Friday, June 24, 2016

The Indigenous Population


It's heartening to see more Israeli politicians and policy makers stating that, “The Jews Are the Indigenous Population of Israel”. Even a group of Jewish Republicans have stated the inherent right of Jews to settle in the “West Bank”.

The early Jewish settlers, although Zionists, for whatever reason did not insist on the fundamental fact of Israel being the land of the Jews.

In 1967 after capturing Jerusalem, General Moshe Dayan made the fateful decision to let the Jordanian Waqf (religious authority) administer the Temple Mount. At a minimum, he could have let both the Jordanian Waqf and the Israeli religious authorities share administration. There would be, I believe, a more tractable problem on that site today.

Even the Oslo Accords implicitly hinted that the West Bank is “Palestinian” territory. It included some verbiage to the effect that, Israel will leave when it's security concerns are addressed.

Yes, it is heartening to hear public figures stating, “The Jews Are the Indigenous Population of Israel.”

Thursday, June 23, 2016

Where analogies are useful

Sar Shalom

A week ago, Abu Yehuda posted about how analogies do not always work. Vic's example was a speech given by Secretary Rice comparing the Palestinians' situation to that of the pre-1960s blacks. While Vic is correct that Rice's analogy does not describe the Palestinians' situation, there is an analogy based on the civil-rights movement that does describe the Middle East.

When the first black students attempted to enter Little Rock Central High School in 1957, their fellow student spat at them and physically abused them. Examples included throwing acid in their eyes, drop flaming paper from above and trapping them in the washrooms. This is what was done while the students had escorts from the 101st Airborne. The motivation was simple racism, the whites believed their space should not be "contaminated" by the presence of blacks.

Such is the case with prayer on the Temple Mount. In today's world, the mark of Seriousness, as opposed to seriously evaluating the issue, is to declare that the interests of peace require that Jews refrain from provoking the Muslims by praying on the holiest spot. In other words, the "international laws" that are so often pompously invoked can be set aside when, as is for the case of Jews exercising their rights under Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, a heckler's veto is sufficiently fierce. By that standard, Brown v. Board of Education should have been overturned due to white opposition throughout the South.

Rosenthal's Ten Propositions (Part 1)

Vic Rosenthal of Abu Yehuda fame has a recent piece entitled simply, Ten Propositions, and I intend to examine each - perhaps the first five in this piece and the second five at the Elder of Ziyon this Sunday - and see where we agree and disagree and hopefully spark some interesting discussion.

He writes:
I am a nationalist, Zionist, tribalist and hawk.

Here are ten things I believe:
What I like about Rosenthal is what I like about, for example, Caroline Glick, i.e., he's got balls.

A nationalist, Zionist, tribalist and hawk, huh? That, my friends, is a very bold statement. I will go with number one and number two, particularly since in order to be a Zionist one must, by definition, be a nationalist. As for "tribalist," I am not even certain what that means.

As for hawk, I simply consider myself a pragmatist. Nobody wants war... I guess... but when aggressors come to kill your children it is probably good policy to strike them back hard enough that they will never do so again.

OK, on to the first five of Rosenthal's ten propositions. They are:
1 - ‘Israel is the Jewish state’ has a concrete meaning: the owners of the land of Israel are the Jewish people, not all its citizens.

2 - Arabs who live in Israel should have full civil rights, but they should understand that they are living in someone else’s homeland. It’s natural and correct that the flag, national anthem, primary language and other symbols are those of the Jewish people.

3 - It is not a civil right to call for the destruction of the state or the murder of its people.

4 - Israel should not welcome non-Jewish migrants.

5 - Everyone in Israel should have freedom of religious worship and be able to visit their holy places. But the government of Israel should be sovereign over every inch of the land of Israel, in particular the Temple Mount.
Let's take these individually.

Number One:
‘Israel is the Jewish state’ has a concrete meaning: the owners of the land of Israel are the Jewish people, not all its citizens.
This strikes me as a difficult sell and I am not entirely certain that I want to sell it.

The land of Israel belongs to the people who own land within Israel. Any Christian or Muslim or Rosicrucian who owns land owns that land. Period. Full stop.

I guess what I would say - and perhaps Vic and I are not quite so far apart on this issue as one might initially think - is that Israel belongs to the Jewish people in the sense that Japan belongs to the Japanese. That is, Israel is the place where Judaism emerged and where its culture and traditions and ways of being and thinking took root and developed for millennia prior to the diaspora.

Israel is unquestionably the home of the Jewish people, but if a non-Jew owns land in Israel, then they own land within Israel.

Number Two:
Arabs who live in Israel should have full civil rights, but they should understand that they are living in someone else’s homeland. It’s natural and correct that the flag, national anthem, primary language and other symbols are those of the Jewish people.
I could not agree more.

I might feel differently if the Arab-Muslim world had ever honestly been decent to my Jewish ancestors, but although dhimmi status was in some times and some places better and some times and places worse it was never better than the ugliest of Jim Crow.

And, of course, given the fact that the Arab-Muslim governments and people still generally hold Jews in Koranically-based contempt, and have repeatedly attempted the genocide of the Jews in the Middle East... we owe them nothing.

Number Three:
It is not a civil right to call for the destruction of the state or the murder of its people.
As we say, democracy is not a suicide pact.

I am not a big fan of sedition laws, but given the fact that the Jewish people in the Middle East are a tiny minority surrounded by a much a larger hostile majority that wants very much to see those Jews either dead or gone, Israel cannot afford treasonous politicians in the Knesset. There is nothing automatically wrong with Arabs, or any non-Jews, being members of the Knesset, but the Israeli government should prohibit anti-Zionists, or friends of terrorists, from participation in government.

Number Four:
Israel should not welcome non-Jewish migrants.
My first reaction upon reading this statement was to say to myself, "I disagree. Of course, Israel should accept a limited degree of non-Jewish migrants, just not so much as to significantly alter the demographic make-up of the state." On further consideration, however, I think that Vic may have a point. The problem is that our numbers are so small, our enemies are so many, and Israel is all the Jewish people have to stand between the Jewish people of the Middle East and the hostile Arab-Muslim majority population that surround them in that part of the world.

Number Five:
Everyone in Israel should have freedom of religious worship and be able to visit their holy places. But the government of Israel should be sovereign over every inch of the land of Israel, in particular the Temple Mount.
The issue of the Temple Mount is particularly troublesome because it shows the world that the Jewish people are uncertain of our own sovereignty in the Land of Israel, the land of the Jews. In fact, the very reason that Muslims insist that the Temple Mount is theirs is simply because they wish to rob Jews of sovereignty on historically Jewish land.

The Temple Mount, of course, is symbolic. If the Arabs can deny Jewish sovereignty on even the place where the Second Temple stood then they can challenge Jewish sovereignty over the country, as a whole. And that is precisely the project that they have undertaken, lo these many decades, since the early part of the twentieth-century.

Furthermore, current Israeli and Jordanian policies concerning the Temple Mount are undemocratic and unjust. Only Muslims have unfettered access to the space and only Muslims are allowed to pray there. Given that Israel is supposed to be a Jewish and democratic state, this is a great humiliation to that country.

The Temple Mount issue exposes Jewish Israeli weakness while demonstrating their willingness to capitulate to Arab-Muslim authoritarianism.

It also should be noted that the Temple Mount is not the third anything to anyone. All the Temple Mount is is the holiest spot in the world to devout Jews. It is the site of the Temples and the Holy of Holies. The reason that some Muslims call it the "third holiest site in Islam" is simply because Islam is a conquering religion and its leadership is entirely comfortable with the genocide of the Jews, when they are not actively calling for it.

I will continue my conversation of Vic's ten propositions on Sunday over at the Elder of Ziyon this Sunday, June 26.

Tuesday, June 21, 2016

Nothing Left # 104

This is what Michael Burd and Alan Freedman are up to this week.

2 min Editorial on Arab recognition of Israel

8 min Rev Dr Mark Durie on Islam

50 min Mike Lumish Comments, USA blogger

55 min George Igler, UK-based analyst

1 hr 37 min Isi Leibler, Jerusalem

Monday, June 20, 2016

How to discuss Islam

Sar Shalom

Much has been made about President Barack Obama's refusal to name Islam as a culprit in the attack at an Orlando night club last week. While Obama, and to lesser extent Bush before him, does leave this gap in his description of the threat, ignoring the valid motivation for doing so does nothing to address this shortcoming. What's needed is language that will define who we are at war with and that will let everyone not in that group that we are not at war with them. Failing to include those who are not a threat on our side both decreases our potential base of support and increases the needed work in order to prevail in the war, which provides a reason not to be overly broad in defining the threat.

With that said, the threat that the West faces is those who think that avenging the honor of Islam is a valid action. For instance, insulting Islam's prophet Mohammed is considered an affront to Islam's honor as is the existence of Jews living in dignity in the middle of Dar-al-Islam, which incites a rage that something must be done. In contrast, the practice of Islam, whether consisting of fasting on Ramadan, attending mosque daily, or wearing the hijab or even niqab, just so long as it does not include support for avenging Islam's honor is not a threat. Thus, when Obama, and before him Bush, try to convey the message that we do not consider the mere practice of Islam to be a threat, it is altogether proper to do so.

The proper criticism of Obama's treatment of Islam is that while he is correct to limit opprobrium to the vengeance of Islam's honor, Obama's definition of vengeance of Islam's honor is too narrow. It seems to be that Obama's proscriptions would be limited to those who either pick up arms for the sake of Islam's honor or who explicitly call upon others to do so. While Obama goes to the ends of the earth to confront those two categories of Islamists, and saying otherwise simply displays your ignorance of actions like the drone strike against Anwar al-Awlaki, there are other categories of those who provide tacit support for avenging Islam's honor. This quiet support for avenging Islam's honor comes most notable from the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) and related organizations that deploy rhetoric to conflate exposure of those who take action for the sake of Islam's honor with simple practitioners of the religion. A frequent feature of such groups is that they are constitutionally incapable of condemning violence on behalf of Islam's honor without also condemning "Islamophobia" in a manner that puts Islamophobia on a par with Islamicly motivated violence.

A further category of action for the sake of Islam's honor is the deployment of various forms of thought control such as that which prevails at the School of Oriental and African Studies at London University. While not including any violence, the creation of such cultures undermines the free flow of information that is the basis of Western civilization.

In conclusion, the language we need to discuss Islam is one which will say that avenging the honor of Islam is unacceptable. This includes not just directly engaging in violence for the cause or explicit advocacy or direction to do so, but also apologia for those such actions or saying that one would not personally engage in such actions but that doing so is a legitimate path within sharia. However, any practitioner of Islam who uncategorically portrays avenging Islam's honor as illegitimate will be welcomed with open arms as a citizen of the West.

Veiling Political Islam

Michael L.

Yesterday, on Meet the Press, Attorney General Loretta Lynch told interviewer Chuck Todd that the Obama Administration intended to release a partial transcript of Omar Mateen's 911 call wherein he pledged his devotion to the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS).

When asked why the administration intends to only produce a partial transcript we get the following exchange:

You say partial. What's being left out?


Well, what we're not going to do is further proclaim this individual's pledges of allegiance to terrorist groups and further his propaganda.


So we're not going to hear him talk about those things?


We will hear him talk about some of those things, but we're not going to hear him make his ascertains of allegiance and that.
This is very typical of the Obama administration.

It will do everything within its power to obscure the real source of Mateen's rampage, i.e., the international movement for political Islam (Islamism). Although the world is rightly focused at this moment on ISIS - what with their ever more creative ways of slaughtering Christians and Yazidis - the real problem is not merely that one malignant organization.

The real problem is a broad and amorphous theocratic-political movement out of the Arab-Muslim Middle East that calls for the oppression of women, the murder of Gay people, and the genocide of the Jews.

And it is precisely the fact and nature of this political movement that Barack Obama seeks to obscure from the American public which is why they're editing references to political Islam out of the transcript. What the Democratic Party, and the Obama administration, do not want is for people to associate the Jihad with the Jihad. What they do want is to deflect any criticism of Islamism into a defamation campaign against the NRA and Donald Trump.

That is, their intention is to use the slaughter of about 50 innocent Americans for the purposes of personal political gain.

From the comments under the youtube video:

In other words, you're gonna edit out all references to Islam and the real reason why he did it.
fellowservant is correct. The progressive-left and the Democratic Party will seek to blame this most recent Jihadi massacre on American "gun culture" as promoted by the NRA, as well as upon a sort-of free-floating American bigotry as allegedly exemplified by Donald Trump. What they will never do is point to the Jihad as the source of any Jihadi activity.

As far as the Obama administration is concerned political Islam is not, in and of itself, a problem.

There is no there there.
Sentient Fart Cloud of Doom

At least she's being transparent about not being transparent.
Indeed. Love the moniker, by the way.
Dave C

You can bet your last dollar if the he was white they wouldn't scrub any of the transcripts form the record. In fact he would be called a domestic terrorist some how connected to a white supremacy organization.  The hypocrisy of these traitors is criminal. 
There is some truth to what Dave C has to say.

That is, if Omar was Steve and if Steve was a devout Evangelical Christian, there is no way that the administration or the Democratic Party would seek to shield Evangelicals from the storm of hatred that would be directed at them from the Democrats, themselves. Yet, because instead of an Evangelical we're dealing with the Jihad, the administration seeks to veil the source of Mateen's theologically-grounded hostility.
Alabama Mothman

They sure do give ammunition to the people that think Obama is in bed with ISIS.
The Obama administration is not "in bed" with ISIS. On the contrary. The Obama administration is in bed with the Muslim Brotherhood which gave birth to al-Qaeda which, in turn, spawned ISIS. Let's keep it straight.
D Lll

They will edit out the gunman pledging his allegiance to ISIS.  Nice.  No one needs to hear that when the Administration is trying to paint this as a gun control issue rather than an Islamic terror issue. 
And there you have it.