Monthly Archives: October 2015

A Hundred-year hate fest

This article by Daniel Pipes is here reprinted with the author’s permission. It nicely complements David Collier’s article titled “100 years of excuses”. Together, they form a useful touch-point to understand why Israel defends itself from a supremacist Muslim imperialism.

NONE of the accompanying images appear in Dr. Pipes article.

Palestinians must cast away Husseini’s dark legacy before they can begin to coexist with Israel. by Daniel Pipes The Washington Times October 27, 2015

Originally published under the title “A Century of Palestinian Hatred of Jews: Repudiating the First Mufti’s Hostility to Decency is the Only Way Forward.”

Palestinians are on the wrong track and will not get off it until the outside world demands better of them.
M 1

Husseini Inspecting German High Command troops, 1942

News comes every year or two of a campaign of violence spurred by Palestinian political and religious leaders spreading wild-eyed conspiracy theories (the favorite: Al-Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem is under threat). A spasm of unprovoked violence against Israelis then follows: rocket attacks from Gaza, car-rammings in Israel proper, stone throwing in the West Bank, street stabbings in Jerusalem. Eventually the paroxysm peters out, only to start up again not too much later.

True, these bouts of violence bring some gains to the Palestinians; in the United Nations, in faculty lounges, and on the streets of Western cities they win support against Israel.

Each round ends, however, with the Palestinians in a worse place in terms of dead and wounded, buildings destroyed and an economy in tatters. Further, their immoral and barbaric actions harden Israeli opinion, making the prospect of concessions and compromise that much less likely. The cheery Israeli hopes of two decades ago for a “partner for peace” and a “New Middle East” long ago gave way to a despair of finding acceptance. As a result, security fences are going up all over, even in Jerusalem, to protect Israelis who increasingly believe that separation, not cooperation, is the way forward.
It may be exhilarating for Palestinians to watch UNESCO condemn Israel for this and that, as it just did, but its actions serve more as theater than as practical steps toward conflict resolution. Whence comes this insistence on self-defeating tactics?
It dates back nearly a century, to the seminal years 1920-21.

In April 1920, as a gesture to the Zionists, the British government created a region called “Palestine” designed to be the eventual “national home for the Jewish people”;

Then, in May 1921, it appointed Amin al-Husseini (1895-1974) as mufti of Jerusalem, a dreadful decision whose repercussions still reverberate today.
Husseini harbored a monstrous hostility toward Jews; as Klaus Gensicke puts it in his important 2007 study, The Mufti of Jerusalem and the Nazis, Husseini’s “hatred of Jews knew no mercy and he always intervened with particular zeal whenever he feared that some of the Jews could escape annihilation.”


Toward this end, he initiated an uncompromising campaign of rejectionism – the intent to eliminate every vestige of Jewish presence in Palestine – and used any and all tactics toward this foul end.

For example, he can be largely held responsible for the Middle East’s endemic antisemitism, having spread the antisemitic forgery Protocols of the Elders of Zion, the blood libel, and Holocaust denial throughout the region. His other legacies include making Jerusalem into the flashpoint it remains today; spreading many of the anti-Zionist conspiracy theories that afflict the Middle East; and being one of the first Islamists to call for jihad.


He encouraged and organized unprovoked violence against the British and the Jews, including a three-year long intifada in 1936-39.

Then he worked with the Nazis, living in Germany during the war years, 1941-45, proving so useful that he earned an audience with Hitler. Nor was this a courtesy visit. As Israel’s Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu correctly pointed out on October 20, Husseini had a central role in formulating the Final Solution that led eventually to the murder of six million Jews.


Husseini tutored his then-young relative, the future Yasir Arafat, and Arafat faithfully carried out the mufti’s program for 35 years, after which his apparatchik Mahmoud Abbas keeps the legacy alive.

M3        A 2

In other words, Husseini’s rejectionism still dominates Palestinian Authority. In addition, he spent the post-war years in Egypt, where he influenced the Muslim Brotherhood whose Hamas spin-off also bears his hallmark rejectionism. Thus do both principal Palestinian movements pursue his murderous and self-defeating methods.

Only when the Palestinians emerge from the cloud of Husseini’s dark legacy can they begin to work with Israel rather than fight it; build their own polity, society, economy, and culture rather than try to destroy Israel’s; and become a positive influence rather than the nihilistic force of today.

And how will that happen? If the outside world, as symbolized by UNESCO, stops encouraging the Palestinians’ execrable behavior and impeding Israeli defenses against it.

Only when Palestinians realize they will not be rewarded for homicidal conduct will they stop their campaign of violence and start to come to terms with the Jewish state.

The Arab with the knife and the murder of the Jew. Over 100 years of excuses.

This article is reprinted courtesy of its author David Collier,    David’s sharp mind and insightful analyses provide sobering reading of a spreading phenomenon.

During the height of the second Intifada, the media and politicians in general were adamant, only total desperation could cause one human being to walk onto a bus full of innocent civilians and blow himself up. This twisted logic unashamedly blames the victims for the act of violence that kills them and removes personal responsibility from the terrorist. It is also a logic that only applies in Israel, as we find the same media and the same politicians have no trouble identifying the true cause of the brutal violence when it hits closer to home.

On April 30th 2003, at about 00:45, 22-year-old Asif Muhammad Hanif entered Mike’s Place, a live music tourist pub on the Tel Aviv beachfront. Asif, from London and his friend, Omar Khan Sharif from Derby, had been born, grew up and were educated in the UK. Their entire itinerary had been planned using the latest Lonely Planet Guide book and they had spent the evening with a hundred other tourists at the Hayarkon Hostel, just up the road. Upon entering the pub, Asif detonated his bomb, killing 3 and injuring 50, with the damage restricted by the brave actions of Avi Tabib, the security guard. One of the fatalities was 29-year-old French born Dominique Haas, a personal friend of mine. It would be difficult to argue that Asif and Omar were any more desperate than you or I. Young, British and university educated, they had their whole lives before them, but simply believed there was more to gain from murdering Jews in Tel Aviv instead.

It is now October 2015 and Jews are again being murdered on the streets of Israel. Today, we are being told the reason Arabs are murdering innocent Jews is because the ‘status quo’ on the Temple Mount is being threatened. It is a false rumour that has been used before, but let us embark on an historical exercise and follow this logic to its obvious conclusion.

But logic works a certain way, and in the given argument if we remove the said cause, the effect should just disappear. So let us step back a year.

It is 2014. The status quo on the Temple Mount is not being threatened. There is an attack by a 16-year-old terrorist who began stabbing Jewish customers at the Rami Levy supermarket in Mishor Adumim.

You can read more about the attack here. The reason given by western media and politicians alike for the violence of late 2014, was that the conflict in Gaza earlier in the year had created a feeling of desperation and a need for revenge. If that is the case, let us go further back.

It is October 2000, the conflicts against Hamas run Gaza are still a decade away, but the 2nd Intifada is upon us, Israelis are about to be murdered on the streets of Netanya, Afula, Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, anywhere in fact that they can be reached. Two Israelis, Vadim Nurzhitz and Yossi Avrahami having accidently entered Ramallah, were ‘arrested’ by PA policemen and taken to the local Police Station. There they were ‘beaten, stabbed, had their eyes gouged out, and were disembowelled’ by a mob of Palestinians.

Aziz Salha, terroristThe picture is of Aziz Salha, one of the ‘lynchers’, waving his blood-stained hands from the police station window. Salha was later arrested by Israel and sentenced to life imprisonment, but was released in 2011 as part of the Gilad Shalit prisoner exchange. The general consensus amongst politicians and the western media was that this outbreak of brutal violence was the result of Ariel Sharon provoking the Palestinians by stepping foot on Temple Mount. If that is the case, let us go further back.

It is September 1999 and Ariel Sharon’s foot has not yet been placed on Temple Mount. Haifa couple Sharon Steinmetz and Yehiel Finfeter went hiking in the Megiddo region when they were stabbed and murdered by an Israeli Arab, Abdullah Salah Aghbariya. ‘Aghbariya reportedly first attacked Finfeter, 25, with a knife and stabbed him several times in front of his girlfriend, before hitting her with a rock and stabbing her to death. Although the terrorist suggested he had murdered these two ‘because they were Jewish’, the media and politicians of the time were having none of it. They suggested that the late 1999 tension was caused not by the self declared hatred of Jews of the terrorist, but by the friction and stagnation of the peace process. If that is the case, let us go further back.

It is late 1993 and the stagnation of the peace process is yet to be seen on the distant horizon. ‘Hope’ is now the keyword as Israelis and Palestinians embark on a mission of mutual recognition that results in the beginning of the Oslo peace process. Within weeks, on 24/9/1993, Yigal Vaknin became the first of many victims of this process, as he was stabbed to death in an orchard near the trailer home where he lived. Hamas claimed responsibility for the attack.

Yigal Vaknin

The violence over the coming years, some of the most brutal seen inside Israel since 1948 was explained away as a ‘side effect’ of the peace process itself. Over 250 Israelis died in the years immediately following the Oslo accord, sacrificed for a peace that never came. Western media and politicians explained away these terrorist actions as the desperate measures of extremists intent on stopping the process. If that is the case, let us go further back.

It is 21st March 1989 and the Oslo Peace Process is not yet even a seed in Yossi Beilin’s mind. The first Intifada has hit its peak and Muhammad Zakut, an Arab construction worker in Tel Aviv began randomly stabbing Israeli civilians in Tel Aviv on the Jewish holiday of Purim. Zakut stabbed three Israelis with a commando knife as he shouted “God is great.” One of the victims, Kurt Moshe Schallinger, 73, was killed as he left his car on a Tel Aviv street full of children in costume.

First Intifada - Rock throwing

First Intifada – Rock throwing

Zakut received a life sentence, but like Aziz Salha from the Ramallah lynching, Zakut was released as part of the Gilad Shalit exchange. Around 160 Israelis were murdered during the first Intifada, with western press and politicians blaming frustration at the ‘occupation’ and the building of settlements for the outbreak of violence. So if that is the case let us go further back.

It is 1966. The entire West Bank and Gaza are in Arab hands and there is no ‘occupation’. Not a single settlement exists.  The situation has been the same for 17 years and because most of the attacks against the Jews in Israel began beyond the border, the terrorists were armed with guns or explosives rather than knives. There were massacres on buses, attacks on trains, archaeologists, cross border shootings and numerous sniper attacks. The knife still made its appearance with an attack against the odd shepherd, kidnap rape and murder of women and various random attacks where specific details have been lost through time. Between 1949 and 1967, when Israel was in existence completely behind the ‘Green Line’, hundreds of Jewish people were murdered in Israel.

1964 Arab Summit

1964 Arab Summit, creation of PLO

Rather than take the available option and declare a Palestinian State, the PLO (Palestine Liberation Organisation) was formed in Cairo in 1964 with the intention of destroying Israel. Through all this violence, western media and the politicians placed the blame on the tensions in the region caused by the status of the refugees created during the War of Independence that followed the birth of the State of Israel. If that is the case, let us go further back.

It is December 2nd 1947. There are no refugees, no occupation and Israel does not yet even exist. The Arabs of the area have not yet even labelled themselves as Palestinians. It is 3 days after the United Nations voted in favour of Partition, pushing a two state solution that the Arabs totally rejected. The Arabs begin a riot in Jerusalem, with 8 Jews reported as being killed. The New York Times pointed out that it was the knife that was the weapon of choice.

Arab attack against Jewish commercial area in Jerusalem, December 1947

Arab attack against Jewish commercial area in Jerusalem, December 1947

The killings had begun even earlier with an ambush against buses near Kfar Syrkin on November 30th, and the following months were to see escalating violence as civil war erupted throughout the British Mandate of Palestine. Arabs began to leave the region within weeks, with 100,000 having fled by March. In January irregular Arab armies entered the arena to wipe the Jews out and the neighbouring Arab nations declared openly Israel would never be born. It is impossible to calculate precise Jewish losses over each period in a conflict that was to turn from civil to regional war, but in total over 6000 Jews were to be killed in the following 18 months. Proportionally more than the UK lost in the entire 7 years of WW2. According to western politicians and media of the time, this, all because of the ‘understandable’ Arab reaction to resolution 181 and partition. If this is the case, let us go further back.

It is April 19–20, 1936. There is no partition, no Israel, no settlements, no occupation and no refugees. Even the original suggestions of partition first raised by the Peel commission are still some time away. But ‘The Bloody Day in Jaffa’ is upon us and the first day of the ‘Great Arab Uprising’. By the end of the first week, 17 Jews had been murdered.

Jaffa, Palestine: The beginning of the Arab Revolt of 1936

The revolt was to last 3 years and led to an almost absolute curb on Jewish immigration into British Palestine. The British, and the media placed the blame for the murders and the violence of the revolt on Arab opposition to growing Jewish immigration that was caused by Jewish refugees fleeing Nazi Germany. If this is the case, let us go further back.

It is 19th August 1929. There is no partition, no Israel, no settlements, no occupation and no refugees. Adolf Hitler is out of jail, but yet to receive major popular support at an election. Zionist immigration is still on the slow dripping 4th Aliyah rather than fast flowing 5th Aliyah. A young Sephardic Jew named Abraham Mizrachi was stabbed to death by an Arab near Mea Shearim. The following Friday, August 23rd, a violent Arab demonstration took place at the Western Wall and that afternoon a massacre of Jews in Jerusalem began (17 Jews murdered). The violence spread across British Palestine and in the coming days, Hebron (65+ massacred) and Safed (18+ massacred) saw the worst of the incidents.

Newspaper report on Hebron Massacre 1929

Newspaper report on Hebron Massacre 1929

The massacres and killings were to lead to the Shaw Commission analysing the cause of tension. It found Arab leaders had created and spread propaganda calculated to incite the trouble. They spread rumours of a Jewish takeover of Temple Mount (sound familiar). The commission believed that the underlying cause was Jewish immigration and the threat that local Arabs felt a Jewish presence in Palestine brought. This is no different than if today, wild mobs streamed into towns in Europe or the US that have large immigrant populations with the intent to carry out bloody massacres against innocent civilians. But for the British, world politicians and the media this was excuse enough for Jews to be killed.  So if this is the case, let us go even further back.

It is 1920. There is no partition, no Israel, no settlements, no occupation, little immigration and no refugees. Even the Mandate has not yet officially begun. San Remo, the conference that was to decide the fate of the Middle East has not yet occurred. We are now back in Jerusalem at the time of the Neba Musa festival. A time that was to see riots that had Arabs murdering Jews in yet another ‘excusable’ massacre in Jerusalem. The knives were out again.

Nabi Musa April 1920 Jerusalem

5 Jews were murdered and 216 were injured. The Palin Commission of Inquiry (don’t the British love making up excuses for violence against Jews) found that Arab disappointment at the non-fulfilment of the promises of independence was the primary cause. So if this is the case, let us go even further back.

It is 1910. We have left British Palestine, because it does not yet exist. There has been no promise of independence to the Arabs, there is no Balfour declaration, no Mandate, no partition, no Israel, no settlements, no occupation and no refugees. Ariel Sharon’s foot has not even been born. We are in Shiraz to witness a massacre of Jews in 1910 that was sparked by a blood libel (also 1892 & 1897). Twelve were killed, another fifteen were stabbed or hit with bludgeons or bullets and many more were injured. We can then travel back even further before the very beginning of the Zionist movement, to the Damascus affair and the blood libel of 1840. And we find contemporary ‘mob attacks on Jewish communities throughout the Middle East’. We also find Jews were being murdered throughout the 19th century, just for being Jews, in Aleppo (1850, 1875), in Damascus (1840, 1848, 1890), in Beirut (1862, 1874), in Dayr al-Qamar (1847), in Jaffa (1876), in Jerusalem (1847, 1870 and 1895), in Cairo (1844, 1890), in Mansura (1877), in Alexandria (1870, 1882), and in Damanhur (1871, 1873, 1877, 1891). Each and every one before the first Zionist congress took place in 1897.

Before the partition, before Israel, before the settlements, before the ‘occupation’, before the refugees, before Sharon walked onto Temple Mount, before the ‘wall’, before immigration, before Balfour and before even Zionism itself. In the beginning there was an Arab with a knife and he murdered a Jew, simply because he was a Jew. It is an absurd logic that attempts to blame Zionism for creating violence against Jews when modern Zionism *only came about* because of relentless violence against Jews; both in Europe and in the Middle East. You cannot place the cart before the horse.

Enough with the excuses.

In the Beginning was there the Word?

This piece is the second instalment in a series of short articles showing the lie to the Arab (and now, European) claim that Israel and Jews in the Middle East are but a modern convention and lie to the the claim that “Palestinians” are indigenous victims of a (foreign) Zionist colonial enterprise. This is article B.

All information in this synthesised article is the intellectual property of Karen Armstrong, David Margoliouth, Ira Lapidus and Irfan Shahid.

It is said that one day after the Six-Day War in which Israel took legitimate possession of Judea and Samaria (and Gaza), 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.

From that day on, Palestinian leaders like Saeb Erekat claimed two contradictory lineages from ancient peoples that inhabited in the Land of Israel: the Canaanites and the Philistines.

The Canaanites, as this article will show, are indeed historically acknowledged as the first inhabitants of the Land of Israel, before the Hebrews settled there. In fact, the correct geographic name of the Land of Israel is Canaan, not “Palestine” (a vindictive Roman invention…).

In the north of Canaan, along the Mediterranean coast, the northern Canaanites’ main cities were Tzur (Tyre), Tzidon (Sidon), Gebal (Byblos), Arvad, Ugarit, and these northern Canaanites are better known in history by their Greek name Phoenicians. Their language developed from the Arameans, and was closely related to Hebrew, not Arabic. Their current political iteration is, of course, Lebanon, where officialdom refers to itself as the “Lebanese Republic” and NOT the Lebanese Arab Republic. The only mention of the term Arabic in the Lebanese constitution refers to the official language of the state.

If we are agreed that the “Palestinians” are not Lebanese, therefore they are not Phoenicians (Northern Canaanites).

In south Canaan, the people(Phoenicians) lived in the mountain region from the Golan southwards, on both sides of the Jordan River and along the Mediterranean coast from the Gulf of Haifa to Yafo (Jaffa), an area synonymous with the Canaan of Bible fame.

These Canaanites comprised various tribes including Amorites, Hittites Yevusites, Hivvites and Horites, all of them assimilated into the Aramean-Canaanite context. They never constituted a unified, organized state but kept within the tribal alliance system.

When the first Hebrews arrived in Canaan from Ur (Mesopotamia) between 2000-1800 BCE, under the leadership of Abraham, they shared the land with the southern Phoenicians, but did not intermarry, as it was an interdiction for Abraham’s family to marry the Canaanites. Nevertheless, eleven of the twelve sons of Abraham’s grandson Jacob (later Israel) married Canaanite women (the other son married an Egyptian).

These Hebrews, according to Egyptian sources, spoke west Semitic languages, (of which Hebrew is one) and had little difficulty understanding the language of the Canaanites. Not only that, but Abraham and his sons brought with them a religion which worshipped only One God who went by the unpronounceable name of YHWH.

This oneness of God preached first by the prophets of ancient Israel was also adopted, in the 7th century BCE by the Iranian prophet Zoroaster, and later on by Christianity. So, with the widening net of contacts among Middle Eastern peoples, and the support of the great empires, Judaism, Zoroastrianism, and Christianity formed the religions of almost all peoples in the Roman-Byzantine and Sasanian empires. In other words, the Middle East was divided into two great realms of polity and culture, Byzantine and Sasanian, and two overlapping spheres of religious belief, Christian and Zoroastrian.

Centuries later, from the periphery of the Middle East, Arab Muslim conquests began the long historical process that culminated in the absorption of both the Sasanian empire and the eastern regions of the Byzantine empire into an Islamic empire, and the eventual subjugation of the majority of Jewish, Christian, and Zoroastrian peoples indigenous to the Middle East, to Islam. Therefore, the “Palestinian” Arab Muslim claim to indigenous ownership of the Land of Israel as rooted in history, already appears to languish in the realms of make-believe. More below.

Of course, technically, it is incorrect to refer to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as Jews, because the terms “Jew” and “Judaism” were not used generally to refer to this nation until approximately 600 years later. But if we are agreed that the Patriarchs were progenitors of the nation of Israel and Judaism, then a Jewish claim to the land Canaan, modern day Israel, is inescapable.

Together with this, it also renders any Muslim or Arab claim to the ancient homeland of the Jews as difficult to substantiate not least because the Quran’s recasting of Abraham as a “Muslim” prophet 2,500 years after the event, a “Muslim” prophet who prefigured Muhammed, both rejected the ancient Jewish (and Christian) version by design, by inventing their own Abraham to serve their own doctrinal purposes.

In other words, it is not inconceivable to hypothesise that the youngest and most continually intrinsically and extrinsically violent of the world’s major religions, Islam, was engineered for obvious political and economic reasons. That is, the Arab conquests were essential, not for religion so much as they were essential for socio-economic bases of empire. This thesis I will explore in a forthcoming article in this series.

To continue: these monotheistic wanderers from Mesopotamia, were not regular desert nomads like the Bedouin, who migrated with their flocks according to the cycle of the seasons, and they were frequently in conflict with the conservative authorities. The cultural status of these Hebrews was usually superior to the desert folk. Some served as mercenaries, others became government employees, others worked as merchants, servants or tinkers. Some became rich and then acquired land and settled down. The stories about Abraham in the book of Genesis show him serving the King of Sodom as a mercenary and describe his frequent conflicts with the authorities of Canaan and its environs. Eventually, when his wife Sarah died, Abraham bought land in Hebron, in the land of Judea, now erroneously referred to as the (Arab) West Bank…..

Scholars generally agree that there were three main waves of early Hebrew (Jewish) settlement in Biblical Canaan, the modern Israel.

One was associated with Abraham and Hebron and took place in about 1850 BCE.

A second wave of immigration was linked with Abraham’s grandson Jacob, who was renamed Israel. He settled in Shechem, which is now the Arab town of Nablus on the “West Bank”. Jacob’s sons, who became the ancestors of the twelve tribes of Israel, emigrated to Egypt during a severe famine in Canaan.

The third wave of Hebrew settlement occurred when the descendants of Jacob’s sons arrived in Canaan from Egypt in 1200 BCE. They said that they had been enslaved by the Egyptians but had been liberated by a deity called Yahweh, who was the god of their leader Moses.

After they had forced their way into Canaan, they allied themselves with the Hebrews there and became known as the people of Israel. Although these Israelites were a confederation of various ethnic groups, they were bound principally together by their loyalty to Yahweh, the God of Moses, God of the Jews.

With the arrival of the Israelites from Egypt then, by the end of the reign of King David, most Canaanites were married to Israelites, others voluntarily accepted Torah becoming Israelites, while still others joined up in the Israelite or Judahite army. In time, the Canaanites were no longer distinguishable as a people, because they were eventually assimilated into the Israelite nation.

As a corollary, it is not a matter for dispute that when the Assyrians overran the Kingdom of Israel in the north of Biblical Canaan, they did not spare any “Canaanites” they might have found, as they had all become Israelites by that time. Likewise, when the Babylonians overthrew the Kingdom of Judah in the south, they did not leave any Canaanites alive, simply because there were none to be found. They had assimilated.

In light of this, the only people that can trace back a lineage to the ancient Canaanites are the Jews, not the 2oth century “Palestinians”. Canaanites, despite Saeb Erekat’s revisionist protestations to the contrary, did not exist any longer after the 8th century BCE because they had been assimilated into the Jewish people, not annihilated by them.

But what of the “Palestinian” Arab claim they are descended from the Philistines of Gaza?

Here, I do not want to waste too much time because this particular claim is entirely in the realm of make believe. The Philistines were Aegean sea goers from Crete (Minos) and surrounds who invaded and set up shop on the coast in Gaza, Ashdod, Ashkelon, Gath and Ekron. In this regard, then, both the Philistines and the “Palestinians” have something in common: they were/are both invaders.

The Aegean invaders generally stayed close to the coast, never moved deep inland over Judah and never saw either Hebron, Jerusalem or Jericho.

Besides, with regards to the name “Palestine”, why would Muslim Arabs in the 1960s adopt and/or adapt a name for a “sacred Muslim land” from the Latin Palæstina and not take on an Arabic name instead? Was it because there was never a Muslim Arab polity named Palestine? That the vindictive naming of Canaan as Palestine was directed solely at crushing the spirit of the indigenous Jews of the region?

And finally, the Arabic alphabet contains 28 consonants, but not the consonant sound “puh”(P). Because there is no sound for “P” in Arabic, the name “Falastin” (with an “F”) that Arabs today use for “Palestine” is symptomatic of the never ending difficulty Levantine Arabs today continue to have to reconcile a trumped up modern anti-semitic narrative with accepted historiographic fact. Fortunately, however, those facts will never change.

From this very brief overview, it will be acknowledged that Jewish religious, cultural and territorial claim to what is modern day Israel (Southern Canaan) goes back to around 1800 BCE, some 2,400 years before the aggressive welling up of an invading, colonising and occupying force in the Levant known as Arabised Islam.

But more on that later.