Tag Archives: Islam

Israel, Ha’aretz and the ICC – lest we forget.

Mohammed Wattad’s Jan 2015 impassioned appeal to Ha’aretz readers states that: “In principle, nothing is wrong about {PA} joining the ICC. If they are serious about their commitment to international law, all countries must sign and also ratify the Rome Statute, [emphasis mine] which paves the way in that process. International law is not an open buffet of “pick and choose.” The ICC is the direct outcome of World War II and the Nuremberg trials.” Very laudable.

What Wattad omits to remind the reader is that the ICC is an outcome of the 1998 UNITED NATIONS “Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court”, where the UN ADOPTED the Rome Statute, blessing the operations of the International Criminal Court.

The issue at hand, of course, is not Israel’s refusal to be a signatory to the staute, but the reasons behind it.

Those reasons are demonstrated, documented and increasingly biased UN behaviour over the past 50 years; 1965 to 2015.

Specifically, Wattad does not mention the UN Arab and African anti-Israel ethnoracist bloc of “automatic majority third world member states” and their ongoing sabotage of the UN itself, thru organisations like the ICC,HRW and UNHCR. By funding and endorsing groups like those and through adopting/adapting that same international law Wattad champions, what concerns Israel regarding the Rome Statute is that that same UN has never seen fit to bring to trial leaders of murderous racist ethnoreligious states like North Korea, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Russia, China, Cuba, Nigeria or any other of the world’s great tyrannies.

As a sample of why Israel is leery of the ICC and other UN organistaion, we need merely look at Special Raporteur to the UN from 2001 -2007, South African John Dugard. Dugrad’s brief (unbelievably) was to investigate only violations by Israel. This one-sided duty John Dugard has zealously embraced since his appointment to the post and he was followed with equal zeal by Richard Falk. Dugard’s reports in particular stand out, even by UN standards, for their virulently anti-Israel prejudice because Dugard systematically ignored Palestinian acts of terror, their breaches of international human rights law and international law itself in its pursuit of destroying the Jewish state.

On another tack, UNHCR High Commisioner for Human Rights,Navi Pillay, another South African, has a long track record of demonizing Israel. High Commissioner between 2008-2014, in 2014, Pillay accused Israel of committing war crimes by not doing enough to protect civilians in the Hamas initiated Gaza war. And it was UNHCR’s Pillay who was behind the infamous and totally discredited Goldstone Report of 2009, which accused Israel of deliberately targeting Gazan civilians — a finding that the report’s author, Richard Goldstone, later retracted, although Pillay did not.

For UN employees like Dugard, Falk and Pillay, the 20th century job description of the United Nations “to maintain international peace and security” based on “the sovereign equality of all its members,” and to do “nothing [to] impair the inherent right of self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a member of the UN” does not seem to apply.

This because, under pressure from MENA and OIC, the UN of the 21st century has an exception clause. Every time Israel is attacked, not only does the UN fail to maintain peace and security – it attempts to gut Israel’s inherent right of self-defense.

In an article for the Gatestone Institute in 2014, Anne Bayefsky makes the point that “In accordance with this pathology, UN actors manufacture a cycle of violence that begins with Israeli aggression; assert a moral equivalence between Arab terrorists and their Israeli victims; and concoct a litany of Israeli human rights abuses. They conclude that Israeli actions in self-defense are crimes, and Israel’s enemies are understandably…protecting [their] human rights.”

Wattad, apart from failing to acknowledge documented general UN anti-israel bias, also fails to acknowledge that the UN itself is a changed organisation. When it was founded in 1945, it had 51 members, and was created to prevent the sort of mass horrors Jews and other minorities had faced in 1930s Europe. The United Nations was created precisely to “…take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace…for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, to… [ensure] conformity with the principles of justice and international law and to develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples…”

Thus, the United Nations legally created the state of Israel in 1947 to implement the purposes of the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine in accordance with their 1945 San Francisco Charter and their legal stated purposes and principles.

In 1945, only ten UN members were non-Western states, and the UN was driven by Western values. Today, there are 193 member states. Seventy two of those are (in rough terms) non-Western, and 56 of those are member states of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC). All of the OIC states are vehemently anti-Israel, and more than one has, at some point, actually engaged in wars with Israel, or supplied money and arms to Israel’s terrorist enemies, or advanced media lies against Israel and the West, or taught its populations hatred for Jews and Israel, or opposed democratic rights for its citizens.

Wattad does not mention that the purposeful introduction of so many Muslim states from Africa, Asia, and the Middle East has warped the manner in which the United Nations today reaches its decisions and conducts its affairs. There is now a broad swathe of states that push an agenda of “post-colonialism,” “anti-Western-‘imperialism,'” and hostility to liberal democracies and the original human rights agenda of the UN.

Many of these states are dictatorships like Iran, Syria, China, or Sudan, and many that are far from being democracies in any sense of the word.

The Islamic OIC organised bloc of fifty-six states has waged a steady campaign in key UN bodies to gut anti-Semitism of its meaning, by making the absurd argument that the term also refers to hatred against Arabs and Muslims. This is glib and misleading distortion of language and meaning designed to prevent the UN from coherently expressing sympathy for Jews as victims, and to create a form of immunity for Arab and Islamic states accused of fostering anti-Semitism.

Additionally, Wattad ignores the annual onslaught of one-sided UN resolutions in the General Assembly and the Human Rights Council that contribute—whether by intent or in their effect—to an atmosphere that demonizes the Jewish state and promotes hostility toward Jews as a whole. In the past year at the General Assembly, only a handful of countries were criticized, in no case by more than one resolution.

Israel, by contrast, was targeted in no less than twenty-two resolutions, all of them one-sided. Worse, in 2006-07, the Human Rights Council passed one hundred percent of its condemnatory resolutions against Israel, ignoring the other 191 UN member states, including the world’s worst abusers.

As further proof of the increasing biased dysfunction of another UN supported body, the UNHRC, is controlled by African and Middle Eastern countries, and is supported by China, Russia and Cuba.
Currently, members include (each with a three-year term) 13 African states, 13 Asia-Pacific states, 8 Latin American and Caribbean states, and 8 Western European and other states (the “other” being the United States). Of the thirteen African states, two (Burkina Faso and Sierra Leone) have large majority Muslim populations, and two (Côte d’Ivoire and Ethiopia) have large Muslim minorities.
Of the thirteen Asia-Pacific states, seven are fully Muslim entities. It has condemned Israel a total of 50 times between the time it was formed in 2006 and end 2014.

The OIC has even made efforts in the UN to have the Cairo Declaration (and, through it, sharia law) be officially adopted by the UNHRC.

Beginning in the late 1960’s, the full weight of the UN was gradually but deliberately turned against the country it had conceived, by General Assembly resolution, a mere two decades earlier. The campaign to demonize and delegitimize Israel in every UN and international forum was initiated by the Arab states together with the Soviet Union which was nervous of American influence in the warm water ports it cherished for itself, and supported by what has become known as an “automatic majority” of Third World member states.

Wattad omits the backstory of the UN endorsed ICC, which thru its committees, annual UN resolutions, an entire UN bureaucratic division, permanent UN exhibits in New York and Geneva headquarters – are all dedicated to a relentless and virulent propaganda war against the Jewish state.

Together, they have made the UN into Ground Zero for today’s new anti-Semitism, which is the irrational scapegoating of Israel with the true intended target being Jews.

The Arab backed campaign of scapegoating Jews and Israel reached new strength in wake of the Arab oil embargo of 1973. Many African states were pressured into severing relations with Israel. In 1975, following a steady drumbeat of UN-endorsed anti-Israel Muslim-bloc instigated declarations were pushed through. This included organisations like the International Women’s Year Conference in Mexico, the Organization of African Unity, and the majority of the General Assembly itself which, influenced by OIC manoeuvrings actually adopted the “Zionism is Racism” resolution, later repealed for the blatant racist resolution it was.

The virulent anti-Israel apparatus within the UN, therefore, is of considerable magnitude, and cripples the even-handed functioning of the organization.

Currently, no fewer than three UN entities exist that are dedicated to furtherance of the Palestinian cause (which is, in its simplest form, dedicated to destroying Israel). There are no UN entities to advance the Israeli cause, which has always been eager to make peace with its neighbours and to help its citizens – Jews, Christians and Muslims — build good lives for themselves.

So, in response to the brief above, one can now say that never in history has a human institution for goodwill and peace among men been so betrayed by those who seek to use it for their own ethnoreligious hatreds.

It is true that Israel is not signatory to the Rome Statute of 1998. The discerning reader will begin to see why…..

Mohammed Wattad cheerfully states in his opening paragraph that “…International law is not an open buffet of “pick and choose.”…”. He doesn’t realise how right he is, and how the UN, corrupted by the MENA OIC bloc today does exactly that in its peremptory, biased ways.

Mohammed Wattad and Ha’aretz have either forgotten about the value of true journalism or are writing for sheeple.

Advertisements

WHEN INTERNATIONAL LAW’S THE THING…..

Without question, Israel is currently facing an increasingly coordinated and concerted effort by Europe and the Arab world, to delegitimise and cripple her.

Barack Obama is presiding over seismic shifts in geopolitical alliances instigated by a foreign policy that is foreign to everything America has said they stand for till now.

It is not coincidental that China and India are strenuously courting the tiny Jewish state as it becomes increasingly clear that liberal democrat America does not have Israel’s best interests at heart.

Consider the present administration’s full-throated support of “Palestinian” statehood and its increasingly strident efforts to accommodate a landscape-changing Iranian nuclear deal.
Both developments would seriously affect Israel’s ability to adequately protect itself without using the nuclear option if the Arab world continues to see as its primary foreign policy objective, the removal of the Jewish state from the Middle East.

But are Europe and America barking up the wrong tree? Do the Chinese and Indian governments more accurately evaluate the danger of spreading radical Islam given the chaos Muslim minorities cause in their respective countries? Does Russia, whose propaganda campaign is responsible for much of the European shift towards delegitimisation of Israel, also know what the Israelis know: that radical Islam unchecked today will rapidly convert significant sections of European cities into expanding Sharia-controlled no-go Muslim enclaves? Will Muslim terror stop once the world recognises the illegality of the Zionist enterprise in the Middle East. Is the foundation of the state of Israel illegal under international law?

The short answer is that the formation of the State of Israel is completely legal under international law, even if Arab backed European politically motivated communities would like to revise the fact.

There is a reason, in international law, there has been no “Palestinian” state these past 66 years.

And as long as there are those who would delegitimise a UN member state, there will always be those who will make sure that petty, genocidal, religious dogma neither changes the facts of history nor subverts international law which has at its very core, the objective of limiting the institutionalised violence we call war.

Israel is a sovereign state under international law. International law is a set of rules that are generally accepted in relations between states (Glick, 2014). International law is based on consent, and states follow the rules of international law to which they consent.

International law comprises two strands: treaties and custom. Treaties may be bilateral, based on international conventions like the 1948 Geneva Convention, or they may be multilateral such as is the case with the NATO treaty.

However, while treaties are binding under international law, institutions created by the treaties cannot make new law. Thus international bodies such as the UNGA can only pass resolutions which are recommendations. The UNSC may pass binding resolutions, but exercise of that power is limited to situations that are 1) threats to peace, 2) breaches of peace, 3) and acts of aggression against UN member states. Clearly, in the case of the Israeli Arab conflict as regards “Palestine”, “Palestinian” Arabs, hyperbole notwithstanding, have no legal leg to stand on. They have continuously threatened the peace, breached innumerable ceasefires, and often attacked a UN member state.

On the other hand, treaties do not carry the same weight as legislation, and states only have to obey treaties to which they are parties. In other words, no consent, no law.
Does this mean that a would-be “Palestinian” ‘nation’ could refuse to honour a treaty to which they were not party?

The brief legal answer is no.

International law permits self-determination claims to be satisfied by incorporation into the ruling state, by sovereign independence, or by anything in between.

In order to abide by its international obligations as a member of the family of nations to respect the self-determination rights of “Palestinians”, Israel is required to take good-faith negotiations with the “Palestinians” in a bid to satisfy these self-determination rights.

Nobody would dispute that the two unprecedentedly generous Israeli peace offers to Arafat and Abbas, in attempts to reach a peace settlement over the past 20 years, in addition to the commencement of the Oslo Accords which recognised the PLO as official representative of the “Palestinian” people, do not constitute good-faith efforts by the Israelis to satisfy “Palestinian” self-determination rights. The remarkable Barak and Olmert offers are historically documented proof of that.

Thus, Israel has fulfilled its obligations in this sphere as well.

Unlike Israel, there has never been a polity/state called “Palestine”. Thus not agreeing to international law has never been an option for them, despite their bombast and continuous claims of victimhood over the years.

And finally in this section about the legality of the Israeli negotiating position under international law, the prospect of the PA unilaterally approaching the UN for membership and thus statehood, would be a grave violation of the PLO’s signed agreement with Israel, under international aegis, which specifically barred such unilateral actions. Under international law, this agreement was witnessed by outside parties including the United States, Russia, Norway, the EU and so on.

This means that any material violations of agreements that were witnessed by the EU or similar, would irreversibly jeopardise the worth of such agreements in international law and the worth of such witnessing, and would free Israel to act in its best interests without fear or favour. A scenario fraught with potential for untold violence anyway you care to look at it.

Custom in international law, on the other hand, is different in that it results from general and consistent practice of states followed by them from a sense of legal obligation.

International law requires states to follow customary law even when the states have not explicitly consented to the custom (Glick, 2014). However, because customary law is also based on implied consent, a state that consistently objects to an international custom, is not bound by that custom.

Once again, in the absence of there ever being a sovereign “Palestinian” state to even invoke customary law and thus invoke consistent objection to the legal establishment of the State of Israel, in the light of the point blank refusal of three offers of “Palestinian” statehood 1947-2014 thus abrogating its rights to sovereignty in PA controlled “West Bank”, and in the absence of any codification of rules and charters minimising violence against Jews by the current “unity” government as per the requirement of an intending member of the United Nations, “Palestinian” claims that they are a people living in a non-self-governing territory and thus have a right to self determination is belied by the fact that the “Palestinians” have been exercising self rule over inhabited parts of Judea and Samaria since 1994 when PA was formed…….

Thus, the PA’s invocation of even this tenet of international law is baseless.

In light of the above, understanding “Palestinian” Arab violence towards the State of Israel becomes even more difficult to accept in any form, because of the documented incidents of a violent minority which proffers its own apocalyptic Islamic interpretation of how the world should be, and what should replace western interpretations of law and order.

In Gaza, and further afield, the rebirth of Islamic imperialism and violence post 9/11, from the World Trade Center, to a discothèque in Bali, to beheadings in the barren stony lands around Dabiq and Raqqa point to what Buruma and Margalit (2004) have termed Occidentalism.

Like Orientalism, which was perceived as a general patronizing Western attitude towards Middle Eastern, Asian and North African societies, Occidentalism sees the West as something less than human, something to be destroyed, something that goes beyond Wall Street, Hollywood, capitalism or the all-too-convenient catch-cry of “US imperialism”.

The current crop of jihadis see western liberalism as a threat to their religious fundamentalism, self-appointed caliphs and religiously inspired “pure” and “authentic” cleansing of the kuffar through blood letting, because it deflates the pretensions of their own brand of heroic Islamic utopianism.

Wherever it occurs, this Occidentalism is fed by an inflated Muslim perception of humiliation, of defeat.

The current wave of Islamic Occidentalism seeks to right a perceived historical wrong. And nothing matches the perceived Arab Muslim sense of failure and humiliation as much as the perception that a once glorious civilization has been left behind in every respect by the post-Enlightenment West.

This over-indulged perception of humiliation, historically redolent of the Arab psyche, can easily turn into a self-aggrandising cult of the pure and the authentic. And it is when “purity” or “authenticity”, of faith or race, leads to purges of the supposedly inauthentic, of the allegedly impure, that mass murder begins. The fact that anti-Americanism, anti-Zionism, anti-Semitism, and a general hostility to the West currently overlaps is no coincidence. (Buruma & Margalit, 2004).

However, in a modern world dominated by the spread and take up of western values of business and culture, copied and practised skilfully by the very people who would kill you for it, international law remains the final fragile red barrier “authenticity” and “purity” of Islamic thought must breach in order to imprint its brand of religious fundamentalism on a wide swathe of the world’s peoples.

To that extent, I submit that Muslim violence today against the west is not the fault of anyone else except irrational, inverted Muslim Quranic interpretation and thought, and a willingness to shed as much blood (of others) as it takes to spread a violent, radical brand of Islam.

This vision radical Islam has of itself as an antidote to “Westoxification”, is a mixture of the universal and the pure: “universal” because all people can/should, in the eyes of the believers, become orthodox Muslims; and “pure” because those who refuse the call are not simply lost souls but savages who must be removed from this earth.

Thus the “pure” and/or “authentic” Occidental hero is the one, whether he is a Nazi or an Islamist, who is just as ready to destroy those who sully the purity of his race or creed. It is indeed his duty to do so. When the West is seen as the threat to authenticity, then it is the duty of all “holy warriors” to destroy anything to do with the “Zionist Crusaders,” whether it is a U.S. battleship, a British embassy, a Jewish cemetery, or a Bali discotheque; even unto the extreme of beheading well-meaning western aid workers and journos in Dabiq and Raqqa as a terror tactic to induce compliance (Buruma & Margalit, 2004).

But, whatever the rest of the world might be comfortable acceding to in appeasing Muslim violence by permitting Sharia police no-go zones in European cities and towns, with regards to the Israeli- “Palestinian” conflict, there is always the question of international law.

It is the source of greatest frustration to large hostile bodies such as the Arab League and their enablers in the European Union that, since their inception in 1945, they have never been able to either militarily extract a territorial concession from Israel in all the wars they have initiated, nor circumvent the rule of international law in their efforts to financially and socially/legally cripple the sovereign Jewish state these past 66 years….

The sovereignty of the Jewish state became a legal issue in 1917 with the demise of 400 years of Ottoman Muslim rule in the Levant.

Whereas the Levant Arabs, now freed from the oppressive yoke of the Ottomans, agreed to League of Nations mandates to create Muslim entities in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and Gaza in return for supporting the British and the French, those self-same Arabs did not see their way clear to the same League of Nations establishing the Jewish state of Israel in what was called the British Mandate for Mesopotamia……

Thus, with the disintegration of the despotic Ottoman rule in the region, the Arabs accepted international law in the creation of five more Muslim entities along national ethno-religious lines, but just not a single Jewish one.

Fortunately for Israel, its creation has always been anchored in international law both through treaty and through custom as described above. For example, Israel is well within its international legal rights in building as it sees fit in Judea and Samaria. Yehuda and Shomron were always included territory in the intended Jewish state under both the League of Nations and the legally approved British Mandate, despite the illegal invasion and occupation of the area (euphemistically called the West Bank [of the Jordan]) by Jordan in 1948. In 1967, Judea and Samaria were returned to Jewish sovereignty in a defensive war where Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Iraq combined to try and wipe out (again) the tiny Jewish state.

Forty years previously, the 1937 Peel Commission succumbed to Arab violence and recommended the partition of the remainder of the Mandate, now not including Jordan, into a further division of Jewish and Arab land. The Jews were now to receive a mere 19% of the truncated Mandated lands, with 81% going to the creation of yet another Muslim Arab state. The Jewish Agency accepted even this disappointing breach of promise. The Arabs rejected the compromise.

The records will always show the facts of the matter: Arab intransigence and religious racism are the only reasons there is no “Palestine” today. The Arab-Israeli conflict never had anything to do with land. It was always a war of religion.

Clearly, as it has always done since 1917, international law will always back up the Israeli position on any future negotiated settlement.

International law (and an innate sense of fairness in other nations around the world that is difficult to legislate for) remained the major stumbling block in MENA and the EU preventing the dismemberment of the Jewish state.

But, in the end, all of history shows that people do not like continuous change or violent upheaval. The average person in the street does not approve of murder and mayhem, be they from Dubai or Donetsk. The average person just wants to get on with life and make the most of their time while alive.

For this reason alone, the current orgy of Islamic violence will splutter and die as the internet continues to interleave the commonality of the human condition, race, religion or creed notwithstanding.

And because of this, the State of Israel will continue to survive and prosper.

Because of this, and international law……….

Perspective on the Long War

Minimizing a religious explanation for Islamic terrorism while emphasizing political and socioeconomic causes of Muslim violence is a disingenuous ploy which serves only Muslim apologists and appeasers. The true nature of the outburst of Muslim violence and unrest the world over is, rather, to be found in the religious culture in which [Islamic terrorism] is rooted and nurtured, a culture in which there is no distinction between religion and politics.

Modern international Islamist terrorism is a natural offshoot of twentieth century Islamic fundamentalism. This fundamentalism was fed by perceived Muslim acceptance of western domination and culture. This was perceived as a natural injustice which could only be rectified by a return to the original mores of Islam.

In the worldview of the Islamic fundamentalist, there is no separation between the political and the religious. Islam is, in essence, both religion and regime, and no area of human activity is outside its remit. Whatever the nature of the problem, “Islam is the solution.”

In other words, Islamic fundamentalists believe that Islam is the final dispensation for humanity as revealed to Muhammad and the task of restoring it to its true essence and pristine form is the job of jihad.

In the world view of the Islamist fundamentalist, there exist only two camps—Dar al-Islam (“The House of Islam”—i.e., the Muslim countries) and Dar al–Harb (“The House of War”—i.e., countries ruled by any regime but Islam)—that are pitted against each other until the final victory of Islam.

However, these radical concepts, which are the wellspring of so much hatred and grief today, have deep roots in mainstream Islam.

Rooted in mainstream Islam is the belief that there are two kinds of war in Islam: one is called Jihad (Holy War), which means the conquest of other countries in accordance with certain conditions. The second type is war to preserve the independence of all Muslim countries and the repulsion of foreigners. Jihad or Holy War, which is for the conquest of other countries and kingdoms, becomes incumbent after the formation of the Islamic state in the presence of the Imam or in accordance with his command.

In this mainstream interpretation of jihad as just, fundamental Islam believes entire civilizations need to be saved by all means available—the Islamic civilization of the Middle East and the civilisations of the un-believers alike. National borders are seen as Western imperialist creations that serve to divide the umma, the world community of Muslims.

Restoration of the caliphate in the Middle East is only a prelude to the reconquest of all lands that were once under Muslim rule in a bid to regain its lost glory.

Millions of fundamentalist Muslims the world over have never reconciled themselves to the loss of Islam’s colonies as embodied in the glory days of the Ottomans, nor are they reconciled to the loss of lands beyond the Middle East. Many such Muslims believe in the restoration of Spain and consider their 1492 expulsion from the country a grave historical injustice.

In France, Belgium, Luxembourg and Britain, a rapidly expanding Muslim population due to cheap immigration labour, higher rates of child birth, and conversion to Islam form the building blocks of a growing foreign minority which has located Europe, home to the world’s largest Muslim diaspora, at the heart of the battle over Muslim identity.

And it is this frighteningly large minority who are inspired and guided by the words of Muhammad’s farewell address: “I was ordered to fight the people until they say there is no god but Allah.’’

On the other hand, those who naively champion moderate Muslims have to take seriously the words of moderate Muslim scholars like Dr. Zaki Badawi, long-time director of the Islamic Cultural Centre in London, when he says, albeit in far more tempered language, “Islam endeavours to expand in Britain. Islam is a universal religion. It aims to bring its message to all corners of the earth. It hopes that one day the whole of humanity will be one Muslim community.”

It is the stated intention of billions of non-Muslims the world over, that this will never happen. Religion will always remain a matter of choice. Forcing a particular world-view at the expense of all others, is fascist, bigoted, supremacist behaviour.

The long war will continue, and in between the battles, we will continue to live, love, give birth, celebrate, make careers and die. It cannot be any other way.

When teachers can’t add 2+2

The recent vote taken by the student union body of Goldsmiths College in London to refrain from commemorating Holocaust Observance Day because it is “Eurocentric” and “colonialist” is as brazen in its audacity as it is anti-semitic in its intent.

The Egyptian-Muslim student leader, Sarah al-alfy, who implored the student body to reject the motion no doubt feels she has put in one for the brothers and sisters.

It would appear that, as a British Muslim, while Sarah al-alfy is keen that (mainly) Christian Britons accept her as Muslim and British, she sees no moral or intellectual dissonance in denying the right of others to grieve man’s inhumanity to man simply because they are not Muslim; or simply because they are European.

Moreover, Sarah al-alfy would also be hard pressed to explain why the Goldsmiths decision precludes the commemoration of other genocides in Afghanistan, North Korea, China, Japan (in Manchuria), Cambodia or Rwanda. Is it merely because they are not European or because it does not involve 6 million Jews???

Even if we disregard Sarah al-alfy’s enthusiasm as a lack of maturity or ‘romantic’ over-exuberance fueled by European media spin, the fact that the vote was taken and passed at a teachers training college is of more significance. Goldsmiths College, University of London, is a premier teacher education facility in England.

That this college was targeted by Muslim activists and sympathisers to influence young non-muslim teachers in training who will soon go out and teach all over Britain and Europe, is significant because of the influence teachers have over their charges. Mutliply that by around 45 to 47 years  in a teaching career in various metropolitan or country teaching authorities in and around the United Kingdom per Goldsmiths student, and the true significance of the vote and the efforts to reach the result becomes much clearer.

Intending teachers do not start of their college life as particularly intelligent or well-read members of society. Student teachers are students first and teachers only later. That most develop sooner rather than later as custodians of culturally situated valued knowledge in a cultural tradition which still mainly values the written word is, in most instances, true.

However, deliberately targeting impressionable young teachers who are unfamiliar with the minutae and nuances of the Israeli-Arab conflict to take a decision which deliberately ignores one of the greatest crimes (numbers wise..) ever committed because they are Jews or Armenians is brazen, deliberate, well-thought out and one more stepping stone in the eyes of a vocal, violent few to the inevitable establishment of a Caliphate in Europe.

It is brazen because London is in Europe and is led by a monarch who is sworn to be an upholder of the values and mores of a Protestant Church of England.

The Sarah al-alfy led decision for the students’ union to disassociate itself from the observance of Holocaust Memorial Day, European Day of Remembrance for Victims of Stalinism and Nazism, Holodomor [Ukrainian] Memorial Day Act and Armenian Genocide Remembrance Day is as short-sighted, cynical and puerile in its inception as it is insulting in its intent. It is racist.

It is a cocky declaration of non-acceptance of other if you are Jewish or Armenian or Ukranian and a disturbing display of the inability to empathise with human suffering so typical of the non-thinking “me-too” group think which typified the rise and rule of European fascism in Germany, Spain, France and Italy a generation ago.

Sarah al-alfy’s exhortations to the student union to reject observance of Holocaust Remembrance Day at Goldsmiths College because it is “Eurocentric” and “colonialist” can now be contextualised for what it is: one more attempt to delegitimize targeted ethno-religious groups with yet another rejection of other.

The Goldsmiths decision, yet again, turns the original aims of political correctness on its head. The Goldsmiths decision mainstreams bigotry, so long as it is directed at Europeans and not against Muslims. The Goldsmiths decision makes it fashionable/attractive for uni students to turn against the cultures, learning and personal freedoms it offers people like Sarah al-alfy who is happy to take the best it can offer while at the same time exhorting others to delegitimize it. More worryingly, the Goldsmiths decision frames a lack of empathy as OK as long as it is directed at Armenians and Jews.

Sarah al-alfy herself will soon fade into obscurity. She is not the issue. She was merely a willing pawn in a wider, well thought out gambit aimed at delegitimizing others on ethno-religious grounds. What she on the other hand stands for, as an Egyptian Muslim in Britain, certainly IS the issue.

This disturbs and angers me particularly because I am a long, long lapsed alumnus of the College.

Is Londonistan (cf. Melanie Philips) finally a reality in the British Isles???

Shalom Dublin?? – viewing Irish anti-Israeli sentiment through the lens of the IRA’s former Nazi collaboration

I write this blog to layout for myself, the antecedents to what many puzzled Israelis and Jews see as an uncalled-for Irish antipathy to the Jewish state, and to say again that peace will only come when the current pro-Palestinian orthodoxy and exhortation to violence and martyrdom is challenged everywhere and always. I hope you find it of interest.                   (h/t: @clairefinn54)

Israel has been demonized by an Irish media slavishly dancing to the Palestinian drumbeat for decades… – [yet] Israel has a far better and more progressive record on human rights than any of its neighbors…The truth must be told.” Fine Gael chairman Charlie Flanagan., 2014.

In his article “Why Are the Irish Increasingly Siding With Palestine Over Israel?” written for the New Republic in May 2014, Jason Walsh recounts the time he wrote a feature article for the Irish Times on Ireland’s Jewry. He interviewed retired Belfast businessman Adrian Levey, who is Jewish. Levey was “…keen to point out that anti-Semitism as such is not a problem, even on the divided streets of Belfast.
“Northern Protestants support Israel and Catholics support Palestine, it doesn’t really play out on the streets,” he said.
When you understand that Protestant and Catholic are not actually religious terms, but stand-ins for pro-British unionists and pro-Irish republicans the statement makes perfect sense. For Irish republicans have long felt they were, as much as Palestinians, living in occupied territory. Hearing Northern Ireland described as the “Occupied Six Counties” was not uncommon in my youth during the 1990s. “

What Walsh is saying is embedded in an Irish take on the colonial antecedents of Ireland, Israel, and a would-be “Palestinian” Muslim state.

He explains that Israel’s struggle against the British during the Mandate years resonated with an Irish (Roman Catholic) public subjugated for centuries by brutal British domination of their national aspirations and what they called “colonisation” and “occupation” of the six Counties which make up (Protestant) Northern Ireland today.

But as Israel became more successful, the Irish psyche projected its experience of (essentially Protestant) Britain onto Israel’s failure to decide the “Palestinian” question definitively, and the narrative of a “dispossessed” and “disenfranchised” “Palestinian” struggle for “freedom” blossomed. Israel thus began to function as a surrogate for Britain because it was too “imperial, imperious and, above all, modern.” This view, together with Brian Hanley’s exploration of the IRA’s collaboration with Nazi Germany in the Republic’s struggles against Britain form the core of this piece.

The ongoing support and collaboration between Hamas and Sinn Fein, Irish Republic politicians and the Palestinian Authority, and historical ideological and notional links between the PLO, Arafat and the Republic of Ireland are well documented, if not always in the public eye.

Certainly the links between the IRA and Arafat’s PLO have been well documented. This connection is due to historic circumstance, where the British were wrongly perceived as pro-Jewish. And this affinity went north of the border with Northern Ireland and infused the culture and politics of both the Republic of Ireland and the positions held by the IRA in Northern Ireland and its political wing Sinn Fein.

Sinn Fein, the IRA’s political wing, which has elected representatives in the Irish and British parliaments and shares power in Northern Ireland, has continued to be a virulent critic of Israel. In 2006, Aengus Ó Snodaigh, then the party’s international affairs and human rights spokesperson in the Dublin parliament, described Israel as “one of the most abhorrent and despicable regimes on the planet.” In May 2014, he was one of three Irish politicians prevented by authorities from leaving Cyprus to join the Gaza-bound flotilla headed by the Mavi Marmara….

Arthur Griffith, who founded the original Sinn Fein movement in 1905, used the pages of his newspaper to rail against “Jew Swindledom” (9/10ths of all Jews were, he proclaimed, “usurers and parasites“) and the Dreyfusards.

There were similar prejudices commonplace in all the political parties which broke off from his organization, but only the eponymous rump which remained after the splits of 1921 and 1926 habitually preached Jew-hatred, culminating in a demand for an Irish-German alliance in 1939.

The newly formed “new” IRA, itself soaked in anti-Semitism, took a similar view and attempted to forge, as we will see, a working relationship with the Germans.

As noted in the republican newspaper The United Irishman of October 1951, Seán Russell, the then IRA chief of staff and a registered representative of the Irish Republic, spent the summer of 1940 in a ‘very large’ villa in the leafy Grunewald, near Berlin, surrounded by extensive grounds and parks, enjoying all the privileges of a diplomat with regard to access to food, petrol and other rationed goods.

Russell met leading Nazis such as Nazi Foreign Minister Ribbentrop. Following the fall of France, Russell urged that the German high command make use of the IRA to strike at British forces in Northern Ireland as part of a general attack on Britain. His plans were accepted and incorporated into Operation Sealion (the plan for the invasion of Britain) as a mark of the ‘respect and esteem’ in which Russell was held by the German military leadership.

The IRA’s main publication, War News, became increasingly pro-Nazi in tone, but more worryingly, it began to ape anti-Semitic arguments. The paper expressed satisfaction that the ‘cleansing fire’ of the German armies was driving the Jews from Europe. British war minister Hore Belisha was described as a ‘wealthy Jew’ only interested in ‘profits’. War News condemned the arrival in Ireland of ‘so-called Jewish refugees’.

Even though pre-war Ireland was united in its dislike of the British, there were at least four discernible factions in the IRA.

The majority leadership grouping was sympathetic to social radicalism but primarily concerned with developing the IRA as a military force. An important section of the leadership was socialist, while a third section—of which Russell was probably the best example—were committed entirely to armed force and uninterested in political debate.

A fourth smaller group was attracted to Sinn Féin’s espousal of right-wing ‘Christian social’ policies even as further differences existed over the relationship between the IRA in Northern Ireland and its much larger and more influential southern counterpart.

Much of the northern IRA together with Sinn Fein, their political arm, were attracted to Russell’s position, because they felt marginalised and ignored by their southern comrades, even as Russell’s own isolation in, and disillusionment with, the Republic led him to forge now-embarrassing ties with the Nazis.

Putting the efforts of IRA leaders like Russell into context, Brian Hanley notes that “…the IRA in 1940 was under severe pressure and in decline. Hundreds of its members were jailed or interned in the Curragh camp. Undoubtedly a measure of desperation contributed to its thinking. Similarly, …much of what was written in the [War News] was fantasy, especially the claims that the IRA was playing a major role in the German war effort….Furthermore, War News was illegal and therefore written and distributed surreptitiously. [Only a] small number of people were responsible for its content and only a few IRA members could have had any input into it. Despite the violence of some of the anti-Jewish rhetoric in War News the IRA did not attempt to physically attack Irish Jews.”

Even so, with the partition of Ireland by the British into the (Catholic) Republic of Ireland and (largely Protestant Ulster ‘Loyalist’) Northern Ireland in 1921, the Provisional IRA and Sinn Fein in Northern Ireland imported a deep hostility towards partition as a solution to territorial conflict.

This in turn led to consistent support for the Palestinian cause some fifty years later. The “Provos” received weapons and training from Arafat’s PLO around the early 1970s; today, the IRA allegedly provides sophisticated bomb-making materials and know-how to terror group Hamas in war-ravaged Gaza.

And so, because the Irish Republican Army and Sinn Fein made common anti-colonialist cause with the Palestinian Liberation Organization, with the PLO allegedly providing arms and training for the IRA as early as the 1970s, Irish Protestant leaders, for their part, allied themselves with the Israelis and their struggle against a genocidal Muslim enemy.

Ironically, in March 1945, a correspondent for The Bell, a leading Irish magazine, raged about current events in Mandated Palestine: “Never let it be forgotten that the Irish people … have experienced all that the Jewish people in Palestine are suffering from the trained ‘thugs’ ‘gunning tarzans’ and British ‘terrorists’ that the Mandatory power have imposed upon the country.

But once the Zionist movement accepted the partition of Palestine, the Irish began to draw unflattering parallels between Israeli policies and their own divided existence.

To many, the Jewish state now looked less like a besieged religious-national community struggling valiantly for its natural rights and more like a colony illegitimately established by British force of arms and intent on imposing itself on an “indigenous” population.

As a result, Ireland only extended de jure recognition to Israel in 1963, 15 years after its declaration of independence.

After Ireland joined the European Union in 1973, successive governments in Dublin took the lead in championing the Palestinian cause within Europe.

In February 1980, Ireland was the first EU member to call for the establishment of a Palestinian state. It was also the last to allow Israel to open a residential embassy, in December 1993.

Throughout the Oslo Accords era and the post-Oslo era a decade later, Irish governments continued to provide the Palestinian cause with valuable, if not unlimited, support.

Thus, in June 2003, Brian Cowen, then Ireland’s foreign minister, visited Yasir Arafat during the height of the Second Intifada.

It was during the Second Intifada that 887 (78%) of the 1,137 Israelis killed in Arab terrorist attacks from September 2000 – 2005 were civilian casualties. Another 8,341 Israelis were wounded during this period, of which 5,676 were civilians while 2,665 were security forces.

The majority of Jewish casualties during Cowen’s visit and lauding of Arafat were caused by suicide bombings, bombs, shootings, stonings, stabbings, lynchings, rockets on civilian population centres, and other methods of attack.

And, inexplicably, Cowen spoke for many in Ireland when he described Arafat as “the symbol of the hope of self-determination of the Palestinian people” and praised him for his “outstanding work … tenacity, and persistence.”

This feting and legitimising of terror and destruction still continues in an unbroken line and the words of Sinn Fein president Gerry Adams who, in 1983, laid down a blueprint which remains the playbook for the PA and Hamas in the international arena.

Back in a May 1983 interview with Britain’s Sunday Times, Adams’ stated aim was “…to confront the British with an ongoing armed struggle which is enjoying popular support and a principled political party which refuses to compromise on the basic issue of British involvement in Northern Ireland.”

The aim of such a policy of confrontation, he added, was so that the British “…would be unable to govern.”

Thus, as Adams put it, the political role of Sinn Fein was merely to “broaden and popularise the struggle. For in the end the movement will have to depend on whatever armed pressure the IRA can bring.

If that sounds eerily familiar today, it is only because, if Hamas/PA is substituted for IRA, we have a copybook re-enactment of Sinn Fein strategy being perniciously played out by Hamas against Israel forty years later.

The parallels with the actions of Hamas are too striking to be ignored: continued confrontation, no negotiations, active endangering of civilian populations, an internationally supported political wing in Ramallah and no compromise on borders or choice of capital.

This ongoing tacit Irish apologism for Palestinian wrongdoing, together with a disdainful disregard of the Jews’ unbroken connection with the country going back to one thousand years before the Arab conquest of an indigenous Jewish peoples and land, is an inversion of Orwellian proportions, the scale of which the British author himself did not envision.

It is, therefore, this peculiar Irish post-colonialist pathology which continues to nurture to a recurrent Arab psychology of intransigence, intolerance and a refusal to take responsibility for actions, which lethally endanger a new generation of Jew and Arab alike.

And, as with all dictatorships of the mind, distrust and fear of other feed periodic outbursts of pointless, near gratuitous, violence.

In Belfast in 2014, upon his arrest for alleged involvement in the grisly 1972 IRA murder of widowed mother of ten, Jean McConville, Sinn Fein president Gerry Adams said “….I have never disassociated myself from the IRA and I never will…”

In Israel in 2014, Jews today continue to pay the price, through murder and wanton destruction, for a frightening foreign ideology of hate and segregation whose time we thought had long passed.

Palestine and Jerusalem are Occupied

Muslim and other pro- “Palestinian” interest groups have fired the first public shots in the latest round of the anti-Israel campaign down-under.

Apart from the silly and pointless noisy demonstrations outside perceived and real Jewish-owned stores and Israeli products in the major cities, the anti-Israel movement is building steam in the media and in Federal government.

On 1st May 2014, former Labor Foreign Minister Bob Carr, published his memoirs where he caused a media sensation when he publicly made claims about the impact of the “the Israel lobby” in Canberra.

Approximately a week after that, two South Australian public personalities. A journalist and a former state (now federal independent) senator, visited Judea and Samaria for a few days with the Adelaide Friends of Palestine. It was their first trip to Israel.

On May 10th 2014, the Middle East correspondent in Jerusalem for the national daily The Australian , John Lyons, reported on the visit of the Adelaide Friends of Palestine and the Australian independent Federal senator Nick Xenophon. Reporting from “…deep in the heart of the Palestinian territories…” (sic), Lyons quotes Xenophon who tells him “’What I saw in Hebron was heartbreaking – the division, the segregation, the palpable fear in the community.”

On May 17th 2014, the recently returned and enervated journalist, Peter Goers, wrote a puff-piece which lionised the ‘tragic life of Hebron Arabs’ and slammed what he called the “shame of Israeli apartheid.”

He also drew a startling analogy between himself and that other Jew, Jesus: “JESUS wept. In Palestine, Jesus wept and so did I. I weep for the Palestinians living under the Israeli apartheid…” Goers writes for the sole South Australian daily, The Advertiser.

On June 5th 2014, Liberal Party Attorney General George Brandeis was heckled by a former Australian Communist party member, Greens Senator Lee Rhiannon, about his dropping the use of the term “occupied” in relation to East Jerusalem.

Brandeis was quickly reminded that he was still just a politician at the behest of his donors. Eighteen Arab and Muslim diplomats wrote a strongly worded letter of protest to him, and there were noises made about how Australian wheat exports and the live meat trade to the Middle East could suffer.

A few days later, Foreign Minister Julie Bishop and Prime Minister Abbott both began walking back the Brandeis statement, but clarifying that their policy vis a vis Jerusalem and the “territories” had not really changed, just the terminology.

On 25th June 2014, Senator Xenophon, recently back from Hebron, deep in the heart of the Palestinian territories, requested that the matter of Mr Brandeis’ dropping of the term “Occupied” when he referred to East Jerusalem be brought to the Australian people as an item of “public importance. He stated he would provide irrefutable legal evidence which showed the stance of the Liberal Australian government of Tony Abbot regarding the terminology used by people like Attorney General Brandeis to be “…factually untrue…[and] legally ignorant. Mr Xenophon then uploaded his speech to YouTube.

On 26th June 2014, a small, niche leftist newspaper crowed that in Parliament, Mr Xenophon “Smashe[d] [Abbott Liberal government] spin on Occupied Territories”. Nobody much noticed.

And so, we come to the subject of this blog: have Judea and Samaria and East Jerusalem been “occupied” by a belligerent army of Jews?

Have the Israelis taken away land that rightfully belong to the “Palestinian people”?

Have the Jews denied the “Palestinian nation” their birthright and are crushing crushed their immutable cultural, spiritual and religious connection to a land rooted in the annals of time?

Is Israel’s current presence in Jerusalem and Judea and Samaria in flagrant violation of international law, and does that make the League of Nations Mandate which eventually made for a Jewish and an Arab state itself illegal?

That is to say, if anybody international legal body, which today represents 193 members, shall make a finding which occludes the wishes of the new Muslim ummah, should the decisions of that body be annulled?

The phrase ‘occupied territories’ has come to mean only one particular place in the entire world — namely Judea/Samaria (i.e. the West Bank). That phrase is the battle cry in a rising tide of global anger directed against Israel. Gaza too was once “occupied” by Israel, but that line of delegitimization died with the Israeli pull-out in 2005. Today, Gaza, for the ummah and its western backers, is merely under “siege”.

But Judea and Samaria still remain “occupied”; as is East Jerusalem…….

For the intellectually curious, even a cursory overview of the non-legal antecedents to this conflict will show the facts of the Muslim claim on East Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria and the land of Israel.

Consider two questions: What entitles any group of people to possess any particular tract of land? How can we decide whether Jews or Arabs have the true rights to possess the ‘occupied territories’?

In the absence of any universally accepted rules, and in general practice among the nations, it usually boils down to who was there first and also right by conquest, especially if the conquest occurred long ago.

Today, there are 193 member nations in the U.N. with several having major territorial conflicts of their own, such as India and Pakistan regarding Kashmir.

Also, within nations there are separatist groups that seek independence, such as Basques in Spain, the Kurds in Turkey and what’s left of Iraq, and the Chechens in Russia. China’s woes with the Muslim Uyghur have only just begun in earnest.

An added facet is the appearance and disappearance over time of peoples and of nations. Many peoples of antiquity have long ceased to exist. Also, nations and even empires, come and go over the centuries.

But Jews and Arabs are still around and trace their origins back to Abraham of the Bible.

Jews descended through Abraham and Sara, Isaac and Jacob (who was later renamed Israel).

Arabs descended through Abraham and Hagar the Egyptian, and through their son Ishmael whose daughter Mahalath also married Esau, the brother of Jacob.

Thus Jews and Arabs are actually two branches of the same family which have diverged over the centuries and Jews and Arabs come to pray at the tomb of Abraham and Sara.

The Bible, in the book of Genesis, clearly states that descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob will eventually receive their inheritance in the form of the Promised Land, which is later identified to include the general location of present day Israel.

But Ishmael and his descendants ere also promised an inheritance,
‘…for I will make a great nation of him [i.e. Ishmael]’ Gen. 21:18.

In the Bible, the Jews are assigned only a modest portion of the land in the Middle East, with remaining lands distributed among the other nations.

Unlike certain other empires and religions throughout history, the Jews are not promised, nor commanded to seize, all of the lands in the world, nor to convert all others to their beliefs.

This promise was made at the time of Abraham, about 4,000 years ago (some 2,300 years before the birth of Muhammad) and takes further shape in the time of Moses, about 3,300 years ago (some 1,600 years before advent of Mohammedanism), where the Jewish People became irrevocably linked to the land of Israel, the “Promised Land.”

The Bible assigns this one people to this one specific land and does not do this for any other people.

Over two billion Christians, plus 18 million Jews, accept the Five Books of Moses as a pillar of their religion. They all embrace a religion which clearly defines that land as belonging to the Jewish People in perpetuity.

Those who deny the validity of this Biblical assignment must then fall back on man-made rules which are subject to constant alteration, disagreement, and conflict.

At the time of Mohammed, about 1,400 years ago (some 2,600 after Abraham’s covenant), the Arabs, along with Jews, Christians, and others, lived in the Arabian Peninsula.

Before being forced to convert to the teachings of Allah by Muhammad in the 7th C.E., Arabs had deep-rooted love for the tribe to which they belonged.

This belief in the greatness and excellence of their tribe led them to carve a deity of their own and they sang hymns in its praise in order to win its favour. Thus the tribe called Kalb worshipped Wadd, the Hudhayl worshipped Suwa. The tribe of Madh’hij as well as the people of Quraysh worshipped Yaghuth, the Khaywan worshipped Ya’uq. Similarly the tribe of Himyar adopted Nasr as their god and worshipped it in a place called Balkha. The Himyar had also another temple (bayt) in San’a. It was called Ri’am, the people venerated it and offered sacrifices to it.

The most ancient of all these idols was Manah. The Arabs named their children after them as ‘Abd Manah and Zayd Manah. Manah was erected on the seashore in the vicinity of Mushallal in Qudayd, between Medina and Mecca and all the Arabs used to venerate her and offer sacrifices to her.

Another goddess which was ardently worshipped by the Arabs was known as al-Lat. “She was a cubic rock beside which a certain Jew used to prepare his barley porridge (Sawiq). Her custody was in the hands of Banu Attab Ibn Malik of the Thaqif who had raised an edifice over her. She was venerated by the Quraysh and almost all the tribes of Arabia and they named their children after her, e.g., Zayd al-Lat and Taym al_Lat.

So, prior to the arrival of Mohammad in the polytheistic Arab Peninsula, only two, monotheistic Abrahamic faiths existed: long-established Judaism following the word of the omnipotent Yahweh, and early Christianity which believed in the Trinity.

The Arabs of the Peninsula were pagan worshippers who practised polytheism.

Not then, and not at any time after that, have the teachings of Muhammad as encoded in the Qu’ran, ever considered either Judea or Samaria or Jerusalem as significant in the new, nascent Muslim faith. Jerusalem, Judea, and Samaria simply figured little in Islam.

The table below shows the frequency with which key words to the three faiths are a signifier of their importance to the three Abrahamic faiths:

Book                         Subject                        Number of times mentioned
Jewish Bible              Jerusalem                                669
Jewish Bible             Zion (i.e. Jerusalem                  154
or the land)
Christian Bible           Jerusalem                                 154
Christian Bible               Zion                                         7
Both Jewish and
Christian Bibles       Judah or Judea                          877
Both Bibles                 Samaria                                  123
The Qu’ran            Israel or Israelites                          47
The Qu’ran             Jew or Jewish                               26
The Qu’ran            Christian or Christians                  15
The Qu’ran            Mecca and Medina                         8
The Qu’ran                Jerusalem                                Zero!
(not mentioned)

We are sophisticated readers, all of us, and we are all familiar with the urban myth that numbers can be made to tell any story one chooses to.

What, however, is incontrovertible from the numbers above, is just how many references in both the Hebrew and Christian Bibles testify to the integral historic connections between the Jewish People and the Land of Israel and also to Jerusalem, the eternal capital of Judaism and of the Jewish People.

It is also incontrovertible that that same Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem, of which “Palestinians” (sic) are allegedly “disposessed”, are of no historical, spiritual or even religious significance to Muslims in any way. The Qu’ran shows that this is so.

Jerusalem was the capital of Israel 3,000 years ago under King David.

The Qu’ran was written about 1,600 years later. An the focus of the nascent Muslim faith was always Mecca.

Together with that, the Qu’ran has more references to things Jewish and Christian than to their own two holy cities of Mecca and Medina.

This indicates their keen awareness of Jewish roots in that region.

And, of course, most remarkable statistic is that the Qu’ran fails to mention Jerusalem even once.

Thus, with Muslims facing towards Mecca while praying, while Jews have turned to Jerusalem since antiquity, it is clear that Islam has no Qu’ranic connection to either Jerusalem or to the land of Israel, and therefore no spiritual, religious or cultural claim to either.

The Qu’ran simply confirms that this is so.

Islamic scholars themselves, such as Khaleel Mohammed, state that the Qu’ran actually supports the right of Jews to the land of Israel. He cites Sura 5:20, 5:21 in the Qu’ran which are translated as follows:
5:20. Remember Moses said to his people: ‘O my People ! call in remembrance the favor of Allah unto you, when He produced prophets among you, made you kings, and gave you what He had not given to any other among the peoples.
5:21. ‘O my people ! enter the holy land which Allah hath assigned to you, and turn not back ignominiously, for then will ye be overthrown, to your own ruin.’ (The Meaning of the Illustrious Qur’an by A. Yusuf Ali)

Further, the Qur’an explicitly refers to the return of the Jews to the Land of Israel before the Last Judgment – where it says: “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]

The messages in the Islamic Qu’ran are therefore very similar to that in the Jewish Bible which preceded it by one and a half millennia.

But this Qu’ranic message is not taught, or is conveniently forgotten by those radical Muslims and their European enablers and financial backers who would de-legitmise and wish for the demise of the Jewish state.

The Qu’ran also never mentions Palestine or Palestinians because there was such a nation, a people, or a political entity never existed.

We now have the holy books of Judaism, Christianity, and even Islam, recognizing the Jewish claim to the Land of Israel. Those three religious represent half of all humanity.

And lest anti-semitic zeal conflate fact with myth, we should remember that two thousand years ago, before the birth of Muhammad, Rome ruled much of the known world.

The Jews in the land of Israel (called Judea at that time) were a colony of Rome with their capital in Jerusalem. The Jews revolted against harsh Roman rule and were defeated after a long and brutal war.

As punishment the Romans destroyed Jerusalem and renamed that city Aelia Capilolina and renamed the geographical location from Provincia Judea to Provincia Philistia/Palaistina in an attempt to totally erase Jewish history and prevent another uprising.

No Arabs were involved in this action.

And it is this Roman nomenclature used to put down a Jewish revolt, with no input from Arabs who were not actors in this episode of history, which has been commandeered by the terror leader Yasser Arafat after the second defeat of monumentally large Arab Muslim armies by the numerically insignificant Jews in 1967.

The foundations of the chimera of a “Palestinian” ‘people’ and a “Palestinian nation” with Jerusalem as its capital, was laid progressively by an Arab Muslim leadership, furious at a second resounding physical defeat by a numerically weaker opponent.

With the exception of the Arab fight-back and subsequent defeat in yet a third war in 1973 , the delegtimisation and attempted destruction of Israel by law-fare rather than full-frontal violence, had begun.

The name Aelia Capilolina later reverted back to the ancient word Jerusalem after the Romans and their empire disappeared. The name Philistia/Palaistina evolved into Palestine and came to designate a region, but never a country or a people.

Thus the ongoing enthusiasm of the Muslim world to destroy a Jewish state is not only not based on any Arabic name for any Arab land, nor even any city held sacred by Muslims and/or Arabs, but rather on the Roman term ‘Palestine’ which was historically used by a now-vanished Roman people and empire to describe an area inhabited by the indigenous Jewish inhabitants of antiquity.

So much for the historical ‘first-dibs’ Abrahamic narrative.

The legal narrative why, in international law, Israel does not occupy East Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Judea or Samaria may be the focus of a later blog.

In his May 10th, 2014 article for The Australian, correspondent John Lyons said that Mr Xenophon had a message for Australian politicians. It was this: “I would urge Foreign Minister Julie Bishop and Opposition Leader Bill Shorten to have a good look at the International Court of Justice’s statement on Israeli settlements,” he said. “The ICJ statement is crystal clear…”

I believe the Senator and those like him who may not have the time  (or inclination) to fully study the issue, would be  surprised by just how crystal clear international law really was, and is, in relation to Israeli settlement in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria………

Meanwhile, the push-back against bias and demonisation of a legitimate legal entity by those publicly committed to its demise, will continue.

Sooner rather than later, the persistent presentation of truth  and fact, backed by law, will expose the true face and motives of  a rejectionist and revisionist Arab political culture which has historically been intolerant of “other”.

Muslim anti-semitism – mammon versus allah?

This core of this blog is the intellectual property of Salim Mansur, Distinguished Senior Fellow at the Gatestone Institute. His full article, Arab and Muslim Antisemitism: a Muslim Perspective, together with a full reference list, may be found here. This opinion piece, together with information I have added, represents my interpretation and rendering of his article.

“Judgment Day will be brought upon us only once the Muslims have killed all of the Jews,” – Third Intifada Facebook page, 2013.

“Among the Jews, there have always been those who killed God’s prophets. … it was said that they were the source for such deadly diseases as the plague and typhus. This is because the Jews are very filthy people. For a time, people also said that they poisoned water wells belonging to the Christians and thus killed them.” – former Ahmadinejad’s media advisor, Mohammad Ali Ramin, June 9, 2006.

“One should fight the Jews and vanquish them so that the conditions for the advent of the Hidden Imam will be met.” – Ayatollah Nouri-Hamedani, April, 2005.

“[Muslim]Palestine is under occupation; the basic rights of the Palestinian {Muslims] are tragically violated, and they are deprived of the right of return and access to their homes, birthplace and homeland.” currrent Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, 25 September, 2013.

While those most forceful in spewing their bigotry against Jews are Palestinian Arabs and their religious, political and intellectual leaders, much of the modern antecedents to this olden hatred can be sheeted home to the Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini, as Hitler’s collaborator in importing European anti-Semitism into the Middle East.

The Mufti’s ideology of hate-mongering against the Jews and the Zionist project has been emulated by an array of other leading Arab and Muslim intellectuals, activists, and religious leaders. These include Hasan al-Banna, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood; Syed Qutb, the intellectual heavyweight of the Muslim Brothers; Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, the late founder of Hamas; the rulers and imams of Saudi Arabia; Abul A’la Mawdudi, the Indo-Pakistani founder of the Jamaat-i-Islami; Iranian Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, current Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and, notably, the current Iranian president Hassan Rouhani.

Virulent European-style anti-semitism is also emulated by the leaders of Hizbullah in Lebanon, the leadership and ranks of other “jihadi” (holy war) organizations, such as the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and non-clerical or secular Muslim leaders like Mahathir Mohamad, the former prime minister of Malaysia. Clearly, the front of Muslim anti-Semitism is wide and deep. But is this genocidally inspired hate sanctioned by Islam? For this we need to turn to the source.

All texts are open to many readings.

Reading the Bible was one of the triggers of the struggle Martin Luther initiated as he declared defiantly, “Here I stand.” In other words, the stand he took was in reading and interpreting the Bible according to his intelligence and conscience – contrary to that of the Vatican.

Reading the Quran, it quickly becomes clear that the hate-speech of Muslim clerics and the on-going Muslim vilification of Jews has its roots in the theology of Islam.

Mohammad’s relationship with Jews was always a quarrelsome one. Born in approximately 517 C.E. in Mecca, then the leading religious centre of pagan Arabia, Mohammad was approximately forty years old when he became convinced that God had spoken to him through the angel Gabriel.

Jews, with their monotheistic beliefs, had lived in and around Mecca, which was located on a route that linked Yemen in the south of the Arab peninsula, to Egypt and Damascus in the North, for centuries. While some historians say that Jews lived in the region even before the destruction of the first Temple, others say that Jews only settled the peninsula after the destruction of the second Temple. In any event, all agree that the Jews were the majority of the population in that area at the time of Mohammad and were organized into three tribes: Banu el nadir, Banu Kurayza and Banu Kaynuqa; the first two mentioned being descendants of the priests.

Ostracised and persecuted by his Arab brethren in Mecca for his monotheistic beliefs, Mohammad fled to Medina, a city which had been settled by Jews centuries before his arrival.

When the Jewish leaders of Medina first heard of the coming of a prophet preaching belief in one God in the Arabian peninsula, they were intrigued. They did not immediately accept or reject Mohammad, but they wanted to know more. Relations began to deteriorate as the Jews discovered Muhammad was not very familiar with their scriptures and traditions. The rabbis would taunt him with questions he could not answer, and in the end, they rejected his message that he was a Jewish prophet.

The Jews’ rejection of Muhammad’s message must have disappointed him greatly. He saw himself preaching the same monotheism to which the Jews subscribed – why then wouldn’t they accept him as a prophet?

To establish his affinity with the Jews, he even borrowed some Jewish practices and prescribed them to his followers. Thus, Muslims were to meet for prayer on Friday afternoon as Jews prepare for the Sabbath, they were to face Jerusalem in prayer as Jews do, they were to observe some of the Jewish dietary laws, as well as the fast on the Day of Atonement. Muslims called this the fast of Ashura, meaning “tenth,” (Asara in Hebrew) since the Day of Atonement falls on the tenth of the Jewish month of Tishri. When the Jews rejected his prophecy in spite of these practices, Muhammad changed them, and fixed the qibla (direction of prayer) to Mecca in place of Jerusalem.

According to the Quran, Muhammad is then said to have received the following revelation:
Say to those who disbelieve: “You will be vanquished and gathered to Hell, an evil resting place. You have already had a sign in the two forces which met”; i.e. the apostle’s companions at Badr and the Quraysh. “One force fought in the way of God; the other, disbelievers, thought they saw double their own force with their very eyes. God strengthens with His help whom He will. Verily in that is an example for the discerning.” (Qur’an, 3:12-13)

Thus, after settling in Medina, about five hundred kilometres further north of Mecca, and after his revelations by the angel Gabriel in a cave, his rejection by the Jews of Medina as a Jewish prophet, meant that as his influence in the region grew, he meted out harsh punishment for two of the three Jewish tribes of Medina whom he “subdued” and exiled.

For the destruction of the third Jewish tribe in Medina, Mohammad now received a further angelic revelation directing him to attack the Jewish Bnei Quraiza tribe of Medina:
When the Prophet returned from Al-Khandaq (i.e. Trench) and laid down his arms and took a bath, Gabriel came and said (to the Prophet ), “You have laid down your arms? By Allah, we angels have not laid them down yet. So set out for them.” The Prophet said, “Where to go?” Gabriel said, “Towards this side,” pointing towards Banu Quraiza. So the Prophet went out towards them.

After their defeat and capture for the transgression of not physically supporting him against the pagan Arab Meccans who were attacking him, Muhammad went to the market in Medina and dug trenches. Then the men of the Jewish Quraiza tribe were brought out in batches, and Muhammad and his followers cut off their heads. According to Ibn Ishaq (690), the number of dead ranged between 600 and 900. Afterwards Muhammad divided their property, their women, and their children among his followers.

And it is now that the following hadith (report of the teachings, deeds and sayings of Mohammad), one of the most widely quoted today to justify anti-Semitic hatred, was attributed to the man:
Abu Huraira reported Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him; but the tree Gharqad would not say, for it is the tree of the Jews. (Sahih Muslim, 41:6985; see also 41:6981-84 and Sahih Bukhari, 4:52:176,177 and 4:56:791)

Mohammad next marched on the rich Jewish settlement of Khaybar defeating them, taking their wealth and forcing them to pay jizya (tax) so that “… they might feel themselves subdued”.

In today’s parlance, Mohammad engaged in the practice of beheading his enemies, as well as forcing large-scale exile. That same Muslim tradition is verifiably evident today by some of today’s Arab/Muslim terrorists who claim to follow the prophet. Today, however, there is a name for forced large-scale exile. It is called ethnic cleansing. And there is a name for the extermination of an entire tribe. Civilised societies call it genocide, not a revelation from “god”.

This tradition of violence against, and vilification of, Jews is, arguably, continued from the days of Mohammad through to today.

Sheikh Mohamed Sayyid Tantawi – the former Grand Imam and rector of al-Azhar University, who died in 2010, is an example of a contemporary Muslim anti-Semite who validated his bigotry by appealing to traditional Muslim Judeophobia based on negative references to the Jews in the Quran and the traditions of the Prophet.

Tantawi’s reading of the Quran ascribes to the Jews a slew of unflattering characteristics, including wanton envy, lasciviousness, religious fanaticism, murderousness, and a tendency toward “semantic bickering.” Using a phrase referring to a verse in the Quran (2:65), in a 2002 sermon, Tantawi describes Jews, collectively, as “descendants of apes and pigs” and accuses Jews of corrupting Allah’s word, consuming people’s wealth and murdering Allah’s prophets.

This is one way in which such references to the Quran and early Muslim history facilitated the Islamization of European anti-Semitism. This could occur because Judeophobia/anti-semitism was present in early Islamic history, just as it was in early European history. Genocidal anti-Semitism, however, remained a specifically European, primarily German, disease that never existed in Islam before the twentieth century.

Together with that, it should be remembered that the modern fusion of traditional Muslim Judeophobia and fierce European anti-Semitism occurred during the years between the World Wars, when the victors of World War I were precariously positioned in the Middle East as the “Mandatory” powers, in the terminology of the League of Nations, while the former subjects of the Ottoman Empire restlessly aspired to their own independence and statehood.

With the abolition of the Caliphate by Turkish leader Kamal Atatturk, Muslims now faced the problem not only of how to acquire eventual independence from European colonial rule, but also of how to restore the Caliphate in some form or other, to create a Shariah-based, Islamic state. These questions became the distinguishing features of political Islam, or Islamism, and the ideology of political movements such as the Muslim Brotherhood.

But more than that, the modern antecedents of Arab/Muslim antisemitism and genocidal declarations of war may be attributed to Muslim distress over the long decline of Islamic rule and the loss of lands to European powers, and, especially among Arabs, the partition of Palestine, and the birth of Israel.

The establishment of the state of Israel, in the very centre of the Arab core of the Islamic world, the inclusion of the ancient Jewish city of Jerusalem and the repeated defeats suffered by Arabs in their wars against the Jews created a sense of insufferable and deep humiliation that find expression in the vilest denunciation of the Jews as enemies of Islam and Muslims.

Most of all, the sense of outrage, as is clearly shown in the modern Arab/Muslim anti-semitism, was aroused by the identity of those who inflicted these dramatic defeats on Muslim and Arab armies and imposed their rule on Muslim Arab populations.

For the victors were not the followers of a world religion, or the armies of a mighty imperial power, by which one could be conquered without undue shame – nor the Catholic kings of Spain, not the far-flung British Empire, nor the immense and ruthless might of Russia – but the Jews – historically few, scattered, and powerless, whose previous humility made their triumphs especially humiliating.

This recent history partly explains the nature of contemporary Arab and Muslim anti-Semitism, which continues to be ratcheted up in inverse relation to the repeated failures by Arabs to defeat Israel and Israel’s continued success in all fields of human endeavour and compassion.

The current pretext of the Israeli-“Palestinian” conflict is nothing but a proxy war by the nation of Islam in retaliation against Jews for losing both an international legal decision in the 1947 Partition Plan and losing physical wars in 1948, 1967 and 1973. And those non-Muslim enablers in Europe’s organisations who unceasingly censure Israel, are but self-serving business entities content to promote a basically religious propaganda in return for a cut of the largesse of petrodollars.

Together with current seismic politico-cultural shifts in the Arab Muslim world due to a very violent unravelling of the Sykes-Picot agreement of 1915, the continuing discord over the nature of Islamic society and the sectarian conflicts that have spilled over into civil war across the Middle East and into the wider Muslim world have fostered an unwillingness on the part of Muslims worldwide to examine any internal causes for their malaise.

It has created a culture of denial that by now is a part of Muslim culture and history that manifests itself by a Muslim refusal to take responsibility for their own role in history, and leads to a pathological proclivity to blame others – especially the Jews – for misfortunes that are really of their own making.

Thus, just as a few drops of lemon juice curdle a bowl of milk, Judeophobia sanctioned by the Quran and the Prophet would mean that Islam as a religion of peace/mercy is, arguably, a falsehood.

The words of Bernard Lewis in 1984 in his book The Jews of Islam remain as poignant today as when they were originally written:
“Islamists have shredded their “thin veneer of Islam” and displayed their “jihad” as a neo-pagan belief in a capricious tribal god governing a cult of violence. It was from such a pagan belief that Muhammad sought to lift the Arabs of the desert by having Islam bear the universal message of belief in one God, merciful and compassionate; but it is precisely this pagan cult of tribal violence that Islamists have resurrected or which, it might be said, they never really renounced.”

On this basis, it is easy to see why John Kerry’s “messianical” mission to bring peace to the Middle East was always going to fail and how the narrative of the bigoted Palestinian/Muslim/Arab religious, political and intellectual leadership will continue to perpetuate the cycle of violence against Jews in or out of Israel.

The Quran makes it so.