewish nation has been in exile. The long exile, known as Diaspora, is a documented fact that proves the legitimacy of the Jewish claim to the Land of Israel, and was the consequence of the Jewish Wars of independence from the Roman Empire. If "Palestinians" allegedly are the historic inhabitants of the Holy Land, why did they not fight for independence from Roman occupation as Jews did? How is it possible that not a single Palestinian leader heading for a revolt against the Roman invaders is mentioned in any historic record? Why there is not any Palestinian rebel group mentioned, as for example the Jewish Zealots? Why every historic document mentions the Jews as the native inhabitants, and the Greeks, Romans and others as foreigners dwelling in Judea, but not any Palestinian people, neither as native nor as foreigner? After the last Jewish War in the 2nd century c.e., the Roman emperor Hadrian sacked Jerusalem in 135 c.e. and changed her name into Ælia Capitolina, and the name of Judæa into Palæstina, in order to erase the Jewish identity from the face of the Earth. Most of the Jews were expelled from their own land by the Romans, a fact that determined the beginning of the great Diaspora. Nevertheless, small groups of Jews remained in the province then renamed "Palestine", and their descendants dwelled in their own country continuously throughout generations until the Zionist pioneers started on the mass return in the XIX century. Therefore, the Jewish claim to the Land of Israel is justified not only by an old Biblical Promise, but also by a permanent presence of Jews as the only autochthonous ethnic community existing in the Holy Land. Along the centuries and under different dominations, the "Palestinian" Jews did never submit to assimilation but conserved their spiritual and cultural identity, as well as their links with other Jewish communities in the Middle East. The continuous flow of Mizrachim (Oriental) and Sephardim (Mediterranean) Jews to the Holy Land contributed to support the existence of the Jewish population in the area. This enduring Jewish presence in the so-called Palestine preceded many centuries the arrival of the first Arab conqueror.

Even though Jerusalem has been off-limits to Jews in different periods (since Romans banned all Jews to enter the City), many of them settled in the immediate proximities and in other towns and villages of the Holy Land. A Jewish community was established at Mount Zion. The Roman and subsequent Byzantine rule were oppressive; Jews were prevented from praying at the Kotel, where the Holy Temple once existed. The Sassanid Persians took control over Jerusalem in 614 c.e. allied with the local Jews, but five years later the City fell again under Byzantine control, although it was an ephemeral rule because in 638 c.e. Jerusalem was captured by the caliph Omar. That was the first time that an Arab leader set foot in the Holy City, inhabited by non-Arab peoples (Jews, Assyrians, Armenians, Greeks and other Christian communities). After centuries of Roman-Byzantine oppression, the Jews welcomed the Arab conquerors with the hope that their conditions would improve. The Arabs found a strong Jewish identity in Jerusalem and the surrounding land; Jews were living in every district of the country and on both sides of the Jordan. Indeed, the "Palestinians" that were historically dwelling in the Holy Land were no other than the Jews! Towns like Ramallah, Yericho and Gaza were almost purely Jewish by that time. The Arabs, not having a name of their own for this region, adopted the Latin name "Palæstina", that they translated into Arabic as "Falastin".

The first Arab immigrants that settled in the so-called Palestine - or, according to the modern UN conception, the first "Palestinian refugees" - were actually Jewish Arabs, namely Nabateans that adopted Judaism. Before the rise of Islam, flourishing centres like Khaybar and Yathrib (renamed Madinah) were mainly Jewish Nabatean cities. Whenever there was a famine in the land, people would go to Khaybar; the Jews always had fruit, and their springs yielded a plentiful supply of water. Once the muslim hordes conquered the Arabian peninsula, all that richness was ruined; the muslims perpetrated massacres against the Jews and replaced them with masses of ignorant fellahin submitted to the new religion. The survivors had to escape and took refuge in the Holy Land, mainly in Yericho and Dera'a, on both shores of the Jordan.

The Arab caliphs (Umayyad, Abbasid and Fatimid) controlled the Holy Land until 1071 c.e., when Jerusalem was captured by the Seldjuq Turks, and after that time, it was never again under Arab rule. During all that period, Arabs hardly established any permanent social structure of their own, but rather governed over the native non-Arab Christian and Jewish population. Any honest observer would notice that the Arabs ruled over the Holy Land three centuries less than they did over Spain!

In 1099 c.e., the European Crusaders conquered the so-called Palestine and established a kingdom that was politically independent, but never developed a national identity; it was just a military outpost of Christian Europe. The Crusaders were ruthless and tried by all means to remove any expression of Jewish culture, but all their efforts ended without success. In 1187 c.e., Jews actively participated with Salah-ud-Din Al'Ayyub (Saladin) against the Crusaders in the conquest of Jerusalem. Saladin, who was the greatest muslim conqueror, was not an Arab but a Kurd. The Crusaders took Jerusalem back from 1229 to 1244 c.e., when the City was captured by the Khwarezmians. A period of chaos and Mongol invasions followed until 1291c.e., when the Mameluks completed the conquest of almost the whole Middle East and settled their capital in Cairo, Egypt. The Mameluks were originally Central Asian and Caucasian mercenaries employed by the Arab caliphs; a medley of peoples whose main contingent was composed by Kumans, a Turkic tribe also known as Kipchak, related to the Seldjuqs, Kimaks and other groups. They were characterized by their ambiguous behaviour, as Kuman mercenaries were often contemporarily serving two enemy armies. The Mameluk soldiers did not miss the right moment to seize power for themselves, and even after their rule was overthrown, they were still employed as warriors by the Ottoman sultans and at last by Napoleon Bonaparte.

In 1517 c.e., Jerusalem and the whole Holy Land were conquered by the Ottoman Turks and remained under their rule during four centuries, until 1917 c.e., when the British captured Jerusalem and established the "Mandate of Palestine". It was the end of the Ottoman Empire, that owned all the present-day Arab countries until then. Indeed, since the fall of the Abbasid caliphate in 945 c.e., no Arab political entity existed in the Middle East for almost a millennium!

By the beginning of the XX century c.e., the population of Judea and Samaria - the improperly called "West Bank" - was less than 100,000 inhabitants, of which the majority were Jews. Gaza had no more than 80,000 "native" inhabitants in 1951, at the end of Israel's Independence War against the whole Arab world. Gaza was occupied by Arabs: How is it possible that in only 50 years it has increased from 80,000 to more than one million people? Are all those Arabs of Gaza so skilful as to procreate children in a supernatural way? Mass immigration is the ONLY plausible explanation for such a demographic increase. The Arab occupation between 1948 and 1967 was an advantageous opportunity for Arab leaders to promote mass immigration of so-called "Palestinians" (a mishmash of Arab immigrants) into Judea, Samaria and Gaza from every Arab country, mainly Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Jordan. In fact, since 1950 until the Six-Day War, under Jordanian rule, more than 250 Arab settlements have been founded in Judea and Samaria. The recent construction of the Arab houses is quite evident by the materials used for building: concrete and cinderblock. The Israeli government admits to have allowed over 240,000 workers to enter Judea and Samaria through the border with Jordan since the Oslo Conference - only to have them stay in those territories as Arab settlers. The actual numbers are probably higher. If hundreds of thousands of Middle Eastern migrant workers are flooding into the Judea, Samaria and Gaza, why should Israel be required to provide them jobs? In fact the reverse, by supporting their economy while these people refuse to accept Israeli or Jordanian citizenship, Israel is only attracting more migrant workers. Saudi Arabia in a single year expelled over 1,000,000 stateless migrant workers. Lest anyone think that these are all "Palestinians", taking account of the definition of "Palestinian" according to the United Nations: all those Arabs that spent TWO YEARS in "Palestine" before 1948, and their descendants - with or without proof or documentation -. This definition was specifically designed to include immigrant Arab settlers (not Jewish settlers!).

The British perfidy

The restoration of the desolate and deserted Land began in the latter half of the XIX century with the arrival of the first Jewish pioneers. Their labours created newer and better conditions and opportunities, which in turn attracted migrants from many parts of the Middle East, mainly Arabs but also Circassians, Kurds and others. The Balfour Declaration of 1917, confirmed by the League of Nations, committed the British government (that took control of the Holy Land after having defeated the Ottoman Turks) to the principle that "His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a Jewish National Home, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object". It was specified both that this area be open to "Jewish settlement" and that the rights of all inhabitants already in the country be preserved and protected. The "Mandate of Palestine" ‒as it was called the British-occupied land‒ originally included all of present-day Jordan, as well as the whole of Israel, and the so-called "territories" between them (?) ‒actually, the Jordan river and the Dead Sea are the only "territory" between Israel and the Hashemite Kingdom‒.

However, the political and economic interests of Great Britain in Arabia turned soon into a blatant anti-Jewish policy. The British rule progressively limited Jewish immigration. In 1939 the admission of Jews to enter the Holy Land was put to an end. In the moment in which Jews from Europe had the greatest need of refuge, the British denied them to reach the Land that was their only hope of deliverance from the atrocious Shoah. Yes, the British government is not less guilty than Nazi Germany for the Shoah! At the same time, the British allowed and even encouraged massive illegal immigration into the lands west of the Jordan river from Arab countries. Then, all the lands of the Mandate of Palestine east of the Jordan river were given to the Arabs and the puppet-kingdom of "Trans-Jordan" was created, name that was then changed into "Jordan" after the Arabs occupied the western side in 1948. There was no traditional or historic Arab name for this land, so it was called after the river that marked its western border (which was later included, until June 1967). By this political act, that violated the conditions of the Balfour Declaration and the Mandate, the British stole more than 75 % out of the Jewish National Home. No Jew has ever been permitted to reside in the east of the Jordan river. Less than 25 % then remained of Mandate of Palestine, and even in this remnant, the British violated the Balfour and Mandate requirements for a "Jewish National Home" and for "Jewish settlement". They progressively restricted where Jews could buy land, where they could live, build, farm or work. After the Six-Day War in 1967, Israel was finally able to settle some small part of those lands from which the Jews had been banned by the British. Successive British governments regularly condemned Jewish settlement as "illegal". Actually, it was the British who had acted illegally in banning Jews from these parts of the Jewish National Home! To conclude in shame, when the it was held the UN voting to approve the creation of the State of Israel in November 29, 1947, the United Kingdom ABSTAINED. Israel was recognized by the USSR, the Communist Countries, the USA and Philippines. When the British had to leave the Holy Land, they left their weapons in Arab hands ‒ while Jews were prohibited to have any kind of weapon and had to keep them in secret in order to defend themselves from the imminent attack by the Arabs, in which the British would appear as "disengaged" and free from any responsibility...

"Palestinian «Refugees»"?

Another of the big lies that are being passed off as truth by politics and mass media is the "Palestinian refugees" issue: the allegedly "native" population that were "evicted" by the Israelis. Actually, in 1948 the Arab so-called refugees were encouraged to leave Israel by Arab leaders, who promised to purge the Land of Jews. Almost 70 % of them left without having ever seen a single Israeli soldier.

On the other side, nothing is said about the Jewish refugees that were forced to flee from Arab lands due to Arab brutality, persecution and pogroms. As soon as the State of Israel was founded, hundreds of thousands of Jews were expelled from every Arab country, mainly Yemen, Iraq and Egypt. The Mizrachim, also known as Babylonian Jews, were living in present-day Iraq since the Babylonian exile in the 6th century b.c.e., the Teymanim or Yemenite Jews were settled in the Sabean Kingdoms long before Roman times. Arabs have expelled them from the lands where those Jews were living for many centuries! The number of Arab so-called refugees that left Israel in 1948 is estimated to be around 630,000, while the Jewish refugees that were forced out from Arab lands is estimated to be some more than that... Nevertheless, the UN has never demanded from Arab states to receive the Jews that were settled there for many generations and to restore their property and to provide them employment. Meanwhile, the so-called Palestinian "refugees" were intentionally not absorbed or integrated into the Arab countries to which they fled, despite the vast Arab territory (Israel's extension is less than 1% of the territory of all Arab lands). Out of the 100,000,000 refugees since World War II, the so-called Palestinians are the only refugee group in the world that has never been absorbed or integrated into their own peoples' lands. On the contrary, Jewish refugees were completely absorbed into Israel.

The truth is that the Arab League keeps the Palestinian refugees issue as a political weapon against Israel, with which they continue to fool the United Nations and propagate their perfidious policy. The proofs of such intention are given by Arab sources themselves: At a refugee conference in Homs, Syria, the Arab leaders declared that «any discussion aimed at a solution of the Palestine problem which will not based on ensuring the refugees' right to annihilate Israel will be regarded as desecration of the Arab people and an act of treason». In 1958, former director of UNRWA Ralph Galloway declared angrily while in Jordan that «the Arab states do not want to solve the refugee problem. They want to keep it as an open sore, as an affront to the United Nations, and as a weapon against Israel. Arab leaders do not give a damn whether Arab refugees live or die». King Hussein, the sole Arab leader that directed integration of the Arabs, in 1960 stated: «Since 1948 Arab leaders have approached the Palestine problem in an irresponsible manner.... They have used the Palestine people for selfish political purposes. This is ridiculous and, I could say, even criminal».

Between 1948 and 1967, the Arab flow into the Israeli territories occupied by them (Judea, Samaria and Gaza) was intensified. The UNRWA reported in 1951-52 that «200,000 Arab "refugees" were languishing in Gaza, along with 80,000 original residents who barely made a living before the refugees arrived», notwithstanding, a project to accommodate 10,000 families in the Sinai area (then under Egyptian control) was suspended. How is that the Gaza Strip, having around 80,000 allegedly native residents and twice and half that number of immigrants is only fifty years later overpopulated, with about one and half million of "native people dwelling there since ancestral times"?

The Arab states are acting a downright discrimination policy against Palestinians, preventing them with all means to achieve any sort of integration in the Arab countries (the same ones from where the Palestinians' grandparents emigrated to the Holy Land). Iraq and Syria were the most appropriate lands for resettlement of the so-called Palestinian refugees. Between 1948 and 1951, more than 120,000 Jews left Iraq to settle in Israel, leaving all of their goods and homes behind them. Most of them were businessmen and artisans, and many were wealthy. Their departure created a large gap in Iraq's economy; in some fields, such as transport, banking and wholesale trades, it reached serious proportions, and there was also a dearth of white collar workers and professional men. Salah Jabr, former dictator of Iraq recognized that «the emigration of 120,000 Jews from Iraq to Israel is beneficial to Iraq and to the Palestinian Arabs because it makes possible the entry into Iraq of a similar number of Arab refugees and their occupation of the Jewish houses there». Nevertheless, Palestinians in Iraq have been "allowed to live in the country but not to assume Iraqi nationality", despite the fact that the country needs manpower and "is encouraging Arab nationals to work and live there by granting them citizenship, with the exception of Palestinians".

Syria was also almost a desert in the early fifties and a very suitable land to give home to the "refugees", not only those already dwelling in Syria but also those in Lebanon and Jordan. In 1949 a newspaper editorial from Damascus stated that «Syria needs not only 100,000 refugees, but five million to work the lands and make them fruitful». Indeed, two years later the Syrian government officially requested that half a million Egyptian agricultural workers be permitted to emigrate to Syria in order to help develop Syrian land which would be transferred to them as their property. The responsible Egyptian authorities have rejected this request on the grounds that Egyptian agriculture is in need of labour as well. Syria was offering land rent free to anyone willing to settle there. It even announced a committee to study would-be settlers' applications. In fact, Syrian authorities began the experiment by moving 25,000 of the refugees in Syria into areas of potential development in the northern parts of the country, but the rigid Arab League position against permanent resettlement prevailed. Palestinians in Syria are still regarded as "refugees" and discriminated as such. The situation in all the remaining Arab states is the same: even though the great majority of the so-called Palestinian refugees has now left the camps for a better life as immigrant workers, they are being denied citizenship in the Arab countries to which they had moved. Regardless of their good behaviour and the many years they are living there, they are still discriminated and denied full integration in society. They must be kept as "refugees" forever, until they may occupy the Land of Israel once that Jews have been expelled or annihilated, that is the ultimate aim of the Arab League policy. Of curse, they would never achieve in doing so, as every time that the Arabs attacked Israel, the Arabs have undergone a shameful defeat.

The current myth is that these Arabs were long established in "Palestine", until the Jews came and "displaced" them. The fact is, that recent Arab immigration into the Land of Israel displaced the Jews. That the massive increase in Arab population was very recent is attested by the ruling of the United Nations: That any Arab who had lived in the Holy Land for two years and then left in 1948 qualifies as a "Palestinian refugee".

II - Myths and facts about Jerusalem and Temple Mount
(from "Myths of the Middle East")

One of the most popular lies that has become universally accepted as if it was an indisputable truth is the myth about Jerusalem being the third sacred place to Islam. It is quite rare to hear the honest truth, that Jerusalem is the First and Only Holiest place to Judaism! As a matter of fact, Jerusalem is not mentioned at all in the koran, and Muhammad has never been there (perhaps he did not even know about the existence of Jerusalem!). The tale about his dream flight has been related with Jerusalem in a very recent time for political strategy purposes.

1) The Islamic claim to the Temple Mount is very recent - Jerusalem's role as "The Third Holiest Site in Islam" in mainstream Islamic writings does not precede the 1930s. It was created by the grand mufti Haj Amin al-Husseini.
Most of the problems surrounding Jerusalem can be traced to two areas of dispute: the political area that asks Jerusalem to be the capital of both Israel and the hypothetic Palestine; the other and most contentious problem is the holiness of Temple Mount to both Judaism and Islam.

The role Jerusalem has in the Hebrew Holy Scriptures is well known and not open to debate; however, there are varying opinions on the holiness of Jerusalem, specifically Temple Mount to Islam.

Many if not most opinions that counter Islam's claim point out the Jerusalem is not mentioned in the qur'an and did not occupy any special role in Islam until recent political exigencies transformed Jerusalem into Islam's "third holy site". This falsehood was created by the grand mufti, Haj Amin al-Husseini. The mufti knew that nationalist slogans alone would not succeed in uniting the masses against arriving Jewish refugees; he therefore turned the struggle into a religious conflict. He addressed the masses clearly, calling for a holy war. Since the moment when he was appointed to the position of mufti, Haj Amin worked vigorously to raise Jerusalem's status as an Islamic holy centre.

2) The Islamic claim to Jerusalem is false - There were no mosques in Jerusalem in 632 c.e. at the death of Muhammad... Jerusalem was [then] a Christian-occupied city

‒by Dr. Manfred R. Lehmann, writer for the Algemeiner Journal. Excerpts of the article originally published in the Algemeiner Journal, August 19, 1994‒
The muslim "claim" to Jerusalem is allegedly based on what is written in the koran, which although does not mention Jerusalem even once, nevertheless talks of the "furthest mosque" (in Sura 17:1): «Glory be unto Allah who did take his servant for a journey at night from the sacred mosque to the furthest mosque». But is there any foundation to the muslim argument that this "furthest mosque" (al-masujidi al-aqsa) refers to what is today called the Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem? The answer is, NO!

In the days of Muhammad, who died in 632 of the Common Era, Jerusalem was a Christian-occupied city within the Byzantine Empire. Jerusalem was captured by caliph Omar only in 638 c.e., six years after Muhammad's death. Throughout all this time there were only churches in Jerusalem, and a church stood on the Temple Mount, called the Church of Saint Mary of Justinian, built in the Byzantine architectural style. The Aqsa mosque was built 20 years after the Dome of the Rock, which was built in 691-692 by caliph Abd el-Malik. The name "Omar mosque" is therefore false. In or around 711, about 80 years after Muhammad died, Malik's son, Abd el-Wahd ‒who ruled in 705-715‒ reconstructed the Christian-Byzantine Church of St. Mary and converted it into a mosque. He left the structure as it was, a typical Byzantine "basilica" structure with a row of pillars on either side of the rectangular "ship" in the centre. All he added was an onion-like dome on top of the building to make it look like a mosque. He then named it El-Aqsa, so it would sound like the one mentioned in the koran.

Consequently, it is crystal clear that Muhammad could never have had this mosque in mind when he wrote the koran (if he did so), since it did not exist for another three generations after his death. Rather, as many scholars long ago established, it is logical that Muhammad intended the mosque in Mecca as the "sacred mosque", and the mosque in Medina as the "furthest mosque". So much for the muslim claim based on the Aqsa mosque.

With this understood, it is no wonder that Muhammad issued a strict prohibition against facing Jerusalem in prayer, a practice that had been tolerated only for some months in order to lure Jews to convert to Islam. When that effort failed, Muhammad put an abrupt stop to it on February 624. Jerusalem simply never held any sanctity for the muslims themselves, but only for the Jews in their domain.

3) The present Arabic name of Jerusalem is "Al-Quds"... but "Al-Quds" is an abbreviation for "The Jewish Temple"!
‒by Rabbi Joseph Katz‒

The Arabic name for Jerusalem is "Al-QuDS" (The Holy), which is abbreviation for another Arabic name used for Jerusalem until the last century, "Bayt al-MaQDeS" (The Holy House), since the 10th century c.e. The name "Bayt al-MaQDeS" is a translation of the Hebrew "Beyt ha-MiKDaSH", which means "House of Holiness", "Temple". But Islam has no Temple, only the Jews did. Thus the Arabic name for Jerusalem makes no reference to Muhammad's alleged trip to Heaven, but rather refers to the Jewish Temple!
In fact, it can be seen that significant Islamic interest in the Temple Mount does not precede the Six-Day War in 1967.

The greatest lie ever told about Jerusalem
‒by Emanuel A. Winston, a Middle East analyst & commentator; January 7, 2001‒

The 13th century Arab biographer Yakut noted: «Mecca is holy to muslims; Jerusalem is holy to the Jews».

The terrorist PLO leader Yassir Arafat and the Arabs claimed the Holy Jewish Temple Mount and Jerusalem based upon one extraordinarily huge lie told over and over again. Here then is a brief history of the religious war against the Jewish people, the Jewish State of Israel and her 3000 year old Eternal Capital, Jerusalem. Would be conquerors invariably issue false claims to provide justification for their march to conquest. The more recent call to "Jihad" against the Jews of Israel was first called in 1947 after the U.N. partition in a "fatwa" (religious ruling) by the Saudis ‒ supposedly to save the Al-Aqsa mosque on the Temple Mount from the Jews. Thus, Yassir Arafat, with the full support of the Arab nations, later claimed the Jewish Temple Mount as the third holiest site for Islam - including all of Jerusalem. Therefore, as in the past, this claim has its root in a classic religious war - in addition to other spurious reasons offered.

This myth of Jerusalem as Islam's third holiest city based upon the mythical ascension of Muhammad from Al-Aqsa to Heaven has grown exponentially in the recent telling since 1967. When you tell a Big Lie and repeat it often, it achieves credibility and legs of its own. In Islam, telling a lie to infidels for the sake of enlarging your own believers' faith or defeating the infidel is acceptable, even desirable.

History and revisionism

These facts of recorded history have been obliterated by the recent false claims made in the name of radical Islamic fundamentalism supported by the silence of scholars unwilling to face a "fatwa" of assassination, the world media, with full access to Biblical scholars and historical files, have instead accepted the Great Lie. They carry it forward without question and with a certain perverse enthusiasm, having refused to use the Bible (Torah) as a resource ‒ the most accurate historic record of contemporary events of ancient times. They also have neglected to publicize the historic documents that attest the Jewish ownership of Jerusalem, including Arab sources.
The history of Jerusalem and the site of the Jewish Holy Temple, constructed in 956 b.c.e. by King Solomon, son of King David, is fully described with minute detail in the Torah. The First Temple was later destroyed by the Babylonian King Nebukhadnetzar in 586 b.c.e.

The Second Temple was rebuilt by order of Koresh (Cyrus), the King of Persia, who also paid for its reconstruction and ordered the return of the Jews exiled in Babylon. The Second Temple was completed and consecrated in 515 b.c.e.

After the Jews revolted against Roman rule, the Romans under Titus destroyed and burned the Second Temple beginning on the 9th of Av (Tisha B'Av), 70 c.e. This event is illustrated in the carvings on the Arch of Titus in Rome, depicting Titus' triumphal march through Rome, parading the Holy Temple vessels, including the great Menorah. Despite Arafat's claim that there was no Jewish Temple, the Romans memorialized their capture of the Jews and their Temple in 70 c.e. by carving it in stone!

Before the days of Muhammad, "Christian" conquerors had occupied Jerusalem (within the Byzantine Empire). Bringing one's religion into battle demonstrated that both their armies and their religion were superior to those of their victims when they won. So, they usually built their holy places on top of their victims' holy places, which they did on the Temple Mount, to absorb the strength of their conquered adversaries and to convert them to their religion. Even under the threat of the sword, the Jews refused to convert and allow their lineage to be absorbed, which would in effect, transfer G§d's Covenant.

Muhammad died in 632 c.e. Jerusalem was subsequently captured from the Romans by caliph Omar, six years after Muhammad's death. There was a struggle over who would assume Muhammad's role as leader of the new religion of Islam which he had envisioned.

So, another conqueror (the muslims) had superseded the European invaders and their mosque was proof of their superiority in battle and religion. But, it was much more. It was also to be a mighty symbol in the struggle for leadership of the growing movement of Islam. Since Mecca was already the location of Muhammad's power with its own priest cult, if a claimant wanted to redirect that power to himself as the new leader of Islam, he would also need an uncontested and new base of religious power. He could not make war on Mecca and expect to be accepted as Muhammad's rightful heir.

Jerusalem, despite Muhammad's rejection, was still looked upon in the then Arab world as a powerful symbol where the ancient Jews had placed their faith. The Jews considered Jerusalem the centre of the world and the earthly dwelling place of HaShem, the One G§d. It was not surprising that the Arabs and other nations wanted to own and control this source of power.

__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ______

O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”

Last edited by Paparock; 05-31-2015 at 05:01 PM..
Old 05-31-2015, 04:15 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Exclamation Palestine History: Myths and Truths

Palestine History: Myths and Truths

Summary ... A myth has been perpetrated upon the world. A myth so large that it has become an accepted fact by most scholars, historians, archaeologists, politicians, and the general public alike. That myth is the one of the 'Palestinian' people.

"It is common knowledge that Palestine is nothing more than southern Syria" — Ahmed Shukeiry, head of the PLO, to UN Security Council, May 31, 1956

"... Palestine is not only a part of our Arab homeland, but a basic part of southern Syria." — Syrian President Hafez Assad, Radio Damascus, March 8. 1974

"Yes, the existence of a separate Palestinian identity serves only practical purposes. The founding of a Palestinian state is a new tool in the continuing battle against Israel ..." — Zuheir Muhsin, Head of the Military Department and Executive Council, PLO, Trouw, March 1977

1.The Fabricated "Palestinian" History-

2. Why Does Israel Play the "Palestine" and "Palestinians" Game?-

3.Where is Palestine?-

4.The State of Palestine Quiz-

5.Occupation? Whose Occupation?-

6.The Palestinian Lie-

7.Who Stole the Holy Land?-

8.UN to Mourn 60 Years of Israel's Existence-

9.Tongues Of Deceit-

10.How Strong Is the Arab Claim to Palestine?-

11.The History and Meaning of "Palestine" and "Palestinians" | PDF Format -

O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”

Last edited by Paparock; 05-31-2015 at 04:27 PM..
Old 07-14-2015, 11:17 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Exclamation The West's Current Paralysis With Iran Parallels Its Inability To Deal With Nazi Ger

July 14, 2015
Special Dispatch No.6105

Gulf Journalists: The West's Current Paralysis Vis-à-vis Iran Parallels Its Inability To Deal With Nazi Germany Prior To WWII

In his March 19, 2015 column in the Saudi Al-Jazirah daily, Dr. Hamza Al-Salem compared the "Iran of the ayatollahs" to Nazi Germany, and warned that the Nazis' secret military buildup prior to World War II could be repeated in much the same way by Iran.

Al-Salem noted that in the 1930s, the Allies focused on rebuilding their economies following World War I, and chose to disregard the Nazi regime's military buildup – even after the latter invaded Austria and Czechoslovakia – and thus enabled it to occupy all of Europe. He wrote that Iran is now secretly developing destructive technology, just as the Nazis had, and went on to warn that it could deceive and distract the world. He also compared the inaction and apparent paralysis of the Obama administration in this situation to that of the Allies prior to World War II.

Ahmad Al-Jarallah, editor of the English-language Kuwaiti newspaper Arab Times, compared the nuclear deal with Iran to the Munich Agreement signed with Hitler in 1938. He wrote that, just like Nazi Germany, Iran is managing to swindle the world and obtain a deal on its own terms. The only question that remains, he said, is which Arab country will take the place of Austria or Poland and be the first country to succumb to Iran's expansionist ambitions.
The following are excerpts from the two articles:

Dr. Hamza Al-Salem: Resentment and Murderousness – Qualities Nazi Germany And Iran Have In Common

Dr. Hamza Al-Salem wrote: "After losing some two million men, the German Empire lost the war it had launched and conceded defeat to the Allies in World War I. Because of the death of U.S. president [sic.], the American leadership was absent from the post-war accords, and the allies divvied up Germany and took away areas that belonged to it. They also burdened Germany with the cost of the war, but later settled for an economic siege [on it] to prevent it from being able to spark conflict and launch wars. The Allies were euphoric after playing a tune of victory, thus distracting themselves from the pain left by the war. The wounded Germany had not a moment of calm or comfort, and neither supporters nor allies, and it bent under the burden. It was paralyzed by the economic siege, and in its death throes.

"Then came the Great Depression. American and European banks quickly withdrew their funds from Germany, thus pouring salt in Germany's wounds and causing them to fester. As a result, the vilest of Germany's sons rose to power.

Dr. Hamza Al-Salem (image:

The various] countries dealt with the Great Depression in accordance with their own circumstances. The Allies rebuilt their economies at the expense of rebuilding their militaries – [while] Nazi Germany turned to a secret military buildup, at the expense of its economy. The U.S. reduced military expenditure in favor of industrial and housing government projects, ignoring warnings by its generals – as did Britain. France ignored De Gaulle's recommendation to build up its armored units, claiming that he was a mentally damaged prisoner of war, and threw him aside. De Gaulle wrote a book warning his people of the coming war, which he said would arrive in tanks – [but it was] the Germans who eagerly absorbed De Gaulle's book and followed his advice. They entered Paris in tanks, forcing France into surrender within weeks. Nazi Germany needed no more than a decade to throw off the screen of secrecy and camouflage from its massive modern army that swept across Europe in only a few months...

"Even if the Iran of the ayatollahs is not the same as Nazi Germany, the essence of the two evils is. The qualities of resentment, hatefulness, and murderousness are shared by them both, and there are similarities too in their isolation and in the oversight [imposed on them], as well as in their secrecy and deception.

"Though the craft of military killing has changed substantially [over the years], technologically speaking, Iran, under the false embargo, is just as capable as the Germans of creating [means of] destruction and killing and hiding them under the turbans of the ayatollahs, and [these means] are no less lethal, deadly, evil, and powerful [than those produced by the Germans].
"The loss of life and massive economic damage inflicted upon Germany in the first [world] war did not prevent its sons from repeating the disaster. Despite having witnessed [the first disaster], they took part in [another one] and tasted the sorrow that it caused them, which broke them to pieces. So what makes us think that the ayatollahs of Iran will fear the consequences [of their actions], when they do not know the disastrous results of wars and have not experienced their tragedies and results? We cannot expect them [to fear the results of war] when their hands are stained with the blood of their Iranian people, in addition to that of others... The ayatollahs of Iran are no smarter than the Nazis, and are no less criminal or murderous.

"If [WWI] did not prevent Nazi Germany from violating its commitments and did not deter it from betraying its ally Russia, then we should not expect anything from the ayatollahs of Iran other than betrayal at any opportunity."

The Real Fear Is The Technology Of Death And Destruction That The Iranians Produce In Secret

"We must not make light of the ayatollahs' tricks and nefariousness... And today, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, and Libya can almost smell the scent of the ayatollahs' malice every time blood is spilled, and can almost see the black color of their devilish robes in the mourning [clothes] of every widow and orphan. The sound of their sermons can be heard in the moans of everyone whose honor was violated or whose child was harmed, and every [woman] whose modesty or home were damaged…

"Exporting the [Shi'ite] sect of the ayatollah regime is not the thing we should fear, since a person still belongs to his father's sect so long as the enemy has not killed his father, oppressed his people, and imposed its sect upon him…

"The real fear is of what [the Iranians] are hiding on their land – that is the production of technology for killing, corrupting, and destroying, which is easy to hide and can cause widespread damage. The ayatollahs themselves yearn for the day of blood and killing, since evil is the essence of the ayatollahs' being, and they emerge from it and return to it.

"When Hitler invaded Austria and the unthinkable happened, the weakness of Europe's armies and its focus on the economy paralyzed it, which is why it was remiss in helping [Austria]. Europe justified its negligence by saying: This is the [German] nation restoring its own land. Later Hitler invaded Czechoslovakia, and then Europe said: This is the revenge of the [German] nation. After that, Hitler conquered all of Europe.

"[Similarly], what currently paralyzes Obama in [dealing with] Syria, Ukraine, Iraq, and ISIS is his promise to his people [that] if they reelected him president he would extract them from the quagmire of his predecessor's wars, and would not involve their sons in a war under any circumstances. His excuse was: 'I am fulfilling my promise to my voters.' Israel has an army to defend it, America has enough oil for its needs, and the Arabs have [both] oil and a legacy of courage that they boast. So they should use them both, as they please." [1]

Ahmad Jarallah: "Iran Of 2015 Is Behaving Like The Adolf Hitler Of 1938"

Ahmad Al-Jarallah wrote:[2] "As the six countries led by the United States of America scurry to contain Iran through diplomacy during the final stages of Iran's obscure nuclear program pact, Tehran continues to toughen its stance as if it is the one calling the shots. Iran (of 2015) is behaving like the Adolf Hitler of 1938. The Munich Agreement hurled the world into the furnace of the World War II and when then British MP Winston Churchill discovered the truth he opposed the agreement before the House of Commons. In his speech, Sir Winston Churchill said, 'All these calamities fell upon us because of evil counsel, because tribute was not offered to them at the right time nor yet were they resisted; but when they (Nazis) had done the most evil, then was peace made with them'.

"US Foreign Secretary John Kerry met [with] his Iranian counterpart Muhammad Jawad Zarif for six hours. At the height of the meeting, [Kerry] left in despair empty-handed on the background of the Iranian refusal to throw open its military facilities for inspection. I dare ask again if these global powers realize the core of Iran's delay.

Ahmad Al-Jarallah (image: Arab Times, Kuwait)

"Long ago, we stated that the Western fear, especially the US's of Iran, is just an illusion. [We said that] the exaggeration of Iran's nuclear program is just for show, to blackmail the world. The evidence of this fact is whenever the issue of inspecting Iran's nuclear facilities surfaces, Iran raises the ceiling of its conditions, and every time, the West or the 'Five plus One' nations yield to these conditions...

"Even if Iran manages to possess those weapons, it will never be in a better position than North Korea, which keeps harping on the old tune, boasting about its weapons of mass destruction while 95 percent of North Koreans go hungry. That is to say, Pyongyang has operated under the formula of hunger and oppression in return for nuclear weapons. Every day the world hears loud voices from North Korea threatening to destroy the US and other countries and every day the North Koreans continue to suffer from hunger and poverty that has reached the bottom level, thanks to Pyongyang's sick demented leadership which exterminates its officials with anti-aircraft missiles for falling asleep during a ceremony attended by their leader.

"The same applies to Iran, but the difference between Pyongyang and Tehran is [that] the latter banks on a creedal ethnical expansionism scheme which Iran has been marketing for the past 36 years not only through the formation of militia gangs in some Arab countries but even by sending Revolutionary Guards to fight in Syria, Iraq and Yemen. Therefore, Iran's refusal and its persistent [attempts] to raise the ceiling of conditions denote only one thing — [that it means] to pull wool over the eyes of the world and see the sanctions being lifted to allow the flood of money — believed to be $140 billion — gushing into Iran.

"If this happens, the six countries will have made the same mistake which was made by Britain, France and Italy in 1938. The only difference today will be the fact that the place from where Iran could have flexed its muscles [i.e., Houthi-controlled Yemen] is shut down by Operation Decisive Storm. Hence, the question is: 'Which Arab country will take after Austria or Poland, [and be the country from which] the Persian Hitler will kick off his expansionism scheme, [right] under the noses of the international community, which bets on containing the Iranian evil through diplomacy?'"[3]


[1] Al-Jazirah (Saudi Arabia), March 19, 2015.
[2] The original English has been lightly edited for clarity.
[3] Arab Times (Kuwait), June 1, 2015.
O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”

Reply With Quote
Old 07-20-2015, 04:16 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Lightbulb Hamas and ISIS Common Interests

Hamas and ISIS Common Interests

O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”

Old 08-05-2015, 02:20 AM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Exclamation EMET Hosts JPost Columnist and Author, Caroline Glick

EMET Hosts JPost Columnist and Author, Caroline Glick

Caroline Glick discusses her new book, "The Israeli Solution," and offers reasons why the U.S. needs to reconsider using the two-state paradigm for solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. (May 19th, 2014)

O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”

Old 08-05-2015, 03:08 AM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Exclamation The Mideast Test-Caroline Glick, Raymond Ibrahim,Robert Spencer

The Mideast Test-Caroline Glick, Raymond Ibrahim,Robert Spencer

O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”

Old 08-17-2015, 08:46 AM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Question The greater security threat: Isis or iran?

Dr. Herbert I. London, president of the London Center for Policy Research, unveils the most pernicious danger on the horizon.

By Joseph Puder

Of the many speakers at the “Stop Iran Rally” on July 22, 2015 in New York’s Times Square, the comments of Dr. Herbert London aroused the most enthusiastic response. His large frame encompasses a magnetic personality, and an incredible gift as a speaker. However, on a personal encounter, he reveals his gentle demeanor.

The 6’5” London played basketball for the Columbia University team, and was drafted by the Syracuse Nationals. He recorded several pop songs, achieving a hit record in 1959 with “Sorry, We're Not Going Steady.” Herb has been primarily an intellectual steeped in academic life. He was listed among the “outstanding intellectuals of the 21st Century.” Yet, he became a force to be reckoned with far beyond the Ivory Towers of academia.

Dr. Herbert London is currently the president of the London Center for Policy Research, and senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute. He is the former president of the Hudson Institute. Herb is also professor emeritus and the former John M. Olin Professor of Humanities at New York University. He is responsible for creating the Gallatin School of Individualized Study in 1972, and was its dean until 1992. The school promotes the study of “great books and classic texts.”

Herb London graduated from Columbia University in 1960, and received his Ph.D. from New York University in 1966. London is also chairman of the National Association of Scholars and a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.

London believes in a better world for ordinary Americans. That is why he became a nominee of the Conservative party for Mayor of New York City and Governor of New York State. He is an author of a number of books, the latest being The BDS War against Israel.

Given Herb London’s global connections, and his involvement in framing foreign policy, this reporter addressed the following questions to him.

Joseph Puder (JP): Please tell us about the mission of the London Center for Policy Research. What are its goals, and how does it operate?

Herb London (HL): The London Center was organized to promote an independent, non-partisan analysis of “hot spots” on the globe and how to think strategically about them. In the areas where possible mitigation exits, the LCPR offers a variety of recommendations. Because of contacts cultivated in Washington, DC, the LCPR has established a regular seminar series on the Hill for staffers and elected officials, all designed to influence policy and future legislation.

JP: Millions of people from the Third World (mostly Muslims) will be flooding the West, especially Europe. What impact do you think this will have on the current Western democracies?

HL: Europe does not have a tradition of assimilation like the United States. As a consequence, minorities are generally not integrated into these societies. Separate communities, with separate conditions, and even separate laws within a host society is a recipe for tension and violence. Evidence for this can be found in every European nation. Malmo in Sweden, for example, the country’s third largest city, is organized as a Middle East Muslim community with imams determining who enters. Demographically, it is obvious a European population with a replacement level, on average of 1.5 and a Muslim replacement rate of 2.7 will result in significant political and attitudinal shifts in the next two decades rendering the continent an extension of Islamic positions to be.

JP: Who do you perceive to be a greater security threat, ISIS or the Islamic Republic of Iran?

HL: An Iran with nuclear weapons or a pathway to obtain them is a far more dangerous threat than ISIS. Moreover, Iran has created an empire of sorts with capitals in Damascus, Sanna, Bagdad, and Beirut. Should Iran obtain $150 billion with the lifting of sanctions, that money could be used to bolster its interests with Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis. Using surrogates, the Iranians will likely extend their interests throughout the region with the prize being Saudi oil fields in the eastern part of the country which has a regional majority of Shia residents. Should Iran control Saudi and Iraqi oil along with its own deposits, it will control two-thirds of the world’s oil supply and be in a position to dictate oil prices.

ISIS is a relatively minor threat that has morphed into a formidable threat due to inaction and a hopelessly incompetent Iraqi military force. Using barbarism as a tactic, it has carved out a swath of territory in Iraq and Syria. If the U.S. were serious about launching a genuine attack against ISIS, it could be eliminated in a relatively short period.

JP: What alternatives to the nuclear deal with Iran would you propose?

HL: Iran should not have nuclear weapons, period. Any deal that allows for Iran to enrich uranium is a violation of the NPT (Non-Proliferation Treaty). That the U.S. and global powers have agreed to an arrangement that offers Iran a bridge to nuclear weapons is wrong and dangerous. It will set a notion nuclear proliferation in the region, thereby making the Middle East a tinderbox for explosion.

JP: Should Israel consider a preemptive strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities?

HL: A preemptive strike against Iran by Israel is fraught with complications, but an Iran with nuclear weapons, a delivery capacity and a motivation to destroy Israel leaves the Israeli government with very few alternatives. The choice is indeed existential. An attack will have consequences; blow back with many lives put in jeopardy. Hoping for the best, however, is not a policy since the very survival of Israel is at stake. Hence, I believe Israeli leaders must act to defend the state and its people which means it must make the difficult decision of attack. As Norman Podhoretz so eloquently put it, “fight a conventional war now or a nuclear war later.”

JP: How do you assess the performance of the Obama administration in the realm of foreign policy?

HL: From the outset of his presidency, Barak Obama made it clear that U.S. involvement in foreign activity leads inexorably to chaos. With that as the overarching assumption, the president engaged in a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq and a hasty departure from Afghanistan. He claims he ended both wars, but the fact is he extricated the U.S. from the wars, but the wars continue.

Since U.S. foreign policy is regarded as “undesirable,” he wants less of it. That explains his belief that American international positions should be channeled through the United Nations. It also explains why he submitted the P5+1 proposal with Iran to the Security Council before it was given to the Congress.

Although it is often foolhardy to attempt to read minds, the president has seemingly developed his own skewed version of the Iraq war and the role of President Bush and his advisers. As a consequence, all his foreign policy initiatives are based on the experience of the recent past, most specifically his understanding of it. Therefore, the military has been hollowed out and troop deployments abroad have been shrinking. Presumably, this will lead to a more peaceful world. However, empirical evidence suggests the opposite. The U.S. may not want to be the world’s policeman, but a world without a policeman is fraught with tension and potential war.

Articulate and deep thinking, Herb London is a voice worth hearing, and unlike other intellectuals who hide behind the ivory towers of academia to express nefarious ideas, Herb London never sought shelter from the real world.
O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”

Reply With Quote
Old 08-17-2015, 09:20 AM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Arrow Looking Ahead at Middle East "Peace"

Looking Ahead at Middle East "Peace"
By Shoshana Bryen

August 17, 2015

The U.S. has provided approximately $5 billion to the Palestinians in bilateral aid since the mid-1990s and about $540 million this year. The EU added more than €500 million ($558 million), making it the largest single-year donor. Why should Palestinian Authority (PA) not have to pay the bill for its own savage behavior? And why is the U.S. so determined to protect it?

According to the deputy head of UNRWA, the organization needs $101 million in order to open schools on time. Why does the Hamas government not pay for its own children to go to school? And why does the Hamas government not pay for the repair of its own people's houses? UNRWA and the U.S. government seem to believe that the PA and Hamas cannot be expected to spend their own funds -- or donated funds -- on the needs of their own people. Hamas can therefore use all its funds to make war.

As long as Hamas and the PA are permitted both to spend sponsors' money on terrorism and warfare while escaping responsibility for the needs of their people, and as long as Iran is a key donor -- with all the temptations, means and opportunity to "wipe Israel," as it repeatedly threatens to do -- the idea of a U.S.-led "peace process" is fantasy.

The Obama Administration has made it clear that it will not pursue Israeli-Palestinian "peace talks" while the Iran deal remains fluid. But as the President heads into his last year in office, the "two state solution" apparently remains an important political aspiration. The Iran deal and the "peace process" are linked by concerns over Iranian behavior on the non-nuclear front, and concerns about American willingness to remain the sort of ally Israel has found it to be in the past.

The following stories -- all involving money and how it is spent -- should be understood together:
  • U.S. requests lower bond for Palestinian appeal of terror case
  • Infant mortality in Gaza
  • Schools in Gaza may not open
  • Iranian assistance to Hamas

First, the U.S. Department of Justice this week asked a judge to "carefully consider" the size of the bond he requires from the Palestinian Authority (PA) as it appeals the award of damages to the victims of six terrorist attacks that killed and injured Americans in Israel. Concerned about the possible bankruptcy of the PA, Deputy Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken added a statement to the Justice Department filing, saying, "A P.A. insolvency and collapse would harm current and future U.S.-led efforts to achieve a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict."

The Palestinian Authority was proven in a U.S. court to have organized and paid for terrorist attacks that killed Americans and Israelis. The U.S. has provided approximately $5 billion to the Palestinians in bilateral aid since the mid-1990s and about $540 million this year. The EU added more than €500 million ($558 million), making it the largest single-year donor. Why should PA not have to pay the bill for its own savage behavior?

And why is the U.S. so determined to protect it?

Second, UNRWA (United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East), which maintains camps for Palestinians in Gaza, Lebanon, Syria and parts of the West Bank, released a broadside last week entitled, "Infant Mortality Rises in Gaza for the First Time in 50 Years." Subhead: "UNRWA's Health Director says the [Israeli and Egyptian] blockade may be contributing to the trend."

Such a rise would be a terrible thing, and Israeli culpability would be terrible also. But is it true? It takes only a few clicks of the computer keys to find out.

Palestinian infant mortality in the West Bank and Gaza has been on a straight downward slope since 1968. Using CIA Factbook figures, infant mortality was 158 per 1000 from 1950-55; 87 per 1000 in 1968 (using an Israeli government publication); 25 per 1000 in 1985-90; and is at 14 per 1000 today in Gaza. Where is the rising trend? The UNRWA release came from an article entitled "Increasing Neonatal Mortality among Palestine Refugees in the Gaza Strip," published by PLOS ONE, an "open access" online journal.

The study itself notes, "These estimates are based on small numbers of deaths, and the confidence intervals are wide, so the infant mortality rate could in fact be stable or continuing to decline" (emphasis added). Yet its conclusion reads, "In conclusion, we have estimated that, for the first time in five decades, the mortality rate has increased among Palestine refugee newborns in Gaza, and this may reflect inadequate neo-natal care in hospitals."

An Israeli website that evaluated the entire study caught the inherent contradiction. "They didn't have enough data to reach the conclusion they did... Those two statements have no place in a serious scientific paper and would merit its immediate rejection."

Third, having dispensed with scare mongering about infant mortality, let us turn to the other UNRWA broadside of the week: "Without New Cash, UNRWA Schools Won't Open." According to the deputy head of the organization, UNRWA needs $101 million in order to open schools on time.

Why does the Hamas government not pay for its own children to go to school?

This is similar to a story last January, in which UNRWA suspended the repair of Palestinian houses in Gaza because of a shortage of international donor money, and it raises the question: Why does the Hamas government not pay for the repair of its own peoples' houses?

It is UNRWA's belief -- like that of the U.S. government, apparently -- that Palestinian governments, including the one on the U.S. list of sponsors of terrorism, have to be protected from the consequences of their own war-making, support for terrorism, and thievery. UNRWA and the U.S. government seem to believe that the Palestinian Authority and Hamas cannot be expected to spend their own funds -- or donated funds -- on the needs of their own people.

Which brings us to Iran; the only country working assiduously to ensure that its client, Hamas in Gaza, gets the assistance it needs to meet its goals, and then meets those goals.

According to Israeli government sources, Iran's most recent assistance includes "cash, military training for Hamas fighters, weaponry, and electronics equipment including for use against Israeli drones... Hamas has also been training fighters in the use of anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles, and is training recruits to fly paragliders across the border."

Bridging the Sunni-Shia divide, for the goal of genocide: Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal (left) confers with Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, in 2010. (Image source: Office of the Supreme Leader)

UNRWA and Iran, with a supporting role played by the United States, have long made it possible for Hamas and the PA to spend other people's money building more tunnels, arming multiple militias, paying "salaries" to convicted terrorists in Israeli jails, and improving the quality of their rockets and missiles. They know -- and Israel knows -- that between the Israeli government and the international aid agencies including, but not limited to, UNRWA, no Palestinians will starve, no one will go without medical care, no one will go homeless (except those homeless because Hamas confiscated about 20% of the cement and steel meant to restore Gaza houses damaged in last year's war). Hamas can therefore use all its funds to make war.

As long as Hamas and the PA are permitted both to spend sponsors' money on terrorism and warfare while escaping responsibility for the needs of their people, and as long as Iran is a key donor -- with all the temptations, means and opportunity to "wipe Israel," as it repeatedly threatens to do -- the idea of a U.S.-led "peace process" is fantasy.
O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”

Reply With Quote
Old 09-21-2015, 05:40 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Exclamation Saudi Arabia: World's Human Rights Sewer

Saudi Arabia: World's Human Rights Sewer
by Douglas Murray

September 21, 2015

Ali Mohammed al-Nimr, sentenced to be crucified, was accused of participating in banned protests and firearms offenses -- despite a complete lack of evidence on the latter charge, and he was denied access to lawyers. Al-Nimr is also alleged by human rights groups to have been tortured and then forced into signing a confession while in custody.

Not only are the Saudi authorities preparing to crucify someone -- in 2015 -- whom they tortured into making a confession; they are preparing to crucify someone who was a minor at the time of arrest.

Alas not a week goes by without Saudi Arabia demonstrating to the world why they retain their reputation as one of the world's foremost human rights sewers.

Crucifixion is a punishment which, it would appear, is not only Sharia-compliant but also -- we must assume -- Geneva-compliant.

The United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) in Geneva is an organization that may be easy to critique, but it is very hard to satirize. Ordinarily, if you told anyone that there was a place in Switzerland where Sudan, Iran and others of the world's worst dictatorships and human rights abusers have their views on human rights treated with respect and deference, you would assume the script was written by Monty Python. Idi Amin would make an appearance at some point to share his views on how to improve equal conditions for women in the workplace. Pol Pot would crop up in order to castigate those countries where living standards had not been sufficiently raised in accordance with global averages.

Everything that happens in Geneva is beyond satire. But last week provides a demonstration, outrageous even by the standards of the UN. For this week, it came out – thanks to the excellent organization UN Watch -- that Saudi Arabia has been appointed as the head of a key UNHRC panel. This panel selects the top officials who shape international standards in human rights; it is intended to report on human rights violations around the world. The five-member group of ambassadors, which Saudi Arabia will now head, is known as the Consultative Group and has the power to select applicants to fill more than 77 positions worldwide that deal with human rights issues. It appears that the appointment of Saudi Arabia's envoy to the UNHRC, Faisal Trad, was made before the summer, but that diplomats in Geneva have kept silent on the matter since then.

That this appointment had to leak out months after the event raises the possibility that the UNHRC, contrary to popular perception, actually does have some sense of shame. Otherwise, why not shout from the rooftops that Saudi Arabia has won this prestigious position? Why not distribute a press release? After all, Saudi Arabia -- and by extension the UNHRC -- have nothing to be ashamed of, do they?

Alas not a week goes by without Saudi Arabia demonstrating to the world why they retain their reputation as one of the world's foremost human rights sewers. Saudi Arabia may have beheaded more people in the last year than ISIS, but only rarely do any of these cases get more than a flicker of international attention. Occasionally a case breaks above the waves of public opinion. One such case is that of the jailed blogger Raif Badawi, sentenced last year to 10 years in jail and 1000 lashes for "insulting Islam." The plight of Raif Badawi, who has already been served the first 50 lashes, and is being held in prison while awaiting the rest, has garnered international attention and condemnations of Saudi Arabia. The kingdom's response has been strongly to denounce "the media campaign around the case."

But the glare of international opinion clearly disturbs the Saudi authorities -- a fact well worth keeping in mind. And it is not as though they have nothing to hide. This week brings a case that should get at least as much attention as that of Raif Badawi.

Ali Mohammed al-Nimr was just 17 when he was arrested by the Saudi authorities in 2012, during a crackdown on anti-government protests in the Shia province of Qatif. He was accused of participating in banned protests and firearms offenses -- despite a complete lack of evidence on the latter charge. Denied access to lawyers, al-Nimr is alleged by human rights groups to have been tortured and then forced into signing a confession while in custody. Campaigners say that it seems he has been targeted by authorities because of his family association with Sheikh Nimr al-Nimr, the 53-year-old critic of the Saudi regime who is his uncle. The Sheikh has also been convicted and sentenced to death. After the confession and "trial," his nephew was convicted at Saudi's Specialized Criminal Court and sentenced to death. The trial itself failed to meet any international standards. Al-Nimr appealed against his sentence, but this week that appeal was dismissed. It now seems likely that he and his uncle will now be executed. Because charges include crimes involving the Saudi King and the state itself, it seems likely that the method of death will be crucifixion.

Imprisoned Saudi dissidents Raif Badawi (left) and Ali Mohammed al-Nimr (right).

If this were in any way to cause a flicker of concern among other participants in the UNHRC farce going on Geneva, they have at least some consolation. For in Saudi Arabia crucifixion is not what it used to be. Indeed, in Saudi Arabia crucifixion begins with the beheading of the victim and only then the mounting of the beheaded body onto a crucifix, to make it available for public viewing. This is a punishment which it would appear is not only Sharia-compliant but also -- we must assume -- Geneva-compliant.

Of course, Ali Mohammed al-Nimr counts as having been a juvenile at the time of his arrest, so not only are the Saudi authorities preparing to crucify someone -- in 2015 -- whom they tortured into making a confession - they are preparing to crucify someone who was a minor at the time of arrest. Perhaps the authorities at the UNHRC in Geneva do indeed blush when they appoint Saudi officials to head their human rights panels. But it does not seem to affect their behaviour. Just as Saudi authorities think it is "international attention" rather than flogging people to death or crucifying them after beheading that is the problem, so the UNHRC in Geneva seems to think it is public awareness of their grotesque appointments rather than the appointments themselves that are the problem.

The international attention paid to the case of Raif Badawi has not yet seen him released, but it seems to have delayed the next rounds of lashes. Which suggests the Saudi authorities have the capacity to feel some shame. This should in turn be a cause for some hope among everyone who cares about human rights. It should also provide a reminder to everyone to increase global attention on the case of Ali Mohammed al-Nimr and the many others like him who suffer under a government and judicial system that should utterly shame the world outside Geneva, even if it cannot shame the UN.
O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”

Reply With Quote
Israel Forum

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT. The time now is 12:55 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Israel Military Forum